Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchism Confusion

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 3:09:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe that Anarchism is a very intellect-heavy stance. Stupid people can come up with democracy, it takes a bit more to argue for Anarchism.

Although I think I get the gist of where Anarchists are coming from, I think that there are a few things that I need cleared up.

First, How does an Anarchist view society to operate without authority figures? I believe some people describe a sort of link between economics and anarchy, I'm still unclear about that.

Second, Are there any forms of regulation whatsoever in an Anarchy? How would it control crime, organized or otherwise? Would it depend on a free-market system where crime control is privatized?

Third, does Anarchism have any form of citizenship? I would think that if there is no government, then there is no citizenry, as well as no taxation. However, I wanted to be sure.

Finally, would the cost of living go up or down when changing from a democracy? I want a very, very detailed answer on this point in particular.

Much thanks.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 3:49:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 3:09:08 PM, Kleptin wrote:

First, How does an Anarchist view society to operate without authority figures? I believe some people describe a sort of link between economics and anarchy, I'm still unclear about that.

If you want to say anarchism is against authority figures, it means we are against people being aggressively elevated above others. So like a king who keeps power by controlling force in a territory. Anarchism does not require opposition to voluntary hierarchy. I believe that "leaders" are of utmost importance, since specialization/division of labor can enhance this field like any other.

Second, Are there any forms of regulation whatsoever in an Anarchy? How would it control crime, organized or otherwise? Would it depend on a free-market system where crime control is privatized?

Sure. Hierarchy brings rules with it. A lot of anarchists have complicated ideas about how to maintain order in society, but it is sufficient to only require that institutions not take authority over others. So, as a very simple modification of the status quo, instead of forcing a whole bunch of third parties to pay into a monopoly legal system, funding the system based on court fines of the guilty is enough to be anarchism (though it may not be the most practical option).

Anarcho-capitalists focus on the market too much. They focus almost exclusively on the exchange of goods and services. But there are many important things that are provided at least incompletely by markets. For example, sex is provided socially. You can pay for sex but social mechanisms dominate. If free market advocates were really level headed, they would only defend the possibility of markets for all commodities, rather than insist that markets are always best at providing everything.

I happen to think that law and order would have a strong social component. If you look at examples of non-government (polycentric, spontaneous, whatever you want to call it) law, they are not based off individuals hiring their own security guards etc.

Icelandic customary law was basically just made up of voluntary clans (you can choose your clan, if they'll have you) and that clan has a reputation which you now have access to. So if Clan X keeps all its members in line and always punishes their rascals, Clan X will continue to have a good reputation and people interested in dealing or trading with people from other Clans will want to be a part of Clan X etc.

It was more sophisticated than that... and there are a lot of other examples. I can PM you some links if you want. But the long and short is that we don't know exactly how law/order will work in the 21st century outside the government. All we can say is that people have an incentive to find peace and stability with one another so they can trade and engage in division of labor.

I personally think social mechanisms will provide for common law in small geographical regions, while insurance, contracts, and boycotts will provide for the majority of large-scale law.

Third, does Anarchism have any form of citizenship? I would think that if there is no government, then there is no citizenry, as well as no taxation. However, I wanted to be sure.

Probably not. Although I do belong to Sam's club...

Finally, would the cost of living go up or down when changing from a democracy? I want a very, very detailed answer on this point in particular.

Depends how you get there. If a nuclear holocaust annihilates governments and all people have left to read is Rothbard, then things will probably suck.

If you approach anarchism slowly and intentionally from inside the state, or start building anarchism outside the state, then thins will probably get a lot better continuously.

From inside the state, you might begin by dividing governments up into parts, slowly. So split the USA into 4 countries, then 16, then 64 etc. All the way down to the individual level, which is anarchism. When I say "split", I don't mean split all economic/migration ties etc. I mean split "authority". Most people can get on board with this plan because everyone is ready to admit that smaller governments are more functional.

