Why wouldn't there be a stopping point? Why does everything have to be all or nothing?

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

Die? None of the above.
Healthcare? All of the above.

So it's wrong because I say so? Is that your definition? Then you shouldn't have a problem with our current society, because what's being done to you is "right because we said so".

So I'm supposed to be able to predict the future to avoid having people put me in unnecessary risk? That guy is forcing me to take a risk I'm not willing to take, but that isn't a violation of the NAP, or is it?

I've never claimed to be able to define why murder is wrong. Haven't thought enough about it. It's an intuitive thing for me. I might get back to you though. But claiming that something is right because it follows rules that you yourself defined clearly isn't a good answer.

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

Agreed, he's putting my life at risk. He might be willing to take that risk, but why should I have to?

I agree that coercion is wrong most of the time. But not all of the time. Which I think my example proves. Somewhere there's a balance between what you should coerce people to do or don't do, and what you shouldn't. I can't define that line, and it does change, but I believe it's there.

Now, please explain to me why coercion is always wrong. Why can't I force someone to stop putting my life at risk?

I would like an answer to my question if you don't mind. 

Really? I can endanger everyone and you won't do anything to prevent it until you're royally screwed? Please justify how you think this is right.

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Or a life raft and a knife. Punctuating it is a rather easy and quick thing to do.

Why? Don't you have to prove damage before you can act on it? How do you know he won't stop just before impact?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
 

Then you will never have anything that even resembles libertarianism. Shame. Everything in libertarianism isn't completely bonkers, but it seems that the followers refuse to live in the real world.

Want to know my ideal society? It's a society where we all try to get along and were everyone realizes that you can't always get everything your way, and that you have to compromise to find a way that is acceptable to all.
It's not going to happen either, but I can dream.

So because your principles dictate that nobody can be coerced a few people are free to fuck up everything for everybody else. How is that just?

Have a look at the link. The answer's in there.

So you're willing to compromise now. "It's not perfect but it works" is fine when it comes to a libertarian society, but abhorrent when it comes to our current society. As long as it's based on your ideals it doesn't have to be perfect, but if it's not then it should be discarded.
I shouldn't bother you too much about it though, realizing that you have to make compromises is a good first step.

But you're not the only one. There are many other companies out there who compete with you. They have to research their own drug, but they can compete if they want. They even get a monopoly on their own substance. If they charge more than their competitors they have to prove additional value. And when the research cost has been covered they can sell just above production cost, to keep competition out.

I think we can agree on one thing though. US health system sucks. Virtually every country in Europe have lower drug costs than the US, more accessible health care and lower cost for the state. You need to fix it. Have you tried single payer system? Works in Europe.
 

I thought the goal was to create something better? A mule is a solution to a transportation problem, but I think most people would prefer a car. Same thing here, there is a solution that does "work", but most people would want something better. And they already have it.

And "millions of people have used it"? Does numbers matter now? If so, then billions of people have used the other system. What's your point?

If that solution is a good one, how come some US states have switched away from it? So if your definition of "working" is "limping along" then yes, there is a "working" system already implemented.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.