Individuals, whether labeled as drug dealers or businessmen, find themselves subject to despotism through legislation they did not endorse. This is evident in the unjust classification that denies drug dealers the right to produce and distribute recreational and medicinal substances for their communities, branding them as something distinct from legitimate businessmen. Such restrictions infringe upon our liberty, a violation that extends to the pharmaceutical industry's monopoly on drug production, curtailing the proletariat's ability to participate freely in the market. To reiterate this notion that free innocent men may not have the opportunity to engage in trade at their discretion is a blatant violation of our right to liberty to say the least.
Big Pharma benefits from producing and distributing substances under the guise of business, but their exclusive rights have been established through unconstitutional laws passed without the people's consent. This suppression of competition prevents small-scale entrepreneurs from challenging the established order, leading to a gross abuse of our rights and intentional disempowerment of the proletariat. Why should Big Pharma have the right and opportunity to conduct business free of competition?
In a truly free market, innocent individuals could compete with Big Pharma, reaping the direct rewards of their labor without exploitation. The current system's gatekeeping, demanding licenses and fees for market entry, undermines the independence of free men, pushing them toward despotism. Engaging in drug production and distribution, when conducted for the benefit of oneself and the community, falls within the proletariat's rights. The proletariat have a right to participate in the world market without first paying for licenses and fees to satisfy governmental regulations. To reiterate this form of gate keeping the market is devastating to the independence of free men and evidences a design to reduce the proletariat into absolute despotism.
Empowering the proletariat to offer recreational and medicinal substances directly to their communities would enable control over prices and product quality, contrasting with the current system that prioritizes hospital revenue over patient well-being. Big Pharma has no right to exclusively produce and distribute our communities recreational and medicinal substances, nor is allowing the monopolization of such to our best interests for it creates price gouging for poor patients when we could be in control of pricing. Rejecting the exclusive rights of Big Pharma is not only about economic autonomy but also a crucial step in preserving our rights for future generations. Nor is it to our best interests as it reduces the proletariat into despotism by taking away a revenue to profitable self employment. By leading with a firm "no" now, we assert our right to conduct business and labor independently within our communities.
Commenti