From outside the state, I'm thinking about things like homesteading. So, say for the sake of argument that an island appears in the ocean and anarcho-capitalists homestead it and start their stateless society. The world isn't going to collapse because all you've added is one trading partner. People can emigrate to ancapland, but they will do so because they expect it to raise their standards of living. So I don't know if there's much reason to expect quality of life metrics to fall under these kinds of schemes.

For a more realistic way to have anarchism outside the state, look at patri friedman's seasteading institute. The video is long... but a lot of it is Q&A and it is a very streamlined presentation. I suggest watching the first 7 minutes and stopping if you don't like it. http://vimeo.com...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:24:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First, How does an Anarchist view society to operate without authority figures? I believe some people describe a sort of link between economics and anarchy, I'm still unclear about that.
As Sieben said, there would still be leaders, like church leaders or CEOs. The difference is that there would be no leaders that have the right to use aggressive force against others.

Second, Are there any forms of regulation whatsoever in an Anarchy? How would it control crime, organized or otherwise? Would it depend on a free-market system where crime control is privatized?
Sieben covered this pretty thoroughly, but if you wanted other speculations on how law and order might work under anarchy:

http://mises.org... (Not the whole thing, just chapter 12.)
http://www.bu.edu...

Third, does Anarchism have any form of citizenship? I would think that if there is no government, then there is no citizenry, as well as no taxation. However, I wanted to be sure.
People could still consider themselves ‘Americans' or ‘Canadians' or whatever they were before their country ceased to exist, but there would be no form of citizenship that actually meant anything.

Finally, would the cost of living go up or down when changing from a democracy? I want a very, very detailed answer on this point in particular.

Down, considerably. I'll try to be as detailed as I can on this.

First, IP law would no longer exist. This is a pretty big topic, but in short, IP is not real property, it is just a government-granted monopoly on the right to sell a certain product. As with any monopoly, it results in higher prices and lower quality for all of the goods it affects, which is nearly everything. Abolishing IP law would lower prices and increase innovation. For more on the subject, http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu... is an excellent book, covering everything from Disney to pharmaceuticals. There's also my debate on the subject, http://www.debate.org....

Second, the Fed would no longer exist. Currently, the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air. That money is then given to bankers, who spend it or loan it out. Since extra money is pumped into the economy but no additional goods are produced, this results in an increase in prices. But the increase in prices doesn't happen immediately. The people who get the new money first get to spend it at the old price level. As that money moves through the economy, it slowly raises prices, until the people at the end get the new money. By the time those last people get it, price levels have already risen. So, in effect, the Fed subsidizes a few people at the top by taking from everyone else. Under anarchy, there would be steady deflation of a few percent annually, which would decrease the cost of living. This money-pumping also causes the boom and bust cycle. (I can elaborate on that last part if you want)

Third, government intervention and regulation greatly increases the prices of many goods. Health care and energy, for example, are the most regulated industries in the United States after finance. The government artificially restricts supply and competition, and artificially increases demand, which pushes up prices. Medical care and energy would cost far less under anarchy. The tens of thousands of regulations for other industries would also be gone, decreasing the amount of red tape and paperwork, which would decrease prices.

Fourth, government spending. Total government spending (federal, state, and local) is currently around 35% of GDP. That money is either taken directly through taxes, or indirectly through borrowing. Some of that is spending on things like courts and police, which would be bought anyway, but those things would cost less under anarchy. Or things like helping the poor, which would also be done more efficiently under anarchy, and more morally, as it would be funded voluntarily. Other spending is on things like empire building abroad, which would not occur, freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars. Not only would people keep a larger percentage of their incomes, but the incomes themselves would be higher. Since taxes steal a percentage of each marginal dollar earned, they decrease the incentives for earning money, resulting in less being earned.

