To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[NghtRppr]

Uh...just a second there jerky.

Don't bother talking to me again because you clearly cannot keep this discussion academic as evidenced by your repeated childish insults. You will be ignored.

[NghtRppr]

He's defending his world view and the FDA is irrelevant to his world view.

I don't give two shits about the FDA because it's not part of the discussion.

[AyeYo]

Uh...just a second there jerky.

Don't bother talking to me again because you clearly cannot keep this discussion academic as evidenced by your repeated childish insults. You will be ignored.

You're a funny guy, highly ironic for sure, but I think that's all part of the funny.

[AyeYo]

He's defending his world view and the FDA is irrelevant to his world view.

I don't give two shits about the FDA because it's not part of the discussion.

Yes, I do stay consistent.  Thanks for pointing it out.

[NghtRppr]

Uh...just a second there jerky.

Don't bother talking to me again because you clearly cannot keep this discussion academic as evidenced by your repeated childish insults. You will be ignored.

You're a funny guy, highly ironic for sure, but I think that's all part of the funny.

You'll be ignored as well.

[jgraham]

Uh...just a second there jerky.

Don't bother talking to me again because you clearly cannot keep this discussion academic as evidenced by your repeated childish insults. You will be ignored.

People don't call each other 'jerky' where you are?  Weird.  It's a common term here.   I sincerely apologize.

I am waiting for you to answer the one question I asked only a few posts ago.

So either you are claiming that a simple one number result is all you would use to make you're judgment or your leaving out something.

Please provide your complete process for determining incidence rate or affirm that it is one and only one number regardless of anything behind said number.

Unless you're looking for an out...in which case...by all means take the "You hurt my feelings" door. 

[NghtRppr]

I sincerely apologize.

Apology accepted.

Unless you're looking for an out...in which case...by all means take the "You hurt my feelings" door.

You can't hurt my feelings but I will not debate with someone that can't stick to the arguments instead of making things personal. You've been warned that such behavior will not be tolerated. So if you want an easy way out, all you have to do is insult me. From this point on, I'll assume that's why you're doing it, should you continue.

Now, on to your question...

So either you are claiming that a simple one number result is all you would use to make you're judgment or your leaving out something.

Please provide your complete process for determining incidence rate or affirm that it is one and only one number regardless of anything behind said number.

There are two metrics, quality and price. I would expect to see something like a consumer reports for medicine or some other voluntary organization. You see, despite what some people think, there are businesses out there that know they can make money by simply providing a useful service. There can be voluntary industry standards. The mounting brackets on flat-screen displays is one example. There was no government agency that said "all flat screen displays must use this bracket" but rather, major companies realized they could benefit by setting a standard. That's why I can take a single display and mount it on one stand, then later another and finally a bracket on my wall in my exercise room. If we can have things that are somewhat trivial, imagine what we can have with something important.

So to put a finer point on things, I don't know how rating agencies should operate because I'm not in that business. However, I do know that our current government agency kills people but doesn't go out of business. It seems to me that if other private agencies existed, they too would kill people but they would go out of business and the ones that remain would be better than the ones that went out of business. That's how markets work. They weed out inefficiency and incompetence.

I hope I answered your question to your satisfaction. If not, explain what I'm missing and I'll be more than happy to clarify.

[LastBattle]

He can't prove a negative.

Is everyone out to ire me today?

The only thing that erodes my faith in the market making sense of complex sets of medical data more than the idea that hardly anyone understands that almost any positive statement can be reformed as a negative statement is the fact that nobody wants to #$#$ing google this oft-repeated nonsense before posting it.

An FDA, etc requires action.

No FDA, etc requires the ABSENCE of action.

YOU must prove that the FDA is worthwhile, not the other way around. Stop the sophistry.

He's defending his world view and the FDA is irrelevant to his world view.

I have a world view that there are NOT pot smoking monkeys on Mars. Do you think I have to PROVE that there AREN'T pot smoking monkeys on Mars?

No. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim in favour of something, not against it. You can shift it to someone else if you provide evidence (for example, pictures of pot smoking monkeys on Mars), but you can't offhandedly force him to prove a negative.

[MoonShadow]

Wow, this conversation has gone all over the place.  Too much noise.  Too much emotion, also.  Considering locking this thread and forcing the party to start another thread.

Just as a general comment.  There is nothing in libertarian ideology that is against drivers having insurance, but not having insurance doesn't change the liabilities of the drivers.  It only transfers the costs of those liabilities to the insurance company hired to underwrite the drivers.  Uninsured drivers are still responsible for the damage that they cause.  This is generally true now.

