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

[AyeYo]

They can, but you have no right to force them to.

So effectively it's impossible to be proactive in your world. Wait for a damage to occur, sue someone.

That's their solution. And that's how they think the environment should be managed as well. It's really rather sad and pathetic. I think many of them are actually smart people, but blinded by their pet ideology, adamant about it no matter what.

Similar to the example from medicine I gave earlier.  As I noted elsewhere I have a hard time to see their world without an almost per product bodycount for any reasonably smart company that doesn't involve some sort of regulation.   Especially since my examples came from a time before medical regulation.  What the free market failed to do regulation did - in that case anyway.

Some of the arguments seem to go to the whole "wisdom of crowds" nonsense (Were I to indulge myself in a single act of coercion it would be to make James Surowiecki take a $#*Uing stats course).    Medicine erects a difficulty in understanding the issues (from where I sit: Anti-vaccinationism, health supplements are all examples of the unregulated market at work) .  It's infeasible for everyone to have even the modest amount of medical knowledge I have access to and the math background to interpret it.  So what then?  People hire me?  How does anyone know to hire me?  Oh, by people observing person A not dying when I tell them to take drug X over Y and person B dying when someone else took drug Y over X.    Where did they get that information from again?  How many deaths does it take?  How did they determine the cause of death not being a ME?  How about issues that are subtler?  Like HRT?  It took a huge study over decades to figure out that as a cancer prophylaxis it didn't just not work...it caused it (mildly).  Who is paying for these studies now?  Not the drug companies, they have no self-interest in having a large study done when a body of evidence already exists which confirms what they are selling.   Independent research groups?...same problem really.  Where's the self-interest?  They can't even sell the reults to anyone until the result is determined.   Even if they could I'm willing to bet that the drug companies could outbid most of the consulting firms.  It goes on, and on.

Can't wait to see the canned responses about rape and murder.

[1713958248]

1713958248

[1713958248]

1713958248

[1713958248]

1713958248

[JA37]

Why is yours? Why do you wait to lock up teenage males before they attack someone instead of locking them up before they do it?
 
Why should we force them to when you can't prove they're going to get in a wreck? In 2009 there were 24,474 deaths in vehicles and 16,591 murders. Clearly we also need murder insurance. In case you decide to kill me, my family can collect.

You amaze me with your argumentation technique. I advocate proactivity while you do not, and you call me reactive?

Murders are rarely accidents, car accidents are rarely intentional. Clearly you need to have a look at your society and try to figure out what's making people so violent. Desperate people perhaps? Desperate people with guns? Perhaps a bigger social safety net to catch those who fall down? Check out the ratio of vehicle deaths compared to murders in most European countries.

I think the difference between you and me is that I'm a bit older and as such a bit more pragmatic. Ideology is fine, but reality supersedes it.

[NghtRppr]

All of the things you mentioned do have government regulation.

I don't need a license to repair vacuum cleaners. There isn't government regulation in those industries comparable to the medical industry. Try to attack the spirit of the argument rather than a superficial "government has its hands in every cookie jar" type of response.

You seem to imply that judging this data is trivial.

No, but I can judge which companies are doing a better job than others. People that use company X over Y to approve medicine have a lower incident rate. Of course, the more strict their controls are, the higher it costs so if I'm willing to take a higher risk for a lower cost then I'm able to.

Right now, if I want a doctor to pull a splinter out of my finger the fee is several hundreds of dollars, mainly because he has to have malpractice insurance but if I could sign a piece of paper saying I promise not to sue if you do it for cheaper then I could have it done for a lot less.

[NghtRppr]

I think the difference between you and me is that I'm a bit older and as such a bit more pragmatic.

How old are you?

[AyeYo]

All of the things you mentioned do have government regulation.

I don't need a license to repair vacuum cleaners. There isn't government regulation in those industry comparable to the medical industry. Try to attack the spirit of the argument rather than a superficial "government has it's hands in every cookie jar" type of response.

You seem to imply that judging this data is trivial.

No, but I can judge which companies are doing a better job than others. People that use company X over Y to approve medicine have a lower incidence rate. Of course, the more strict their controls are, the higher it costs so if I willing to take a higher risk for a lower cost then I'm able to.