There are probably more reasons that costs of living would go down, but that's all I can think of at the moment.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:29:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Derailing the thread

Seeing how much intelligence it takes to believe something is an interesting thing to bring up:

In order of least intelligence required:
1. American Conservatism
2. American Liberalism
3. Socialism
4. Libertarianism
5. Anarchism
6. Fascism

It's tough to put conservatism ahead of liberalism due to their virtual tie, but from my experience, there are more uneducated-on-the-issues conservatives than liberals.
Idealist ideologies (socialism down) tend to require large amounts of thought, whilst the more popular ideologies tend to require the least due to the idea of conformism.

It kind of reminds me of something I heard somewhere:
Concerning thought, there are three kinds of people:
1. Those satisfied if they are thinking in the majority.
2. Those satisfied if they are thinking in the minority.
3. Those satisfied if they are thinking.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:32:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Does your theory take into account the Freedo data?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:34:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 7:32:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Does your theory take into account the Freedo data?

Yes. Fascism is ranked so low because he's never been Fascist.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 7:29:07 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Derailing the thread

Seeing how much intelligence it takes to believe something is an interesting thing to bring up:

In order of least intelligence required:
1. American Conservatism
2. American Liberalism
3. Socialism
4. Libertarianism
5. Anarchism
6. Fascism

RoyLatham is extremely conservative, and he's one of the best debaters and most intelligent members of the site. Fascism is generally imposed on ignorant masses (four legs good; two legs bad).
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:37:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 7:36:26 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/30/2010 7:29:07 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Derailing the thread

Seeing how much intelligence it takes to believe something is an interesting thing to bring up:

In order of least intelligence required:
1. American Conservatism
2. American Liberalism
3. Socialism
4. Libertarianism
5. Anarchism
6. Fascism

RoyLatham is extremely conservative, and he's one of the best debaters and most intelligent members of the site. Fascism is generally imposed on ignorant masses (four legs good; two legs bad).

The list takes into account the collective. There are outliers in all groups.

And subjects of fascism are not generally considered fascists.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:51:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The list takes into account the collective.
I thought it was just the minimum.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:55:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 7:37:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The list takes into account the collective. There are outliers in all groups.

And subjects of fascism are not generally considered fascists.

Yes but under Eggleston politics, the monarchy and land gentry are, whilst also being inbred retards - it's not so clear cut.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:46:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wanted to make a quick comment on health care. Throwing extra money at R&D for pharmaceuticals doesn't actually make progress go any faster. It's really mostly luck. Without the government to enforce a patent, we would not have any new drugs.

On a relevant note, the cost for the government to run an agency such as the FDA or other mechanisms of safety regulation is far lower than the cost for an anarchy to develop these things naturally through a free market. Both in dollars and in blood.

I once argued with R-R on this issue. He brought up the point that *eventually*, safety, efficacy, and trust would develop simply due to supply and demand. He never answered my counterpoint that many, many lives would be lost in the process of allowing these regulatory agencies to develop by the free market.

Furthermore, regulatory agencies are a manner of outsourcing thought. It's irrational to believe that human beings really care enough to think out each of their steps. They need to be headed by teams of experts who can set those regulations. Let's face it: people are stupid and lazy. Anarchy or not. It still sucks to have them die because however stupid and lazy they are, they probably still have enough skill to churn the economy in a good way.

I posit that even an Anarchy needs some form of centralized safety regulation for goods, products, and practices.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:48:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 7:29:07 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Derailing the thread

Seeing how much intelligence it takes to believe something is an interesting thing to bring up:

In order of least intelligence required:
1. American Conservatism
2. American Liberalism
3. Socialism
4. Libertarianism
5. Anarchism
6. Fascism

It's tough to put conservatism ahead of liberalism due to their virtual tie, but from my experience, there are more uneducated-on-the-issues conservatives than liberals.
Idealist ideologies (socialism down) tend to require large amounts of thought, whilst the more popular ideologies tend to require the least due to the idea of conformism.

It kind of reminds me of something I heard somewhere:
Concerning thought, there are three kinds of people:
1. Those satisfied if they are thinking in the majority.
2. Those satisfied if they are thinking in the minority.
3. Those satisfied if they are thinking.