Likewise, libertarian thought is not against an organization such as the FDA, so long as it's not a government monopoly.  Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Labs are two examples of private institutions that perform similar functions to that of regulatory oversight, and do it well, without restricting the individual to the choice of ignoring their advice.  If the FDA only warned me against using certain drugs, but didn't actually prevent me from the choice, then I'd be okay with it (yes, even though it's funded by taxation; but that's a pragmatic compromise not an ideal).

Incidently, US building codes just about everywhere require that installed products sport a 'listing mark', but does not require a particular listing mark.  This means that, in practice, products must have been tested by UL or a competitor to be installed in any new or existing structure in the United States.  UL has few competitors, because they do their job so well, but there are a couple.  I've seen products 'listed' by the Canadian counterpart to UL (which I believe is a government operation) but very few of them.  This is because, even though the building codes don't require a particular testing lab, many insurance companies do.  So it's not like the FDA does anything that can't be done by the marketplace.

[AyeYo]

Likewise, libertarian thought is not against an organization such as the FDA, so long as it's not a government monopoly.  Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Labs are two examples of private institutions that perform similar functions to that of regulatory oversight, and do it well, without restricting the individual to the choice of ignoring their advice.  If the FDA only warned me against using certain drugs, but didn't actually prevent me from the choice, then I'd be okay with it (yes, even though it's funded by taxation; but that's a pragmatic compromise not an ideal).

Riddle me this...

Let's pretend the FDA is how you want it.  It warns, but doesn't actually restrict.  You choose to ignore the warnings and because of it, you get sick.  Now, you and rape boy will bequick to point out that you've made a personal choice, which is true, you'll also say that your personal choice only affected you, but that's completely untrue.

Now you're sick.  You can't work, because you're sick.  That's lost productivity for your employer.  Your poor choice is costing your employer money.  Someone else has to fill in for you at work.  Your poor choice is inconveniencing someone else.  Your insurance company (if you have one) now has to pay out to get your health fixed.  More paid out claims means raised rates for everyone.  Your poor choice is costing your insured peers money.  Sick people don't do much other than lie around the house.  That means you won't be eating out, going to movies, burning gas in your car, etc.  That's less consumption in the economy, thus less revenue for business.  Your poor choice is costing the economy revenue.


We can play this domino effect game all night long, because ripple effects in the market have influence far and wide.  You don't seem to want to take this influence into account.  Your poor choices, while on the surface seem to only affect you, actually negatively affect many, many more people and even society as a whole.  How do you deal with that?  In the real world, this is why we force people to do certain things or restrict their choices whether they like it or not, because their poor (but freely made) choices negatively affect more than just themselves.

[Anonymous]

His employer and society beyond are not entitled to said sick individual. There is no loss.

[Un zafado cualquiera]

SOLVED! ... Use your knowledge to live without money.

Likewise, libertarian thought is not against an organization such as the FDA, so long as it's not a government monopoly.  Consumer Reports and Underwriters' Labs are two examples of private institutions that perform similar functions to that of regulatory oversight, and do it well, without restricting the individual to the choice of ignoring their advice.  If the FDA only warned me against using certain drugs, but didn't actually prevent me from the choice, then I'd be okay with it (yes, even though it's funded by taxation; but that's a pragmatic compromise not an ideal).

Riddle me this...

Let's pretend the FDA is how you want it.  It warns, but doesn't actually restrict.  You choose to ignore the warnings and because of it, you get sick.  Now, you and rape boy will quick to point out that you've made a personal choice, which is true, you'll also say that your personal choice only affected you, but that's completely untrue.

Now you're sick.  You can't work, because you're sick.  That's lost productivity for your employer.  Your poor choice is costing your employer money.  Someone else has to fill in for you at work.  Your poor choice is inconveniencing someone else.  Your insurance company (if you have one) now has to pay out to get your health fixed.  More paid out claims means raised rates for everyone.  Your poor choice is costing your insured peers money.  Sick people don't do much other than lie around the house.  That means you won't be eating out, going to movies, burning gas in your car, etc.  That's less consumption in the economy, thus less revenue for business.  Your poor choice is costing the economy revenue.


We can play this domino effect game all night long, because ripple effects in the market have influence far and wide.  You don't seem to want to take this influence into account.  Your poor choices, while on the surface seem to only affect you, actually negatively affect many, many more people and even society as a whole.  How do you deal with that?  In the real world, this is why we force people to do certain things or restrict their choices whether they like it or not, because their poor (but freely made) choices negatively affect more than just themselves.

[AyeYo]

His employer and society beyond are not entitled to said sick individual. There is no loss.

Tell that to the people losing money because of his poor choice.


You are not entitled to the benefits of living in the US without paying taxes.  Stop crying and pay your taxes.  See how that works?

