Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarians....

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:37:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What do you guys think?

Should a business owner be allowed to do this?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Don't have time to watch the video, but by the title, yes, government doesn't have a right to tell him who he may or may not admit, although I would personally boycott such a restaurant, and encourage others to join in.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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
12/8/2010 8:41:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down."
"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
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:42:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:38:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but by the title, yes, government doesn't have a right to tell him who he may or may not admit, although I would personally boycott such a restaurant, and encourage others to join in.

Out of my personal curiosity, do you think the FDA should exist?

Should there be governmental measures/institutions to insure the safety standards of buildings and airplanes?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:43:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:42:42 PM, Freeman wrote:
Out of my personal curiosity, do you think the FDA should exist?

No.

Should there be governmental measures/institutions to insure the safety standards of buildings and airplanes?

No.
"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
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:44:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you disallow discrimination, fewer people will want to start up businesses. Its better to have a racist pub than no pub at all.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:46:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:42:42 PM, Freeman wrote:
Out of my personal curiosity, do you think the FDA should exist?

Nope. Too many drugs are rejected that could be out saving lives. More people die because of the FDA than live.

Should there be governmental measures/institutions to insure the safety standards of buildings and airplanes?

Nope. But when there is some death or error, the government would naturally investigate to make sure that whatever claims the airline made regarding their safety inspections were valid. Naturally, builders would want to avoid lawsuits and social damage from failure, so they'd try to keep their safety up-to-date. Additionally, businesses that post safety information are more likely to attract customers, and any businesses that lie are liable for fraud.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:42:42 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:38:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but by the title, yes, government doesn't have a right to tell him who he may or may not admit, although I would personally boycott such a restaurant, and encourage others to join in.

Out of my personal curiosity, do you think the FDA should exist?

Hell no! "The FDA has done enormous harm to the health of the American public by greatly increasing the costs of pharmaceutical research, thereby reducing the supply of new and effective drugs, and by delaying the approval of such drugs as survive the tortuous FDA process." - Milton Friedman http://www.independent.org...

Should there be governmental measures/institutions to insure the safety standards of buildings and airplanes?

No, safe buildings are something most people naturally desire. In a free market, private certification would emerge on its own. Also, this: http://cafehayek.com...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:50:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:37:08 PM, Freeman wrote:
What do you guys think?

Should a business owner be allowed to do this?

Not unless he can spell "negroes" correctly.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 8:51:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should people be allowed to ban black people from their homes? If that should be allowed, then discrimination by private businesses must also be allowed. Private business are not "public" places--they are private property, and like any other form of private property, the owner has the right to decide who may or may not use 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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:17:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:49:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:42:42 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:38:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but by the title, yes, government doesn't have a right to tell him who he may or may not admit, although I would personally boycott such a restaurant, and encourage others to join in.

Out of my personal curiosity, do you think the FDA should exist?

Hell no! "The FDA has done enormous harm to the health of the American public by greatly increasing the costs of pharmaceutical research, thereby reducing the supply of new and effective drugs, and by delaying the approval of such drugs as survive the tortuous FDA process." - Milton Friedman http://www.independent.org...

Friedman has no idea what he's talking about. You don't reduce costs by taking away safety. You exponentially increase costs by paving the road for E. coli outbreaks, smallpox outbreaks, medical malpractice etc. If he had his way, every pioneer Christian scientist could run special "medical establishments" that sell harmful substances (or pseudo-medicine) to anyone dumb enough to buy it. They already do enough harm with the government clamping down on them, let's not give them a free license to become doctors.

Seemingly legitimate businesses could knowingly (or unknowingly) sell dangerous substances like thalidomide in order to make a profit. Just think about it, if no one is regulating them, who's going to stop them. Sure, they might go out of business after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?

If people like him ran the government 80 years ago, he would have probably ended up like one of the thalidomide babies: http://i.dailymail.co.uk...


Should there be governmental measures/institutions to insure the safety standards of buildings and airplanes?

No, safe buildings are something most people naturally desire. In a free market, private certification would emerge on its own. Also, this: http://cafehayek.com...

Sure, private certification would emerge. But there would be no one to ensure that any business would be certified. If I ran a business in Friedman's world, I wouldn't have to get certified, or I could get certified by people not actually qualified to certify my airplane business.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:23:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 8:42:42 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 8:38:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Don't have time to watch the video, but by the title, yes, government doesn't have a right to tell him who he may or may not admit, although I would personally boycott such a restaurant, and encourage others to join in.

