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

[NghtRppr]

Tell me again how a libertarian society limits its own destructiveness?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't matter. Any laws that are incompatible with libertarianism shouldn't exist. I don't need to convince you that libertarianism will do anything other than provide for a just legal system.

"If consequences dictate our course of action then it doesn't matter what's right. It's only wrong if you get caught."

[ascent]

Tell me again how a libertarian society limits its own destructiveness?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't matter.

I will take your answer as an indication that you are not up to the task of really detailing a system that has any merit.

[myrkul]

Also, you seem to think the resources are just spewed into space, and that nobody cares about profit tomorrow.

Sure, it's easy to clearcut a forest, and it does cost a little more to replant or cut responsibly, but if you turn all your trees into paper, you can't make more paper later.

[NghtRppr]

I will take your answer as an indication that you are not up to the task of really detailing a system that has any merit.

Me: Slavery is wrong and it should be abolished.
You: But how will slaves get jobs? Where will they live? What will they eat?
Me: That doesn't matter. Slavery is wrong and it should be abolished.
You: I guess you aren't up to the task of detailing a system that has any merit.
Me: I guess you aren't up to the task of accepting justice, no matter the consequences.

[ascent]

Also, you seem to think the resources are just spewed into space, and that nobody cares about profit tomorrow.

Please show why you think I believe that. But I have a better way for you to spend your time. Show how you are calculating profit. Because, honestly, I don't think you know how. And I'm not taunting you. I'm asking you to think harder. This is not an easy question. I expect way more effort out of you than the standard responses you've been giving.

Show how you calculate profit.

[myrkul]

Also, you seem to think the resources are just spewed into space, and that nobody cares about profit tomorrow.

Please show why you think I believe that. But I have a better way for you to spend your time. Show how you are calculating profit. Because, honestly, I don't think you know how. And I'm not taunting you. I'm asking you to think harder. This is not an easy question. I expect way more effort out of you than the standard responses you've been giving.

Show how you calculate profit.

Profit = income (usually from sales of final product) - costs (everything from overhead, such as mining equipment, to wages and other expenditures)

[ascent]

Profit = income (usually from sales of final product) - costs (everything from overhead, such as mining equipment, to wages and other expenditures)

Not even close, and not much of an effort, either. And remember, you accused me of not caring about profit, while you indicated to me that you do care about profit, so I think the burden falls upon you to really show how profit is calculated.

I'll give you a hint. Subtract your costs from the utility gained. But you need to start focusing on the whole system. You're only thinking about a subset of the system.

[myrkul]

Profit = income (usually from sales of final product) - costs (everything from overhead, such as mining equipment, to wages and other expenditures)

Not even close, and not much of an effort, either. And remember, you accused me of not caring about profit, while you indicated to me that you do care about profit, so I think the burden falls upon you to really show how profit is calculated.

I'll give you a hint. Subtract your costs from the utility gained. But you need to start focusing on the whole system. You're only thinking about a subset of the system.

Tell you what. If you have a lesson here, Write a book. I'll read it. I graduated Highschool long ago, and Don't feel like another class.

[NghtRppr]

Subtract your costs from the utility gained. But you need to start focusing on the whole system. You're only thinking about a subset of the system.

There's no such thing as units of utility. We have mass, length, speed, etc, but there's no such thing as "utils". You can rank preferences. You can assign ordinal values. It makes sense to say you love your mom more than your dad. But how absurd would it be for someone to say that they love their mom 48% more than their dad? How absurd would it be for someone to say they love their mom 48% more than you love your mom?

[ascent]

There's no such thing as units of utility. We have mass, length, speed, etc, but there's no such thing as "utils". You can rank preferences. You can assign ordinal values. It makes sense to say you love your mom more than your dad. But how absurd would it be for someone to say that they love their mom 48% more than their dad? How absurd would it be for someone to say they love their mom 48% more than you love your mom?

