|
|
#51
06-11-2006, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC THX 1138
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not interested in talking about my personal utopia where everything works exactly like I want. [/ QUOTE ] That's *exactly* what you want to talk about. [/ QUOTE ] No, you're obviously wrong. Read on. [/ QUOTE ] ... [ QUOTE ] But what is said here is that people who oppose or criticize "anarcho"-capitalism have the advantage of living and breathing (as you do too!) in a world which is closer to their idea of how best to run a society. [/ QUOTE ] So I'm wrong, but you agree with me? 
|
|
#53
06-11-2006, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reality (what a concept)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Have you not heard before of scientists passing judgement on other scientists' findings? [/ QUOTE ] Usually when that happens, the judges attempt to reproduce the findings. [/ QUOTE ] Excuse me, what? I guess that takes care of the peer review process. Ah well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The suggestion that ONLY the private corporations are ALWAYS the best at making decisions and setting standards which affect more than themselves (e.g. who will fly a planeful of passengers over the cities) does not even pass the giggle test. [/ QUOTE ] Why? Because private corporations can increase profits by having their planes crash into cities? [/ QUOTE ]It's problematic trying to show people like you, who think in absolutist/manichean terms, that not everything is black and not everything is white. I already told you: The main problem is not obviously qualified pilots or obviously unqualified pilots (we are using airplane pilots as an example) -- but people who are neither obviously qualified nor obviously unqualified, as pilots. Get it yet ? Also, I already told you that the process of sorting the lot through an AC, "free-market", free-for-all "process" would be costly in every sense of the word. [ QUOTE ] Why would road ownership be divided up into small chunks of a mile or less? [/ QUOTE ] Why would it not ? Are you suggesting some kinda government law (the horror! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) that would impose a minimum of "private road ownership" of, say, fifty miles ?... BTW, I read your blather about my supposedly devious debating tacticts and it's unworthy of a response. Try and concentrate on the issue: You think the reason that most public roads are ..well, public has something to do with ...tyranny or something, and it's not just a matter of obvious, elementary practicality? Then prove it. History is against you. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So if the government doesn't test drugs, you'll have no choice but to blindly believe whatever the producer of the drug tells you? Even though that's what you're doing now, since the FDA bases their decisions on data supplied by the manufacturer? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, that's what I do -- only they are not (as you deviously call 'em) just "bureaucrats"; they are scientists. [/ QUOTE ] So you *do* blindly believe whatever the manufacturer tells you? [/ QUOTE ] What part exactly don't you understand abt using a second tier of scientists (who are *not* working for the manufacturer) to help me make up my mind abt drug XYZ which the manufacturers' scientists claim it's good for me? But I forgot that the very notion of peer review is alien to you. Alright. Explain to me then how an "anarcho"-capitalist would go about choosing a drug (just think of the situation as an emergency) amongst many choices without any information at all from an outside scientific agency such as the FDA? You have drug "Cheapodrix", "Toxicalgine" and "Placebol" to choose from and the kid is trmebling from a fever. No FDA seal of approval, no nothing. No doctor is anywhere to be found -- and the pharmacist guy is an "anarcho"-capitalist like you! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Tell me, I'm taking down notes already. [ QUOTE ] How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years? [/ QUOTE ]Our topic happens to involve drugs. We could be using other examples of "anarcho"-capitalist impasses. I gotta confess I have a lot of insight into the matter from a close relative, a general surgeon (now retired), who has used in his life only the absolute minimum of drugs. (Yes, he did anaesthetize 'em! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) He also performed surgery only when necessary -a rarity among surgeons, this-- but that's not relevant. Trust me when I tell you this: Man needs very, very, very few drugs in life to get by in life. If you don't get anything else out of our little exchanges, take this: You could spend the rest of your life outside the reach of drugs and most probably not be affected at all by that (outside of some serious viral outbreak). On the other hand, it is the explicit objective of drug manufacturers to treat drugs as any other product, such as CDs, athletic shoes or chocolates: Drugs need to be "improved", "re-packaged", "expand their share in the market", "raise their unit profit margins", etc. It's a most unfortunate situation and we must recognize it for what it is. [ QUOTE ] If someone thinks that [having the FDA around] is good for him, then I have no problem with it. Feel free to fund the FDA on your own and abide by its recommendations. Why do you need to force other people to pay for it and force them to follow its recommendations? [/ QUOTE ] We live in a system of democracy. You have to demonstrate a practical way, for you, of living amongst other people (who have chosen or are simply content to live in a democracy) without causing havoc to their way of living, by refusing to pay taxes, tolls, etc. Beyond arguing the theoretical pros and cons of "anarcho"-capitalism, you have to find a way to live amongst the subjects of "democratic tyranny" -- at least for awhile; until your vision of "anarcho"-capitalism becomes a reality, I mean. That's the best I can offer to you, honestly, and to any other utopian visionary.