So exactly like he said, there's a large pile of dead people behind every proven-safe choice.  In fact, that pile of dead people isn't even necessarily a guarantee because of what he pointed out here:

Oh, by people observing person A not dying when I tell them to take drug X over Y and person B dying when someone else took drug Y over X.    Where did they get that information from again?  How many deaths does it take?  How did they determine the cause of death not being a ME?  How about issues that are subtler?  Like HRT?  It took a huge study over decades to figure out that as a cancer prophylaxis it didn't just not work...it caused it (mildly).  Who is paying for these studies now?  Not the drug companies, they have no self-interest in having a large study done when a body of evidence already exists which confirms what they are selling.   Independent research groups?...same problem really.  Where's the self-interest?  They can't even sell the reults to anyone until the result is determined.   Even if they could I'm willing to bet that the drug companies could outbid most of the consulting firms.  It goes on, and on.

Enjoy your future ailments and disease because of longer-term drug/treatment effects that could be seen by observing people around you.  Since companies aren't required to do anything at all, they can sell you a product that they know full well is going to kill you, but they'll tell you it's good for you!  Where have I heard that before?  Oh yea, tobacco companies from like.... ever until the 1960's.

[jgraham]

All of the things you mentioned do have government regulation.

I don't need a license to repair vacuum cleaners. There isn't government regulation in those industry comparable to the medical industry.

I appear to be talking about product safety.   Each of those products comes under a wide variety of regulations to ensure their safety.

You seem to imply that judging this data is trivial.

No, but I can judge which companies are doing a better job than others. People that use company X over Y to approve medicine have a lower incidence rate.

What does a "lower incidence rate" mean?

[NghtRppr]

So exactly like he said, there's a large pile of dead people behind every proven-safe choice.

Here's a drug that was approved by the FDA:

Thalidomide was sold in a number of countries across the world from 1957 until 1961 when it was withdrawn from the market after being found to be a cause of birth defects in what has been called "one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times". It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.

It looks like making mistakes is just something that humans do so that doesn't bother me too much. What really pisses me off is that the FDA is still alive and well. If that were a private company that made a huge mistake like that, they would be sued out of existence or at least broke because nobody would trust them. The market weeds out incompetence, which is inevitable even with government agencies, but with government agencies, they get to keep on approving bad drugs, keep on killing people, and never go out of business.

What does a "lower incidence rate" mean?

Incident rate, i.e. complications from the medicine, side effects, birth defects, organ failure, etc. If company X has a lower incident rate while company Y doesn't but both cost the same amount, I'm going to go with company X and company Y will be out of business. Like I said, the market weeds out incompetence.

[AyeYo]

So exactly like he said, there's a large pile of dead people behind every proven-safe choice.

Here's a drug that was approved by the FDA:

Thalidomide was sold in a number of countries across the world from 1957 until 1961 when it was withdrawn from the market after being found to be a cause of birth defects in what has been called "one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times". It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.

It looks like making mistakes is just something that humans do so that doesn't bother me too much. What really pisses me off is that the FDA is still alive and well. If that were a private company that made a huge mistake like that, they would be sued out of existence or at least broke because nobody would trust them. The market weeds out incompetence, which is inevitable even with government agencies, but with government agencies, they get to keep on approving bad drugs, keep on killing people, and never go out of a business.

Irrelevant to the discussion.  You're defending your idea of unregulated companies, remember?  The FDA and its imperfection (god forbid!) are not part of this discussion at all.  Pointing out an FDA slip up does NOTHING to prove your point that an unregulated world is at all sustainable or desireable.

[jgraham]

So exactly like he said, there's a large pile of dead people behind every proven-safe choice.

Here's a drug that was approved by the FDA:

Thalidomide was sold in a number of countries across the world from 1957 until 1961 when it was withdrawn from the market after being found to be a cause of birth defects in what has been called "one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times". It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.

It looks like making mistakes is just something that humans do so that doesn't bother me too much. What really pisses me off is that the FDA is still alive and well. If that were a private company that made a huge mistake like that, they would be sued out of existence or at least broke because nobody would trust them. The market weeds out incompetence, which is inevitable even with government agencies, but with government agencies, they get to keep on approving bad drugs, keep on killing people, and never go out of a business.

Uh are you high?

[myrkul]

What does a "lower incidence rate" mean?

They die less often.

We don't want to get rid of drug testing and approval, we just want the FDA to allow competition.

[jgraham]

What does a "lower incidence rate" mean?

Incident rate, i.e. complications from the medicine, side effects, birth defects, organ failure, etc. If company X has a lower incident rate while company Y doesn't but both cost the same amount, I'm going to go with company X and company Y will be out of business. Like I said, the market weeds out incompetence.

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.

[NghtRppr]

Uh are you high?

I'm now going to ignore you since you've clearly shown that you're not interested in a rational debate but would rather hurl childish insults.

