FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[pvn]

[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

They are (and I am) arguing that the market will provide this advisory function.

[ QUOTE ]
I've been saying I think the FDA (or an organization like it) is needed to provide such protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to advocate coercive funding, I hope you can do better than "I think".

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
They are (and I am) arguing that the market will provide this advisory function.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I and others have pointed out that this doesn't work. (Which is why these organizations were created in the first place.)

I don't know has led anyone to think the market magically protects people. Like when the Energy Markets were deregulated, how quickly Enron manipulated the market to exploit billions from California. Businesses don't naturally do what's right because the market demands it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to advocate coercive funding, I hope you can do better than "I think".

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I know.

[ACPlayer]

Is it fair to say that in your world a father selling a 10 year daughter is a transaction that is of no interest to anyone other than the buyer, seller, and the goods being purchased?

Assuming you have carved out an exception for this case, I suggest that your principle is not sacrosanct. Then it is a question of which transactions and what interests society has.

Assuming that you think this transaction is one that should be allowed in your utopia --- well count me out. Gary Glitter would like to join you in this world.

[Cyrus]

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

[/ QUOTE ] I explain further on in the post that I'm not just referring to "advisory committees" but entrusting others with real authority over decisions affecting the citizenry.

What you call "cylogic" is obviously reading in haste.

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

[/ QUOTE ] There are authorities supervising things. Not that those authorities are totally incorruptible; not that they are not oftentimes on the side of the manufacturer, rather thasn the consumer; not that they cover everything (an impossibility); not that I am "protected2 completely; etc.

I know al that stuff. And I still want someone to police over the shirt manufacturer. The alternative is to go back to the era of sweatshops, when acronyms like OSHA were not even a gleam in the turants' eye. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm sure you're very fond of modern sweatshops, too. I mean, the ideological excuse for child labor to the death in the Third World can't be that hard to formulate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For certain things, those experts are given more than advisory privileges; they are given real, executive authority.

[/ QUOTE ]


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."


[/ QUOTE ] Now you are babbling. I described what goes on in everyday life, throughout society and throughout the ages. (Which is not something "new" and it's not something "deviant".) That this happens to be the "status quo" as you put it is something to ponder andf examine.

You'd realize a lot of useful things (about humans) if you'd analyze such things a bit more instead of relying on pseudo-philosophical (and pseudo-anarchic) musings of the von Hayek variety.

[ QUOTE ]
What? A government monopoly, corrupted? Impossible!


[/ QUOTE ] Your sarcasm is wasted. I know abt the inherent weaknesses of organised systems, especially hierarchical organisations. This understanding is incorporated into everything I'm posting here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] There can not always be a consensus on that. But the quest was for the best to fill the appropriate slots - especially in times of war (and they were waging alot of it back then!) The "best" architect of the fleet was selected, for instance, among those naval engineers who have shown the best results, promoted the science of shipmaking, etc.

Imagine that! An organised democracy making decisions that affect every citizen without a referendum every five minutes! However did they manage to defeat the Persians? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it fair to say that in your world a father selling a 10 year daughter is a transaction that is of no interest to anyone other than the buyer, seller, and the goods being purchased?

[/ QUOTE ]

????

Libertarians believe in self-ownership. A ten year old girl owns herself. I would hope most libertarians would find such a transaction unallowable, but not because it "society's" business, but because it is the girls' business.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it fair to say that in your world a father selling a 10 year daughter is a transaction that is of no interest to anyone other than the buyer, seller, and the goods being purchased?

Assuming you have carved out an exception for this case, I suggest that your principle is not sacrosanct. Then it is a question of which transactions and what interests society has.

Assuming that you think this transaction is one that should be allowed in your utopia --- well count me out. Gary Glitter would like to join you in this world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was there any need for the bolded word other than intentionally being an ass?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
And I and others have pointed out that this doesn't work. (Which is why these organizations were created in the first place.)

I don't know has led anyone to think the market magically protects people. Like when the Energy Markets were deregulated, how quickly Enron manipulated the market to exploit billions from California. Businesses don't naturally do what's right because the market demands it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But every example you and everyone else on here has given is from a highly regulated market, one tilted HEAVILY in favor of the big businesses you are decrying!

How this can possibly be an argument against the free market is beyond me.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Still stuck in the intersection ?

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 ]

I have a hard time beleiving someone intelligent, like you, can really beleive that in the absence of coercive government, such problems would arise. There are countless customs encountered everyday that work fine without coercion or written law, common law that works without monopolistic government, and standards and regularities that exist without government decree (but without government, all the banks will make different-sized credit cards! Chaos will ensue because nobody can do business with people from different banks!)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still stuck in the intersection ?

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 ]

I have a hard time beleiving someone intelligent, like you, can really beleive that in the absence of coercive government, such problems would arise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he can admit that he is wrong. Better to obfuscate than admit someone else might be right. You see it in politics all the time.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The status quo is justified because it's the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ] So the tactic now is to make the argument for the other party as well.

Where did I justify something just because it's the "status quo"? I don't. But we cannot ignore something that's being done for ages by humans; on the contrary we have to analyze the real world. ACers, on the other hand, are passionate abt spherical cows.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People have to die in big numbers until the public (the consumers ) 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 ] You got it wrong in so many ways! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

First, without the FDA the deaths would have still happened. If anything, they would have been much more, most probably. (The "true cost" I was referring to.)

Second, the FDA was late in that incident! (Various consumer groups were pressing for an outright ban.) The FDA people responsible should be punished and the process revisited and improved.

The FDA is already NOT doing enough/everything it could (and should) do towards the pharmaceuticals' many malpractices. You'd want the FDA totally dismantled, which ensures minimization of the respective effort...

Acers seem to be having problems with matters that are not black or white.

[ 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 ] It was you who wrote that it's inefficient! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] And since you are so fond of "efficiency", shouldn't you re-examine a system that allows for such blatant inefficiencies? (On the one hand, you are trying to argue that a system whereby each person owns a mile of the road won't be so bad after all, what with the precedent of ..buildings! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] On the other hand, you are arguing that this won't really happen because the AC world sees off such inefficiencies. Well, now, you gotta stop shifting. You are arguing at the same time that the situation would be "without really a problem" AND inefficient! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

You are an intelligent person. You will, perhaps, realize the transience of notions such as "personal property" or "ownership". I have already provided a few books as reference.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? And you can only get that by monopolizing the roads?

[/ QUOTE ]Nope. Simply by having authorised & competent persons from all societies agreeing (voluntarily) to adopt the universal signage everywhere. Arithmetically, the task would be vastly more difficult if we'd leave it to each provate proprietor to decide the signage on "his" piece of the road. (A cursory look at the variety of representativeness among cultures would suffice for that.)

BTW, I don't understand what's so great about monopolizing the roads (the only way to bring universal signage, in your world?) -- since this implies profiteering from the roads! Why should everything be put to the test of Profit & Loss in order for it to be optimized? And what the hell great is there abt "optimizing" everything ??

The hell with financial optimization.