FDA Ignores Religious Fundamentalists' Objections

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was actually addressing the ACers not the libs.

The hypothesis floated by this guys is that all transactions are between individuals and that society has not interest in the transaction. I dont buy that line at all. I think there are few if any transactions in which society does not have an interest.

To address the ownership question, how about if a 60 year old perv offers money directly to a 10,12, 15 year old. Here is a clear economic transaction and the state has a compelling interest to the point where it is and should be illegal. In other transaction (such as drugs) there is a similar interest, IMO.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem here? Is Anarcho Capitalism part of pvn's utopia or not? I want to know which transactions he wants his utopia to disallow, this one?

[kurto]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]


Umm. Its been proven that there were no shortages. Enron shut down power to create false shortages. There are tapes of the traders asking the powerplants to find reasons to shut down their plants. The traders admitted that they did it. And it was the deregulation of the energy market, at their request, that allowed them to game the market.

Nice try.

[kurto]

The regulated markets have been deregulated of late and with the deregulation have come the problems. The Enron scandal being the prime example. By deregulating the market (and appointing their own people into the govt that's supposed to provide oversight), Enron was able to bilk CA out of billions. (beyond all the other fraud they committed)

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
To address the ownership question, how about if a 60 year old perv offers money directly to a 10,12, 15 year old. Here is a clear economic transaction and the state has a compelling interest to the point where it is and should be illegal. In other transaction (such as drugs) there is a similar interest, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not really disagreeing that society might have "interests" in transactions people make. Religious fundamentalists have much interest in banning gay marriage. Company A has an interest in the transactions of company B. Virtually every transaction affects someone else, unintentionally, in some way.

But so what? You have no inherent right to make people act in a way to meet yours or anyone else's "interests".

And I disagree with your example--I don't think that such transactions ought to be illegal, without qualification. If thats what they want to do, its their business, not mine.
But I also think that such situations can be handled by communities which may have rules about such things.
I don't think large centralized states have the authority to ban such transactions, but smaller, closer communities, where people have a practical method of "voting with their feet", could deal with such undesirable transactions.

[Cyrus]

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

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not "pro-state". My arguments (and very clearly, I believe) are NOT in support of the ...maginificence and the omniscience of the state. I do not know if you are an "anarcho"-capitalist, but most "anarcho"-capitalists, like every manichean utopian in history, tend to divide the world in two; them - and everybody else.

[ QUOTE ]
You have just argued that a government intermediary reduces transaction costs?!?

[/ QUOTE ]In a number of cases, yes, most certainly. Such as the examples we have been discussing, i.e. drugs, roads.

Can't you see why?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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. [Pvn] is NOT, as you so dishonestly claimed, arguing that everyone own a mile of road.

[/ QUOTE ] I'll be gentle with you.

Read the pvn posts again. He never claimed (and I did not claim he did either) that "everyone owns a mile of road"! Not in the sense that everyone should own a lime of road.

What pvn did is he argued that, if that was to happen, where would be the problem?
Here is one exchange to that effect:

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus: "Again with the "privatize-all-roads" obsession! You must be assuming that every private owner of those private roads will have the same rules and regulations and signs across the country."

pvn : "Every building I go into has different, unstandardized signs for the restrooms. Somehow, though, I manage to find the men's room without confusion."

[/ QUOTE ]My emphasis. And here:

[ QUOTE ]
pvn : "When I walk into a building, all of the floors are owned by someone, but in most cases, the floors have a single owner. Why would road ownership be divided up into small chunks of a mile or less? And either way [emphasis added], why should I be afraid of this? I drive on roads with different owners all the time."

[/ QUOTE ] So, pvn argues that people owning one mile of road each would present "no confusion" and we should "not be afraid" of such a state of affairs. But then pvn argued that the ...free and unfettered market of "anarcho"-capitalism would not allow such a state of affairs! And I wonder, why would we want the market to take care of such a state of affairs if it causes "no confusion"??

Case statement here :

[ QUOTE ]
pvn : "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."

[/ QUOTE ]In so many words, pvn states that one-mile stretches of road, each built by a different person and possibly also owned by a different person are NOT efficient !

I believe that you owe yourself a more careful re-reading of pvn's posts - and to me an apology.

--Cyrus

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To address the ownership question, how about if a 60 year old perv offers money directly to a 10,12, 15 year old. Here is a clear economic transaction and the state has a compelling interest to the point where it is and should be illegal. In other transaction (such as drugs) there is a similar interest, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not really disagreeing that society might have "interests" in transactions people make. Religious fundamentalists have much interest in banning gay marriage. Company A has an interest in the transactions of company B. Virtually every transaction affects someone else, unintentionally, in some way.

But so what? You have no inherent right to make people act in a way to meet yours or anyone else's "interests".

And I disagree with your example--I don't think that such transactions ought to be illegal, without qualification. If thats what they want to do, its their business, not mine.
But I also think that such situations can be handled by communities which may have rules about such things.
I don't think large centralized states have the authority to ban such transactions, but smaller, closer communities, where people have a practical method of "voting with their feet", could deal with such undesirable transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you consider that society has an interest in transactions, the level of the society at which that transaction should take place merits much and reasonable discussion.

For example, on this forum, I have argued that Feds should have little to do with Schools and that should be a local community initiative. The Dept of Education should be abolished or at least crippled.

However, in the three way (at least) transaction between me, my chemist and a pharma company, it would makes sense that the transaction draw the interest of the Feds rather than individual villages. So, when I am in an accident, and am not the one deciding which hospital to go to, which brand of pain killer to use, I can have some knowledge that some, societally agreed to, group has vetted the pain killer so that is works and is reasonable safe - rather than have a drug chosen by the Hospital,Pharma cabal perhaps for financial reasons be the choice. I like the fact that there is some level of regulation of the Hospitals for safety, of the doctors for credentials, the drugs for being reasonable.

To say that in the long run the bad hospitals go out of biz, is not comforting to me during the ambulance trip to the hospital.

Not perfect, but there you have it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They seem to manage OK.

[/ QUOTE ]Some people aspire to more than "OK".

[/ QUOTE ]I salute your noble sentiments. Despite our differences of opinion, I accept that striving for a better world is not to be scoffed at.

Of course, 'what is a better world' and 'how to go there' are the basis of every political discussion.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
It's no big surprise that it does little seeing as an ever growing number of emminent scientists seem to agree that HIV doesn't even cause AIDS at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tinfoil hat alert.

[ QUOTE ]
there is good reason to believe that it's actually drugs like AZT that cause AIDS

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. What exactly was killing all those gay people, IV drug users, and blood recipients before anybody was even prescibing AZT? What's killing all those people in Africa that aren't getting any drugs? If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, what is?