Did I do a good job with fascism? :P
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:51:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:46:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I wanted to make a quick comment on health care. Throwing extra money at R&D for pharmaceuticals doesn't actually make progress go any faster. It's really mostly luck. Without the government to enforce a patent, we would not have any new drugs.

On a relevant note, the cost for the government to run an agency such as the FDA or other mechanisms of safety regulation is far lower than the cost for an anarchy to develop these things naturally through a free market. Both in dollars and in blood.

Don't let the anti IP anarchists scare you. IP would just come back through contracts. Example, you buy this CD you agree not to upload it etc. It would change a lot of things, but not the core arguments of pro IP.

I once argued with R-R on this issue. He brought up the point that *eventually*, safety, efficacy, and trust would develop simply due to supply and demand. He never answered my counterpoint that many, many lives would be lost in the process of allowing these regulatory agencies to develop by the free market.

Furthermore, regulatory agencies are a manner of outsourcing thought. It's irrational to believe that human beings really care enough to think out each of their steps. They need to be headed by teams of experts who can set those regulations. Let's face it: people are stupid and lazy. Anarchy or not. It still sucks to have them die because however stupid and lazy they are, they probably still have enough skill to churn the economy in a good way.

I posit that even an Anarchy needs some form of centralized safety regulation for goods, products, and practices.
We routinely argue that murder, theft, etc would be nearly universally illegal under anarchism. Polycentric law has a way of creating uniformity... a lengthy discussion is found here. http://libertariannation.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:56:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:51:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
Don't let the anti IP anarchists scare you. IP would just come back through contracts.

It would not.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:59:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:46:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I wanted to make a quick comment on health care. Throwing extra money at R&D for pharmaceuticals doesn't actually make progress go any faster. It's really mostly luck. Without the government to enforce a patent, we would not have any new drugs.

Without patents, we'd have more new drugs.

On a relevant note, the cost for the government to run an agency such as the FDA or other mechanisms of safety regulation is far lower than the cost for an anarchy to develop these things naturally through a free market.

Why would you want the free market to develop an FDA? Do you have any idea how many people that agency has killed?

I posit that even an Anarchy needs some form of centralized safety regulation for goods, products, and practices.

Centralized? Yuck.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:46:45 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I wanted to make a quick comment on health care. Throwing extra money at R&D for pharmaceuticals doesn't actually make progress go any faster. It's really mostly luck. Without the government to enforce a patent, we would not have any new drugs.
Patents are not necessary for or beneficial to pharmaceutical innovation. The drug industry thrived before patents, and after patents were introduced, no increase in innovation happened. Looking at periods of time when some countries had pharmaceutical patents and others didn't, the one's without patents had stronger and more innovative pharmaceutical industries.

On a relevant note, the cost for the government to run an agency such as the FDA or other mechanisms of safety regulation is far lower than the cost for an anarchy to develop these things naturally through a free market. Both in dollars and in blood.

I once argued with R-R on this issue. He brought up the point that *eventually*, safety, efficacy, and trust would develop simply due to supply and demand. He never answered my counterpoint that many, many lives would be lost in the process of allowing these regulatory agencies to develop by the free market.

Furthermore, regulatory agencies are a manner of outsourcing thought. It's irrational to believe that human beings really care enough to think out each of their steps. They need to be headed by teams of experts who can set those regulations. Let's face it: people are stupid and lazy. Anarchy or not. It still sucks to have them die because however stupid and lazy they are, they probably still have enough skill to churn the economy in a good way.

I posit that even an Anarchy needs some form of centralized safety regulation for goods, products, and practices.
Let's say the FDA was abolished today. What would happen? First, since most of the drugs people take and will take in the near future are already FDA approved, nothing about the safety of drugs would change in the short term. But even after that, new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone. Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe, and doctors wouldn't prescribe drugs they didn't think were effective and safe. Of course, free market regulatory bodies would soon be established. It would be much easier for both doctors prescribing drugs and the businesses making the drugs to have drugs certified to meet a set of objective standards by an 3rd party certification firm.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:06:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:51:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
Don't let the anti IP anarchists scare you. IP would just come back through contracts. Example, you buy this CD you agree not to upload it etc. It would change a lot of things, but not the core arguments of pro IP.