|
|
#54
06-11-2006, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reality (what a concept)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Have you not heard before of scientists passing judgement on other scientists' findings? [/ QUOTE ] Usually when that happens, the judges attempt to reproduce the findings. [/ QUOTE ] Excuse me, what? I guess that takes care of the peer review process. Ah well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] You admit the FDA doesn't reproduce anything, they just review data. In the "real" scientific world, when a scientist claims X, other scientists try to reproduce X. That's how cold fusion was found to be bogus. Nobody could reproduce it. [ QUOTE ] I already told you: The main problem is not obviously qualified pilots or obviously unqualified pilots (we are using airplane pilots as an example) -- but people who are neither obviously qualified nor obviously unqualified, as pilots. Get it yet ? [/ QUOTE ] Got it. And why is government magically better at this task than anyone else? [ QUOTE ] Also, I already told you that the process of sorting the lot through an AC, "free-market", free-for-all "process" would be costly in every sense of the word. [/ QUOTE ] How is government magically able to do this cheaper? What's the special sauce? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why would road ownership be divided up into small chunks of a mile or less? [/ QUOTE ] Why would it not ? Are you suggesting some kinda government law (the horror! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) that would impose a minimum of "private road ownership" of, say, fifty miles ?... [/ 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 ] BTW, I read your blather about my supposedly devious debating tacticts and it's unworthy of a response. Try and concentrate on the issue: You think the reason that most public roads are ..well, public has something to do with ...tyranny or something, and it's not just a matter of obvious, elementary practicality? Then prove it. History is against you. [/ QUOTE ] So it's impractical to have roads with different owners every mile. Therefore, the alternative to government owning all roads is to have different owners every mile. What an argument. [ QUOTE ] What part exactly don't you understand abt using a second tier of scientists (who are *not* working for the manufacturer) to help me make up my mind abt drug XYZ which the manufacturers' scientists claim it's good for me? [/ QUOTE ] Where have I said you should be prevented from getting expert opinions? [ QUOTE ] But I forgot that the very notion of peer review is alien to you. Alright. Explain to me then how an "anarcho"-capitalist would go about choosing a drug (just think of the situation as an emergency) amongst many choices without any information at all from an outside scientific agency such as the FDA? You have drug "Cheapodrix", "Toxicalgine" and "Placebol" to choose from and the kid is trmebling from a fever. [/ QUOTE ] Who said you can't get any information? The alternative to government-supplied information is no information. It's always the same. The alternative to government is living in a cave. [ QUOTE ] No FDA seal of approval, no nothing. No doctor is anywhere to be found -- and the pharmacist guy is an "anarcho"-capitalist like you! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Yes, all doctors will be prevented from issuing advice. This gets better and better. Remember what I said about your tactic of using nonsensical arguments? That you decided wasn't worth responding to? You're doing it again. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years? [/ QUOTE ]Our topic happens to involve drugs. We could be using other examples of "anarcho"-capitalist impasses. I gotta confess I have a lot of insight into the matter from a close relative, a general surgeon (now retired), who has used in his life only the absolute minimum of drugs. (Yes, he did anaesthetize 'em! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) He also performed surgery only when necessary -a rarity among surgeons, this-- but that's not relevant. Trust me when I tell you this: Man needs very, very, very few drugs in life to get by in life. If you don't get anything else out of our little exchanges, take this: You could spend the rest of your life outside the reach of drugs and most probably not be affected at all by that (outside of some serious viral outbreak). On the other hand, it is the explicit objective of drug manufacturers to treat drugs as any other product, such as CDs, athletic shoes or chocolates: Drugs need to be "improved", "re-packaged", "expand their share in the market", "raise their unit profit margins", etc. It's a most unfortunate situation and we must recognize it for what it is. [/ QUOTE ] So it's not necessary, therefore we need someone to prevent us from getting it. People survived before the internet, therefore the government should arbitrarily restrict its use, since it's obviously not vital. Internet providers are just trying to get rich off of non-vital services! [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If someone thinks that [having the FDA around] is good for him, then I have no problem with it. Feel free to fund the FDA on your own and abide by its recommendations. Why do you need to force other people to pay for it and force them to follow its recommendations? [/ QUOTE ] We live in a system of democracy. You have to demonstrate a practical way, for you, of living amongst other people (who have chosen or are simply content to live in a democracy) without causing havoc to their way of living, by refusing to pay taxes, tolls, etc. Beyond arguing the theoretical pros and cons of "anarcho"-capitalism, you have to find a way to live amongst the subjects of "democratic tyranny" -- at least for awhile; until your vision of "anarcho"-capitalism becomes a reality, I mean. That's the best I can offer to you, honestly, and to any other utopian visionary. [/ QUOTE ] My choice to take experimental cancer drugs (which I probably don't need) is going to cause havoc to your way of living?
