Political Orientation

[SgtSpike]

So you predict, that without the FDA, we would have a private company start up as a regulatory company?

Would you then look for a stamp of approval from this private company on any foods you purchased?  What would stop a company from just stamping it themselves without approval?

[1713947123]

1713947123

[1713947123]

1713947123

[1713947123]

1713947123

[Anonymous]

So you predict, that without the FDA, we would have a private company start up as a regulatory company?

Easily, if not, a more optimal solution we can't yet imagine

Would you then look for a stamp of approval from this private company on any foods you purchased?  

I would look for approval from a credible company, yes.

What would stop a company from just stamping it themselves without approval?

Pretending to test foods and sending people tainted products isn't a sustainable business model. It will fall apart eventually. Fraud laws and market forces will prevent this easily.

[compro01]

or how many people would die from food-borne illness without the FDA?

A lot less. The FDA fails at regulating food. I would prefer a private regulating body that actually has incentive and CAN actually FAIL and be replaced by a competent agency.

...or I could prefer to buy foods regulated by other alternatives.

Just because we completely depend on government monopolys now, doesn't mean we can't live without them.

"Oh, no. Without government we wouldn't have indoor plumbing!"

It's such a crock-of-shit. We will still have these things because people want them. Not because big daddy government says so.

1. the FDA needs improvement, but i see no rational basis to suggest that a collection of private regulatory bodies would be an improvement.

2. yes, a corporation will expend large amounts of money to expand service into areas where it is unlikely to ever profit or even break even.  after all, it didn't take decades for power and telephone companies to expand into rural areas and the government never had to legally force them to do so.

[SgtSpike]

Sure, it'll fall apart eventually.  But then they'll just change names, change packaging, and do it all over again.  Meanwhile, dozens, hundreds, thousands of people die because their products aren't being properly tested.

You already see the same thing happening with electronics.  No-name brands come out, and the only thing preventing them from copying the exact look of the "real thing" is copyright and import laws in the US.  Usually, these electronics are cheaply made, and the consumer doesn't really find out until after they purchase it and begin to use it.  You see these cheap knock-offs on eBay all the time, and if they weren't illegal in the US because of government regulations, you'd probably see them on store shelves too.

Take that same "business model" to food or drugs, and you've got real trouble.  As long as it looks ok from the outside, people will buy it and consume it.  Heck, without any sort of regulations or government in place, one company could copy another company's logo and packaging to the pixel, to where not even the store that is stocking it can tell the difference.  Not only would this evil company be riding on the reputation of the company they copied, and probably drive them into the ground, but the people who would suffer would be the people who consumed the product.  The evil company would simple rinse & repeat with a new already-reputable company once the previous company was sufficiently defiled.

Sorry, but I don't see a completely unregulated society working.

[Anonymous]

1. the FDA needs improvement, but i see no rational basis to suggest that a collection of private regulatory bodies would be an improvement.

That's the thing: The FDA has no incentive to improve. There's no competition. Just people throwing tax payer money at it.

Also, I see no rational basis for a government monopoly on food regulation when it doesn't work well at all.

2. yes, a corporation will expend large amounts of money to expand service into areas where it is unlikely to ever profit or even break even.  after all, it didn't take decades for power and telephone companies to expand into rural areas and the government never had to legally force them to do so.

Don't use the term "corporation". Those are government entities. Also, a business doesn't need to expand into areas. You just inspect food at their distribution points. Do you know how the supply chain works?

Also, I am willing to argue that telecommunications would have reached rural areas faster if the whole industry wasn't gimped in the beginning with government stimulus. The smaller guys would want to find room in the industry and the rural would be a great market area to cater to. The truth is nobody can really predict how the free-market will work but with the examples we have, it most often produces amazing results.

[Anonymous]

Sure, it'll fall apart eventually.  But then they'll just change names, change packaging, and do it all over again.  Meanwhile, dozens, hundreds, thousands of people die because their products aren't being properly tested.

