FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a long history of companies selling products that either did nothing at all or hurt or killed people.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a longer list of companies/businesses selling products that worked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is moot. We don't need oversight from those companies. Just because there are companies that do things right doesn't mean that some organization isn't needed to protect the people from those that don't. Especially with something as potentially harmful as pharmacueticals.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Cheaper" does not include only monetary figures.

[/ QUOTE ]

So again, how is government magically able to do this cheaper?

[/ QUOTE ] In 2004, GlaxoSmithKline hid from the public its findings that its popular anti-depressants are causing an alarmingly high rate of suicide among takers. Ther issue came out when the FDA finally succumbed to pressure from consumer organisations and initiated fraud charges against the big pharmaceutical.

Admittedly, the case shows two things which are not too gooid for our case in favor of an FDA: (1) The FDA did not ban the drugs, as it should, and seemed in its attitude (and speed) in the case, to want to protect the pharamceutical from consumer lawsuits, and (2) a lot of people have already died (the other cost i was referring to) until the FDA took action.

Still, that's the organised society's way of doing things; that's the government way, in short. What's the alternative in the brave, "anarcho"-capitalist world, where GlaxoSmithKline and its capital rule supreme? Why, it's the free market way! People have to die in big numbers until the public (the consumers [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) wise up.

Remember, they will have to face an onslaught of indignant denial by GlaxoSmithKline, over TV, billboards and the press. The numbers of dead, in the absence of any organised opposition, will have to be truly high.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about building a road in order to own it? You're not gonna stop me from buying one mile of road, are you?

[/ QUOTE ] No. But you can't make someone sell you just one mile, either.

[/ QUOTE ]In theory (and inthe AC world) I most certainly can !

It is quite telling that in your previous post, you resorted to the "efficiency" of the market. Efficiency, you wrote, will take care of people owning one mile of road each. Which recognized that owning one mile of road each is ...well, not efficient!

So what have I been saying all along that's different?

The very idea of roads being owned by persons instead of everybody is not just silly, it's not efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
How dumb are you? Do you get confused when you move from a road that has a 30mph speed limit with two lanes to a eight-lane divided superhighway with a 70mph limit?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not getting confused -- although I begin to suspect I am dumb to continue to debate silly notions such as ...all-private land! The reason no motorist is getting confised is that signage is universal. And, if you must know, the universality, has not been imposed by some private whippersnappers but ..well, governments and government agencies. This is why when you get to Turkey for your holidays and you see this sign, you can safely assume that the sign means the road ends in an impasse -- and doesn't mean that you must be wearing a red turban to proceed any further!(That's what I'd have that sign mean in my piece of the road. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or your choice to follow your own rules and regulations when speeding past the intersection.

[/ QUOTE ] Now you're moving the goalposts. First you were concerned about every road owner having different rules. Now you're using a scenario where everyone makes his own rules regardless of the owner's wishes.

[/ QUOTE ] Still stuck in the intersection ? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

OK, explain to me how you would know every "owner's wishes" before crossing each intersection??

Would it be some kind of guesswork or telepathy?

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument comes down to "if you don't agree with me, you must believe the most ridiculous thing I can possibly think of".

[/ QUOTE ] That strcily depends on your arguments, so far. Do you disagree that a series of intersections with the same signs but meaning different things would make a great comedy sketch? (We can have Vulturesrow flying overhead and following his own choice of flying rules too!)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Good grief. "Please big brother let us have our medicine"???? WTF.

Thanks Uncle Joe for watching out for me.
Ah the experts. Thank god we have experts to manage our lives for us and decide what risks we can tolerate.

[/ QUOTE ]You seem to have some strange aversion to the routine practice of entrusting something to people who know more. I will presume that you are not so foolish as to believe that a person, e.g. you, can know everything. And since a person cannot know everything, it is practical to entrust certain decisions to people who do know more -- in a probable manner, such as entrusting the makers of a certain clothes brand that the shirt you are buying is not gonna poison you. (Examples from daily life are myriad.)

For certain things, those experts are given more than advisory privileges; they are given real, executive authority. (This is where anarchists start loading up the molotovs!) This course presents society with both the benefits of cutting down "transaction costs" in a million endeavours and the dangers of excess authority usurped by those experts. For the former, various posters have already commented (and it's truly something elementary). For the latter, what can I say that has not been said throughout modern history a million times? We have to be vigilant. For everything "good" that an FDA is doing, we must be weary of a "bad" thing it might be doing. (The FDA has been accused, many times, on fronting for the very corporations it's supposed to watch over!)

But assigning part of your responsibilities and rights as a citizen to someone else, with presumably more authority, is not the same thing as succumbing to tyranny! We would be slaves every time we were stopping at a red light! In the old days of ancient Athenian democracy, arguably one of the most enlightened and libertarian (also, libertine [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) regimes ever, the people chose their political leadership among themselves, and were not too fond of "professional" politicians. Who were a rare animal anyway. (Sometimes they even exiled political leaders for simply getting on their nerves too much. I.e. for no other reason than that they overstayed their welcome, e.g. Aristide.) BUT whenever an executive, non-political position was to be filled, such as architect of the fleet, or military general, or city treasurer, etc, i.e. positions with executive authority over actions by others, the position was always filled with persons which were deemed to be the best at 'em. (This translates, in Greek, to aristocracy, i.e. the rule of the most able.) It was unthinkable for a non-competent person to submit a candidacy.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
How do other first-world countries manage the issue without having the FDA? Or do they have an equivalent?

[/ QUOTE ] They do have the equivalent of an FDA. In the EU, they also have a pan-European authority overseeing the activities of the pharmaceuticals.

They seem to manage OK. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The fundamental disagreement is that most transactions are not just between the party doing the buying and the selling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are.