|
|
#55
06-11-2006, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Go ahead
[ QUOTE ]
You admit the FDA doesn't reproduce anything, they just review data. In the "real" scientific world, when a scientist claims X, other scientists try to reproduce X. That's how cold fusion was found to be bogus. Nobody could reproduce it. [/ QUOTE ]This is not the only way that peers review one's work. Before you embarass yourself further by persisting that scientists must try and reproduce their colleagues' experimental results before passing judgement, run a damn google. There must be something out there. [ QUOTE ] And why is government magically better at this task than anyone else? How is government magically able to do this cheaper? What's the special sauce? [/ QUOTE ] You did not understand the point. Cost does not include only monetary figures. (The giveaway should have been the words "costly in every sense of the word".) [ QUOTE ] 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 ] 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? And possibly creating a trading market, futures an' all, with miles of road as the traded unit? And how all of a sudden "efficiency" comes into play, to magically and immediately optimize things in your world? Until we get to a point of "efficiency" (or "equilibrium", or whatever), we're supposed to go through a bit of trials and tribulations! [ QUOTE ] So it's impractical to have roads with different owners every mile. Therefore, the alternative to government owning all roads is to have different owners every mile. What an argument. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say it was the only alternative, I said that it is a very distinct possibility - and it renders the whole argument abt all public roads being actually private completely unworkable. (One immediately sees the need to have universal rules and regulations for traffic not to stand still!) Your debating tactics BTW are getting more and more obtuse. [ QUOTE ] So it's not necessary [to always take drugs], therefore we need someone to prevent us from getting it. [/ QUOTE ]I'm merely pointing out to you something useful abt drugs, since drugs happen to be the topic we're using as an example. Ignore the advice if you want, it has nothing to do anyway with the issue. (I brought it up only because you wrote "How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years?" You'd be surprised by how few!) [ QUOTE ] Who said you can't get any information? The alternative to government-supplied information is no information. It's always the same. The alternative to government is living in a cave. [/ QUOTE ] Certainly you would get information! You'd get information from different doctors -chosen by you-, evaluate the information and then proceed according to your own, individual judgement, right? I guess I can't get it across that this involves a tremendous amount of time lost. Every time you want to make any informed decision you want everything to start from zero. The very idea that someone might have judged something as dangerous before you make your own judgement is anathema. Alrighty. [ QUOTE ] My choice to take experimental cancer drugs ... is going to cause havoc to your way of living? [/ QUOTE ] No. But your choice to stop paying taxes might. Or your choice to follow your own rules and regulations when speeding past the intersection.