[myrkul]

His employer and society beyond are not entitled to said sick individual. There is no loss.

Tell that to the people losing money because of his poor choice.


You are not entitled to the benefits of living in the US without paying taxes.  Stop crying and pay your taxes.  See how that works?

The former was not qualified. The latter was. You imply that paying taxes grants entitlements. That is what is wrong with the world today.

[NghtRppr]

Riddle me this...

Let's pretend the FDA is how you want it.  It warns, but doesn't actually restrict.  You choose to ignore the warnings and because of it, you get sick.  Now, you and rape boy will bequick to point out that you've made a personal choice, which is true, you'll also say that your personal choice only affected you, but that's completely untrue.

Now you're sick.  You can't work, because you're sick.  That's lost productivity for your employer.  Your poor choice is costing your employer money.  Someone else has to fill in for you at work.  Your poor choice is inconveniencing someone else.  Your insurance company (if you have one) now has to pay out to get your health fixed.  More paid out claims means raised rates for everyone.  Your poor choice is costing your insured peers money.  Sick people don't do much other than lie around the house.  That means you won't be eating out, going to movies, burning gas in your car, etc.  That's less consumption in the economy, thus less revenue for business.  Your poor choice is costing the economy revenue.


We can play this domino effect game all night long, because ripple effects in the market have influence far and wide.  You don't seem to want to take this influence into account.  Your poor choices, while on the surface seem to only affect you, actually negatively affect many, many more people and even society as a whole.  How do you deal with that?  In the real world, this is why we force people to do certain things or restrict their choices whether they like it or not, because their poor (but freely made) choices negatively affect more than just themselves.

We should also outlaw suicide because if I'm dead, my employer loses my labor and someone else has to fill in for me. Also, dead people don't eat out, go to the movies, burn gas, etc. That's less revenue for businesses. In fact, it would be better if all decisions were made by the government for fear of hurting anyone's inflated sense of entitlement.

[myrkul]

We should also outlaw suicide because if I'm dead, my employer loses my labor and someone else has to fill in for me. Also, dead people don't eat out, go to the movies, burn gas, etc. That's less revenue for businesses. In fact, it would be better if all decisions were made by the government for fear of hurting anyone's inflated sense of entitlement.

If I recall correctly, Suicide is illegal, or, at least attempted suicide. (If you succeed, who are they going to charge?)

[em3rgentOrdr]

We should also outlaw suicide because if I'm dead, my employer loses my labor and someone else has to fill in for me. Also, dead people don't eat out, go to the movies, burn gas, etc. That's less revenue for businesses. In fact, it would be better if all decisions were made by the government for fear of hurting anyone's inflated sense of entitlement.

If I recall correctly, Suicide is illegal, or, at least attempted suicide. (If you succeed, who are they going to charge?)

Yup, in most jurisdictions.  You are the property of the state.

[NghtRppr]

As far as I know, suicide is legal in all 50 states and some states even allow for physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

[myrkul]

As far as I know, suicide is legal in all 50 states and some states even allow for physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

The Book of Knowledge agrees. I stand corrected.

[ascent]

All these fun facts are all fun and good.

I'm just not clear on something. Tell me again how a libertarian society limits its own destructiveness? Because I don't buy the reactive models you keep proposing. Try to be a little more precise and less general in your explanations. Your explanations result in society causing destruction, and at a crucial time in human history.

Let's follow through with this:

1. Resources exist, some easier to procure than others.
2. By 1, it follows that the easier resources are consumed by many, if not all businesses who have an interest in said resources.
3. The procurement of said resources is more cost friendly if fewer restrictions are placed on how said resources are procured.
4. By 3, it follows that the fewer the restrictions involved in procurement, the more damage is done during the procurement This damage is over and above the depletion of the resource itself.
5. Damage is often irreversible in the short term (short term can still mean tens and hundreds of thousands of years).
6. Consumption of the resource does not necessarily mean an improvement in the entire system. It often only means the creation of a bigger system that in turn needs to consume more resources.
7. We return to 1, but the system which is consuming has a larger appetite, the above induced damage not healed, and further damage is yet to come.

The argument that the above system contains benevolent entities which recognize the damage does not preclude the existence of parasitic entities which continue to engage in willful damage.

The argument that a reaction to the damage allows the system to self correct does not address the issue that the entire system is poorer in resources than it was before it began the process.

The argument that the destruction is acceptable in exchange for the development of alternative processes that will replace the existing system presupposes that such alternative processes will absolutely be developed, and in time, and also wrongfully presupposes that it is necessary to continually engage in a growth model that is not in a steady state.