Doesn't that make it a slippery slope? Or do you also rely on the free market for balance when it comes to product manufacturers placing restrictions on the use of its products?

We routinely argue that murder, theft, etc would be nearly universally illegal under anarchism. Polycentric law has a way of creating uniformity... a lengthy discussion is found here. http://libertariannation.org...

I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps you expected me to find the answer in the link, it's very broad and covers a lot of ground so I don't think I'll be able to find it.

Here's a specific example: An antibiotic known to be safe was packaged in a dosage form that was toxic. Nobody questioned this because the medication itself has been around for a while and was known to be efficacious. Over a hundred people died before a connection was made.

Not necessarily murder, theft, etc. but a regulatory agency.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:06:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
...new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone.

Liable to who?

Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe

Why not?

free market regulatory bodies would soon be established.

Perhaps...

It would be much easier for the businesses making the drugs to have drugs certified to meet a set of objective standards by an 3rd party certification firm.

I don't see that as a good thing.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:26:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 9:06:53 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
...new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone.

Liable to who?
To the people they hurt, through tort law.

Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe

Why not?
Because they'd be sued if someone got hurt.

free market regulatory bodies would soon be established.

Perhaps...

It would be much easier for the businesses making the drugs to have drugs certified to meet a set of objective standards by an 3rd party certification firm.

I don't see that as a good thing.
The FDA is horribly inefficient and slow. And when it comes to releasing drugs, being slow kills tens of thousands of people every year. The free market could certify drugs faster and more efficiently.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:34:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 9:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:06:53 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
...new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone.

Liable to who?
To the people they hurt, through tort law.

Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe

Why not?
Because they'd be sued if someone got hurt.

Who carrys out the punishment? Are we talking about an Anarchist society?
This is why I've moved away from Anarchy as a viable choice. How a court work in an Anarchist society?

The FDA is horribly inefficient and slow. And when it comes to releasing drugs, being slow kills tens of thousands of people every year. The free market could certify drugs faster and more efficiently.

I'm not going to lie and say I don't like a lot of aspects of a free market. I just feel the regulations might go in the opposite direction. Instead of being too slow and inefficient, they will be too quick and not well regulated enough.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:41:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 9:34:49 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:06:53 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
...new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone.

Liable to who?
To the people they hurt, through tort law.

Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe

Why not?
Because they'd be sued if someone got hurt.

Who carrys out the punishment? Are we talking about an Anarchist society?
This is why I've moved away from Anarchy as a viable choice. How a court work in an Anarchist society?
It's impossible to know exactly how courts would work in a society that doesn't exist yet, but there are two links in one of my previous posts in my thread that speculate about how it might work.


The FDA is horribly inefficient and slow. And when it comes to releasing drugs, being slow kills tens of thousands of people every year. The free market could certify drugs faster and more efficiently.

I'm not going to lie and say I don't like a lot of aspects of a free market. I just feel the regulations might go in the opposite direction. Instead of being too slow and inefficient, they will be too quick and not well regulated enough.
Even absolutely no regulatory body would be better than the FDA. The FDA kills dozens of people for each person it saves, even by the FDA's own count of how many people it saves.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:54:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 9:41:53 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:34:49 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:06:53 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
...new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone.

Liable to who?
To the people they hurt, through tort law.

Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe

Why not?
Because they'd be sued if someone got hurt.

Who carrys out the punishment? Are we talking about an Anarchist society?
This is why I've moved away from Anarchy as a viable choice. How a court work in an Anarchist society?
It's impossible to know exactly how courts would work in a society that doesn't exist yet, but there are two links in one of my previous posts in this thread that speculate about how it might work.