[ QUOTE ]
The society has, and should have, an interest in the transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society has no interests. Individuals do. Even if society did have interests, how would you determine them? Can you call society up on the phone and ask him?

[ QUOTE ]
In our society there is a compelling interest in a society not being stuck with the costs of bad drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm supposed to take your word for it? How does society get stuck with this cost, anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
Even though the FDA (and no organization can reach the goal) is not perfect, it at least implements a minimum set of hurdles for a manufacturer to back up its claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the only way to do that is with a coercively funded monopoly?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because there are companies that do things right doesn't mean that some organization isn't needed to protect the people from those that don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is advocating that people should be prevented from obtaining such protection?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In 2004, GlaxoSmithKline hid from the public its findings that its popular anti-depressants are causing an alarmingly high rate of suicide among takers. Ther issue came out when the FDA finally succumbed to pressure from consumer organisations and initiated fraud charges against the big pharmaceutical.

Admittedly, the case shows two things which are not too gooid for our case in favor of an FDA: (1) The FDA did not ban the drugs, as it should, and seemed in its attitude (and speed) in the case, to want to protect the pharamceutical from consumer lawsuits, and (2) a lot of people have already died (the other cost i was referring to) until the FDA took action.

Still, that's the organised society's way of doing things; that's the government way, in short.

[/ QUOTE ]

The status quo is justified because it's the status quo.

[ QUOTE ]
People have to die in big numbers until the public (the consumers [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) wise up.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what happened in your example. The FDA's monopoly testing failed, and the failure was catastrophic. Good example.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, they will have to face an onslaught of indignant denial by GlaxoSmithKline, over TV, billboards and the press. The numbers of dead, in the absence of any organised opposition, will have to be truly high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, nobody in this universe is capable of testing any of these drugs. Only the FDA can do that (even though they don't actually do that, they just rubber stamp the tests of the manufacturer).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about building a road in order to own it? You're not gonna stop me from buying one mile of road, are you?

[/ QUOTE ] No. But you can't make someone sell you just one mile, either.

[/ QUOTE ]In theory (and inthe AC world) I most certainly can !

[/ QUOTE ]

You can buy a mile of road, if someone will sell it to you. That's different than making someone sell it to you (which, of course, the government *can* do).

[ QUOTE ]
It is quite telling that in your previous post, you resorted to the "efficiency" of the market. Efficiency, you wrote, will take care of people owning one mile of road each. Which recognized that owning one mile of road each is ...well, not efficient!

So what have I been saying all along that's different?

The very idea of roads being owned by persons instead of everybody is not just silly, it's not efficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

More CyLogic: it's inefficient for a person to own one mile of road, therefore it is inefficient for a person to own any amount of road.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason no motorist is getting confised is that signage is universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? And you can only get that by monopolizing the roads?

If you buy a VCR, and you figure out how to use it, you can go use any other VCR without destroying your tapes. Why is that? Different companies, yet they all work the same. Amazing.

CyLogic: if different firms are allowed to build roads, they will use the most confusing signs possible, because their is some unwritten business incentive to confuse your customers.

[ QUOTE ]
(That's what I'd have that sign mean in my piece of the road. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])



[/ QUOTE ]

Knock yourself out. Making your signs deliberately confusing sounds like a good way to drive customers to your competition.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your argument comes down to "if you don't agree with me, you must believe the most ridiculous thing I can possibly think of".

[/ QUOTE ] That strcily depends on your arguments, so far. Do you disagree that a series of intersections with the same signs but meaning different things would make a great comedy sketch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Now why would that actually occur? Road developers are going to spend big bucks on roads then put lights that are green in all four directions at the intersection just to [censored] with people? "Hey dummy, green means stop!"

What would really be comedy would be to see you try to run a business with your belief that, absent regulations, you must always do whatever possible to confuse and endanger your customers.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have some strange aversion to the routine practice of entrusting something to people who know more.

[/ QUOTE ]

More CyLogic: not supporting a single unaccountable monopoly advisory committee means that no advisory committees will be allowed to exist.

He's already said he likes advisory capability. He doesn't think the decisions of any one advisory committee should be binding, and that people should be free to use any advisory committee they want.

[ QUOTE ]
such as entrusting the makers of a certain clothes brand that the shirt you are buying is not gonna poison you. (Examples from daily life are myriad.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to trust the manufacturer? Don't you need a Federal Shirt Authority to review the testing methodology?

[ QUOTE ]
For certain things, those experts are given more than advisory privileges; they are given real, executive authority. (This is where anarchists start loading up the molotovs!)

[/ QUOTE ]

More lecture. CyStrategy: when faced with a normative argument, counter with a descriptive argument.

Debater: "It would be better to do X than to do Y."
Cyrus: "Y is the status quo."

Brilliant.

[ QUOTE ]
(The FDA has been accused, many times, on fronting for the very corporations it's supposed to watch over!)

[/ QUOTE ]

What? A government monopoly, corrupted? Impossible!

[ QUOTE ]
In the old days of ancient Athenian democracy ... the position was always filled with persons which were deemed to be the best at 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using which definition of "best"?

[ QUOTE ]
(This translates, in Greek, to aristocracy, i.e. the rule of the most able.) It was unthinkable for a non-competent person to submit a candidacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, great. Now just type that up in an email and send it to every government bureaucrat, and all the crappy ones will instantly resign.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
They seem to manage OK. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people aspire to more than "OK".

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is advocating that people should be prevented from obtaining such protection?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear BCPVP and many of the people arguing against the need for the FDA (the ones arguing that the market will naturally take care of it). I've been saying I think the FDA (or an organization like it) is needed to provide such protection.