Out of my personal curiosity, do you think the FDA should exist?
No.


Should there be governmental measures/institutions to insure the safety standards of buildings and airplanes?
Courts should hold the owners of buildings and airplanes liable for damage caused by buildings and airplanes falling on other people's property, but other than that...

or I could get certified by people not actually qualified to certify my airplane business.

Sounds a lot like government certification.
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.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:35:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
re: FDA, harmful drugs being released vs. helpful drugs being withheld

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 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.

re: FDA, bubonic plague

"Sure, they might go out of business after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?"
Sure, the government might fine them to death after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?

Crazy, made-up BS examples prove nothing, because they can just as easily be applied to the government. Government regulation couldn't stop a company from releasing the bubonic plague either, unless 1) the government carefully monitored every single thing the company did 2) was competent enough to stop the company from releasing the plague and 3) the government agency doing 1 and 2 wasn't in the pocket of that same company (see: FDA).
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:55:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:35:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

re: FDA, bubonic plague

"Sure, they might go out of business after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?"
Sure, the government might fine them to death after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?

Crazy, made-up BS examples prove nothing, because they can just as easily be applied to the government.

Ok, let me give you an example of something that is highly plausible. This could really happen.

A private researcher develops a miracle drug. It is a cure for the common cold! It almost always works and appears to have 0 side effects. In your ideal world, it goes to the free market where it ends up being regularly taken by 100 million people within the first 5 years. Unfortunately, the people who take it end up developing brain cancer after ten years. Oops.

In my world, it would have never gone to market until at least a decade of rigorous scientific research to ensure its safety. The FDA would have almost certainly put the brakes on it. In your world, it would have probably been rushed to market and killed tens of millions of people. Do you see the difference?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 10:59:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From LF's profile summaries:
Looking for opponents on the following resolutions: People should be allowed to sell their organs. The FDA should be abolished. The Federal Reserve should be abolished. All recreational drugs should be legalized. The minimum wage should be abolished. The United States should not have protectionist trade barriers such as tariffs and subsidies. Intellectual Property laws should be abolished. Message me if interested.

Have at it, Freeman.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:03:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:55:13 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 10:35:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

re: FDA, bubonic plague

"Sure, they might go out of business after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?"
Sure, the government might fine them to death after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?

Crazy, made-up BS examples prove nothing, because they can just as easily be applied to the government.

Ok, let me give you an example of something that is highly plausible. This could really happen.

A private researcher develops a miracle drug. It is a cure for the common cold! It almost always works and appears to have 0 side effects. In your ideal world, it goes to the free market where it ends up being regularly taken by 100 million people within the first 5 years. Unfortunately, the people who take it end up developing brain cancer after ten years. Oops.

In my world, it would have never gone to market until at least a decade of rigorous scientific research to ensure its safety. The FDA would have almost certainly put the brakes on it. In your world, it would have probably been rushed to market and killed tens of millions of people. Do you see the difference?

Again, that example can just as easily apply to the government. Change '10 years' to 'shortly after however long FDA approval takes.' There are always risks. Should we mandate that drug testing trials ought to take until every test subject dies of old age, to be 100% sure that the absurd scenario you describe never happens?
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
12/8/2010 11:05:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, the FDA has never prevented anything even close to the scenario you describe.
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:15:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:03:40 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/8/2010 10:55:13 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 10:35:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

re: FDA, bubonic plague

"Sure, they might go out of business after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?"
Sure, the government might fine them to death after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?

Crazy, made-up BS examples prove nothing, because they can just as easily be applied to the government.

Ok, let me give you an example of something that is highly plausible. This could really happen.

A private researcher develops a miracle drug. It is a cure for the common cold! It almost always works and appears to have 0 side effects. In your ideal world, it goes to the free market where it ends up being regularly taken by 100 million people within the first 5 years. Unfortunately, the people who take it end up developing brain cancer after ten years. Oops.

In my world, it would have never gone to market until at least a decade of rigorous scientific research to ensure its safety. The FDA would have almost certainly put the brakes on it. In your world, it would have probably been rushed to market and killed tens of millions of people. Do you see the difference?

