FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think that the presence of the FDA stops drugs from saving mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what they do - stop drugs from reaching markets.

[/ QUOTE ]That's not what I asked. I said you think that the presence of the FDA stops drugs from saving mankind. It doesn't.

Go through the assumptions associated with a claim to the contrary - and you'll see the relevance of my elaboration on the significance of drugs.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[sarcastically]
Obviously, the solution is to replace the current set of bozos with a new set of bozos. Then everything will be wonderful and there will be daisies and bunnies and everyone will have a pony.
<font color="white"> .</font>
Who's the utopian idealist??

[/ QUOTE ]It's funny when you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then do the very thing yourself to the opposition - and in the same thread too ! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I'll be brief: I have no illusions abt the frailty of human endeavors, in general, or the wretchedness of the human condition. I am not offering any panaceas. I'm suggesting the slightest of efforts towards a more accomodating way of living together - as we must. The manichean world view is mostly an AC specialty. (Not that they are the only specialists in it, of course.) And so is the utopian aspect of their world view -- very misplaced as well, in that it places front, line and center the ...financial measurement of things.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, you have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people in this forum. Or your an idiot. But I know you're a smart guy, so it's gotta be the former.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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. [On the other hand, you are arguing that this won't really happen because the AC world sees off such inefficiencies.]

[/ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, you have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people in this forum. Or your an idiot. But I know you're a smart guy, so it's gotta be the former.

[/ QUOTE ]Fine. You are challenged to show where exactly and in what have I been dishonest in the ongoing argument - or in that specific quote.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should everything be put to the test of Profit &amp; Loss in order for it to be optimized? And what the hell great is there abt "optimizing" everything ??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because "profits and losses" are how companies and other people find out what is optimal. The alternative is statist central planning, and it doesn't work either in theory or in practice.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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. [On the other hand, you are arguing that this won't really happen because the AC world sees off such inefficiencies.]

[/ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, you have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people in this forum. Or your an idiot. But I know you're a smart guy, so it's gotta be the former.

[/ QUOTE ]Fine. You are challenged to show where exactly and in what have I been dishonest in the ongoing argument - or in that specific quote.

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy. He is NOT, as you so dishonestly claimed, arguing that everyone own a mile of road. You would have to be an utter moron to think that, and I know you're not an uttern moron.

From pvn:
[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see any reason to assume that people are going to have an interest in developing a one-mile stretch of road between two other one-mile stretches of road. Efficiencies suggest that if you're going to go through all the trouble of building a road, you'll build more than one mile. Of course, some people might, in certain situations, choose to build a one-mile road.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have been trying to force through a false dichotomy of either one-mile road ownership or total government monopoloy. PVN has noted that it wouldn't be all that efficient for all the roads to be owned by different owners in one mile increments. Therefore it was dishonest of you to misrepresent his position that way, and you know it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

The "Enron" debacle in California was caused by regulation, not deregulation. The wholesale electricity markets were deregulated, while the consumer market was price capped. When wholesale prices when up, what happened? The same thing that always happens with price caps - shortages.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

No, because the father doesn't own his ten-year-old daughter. Or anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you consider the fundamental axiom (self-ownership) an exception, then yeah, you got me.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I don't understand what's so great about monopolizing the roads

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the lightbulb starting to glow???

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the pro-statist arguments made by Cyrus here, this is right up there with the worst of them.

Cyrus, you have just argued that a government intermediary reduces transaction costs?!?

Seriously, come on now.