• tutus@links.hackliberty.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why is it ‘wild’? I said or something else which I think covers it.

    By that premise it’s ‘wild’ you didn’t suggest the other thousand things they can do.

    Maybe we’re both just trying to talk about a better way of doing it without being experts.

    • JungleJim
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think he meant it’s wild we’ve been conditioned to not even think about government takeover of publicly funded assets. Like it still feels like the nuclear option even to Americans who believe they are socialists. Not that your comment was insufficient. I understand why you would feel defensive, the Internet can be a mean place.

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s a drug that is completely government funded then it should be open. If the drug company has some skin in the game than allowing them to profit from the patent is not unreasonable if, and I mean if, the government gets something like a share of the profits or the ability to manufacture the drug as if they had a built in license. Just free money is corporate welfare. And we know what the right think of welfare.