That's not sustainable at all. A company isn't going to survive on producing fake guarantees and killing people. It would be revealed and the stores would not pay for such products. There's no value to be found for anybody. This just doesn't happen.

You already see the same thing happening with electronics.  No-name brands come out, and the only thing preventing them from copying the exact look of the "real thing" is copyright and import laws in the US.  Usually, these electronics are cheaply made, and the consumer doesn't really find out until after they purchase it and begin to use it.  You see these cheap knock-offs on eBay all the time, and if they weren't illegal in the US because of government regulations, you'd probably see them on store shelves too.

You can't prevent consumers from supporting crap products. It's not a real problem. People should be able to see the different names. In addition, this should be covered under fraud laws. Patent and regulations on how people can shape their property is immoral.

Take that same "business model" to food or drugs, and you've got real trouble.  As long as it looks ok from the outside, people will buy it and consume it.  Heck, without any sort of regulations or government in place, one company could copy another company's logo and packaging to the pixel, to where not even the store that is stocking it can tell the difference.  Not only would this evil company be riding on the reputation of the company they copied, and probably drive them into the ground, but the people who would suffer would be the people who consumed the product.  The evil company would simple rinse & repeat with a new already-reputable company once the previous company was sufficiently defiled.

Sorry, but I don't see a completely unregulated society working.

This should all be covered under fraud. If the public doesn't find out, we are doomed from the start. A regulating body is no smarter nor more capable than the people it rules over.

[BitterTea]

A regulating body is no smarter nor more capable than the people it rules over.

In fact, they may well be dumber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

[SgtSpike]

Atlas, my apologies.  I was assuming you were talking about an environment with no regulatory systems or laws at all.

Yes, with just the FDA removed, there likely wouldn't be too much trouble.  There'd still be incidents of people dying from drugs that weren't tested properly, but most companies would do proper testing to ensure their reputation stays clean.

As with most regulatory bodies, there is a certain point of diminishing returns.  You can only regulate so many accidents out of a given industry, and any further regulation is hugely expensive for very little benefit.  I do not believe it is worth it to spend millions of dollars to save one person's life.  Many people believe that every person's life is priceless, but that simply isn't true when you look at the economics of it.  We put prices on people's lives every day, and unfortunately, the amount we spend on saving some random person's life through regulation can far exceed the amount we actually value their life at.

Random tangent, but I thought it deserved saying.

[Anonymous]

Atlas, my apologies.  I was assuming you were talking about an environment with no regulatory systems or laws at all.

Yes, with just the FDA removed, there likely wouldn't be too much trouble.  There'd still be incidents of people dying from drugs that weren't tested properly, but most companies would do proper testing to ensure their reputation stays clean.

As with most regulatory bodies, there is a certain point of diminishing returns.  You can only regulate so many accidents out of a given industry, and any further regulation is hugely expensive for very little benefit.  I do not believe it is worth it to spend millions of dollars to save one person's life.  Many people believe that every person's life is priceless, but that simply isn't true when you look at the economics of it.  We put prices on people's lives every day, and unfortunately, the amount we spend on saving some random person's life through regulation can far exceed the amount we actually value their life at.

Random tangent, but I thought it deserved saying.

Heh, yeah. Lawless environments don't tend to produce the best business environments.

No need for an apology. It's just a discussion. : )

[compro01]

the rural would be a great market area to cater to. The truth is nobody can really predict how the free-market will work but with the examples we have, it most often produces amazing results.

barriers to entry strongly suggest the rural market is not a great area to cater to.

covering a rural area, as opposed to an urban area, requires much larger amounts of cabling (alternatively, wireless transceivers), labour, physical plant, etc. requiring a much larger expenditure of capital and consequently, higher costs passed onto the customer in order to regain that capital investment and start profiting in a reasonable time frame, costs far in excess of what a rural customer is willing/able to pay.

a free market can and usually will produce very good results if and only if my above mentioned requirements are met to a sufficient degree.  if they are not met, a free market does not function.