[jgraham]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Especially since the FDA...pause for effect....never cleared Thalidomide for general use.  If this is an example of Bitcoin2Cash's ability to judge medicine I don't expect him to live long in the Libertarian utopia.  It was actually a better example of free market failing and regulation fixing things.

I'm now going to ignore you since you've clearly shown that you're not interested in a rational debate but would rather hurl childish insults.

No that's just my impatience with people who clearly don't have a clue attempting to teach someone who does.

[LastBattle]

So exactly like he said, there's a large pile of dead people behind every proven-safe choice.

Here's a drug that was approved by the FDA:

Thalidomide was sold in a number of countries across the world from 1957 until 1961 when it was withdrawn from the market after being found to be a cause of birth defects in what has been called "one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times". It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.

It looks like making mistakes is just something that humans do so that doesn't bother me too much. What really pisses me off is that the FDA is still alive and well. If that were a private company that made a huge mistake like that, they would be sued out of existence or at least broke because nobody would trust them. The market weeds out incompetence, which is inevitable even with government agencies, but with government agencies, they get to keep on approving bad drugs, keep on killing people, and never go out of a business.

Irrelevant to the discussion.  You're defending your idea of unregulated companies, remember?  The FDA and its imperfection (god forbid!) are not part of this discussion at all.  Pointing out an FDA slip up does NOTHING to prove your point that an unregulated world is at all sustainable or desireable.

He is advocating the absence of coercive force, you are arguing for it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that government regulation is useful. He can't prove a negative.

[NghtRppr]

Even if the US didn't clear Thalidomide, other countries did and suffered because of their government agencies. It seems the fashion of the day for statists is to only acknowledge points that agree with their conclusions.

In the United Kingdom the drug was licensed in 1958 and, of the approximately 2,000 babies born with defects, 466 survived.

Canada was the last country to stop the sales of the drug, in early 1962.

My point stands. If you were unlucky enough to be under the thumb of those agencies that approved this tragic use of the drug, you didn't even get the comfort of seeing them go out of business.

[jgraham]

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.

[AyeYo]

He is advocating the absence of coercive force, you are arguing for it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that government regulation is useful. He can't prove a negative.

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

If I like the Yankees and I'm trying to prove that they're the best team in baseball, going on and on about how much the Devil Rays suck ass is not getting me any closer to proving my point.

[NghtRppr]

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

Do you really think the FDA has never approved a drug that killed people and then later revoked that approval? Even worse though are the drugs that the FDA refuses to approve or approves too slowly.

One of these new drugs denied to Americans was propranolol, the first Beta-blocker to be used extensively to treat angina and hypertension. Approximately 10,000 Americans died needlessly every year for the three years it was against the law for their doctors to treat them with propranolol. Propranolol was finally approved in the US for minor uses in 1968, but was only approved in 1973 and 1976 for angina and hyper-tension respectively. The regulatory delay of this single drug may have been responsible for the death of more Americans than all other deaths from drugs in this century.

The FDA kills people in two ways, not just one. They allow bad drugs through and don't allow good drugs through. Like I said, mistakes are something all humans make. I don't require humans to not make mistakes but I do require them to pay for them. The FDA should have been driven out of business a long time ago and would have, if they were subject to market forces.

Why don't you address this instead of making ham-fisted analogies?

[jgraham]

Even if the US didn't clear Thalidomide, other countries did and suffered because of their government agencies. It seems the fashion of the day for statists is to only acknowledge points that agree with their conclusions.

Uh...just a second there jerky.  

I didn't make the point that the FDA should have been "sued out of existence".  You. Did.  Don't go pretending you didn't or that you didn't write a paragraph of invective against them.  Hence warranting my asking if you are on some other sort of pharmaceuticals.

My point stands.

Not really - perhaps you need to understand what makes a general case and what doesn't?  Regulation doesn't catch everything in this case the free market didn't stop anything either.   In fact in the US the free market actively promoted Thalidomide even when regulators said no.  So if we were keeping score...but like I was implying that doesn't make a general case.

All I pointed out is that out of all the drugs and all the regulatory agencies you could have picked you couldn't even take the time to Google the right answer...which merits you some mockery.  Probably more than you got.

[AyeYo]

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

Do you really think the FDA

I don't give two shits about the FDA because it's not part of the discussion.  YOU are defending YOUR idea that unregulated business is great and a good idea.  Pointing to one government regulatory agency (not to mention getting shot down for false information) and telling me how much you think they suck is NOT proving your case.