The FDA is horribly inefficient and slow. And when it comes to releasing drugs, being slow kills tens of thousands of people every year. The free market could certify drugs faster and more efficiently.

I'm not going to lie and say I don't like a lot of aspects of a free market. I just feel the regulations might go in the opposite direction. Instead of being too slow and inefficient, they will be too quick and not well regulated enough.
Even absolutely no regulatory body would be better than the FDA. The FDA kills dozens of people for each person it saves, even by the FDA's own count of how many people it saves.

Typo.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 6:36:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 9:06:23 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/30/2010 8:51:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
Don't let the anti IP anarchists scare you. IP would just come back through contracts. Example, you buy this CD you agree not to upload it etc. It would change a lot of things, but not the core arguments of pro IP.

Doesn't that make it a slippery slope? Or do you also rely on the free market for balance when it comes to product manufacturers placing restrictions on the use of its products?

A slippery slope as in every manufacturer could put a do not copy/do not trade agreement before their goods? Sure. But it would A) be very difficult and expensive for them to enforce and B) Be harmful in terms of competitiveness. I think it is likely that IP would go away altogether for consumer goods, like music and movies, because it is so difficult to track. On the other hand, the IP contracts could be enforced against large corporations who can't hide as easily as individuals.

But this would only prohibit the selling or mass copying of like, actual blueprints or designs. If another person has the idea at the same time, they can't be found in violation of the contract. Etc.

We routinely argue that murder, theft, etc would be nearly universally illegal under anarchism. Polycentric law has a way of creating uniformity... a lengthy discussion is found here. http://libertariannation.org...

I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps you expected me to find the answer in the link, it's very broad and covers a lot of ground so I don't think I'll be able to find it.

Sorry. I guess I thought it was really interested and you'd want to read it. Anarchist neeerrrrd here.

"When there is a need for the more formal mechanism of law, this law may be voluntary rather than coercive. An example of voluntary law is the Law Merchant, a system of commercial law that emerged in the late Middle Ages in response to the need for a common set of standards to govern international trade. The merchants, fed up with the excessive rigidity of governmental laws regulating commerce, and frustrated by the lack of uniformity among the commercial codes of different nations, simply formed their own Europe-wide system of courts and legal codes. For enforcement, the Law Merchant relied not on state-imposed penalties but on credit reports; those who refused to abide by the system's rules and decisions would have a hard time finding other merchants willing to deal with them. (The case of the Law Merchant shows that systems of private law need not depend on kinship or other local ties for their success.)"

Here's a specific example: An antibiotic known to be safe was packaged in a dosage form that was toxic. Nobody questioned this because the medication itself has been around for a while and was known to be efficacious. Over a hundred people died before a connection was made.

Not necessarily murder, theft, etc. but a regulatory agency.

Right. There are about a thousand ways to have a check against this sort of thing without government. I'll go into 3.

1) Private regulatory agencies - Evaluate the safety of products and make money by charging a small premium to endorse the product via a seal of approval or something. Consumers can still choose between endorsed and non-endorsed products, but they have a way of knowing which is guaranteed to be safe.

The regulatory agency is held accountable because it depends on its reputation with consumers to attract manufacturers to want to use their seal.

A real world example is Underwriter's Laboratories, an electronics safety company. They charge a small amount for a seal of approval. http://en.wikipedia.org... You can probably find it on your laptop's charger :)

2) Intermediaries

Checking to make sure every product is safe is a PITA. Instead of everyone walking around looking on the bottoms of jars for some trusted logo, it might make more sense for a representative to choose a safe basket of products and let consumers shop carefree.

An example is walmart, who chooses to stock a basket of products. They tend to choose safe products because they'll lose money if consumers have a bad experience (rotten meat, expired milk). They not only choose safe products, they want a good balance of cost/durability, etc.

So wal-mart is an intermediary between manufacturer and consumer that specializes in product evaluation and distribution.