[Anonymous]

Well, let's not limit us to current technology. I'm sure they could serve the rural with other (and probably better) innovations if there was sufficient demand.

Also, telecommunications isn't a right.

[BitterTea]

Here's an idea for a way to transition away from government regulatory bodies. I'll use the FDA as an example.

If instead of having enforcement power, the FDA was merely another certification organization, there would be many benefits.

1. Individuals who trust the government and want to exclusively buy government regulated products can continue to do so.
2. Those who do not trust the government or have higher risk tolerance can buy unregulated or non-government regulated products.
3. Forces the FDA to be more competitive.

[Anonymous]

Here's an idea for a way to transition away from government regulatory bodies. I'll use the FDA as an example.

If instead of having enforcement power, the FDA was merely another certification organization, there would be many benefits.

1. Individuals who trust the government and want to exclusively buy government regulated products can continue to do so.
2. Those who do not trust the government or have higher risk tolerance can buy unregulated or non-government regulated products.
3. Forces the FDA to be more competitive.

That's a Hobson's choice. Everyone is still forced to pay for the FDA. It sounds like those school voucher programs.

It doesn't force the FDA to be more competitive because the consumer's still have to pay twice (they still get paid if they screw up) and I bet the government would just limit the hell out of competitors if they got anywhere close to threatening the FDA's position.

[BitterTea]

That's a Hobson's choice. Everyone is still forced to pay for the FDA. It sounds like those school voucher programs.

It doesn't force the FDA to be more competitive because the consumer's still have to pay twice (they still get paid if they screw up) and I bet the government would just limit the hell out of competitors if they got anywhere close to threatening the FDA's position.

Good point. In order to get the benefits of this system, the FDA would have to make its money from companies voluntarily procuring its services (which some would, especially at first, I think) instead of taxes. Just an idea, not that I think it's likely that government organizations will give up their enforcement monopoly.

[MacFall]

I voted myself an "anarchist", but I would support a form of government that recognized the right of unlimited secession. I prefer the term "voluntaryist" because it doesn't have the baggage associated with "anarchist" (or "capitalist", for that matter, as in anarcho-capitalism).

[Basiley]

Also, telecommunications isn't a right.

its actually untrue for some countries, where its human right, according to laws/constitution.
and other countries problem is lack of similar laws

[BitterTea]

its actually untrue for some countries, where its human right, according to laws/constitution.
and other countries problem is lack of similar laws

What does it mean for telecommunication to be a right? Can you use violence against someone who denies you the use of their telecommunications equipment?

[Basiley]

its actually untrue for some countries, where its human right, according to laws/constitution.
and other countries problem is lack of similar laws

What does it mean for telecommunication to be a right? Can you use violence against someone who denies you the use of their telecommunications equipment?

why you can ?
you can't selfish violate others rights in order to get personal rights.  w/consequences.
actually laws explain that's.

[Anonymous]

I think it's more selfish that people believe they are entitled to my property (in this case telecommunications equipment) that I labored for.

[compro01]

What does it mean for telecommunication to be a right? Can you use violence against someone who denies you the use of their telecommunications equipment?

it means they cannot deny you telecommunications service except on a lawful basis.

as for the second, that depends on how you define "you".  presumably, you inform the government of them denying you service, at which point they can employ their granted authority, up to and including violence, to force the provider to provide service.

I think it's more selfish that people believe they are entitled to my property (in this case telecommunications equipment) that I labored for.

if you purchased and owned the land all your telecommunication equipment used, then yes, it would be your property.

but being as you entered into agreements (in practice with the government, but could also be in theory with each individual landowner and have the same effect) to obtain the use of that land rather than purchasing it, it is not fully your property, and thus subject to certain restrictions and requirements, such as being required to provide service on some terms.