Prescription drug prices in the US are, to say the least, unpleasantly high. Now, there are a plethora of reasons for this (e.g., use of brand-name drugs over generics, long waits on approvals for new drugs), but one that could be easily addressed is blatant price gouging. Pharmaceutical companies routinely charge more in the US for the same drugs that are available in other parts of the world at vastly lower prices. Here’s a single sentence proposal for a law to address that problem:
“Any pharmaceutical company, or company offering products in the pharmaceutical category, operating in the US, or any territory or possession thereof, or which is subject to US law, must offer its products on an MFN basis to US consumers and businesses.”
While it is, at present, only in the fever dreams of the far (read: insane) Left that President Trump is anything even akin to a dictator, should we, at some future point, find ourselves in a situation where President Trump is on the verge of transcending the restrictions of the Constitution, it will be because of the Left. The response to the handful of Executive Orders issued by President Trump in the last week and a half has been nothing short of actual insanity. What the Left hopes to accomplish with these tactics (if they can even charitably be called that) is anyone’s guess at this point. However, it is worth noting that the actual effects are far different from anything the Left likely intends.
On 18 April 1775, a middle-aged man in Boston sat, almost certainly in his study, and, as a warm fire crackled, set quill to paper. That man was General Thomas Gage, and the letter he wrote to Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith contained an order, an order that became the proximate cause of the American Revolution. The contents of that order? A command to march on Concord and “seize and [destroy] all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and Military Stores whatever”.
What follows is an argument built upon a number of premises, some of them more contentious than others. Should you reject any of the main premises, you will necessarily reject the conclusions. If, however, you find that you agree with all of the (main) premises, you must necessarily accept the conclusions. If you find that you reject any of the premises, then this argument may not be for you, and that is not unintentional. This argument is meant for those who 1) believe in the Natural Law and 2) believe that human life begins at some point prior to birth. If you, incorrectly, believe that either of the foregoing points is untrue (or you’re the sort of person who likes to double down on mistakes and believe them both untrue), I still welcome you to continue reading if only for curiosity’s sake.