3) Insurance

But what about really long term health effects like cancer? People will still keep going to wal-mart and if they get cancer in 50 years, why would wal-mart care? There are arguments to be made that wal-mart wouldn't want the bad publicity and can plan for the next 50 years... but I think insurance would be more effective at this sort of prevention.

It's simple. By purchasing insurance, you make someone else liable for your health. If you eat cheetos and smoke, you're going to have to pay a lot to get someone to cover you. If you exercise and eat whole foods, you'll pay less. So if you care about your health, the market shows you a price on certain behaviors, and you can choose by balancing your life-preferences with your pocket book.

Insurance companies even have an incentive to inform people about ways they can improve their health in an effort to reduce their liabilities. Many companies pay their employees bonuses to exercise. If I were in charge, I'd pay people to lose weight, take multis, take fish oil, provide free healthy food in the cafeteria, etc. I guess it all has to be balanced against people's sensibilities. You can't just tell everyone they're fat (even implicitly) by offering $100/lb of weight lost.

It's actually kind of awkward that corporations handle their own health care plans because they aren't specialized in health risk assessment. It has a lot to do with the fact that state regulations screw up insurance in many ways... for example in Texas health insurance isn't liable for any injuries that occurred more than 2 years ago. So if you get in a car accident, they won't spend 50 bucks to send you to a chiropractor to see if they need to adjust anything or treat whiplash because if you need spinal surgery in 5 years, they don't have to pay for it.

Government itself is actually kind of like an insurance corporation. It accepts responsibility for its citizen's property/lives/health/education, but it does not accept liability. So if the government screws up its job, who cares? They'll probably just get more funding.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 1:08:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:59:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Without patents, we'd have more new drugs.

Nope.

Why would you want the free market to develop an FDA? Do you have any idea how many people that agency has killed?

The problem with stupid people is that they don't realize that the number of people saved is invisible while the number of people not saved is very visible. I think that given my above statement, you classify as a stupid person.

Centralized? Yuck.

I think all debating activity should stop so that we can all take a moment of silence to mentally applaud Reasoning for this unbelievably profound argument.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 1:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Patents are not necessary for or beneficial to pharmaceutical innovation. The drug industry thrived before patents, and after patents were introduced, no increase in innovation happened. Looking at periods of time when some countries had pharmaceutical patents and others didn't, the one's without patents had stronger and more innovative pharmaceutical industries.

Okay, instead of outright rejecting this, I'm going to ask you for sources on the following points you made:

1. The drug industry thrived before patents
2. After patents were introduced, no increase in innovation happened
3. Looking at periods of time when some countries had pharmaceutical patents and others didn't, the one's without patents had stronger and more innovative pharmaceutical industries

Let's say the FDA was abolished today. What would happen? First, since most of the drugs people take and will take in the near future are already FDA approved, nothing about the safety of drugs would change in the short term. But even after that, new drugs would continue to be rigorously tested, since pharmaceutical companies would continue to be liable if their drugs harm anyone. Even if no replacement for the FDA was ever established, pharmaceutical companies would not release drugs they didn't think were safe, and doctors wouldn't prescribe drugs they didn't think were effective and safe. Of course, free market regulatory bodies would soon be established. It would be much easier for both doctors prescribing drugs and the businesses making the drugs to have drugs certified to meet a set of objective standards by an 3rd party certification firm.

This view is entirely too optimistic. What would actually happen is this: Prescribers will refuse to write scripts for new medications because they are no longer under FDA scrutiny. They will instead rely on older medications and write for those instead, knowing full well that it takes years and years to catch potential toxicities.

The drug companies, who have spent countless billions in the synthesis of this new drug, will never get it back. The drug hits the market and immediately afterwards, all other manufacturers start making the same drug for pennies. If the drug becomes a hit, they share the profit with all of the other drug manufacturers who spent no money on R&D. Perhaps 10 years later, of course.