If you argue that you can't attach value (negative or positive) to the consequences of actions or to resources when discussing economics, then you're probably acknowledging that the subject matter is making your brain hurt. This is now the second consecutive post from you that is essentially drivel and clearly an avoidance of actually wading deeper into the complexities of economic theory.

[myrkul]

There's no such thing as units of utility. We have mass, length, speed, etc, but there's no such thing as "utils". You can rank preferences. You can assign ordinal values. It makes sense to say you love your mom more than your dad. But how absurd would it be for someone to say that they love their mom 48% more than their dad? How absurd would it be for someone to say they love their mom 48% more than you love your mom?

If you argue that you can't attach value (negative or positive) to the consequences of actions or to resources when discussing economics, then you're probably acknowledging that the subject matter is making your brain hurt. This is now the second consecutive post from you that is essentially drivel and clearly an avoidance of actually wading deeper into the complexities of economic theory.

And this is just another in the long list of posts from you that is pure, undiluted d-baggery. If you have a point, make it. if not, move on.

[NghtRppr]

If you argue that you can't attach value (negative or positive) to the consequences of actions or to resources when discussing economics, then you're probably acknowledging that the subject matter is making your brain hurt. This is now the second consecutive post from you that is essentially drivel and clearly an avoidance of actually wading deeper into the complexities of economic theory.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually address the points I made but instead resorted to childish name-calling. I think that's rather telling.

[jgraham]

I apologize, in advance I can see that the conversation has run on prior to my departure last night and I don't really have much time this morning to read through.   So if it's been covered I'd appreciate everyone's patience and just quote the relevant portions of the thread in their responses.

YOU must prove that the FDA is worthwhile

No that's not the way it works.   Well technically there is no "way it works" there are actually only rules of thumb.  The burden of proof is colloquially considered to be with the one asserting the claim.   The whining OP could be considered the person asserting the claim, or Bitcoin2Cash could be considered to be asserting the claim that the market will fix everything the only thing I've personally mentioned is that:

i) Historically regulation appears to have done more for the safety of medicine than the free market.
ii) ...and while it seems plausible that the free market could eventually stumble drunkenly toward the same level of safety I don't see that happening without some kind of bodycount per product.

I'm not talking about the FDA, neither is Ayeyo.  So please direct your criticism at those making claims about the FDA.

not the other way around. Stop the sophistry.

Shut your cakehole.   I was being mildly pedantic in correcting your asinine and ignorant belief that one can not prove a negative.  I was not, in any way being deceptive.

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.

Not clear what you are referring to but other than my complete shock at someone taking huge offense at the term 'jerky' I like to think I was making an objective assessment of a comment of yours.

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.

Please stuff your warnings in the applicable orifice.  I will likely insult you, your parents and possibly your pets.  Again if that's all it takes to render you incapable of defending your point.  Then the door is there and I encourage it's use.  It is a misapprehension that your opinion is so valuable that it can't be defended by someone else who can take a few barbs.

From this point on, I'll assume that's why you're doing it, should you continue.

And likewise I'll assume that you are taking your ball and going home when you leave.   On your way out I suggest that you also take advantage of the door just to right of it marked "The Internet".   I hear it gets rough in there.

Now that the ground rules are clear.

There are two metrics, quality and price. I would expect to see something like a consumer reports for medicine or some other voluntary organization.

So you suppose there are...let's call them "Standards Bodies" and these bodies approve drugs and drug companies.

Question one:  Where do these SB's get their information from?

[NghtRppr]

And likewise I'll assume that you are taking your ball and going home when you leave.

I'm more than willing to argue anything you can throw at me, if you're willing to remain civil. If you can't remain civil then you're either incapable or unwilling. I'm well aware of the nature of the Interwebs, but if you don't know the difference between a rational debate and a flame war then you need to figure out. I react the same way during any debate, be it in person, phone, email or message board. If you keep pushing when there's no need to, it's obvious that you're the one trying to find an easy way out. I'll be here to debate all the tough questions you can muster. Don't get it twisted and think that because I won't tolerate name calling that you've got any kind of upper hand. Like I said, I'll just assume you aren't up to the debate if you keep pushing.

