I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal
Then you don't think the government should prevent force and fraud? Why, then, do you call yourself a libertarian, instead of, say, an anarchist? Or are you a anarcholibertarian?
At any rate, you've mistaken me for someone interested in defending or advancing political positions. I haven't the slightest interest in convincing you from your opinions; they're yours, you think about them. I already have. I wrote in response to the question of how I perceive the big-l-libertarians -- on which I commented as simply a datapoint in the prior discussion of the likelihood of a right-wing spoiler effect (to whit that I thought it unlikely that Badnarik will draw from the left) -- not because I had the slightest desire to discuss their merits or lack thereof.
Put it another way: You inquired after my perspective, and so I shared it with you. I may be interested to hear your perspective (or not -- honestly, I've heard it before and would only be being polite) but I'm certainly not about to quarrel with you about such things in someone else's journal. That seems tacky.
Frankly, I think it quite rude of you to inquire after my position and then argue with it. I indulged your curiosity and instead of saying "thank you" for the favor I did you and generally behaving respectfully towards me, you then launched into a tirade at me. That's not very polite.
Re: Part 1
Here you are:
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/RxDrugPrices.php
I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal
Then you don't think the government should prevent force and fraud? Why, then, do you call yourself a libertarian, instead of, say, an anarchist? Or are you a anarcholibertarian?
At any rate, you've mistaken me for someone interested in defending or advancing political positions. I haven't the slightest interest in convincing you from your opinions; they're yours, you think about them. I already have. I wrote in response to the question of how I perceive the big-l-libertarians -- on which I commented as simply a datapoint in the prior discussion of the likelihood of a right-wing spoiler effect (to whit that I thought it unlikely that Badnarik will draw from the left) -- not because I had the slightest desire to discuss their merits or lack thereof.
Put it another way: You inquired after my perspective, and so I shared it with you. I may be interested to hear your perspective (or not -- honestly, I've heard it before and would only be being polite) but I'm certainly not about to quarrel with you about such things in someone else's journal. That seems tacky.
Frankly, I think it quite rude of you to inquire after my position and then argue with it. I indulged your curiosity and instead of saying "thank you" for the favor I did you and generally behaving respectfully towards me, you then launched into a tirade at me. That's not very polite.