This cycle then stops R&D because it is no longer anywhere near profitable. Manufacturers will just keep taking the same drugs and repackaging them in different forms.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 1:20:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 9:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The FDA is horribly inefficient and slow. And when it comes to releasing drugs, being slow kills tens of thousands of people every year. The free market could certify drugs faster and more efficiently.

In the gentlest way possible, this statement is pure BS. Would you like to provide a source?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 2:36:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 1:20:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/30/2010 9:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The FDA is horribly inefficient and slow. And when it comes to releasing drugs, being slow kills tens of thousands of people every year. The free market could certify drugs faster and more efficiently.

In the gentlest way possible, this statement is pure BS. Would you like to provide a source?

Yes, I would.

First, an illustration of how the FDA's incentives work:
http://www.debate.org...

An example of how these incentives affect the FDA: "In the early 1980s, when I headed the team at the FDA that was reviewing the NDA [new drug application] for recombinant human insulin, the first drug made with gene-splicing techniques, we were ready to recommend approval a mere four months after the application was submitted (at a time when the average time for NDA review was more than two and a half years). . . . My supervisor refused to sign off on the approval—even though he agreed that the data provided compelling evidence of the drug's safety and effectiveness. ‘If anything goes wrong,' he argued, ‘think how bad it will look that we approved the drug so quickly.' . . . The supervisor was more concerned with not looking bad in case of an unforeseen mishap than with getting an important new product to patients who needed it." (For those unfamiliar with recombinant human insulin, it is basically human insulin grown in bacteria, and was a very important medical innovation. Before this, diabetics had to use insulin from animals, which wasn't as effective.)

For data about how the FDA harms people, economists have estimated that when a change in procedure caused the FDA to review drugs more quickly, the health benefits of quicker access to new drugs were roughly 12 times as great as the costs of additional adverse drug reaction, and that the change resulted in no increase in deaths. [1] [2] The FDA's death toll has been estimated at an average 50,000 a year [3], although it varies from year to year. For example, when the FDA kept some new beta-blocker drugs off the market, they killed tens of thousands of people, even if one only counts the years in which they had been available in other countries but not in the U.S. [4] As for deaths from dangerous drugs prevented by FDA regulation, it's hard to say, but looking at the drug market before the FDA, these dangerous drugs were rare isolated tragedies, not mass deaths. Even the infamous Sulfanilamide Elixir incident that led to the creation of the FDA killed only 107 people, and the company that made it was sued and went out of business.

[1] Olson, Mary K. "Are Novel Drugs More Risky for Patients than Less Novel Drugs?" Journal of Health Care: Government, market Processes, and the Public Interest, edited by Roger Feldman. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2000.

[2] Philipson, Thomas J., and others. "Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of the FDA: The Case of the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts." National Bureau of Economic Reserch Working paper no. 11724, 2005.

[3] http://www.independent.org...

[4] http://www.fdareview.org...

As for whether or not market based certification is viable, it already exists to some extent, and outperforms the FDA. The U.S. Pharmacopeia Drug Information certifies new treatments an average of 2.5 years sooner than the FDA. Without the FDA, medical journals and similar organizations would likely increase in importance to fill that gap.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 2:42:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 1:18:24 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/30/2010 8:59:39 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Patents are not necessary for or beneficial to pharmaceutical innovation. The drug industry thrived before patents, and after patents were introduced, no increase in innovation happened. Looking at periods of time when some countries had pharmaceutical patents and others didn't, the one's without patents had stronger and more innovative pharmaceutical industries.

Okay, instead of outright rejecting this, I'm going to ask you for sources on the following points you made:

1. The drug industry thrived before patents
2. After patents were introduced, no increase in innovation happened
3. Looking at periods of time when some countries had pharmaceutical patents and others didn't, the one's without patents had stronger and more innovative pharmaceutical industries

Before I write up a huge response to this, would you be willing to read a chapter of a book? It isn't very long, and it's written by mainstream economists, not anarchist radicals. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu... If you don't want to read it, I can write up a response to your three objections, but I think the book does a better job of explaining it.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.