So you suppose there are...let's call them "Standards Bodies" and these bodies approve drugs and drug companies.

Question one:  Where do these SB's get their information from?

I would imagine the same place the FDA gets them, extensive laboratory testing by private laboratories and then clinical trials by private doctors. However,I wouldn't be surprised if a private business, which is highly competitive, comes up with some improvements that a government agency, which has no competition, didn't think of.

[ascent]

I'll be here to debate all the tough questions you can muster.

Then why don't you actually debate some of the tough questions I've mustered above? Post #301, that is.

[NghtRppr]

I'll be here to debate all the tough questions you can muster.

Then why don't you actually debate some of the tough questions I've mustered above? Post #301, that is.

I've already explained how a libertarian society would handle pollution but you "just don't buy the reactive models" which isn't really my concern. That's how it would be handled and that's justice.

[ascent]

I've already explained how a libertarian society would handle pollution but you "just don't buy the reactive models" which isn't really my concern. That's how it would be handled and that's justice.

Your answer is inadequate. Furthermore, post #301 isn't only discussing pollution. By assuming the question is only about pollution, you've demonstrated that you're woefully uninformed of all the problematic issues. It stands to reason that there would be plenty more like yourself in your fantasy libertarian society, all assuming that the problem is simpler than it is, and as a result, your reactive model is not only poor simply because of its reactive nature, its overly slow to respond to those issues that you're not even aware of.

[jgraham]

if you're willing to remain civil.

Don't worry.  I'm not.

If you can't remain civil then you're either incapable or unwilling.

False dichotomy.  I could also simply have no majority understanding of your definition of 'civil'.  Furthermore since here I act in a way that is acceptable to my social context and which clearly does not conform to your definition.  It is not unreasonable to assume that I lack such knowledge.  Not to mention your keeping this particular barn door open so very, very, very wide wouldn't be so irrational if you were looking for an easy way out.

By the by your colossal arrogance (this is not invective it can be objectively shown) isn't appreciated where I come from.  Just sayin...

if you don't know the difference between a rational debate and a flame war

Well a) Except in the broadest of terms, I'm simply not debating you.  False assumption. b) Given that your statement seems to be prejudical language.  A rational debate is where the argument conforms to some shared ideas about how conclusions are derived from premises - it's a stretch to say it also governs how argument is phrased.   If I, in the process of making a reasoned argument scatter some vitriol it does not change the fact that the argument is rational.  To wit:

i) All men are mortal
ii) Socrates is a man
iii) Socrates is mortal

Is no more a rational argument than:

i) All men are mortal, idiot.
ii) Socrates is a man. You troglodyte.
iii) Socrates is mortal, imbecile.

If you keep pushing when there's no need to, it's obvious that you're the one trying to find an easy way out.

Way too many logical flaws to list. 

Like I said, I'll just assume you aren't up to the debate if you keep pushing.

It is so noted that you will make an blindingly incorrect assumption - one even demonstrably inconsistent with your own logic stated just sentences above - whenever you feel like it but you are still not looking for an easy way out.

So you suppose there are...let's call them "Standards Bodies" and these bodies approve drugs and drug companies.

Question one:  Where do these SB's get their information from?

I would imagine the same place the FDA gets them, extensive laboratory testing by private laboratories and then clinical trials by private doctors.

They get them because it is regulated.  The FDA has constructed requirements based on a history of free market shenanigans.  Now you are, I assume saying there is nobody forcing anyone to divulge this information.  Please, in detail, describe the process to get this information from the drug companies.

[AyeYo]

They get them because it is regulated.  The FDA has constructed requirements based on a history of free market shenanigans.  Now you are, I assume saying there is nobody forcing anyone to divulge this information.  Please, in detail, describe the process to get this information from the drug companies.

In for an answer.

[MoonShadow]

And we're done here.