[imbruglia]

I hate to be negative. But I have seen enough of these sort of initiative over the years to be skeptical. In reality it seldom makes sense to do it yourself. Few things in general needs to be built or invented. If they do chances are they aren't the ones to do it. It almost always makes more sense acquire the capability to do what you want somewhere else. But as soon as you do that all the edgy rhetoric and potential goes out the window in favor of liability and reality. So reality eventually becomes the enemy of the escapist fantasy. And the powerful remain powerful while the real problems go unsolved. I would very much like to be wrong though.

[mplewis]

Providing access to otherwise-inaccessible drugs is a real problem. The fact that normal people can accomplish this through an anarchist collective is incredible and should be lauded.

[imbruglia2]

I made an argument that it isn't practical, but people will still prefer the fantasy. And you are saying that "it should be lauded" without addressing any of my concerns. Doing the exact same thing I said people would do. I would be easier just to admit that you care about as much as bankers going to charity dinners.

There is no need for an anarchist collective. You can just go to a third world country an import the drugs. Or you can start a pharma company. Or you can buy proper equipment and hire experienced people. The only reason for doing it yourself, and go to hacker conferences be applauded by people with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, is to live a fantasy that can't exist if it is effective. And there is no way to loose because ignorant people will always say you did what you could in the face of Goliath even though anyone who was competent knew what would happen.

It is all fake. Just look at every other diy initiative to date that hasn't affected big companies in the slightest. "Hackers" are still perfectly happy about their "successes" while they make six figure salaries helping the oligopoly. Because there is always a new hacker conference, online forum or meetup you can visit to feel good about yourself by excluding people who know better.

These opinions can only exist in a place where the popularity of ignorance is favored over reason. And you'll deserve each other.

[ethbro]

“Pursuing science is a human right,” Laufer said. “In fact, it’s the human right from which all other rights flow. You have to be able to do whatever you want to your body and to think the way you want.”

[mabbo]

> You have to be able to do whatever you want to your body and to think the way you want.

The problem with most libertarian ideas like this is externalities. If you take something made incorrectly and become incredibly sick, society has to either take care of you or let you die- and no one wants to let people just die. So instead, society foots the bill for taking care of you.

I'm not saying these guys aren't fighting a damn good fight. They're in the right, in my mind. But if they start a large enough movement with enough people then someone somewhere is going to eventually cut a corner or make a mistake and get someone killed or made seriously ill. And what then?

[dmix]

Ultimately, either way it will create a new competition which will push the hand of the legal market to adapt to being undercut. In that sense it's not simply just the individual benefiting at expense of the wider society but potentially the catalyst which benefits the whole market (even non-black market buyers).

There is no reason why Epipens cost $300 other than the fact the FDA has a huge backlog [1] and other regulatory constraints. There are plenty of companies chomping at the bit to deliver that medication for cheaper.

Like you said, this alternative is less than ideal, these hackers weren't driven to this just for fun - it was born out of what they saw as a lack of other options, a necessity (same with their 'customers' who were pushed to the shadier/riskier option). This necessity is generated when the primary market is not delivering value properly/efficiently, creating a demand for it.

The more free the legal market, the more the black market will be far less lucrative. The same applies to drugs and many other markets which artificial controls/limitations.

This all must be factored into the balances of costs measured against the externalities it imposes on society. It's riskier than pure top-down/government intervention but sometimes it's a necessary risk when that option continually fails to reform/change and nothing else pushes the hand of the gov/industry to adapt.

Sure you could blame the black market, but the simpler solution would be to fix the original problem which caused the black market to exist.

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-dr...

[mabbo]

> you could blame the black market, but the simpler solution would be to fix the original problem which caused the black market to exist

Tell that to 100 years of American drug policies.