|
|
#56
06-11-2006, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Go ahead
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And why is government magically better at this task than anyone else? How is government magically able to do this cheaper? What's the special sauce? [/ QUOTE ] You did not understand the point. Cost does not include only monetary figures. (The giveaway should have been the words "costly in every sense of the word".) [/ QUOTE ] "Cheaper" does not include only monetary figures. So again, how is government magically able to do this cheaper? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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 ] 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. And again, 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? There are vastly different (non-universal!) rules for driving on those two different roads, yet people do it every day, often transitioning between the two directly. [ QUOTE ] And possibly creating a trading market, futures an' all, with miles of road as the traded unit? [/ QUOTE ] If you can pull it off. Though miles of road aren't exactly fungible the way pork bellies are. I don't know of any futures market in skyscrapers or picassos. [ QUOTE ] And how all of a sudden "efficiency" comes into play, to magically and immediately optimize things in your world? Until we get to a point of "efficiency" (or "equilibrium", or whatever), we're supposed to go through a bit of trials and tribulations! [/ QUOTE ] And? Government is magically immune to this? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it's impractical to have roads with different owners every mile. Therefore, the alternative to government owning all roads is to have different owners every mile. What an argument. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say it was the only alternative, I said that it is a very distinct possibility - and it renders the whole argument abt all public roads being actually private completely unworkable. (One immediately sees the need to have universal rules and regulations for traffic not to stand still!) [/ QUOTE ] There are different rules in different jurisdictions. I move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction pretty seamlessly. One needs road capacity for traffic not to stand still. Governments don't seem too good at anticipating and providing it.  [ QUOTE ] "How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years?" You'd be surprised by how few!) [/ QUOTE ] "Ah, we only killed a few people." "Great! Carry on!" [ QUOTE ] Certainly you would get information! You'd get information from different doctors -chosen by you-, evaluate the information and then proceed according to your own, individual judgement, right? I guess I can't get it across that this involves a tremendous amount of time lost. Every time you want to make any informed decision you want everything to start from zero. The very idea that someone might have judged something as dangerous before you make your own judgement is anathema. Alrighty. [/ QUOTE ] So I want other people's judgement, but other people's judgement is anathema? This is what I meant when I said you can't formulate a coherent argument. Once again, your argument comes down to "if you don't agree with me, you must believe the most ridiculous thing I can possibly think of." Why do I have to "start from zero" every time? When I want to buy a car, I don't rely on government standards, because they're way too low. I don't have to start from zero, because I can get expert judgement and opinion from a third party that I trust (consumer reports, eg). The've already judged before I make my judgement. And it doesn't cost me a "tremendous amount of time". [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My choice to take experimental cancer drugs ... is going to cause havoc to your way of living? [/ QUOTE ] No. But your choice to stop paying taxes might. [/ QUOTE ] It very likey will. And the choice of the business owner to shoot the robber will likely cause havoc to the robber's way of living. [ 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.
|
|
#57
06-11-2006, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FDA Takes a Stand for Jesus
Today’s episode of 60 Minutes discusses the FDA’s refusal to allow Plan - B to be sold over the counter. According to Dr. Wood, the FDA’s director of woman’s health, Plan - B is not an abortion pill like RU-46. It is a contraceptive pill that stops ovulation. The controversy is that in a small percentage of instances, it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.
The Bush administration appointed a Dr. Hagar to the FDA advisory committee. Dr. Hagar cast one of 4 votes against approving this drug for OTC use. 23 other scientists voted yes. The scientists point out that this drug is totally safe. The American Medical Association endorses this drug for OTC use as well as the American Pediatric Association, who says the drug is safe for young girls. Dr. Hagar wrote a minority report protesting the drug's use for OTC which Commissioner Crawford then used in making the unprecedented decision of overruling his own scientific staff, by postponing, perhaps for years, the use of this drug OTC. Dr. Hagar told a group of college students that he was taking a stand for Jesus. God took the scientific information that he had and used it to allow him to write his minority report. Dr. Wood says that religious forces have hijacked the FDA decision making process. She resigned in protest.
|
|
#59
06-11-2006, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FDA Takes a Stand for Jesus
One of the reasons Dr. Wood wants this drug available for OTC is that in many instances hospitals and pharmacies won’t prescribe or carry the drug. A young lady on the show had recently been raped and was taken to the Catholic hospital, St. Vincents of NY. The hospital staff, contrary to state law, didn’t offer this girl the medication. When her Mother called the nurse and asked why, the nurse said that it was a Catholic hospital and they didn’t prescribe birth control.
The majority of pharmacies in Kentucky that 60 minutes investigated refused to carry the pill. One pharmacist gave a lecture to an undercover woman, who was provided with a perscription, explaining that the drug killed babies.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