Again, that example can just as easily apply to the government. Change '10 years' to 'shortly after however long FDA approval takes.' There are always risks. Should we mandate that drug testing trials ought to take until every test subject dies of old age, to be 100% sure that the absurd scenario you describe never happens?

No, it doesn't also apply to the government. I'm telling you, it would have never been approved by the FDA and gone to market. Different standards would apply to different drugs because of their chemical makeup. This is a matter of science. We actually can know something about the structure of the drugs we sell and their possible safety risks. And we can know roughly how long it would take to determine whether or not a drug is safe.

The scenario I describe is not absurd. It's perfectly plausible. You just want to think it's absurd because you want to abolish the FDA. Safety matters.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:18:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:05:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Also, the FDA has never prevented anything even close to the scenario you describe.

The FDA is only about 80 years old. Scientific progress in medicine and other areas increases exponentially.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:18:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 10:59:22 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
From LF's profile summaries:
Looking for opponents on the following resolutions: People should be allowed to sell their organs. The FDA should be abolished. The Federal Reserve should be abolished. All recreational drugs should be legalized. The minimum wage should be abolished. The United States should not have protectionist trade barriers such as tariffs and subsidies. Intellectual Property laws should be abolished. Message me if interested.

Have at it, Freeman.

http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:19:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The scenario I describe is not absurd. It's perfectly plausible.

A plague spreads.

Someone has a cure. The FDA holds up the cure for research. Everyone dies.

People should be able to determine for themselves whether the testing is adequate. Even if chemical structures actually do prescribe a specific time period (I'm not a biochemistl), the government is no more competent in picking who to listen to on such a question than anyone else. Drugs, unlike plagues, are not contagious.
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:30:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:19:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The scenario I describe is not absurd. It's perfectly plausible.

A plague spreads.

Someone has a cure. The FDA holds up the cure for research. Everyone dies.

Yeah, nice try. If 100 million people were going to die in a year from some plague, the FDA would release a possible cure they had even if they didn't know it was perfectly safe.

People should be able to determine for themselves whether the testing is adequate.

Ahh... I don't know. We can't have a society that is beleaguered by tens of millions of stupid sick people who took a really unsafe drug and ended up dying or becoming paralyzed as a result.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:31:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As a somewhat relevant sidenote, my dad is an MD and he supports either abolishing the FDA or drastically reducing its size and scope (he's not a libertarian, btw, so it's not for moral/political reasons).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:33:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:30:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 11:19:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The scenario I describe is not absurd. It's perfectly plausible.

A plague spreads.

Someone has a cure. The FDA holds up the cure for research. Everyone dies.

Yeah, nice try. If 100 million people were going to die in a year from some plague, the FDA would release a possible cure they had even if they didn't know it was perfectly safe.
That assumes they know in advance how many people are going to die.


People should be able to determine for themselves whether the testing is adequate.

Ahh... I don't know. We can't have a society that is beleaguered by tens of millions of stupid sick people who took a really unsafe drug and ended up dying or becoming paralyzed as a result.
Sure we can. They were stupid people. I'd be more worried if they DIDNT face the consequences of their actions.
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:34:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:18:19 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 12/8/2010 10:59:22 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
From LF's profile summaries:
Looking for opponents on the following resolutions: People should be allowed to sell their organs. The FDA should be abolished. The Federal Reserve should be abolished. All recreational drugs should be legalized. The minimum wage should be abolished. The United States should not have protectionist trade barriers such as tariffs and subsidies. Intellectual Property laws should be abolished. Message me if interested.

Have at it, Freeman.

http://www.debate.org...

I wanted to go after Bank of America, GITMO and Henry Kissinger sometime soon, in addition to other debates I have. Maybe I could do this one.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:36:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:15:55 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 11:03:40 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/8/2010 10:55:13 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 10:35:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

re: FDA, bubonic plague

"Sure, they might go out of business after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?"
Sure, the government might fine them to death after they bring back the bubonic plague that kills 40 million people, but do we really want that?

Crazy, made-up BS examples prove nothing, because they can just as easily be applied to the government.

Ok, let me give you an example of something that is highly plausible. This could really happen.

A private researcher develops a miracle drug. It is a cure for the common cold! It almost always works and appears to have 0 side effects. In your ideal world, it goes to the free market where it ends up being regularly taken by 100 million people within the first 5 years. Unfortunately, the people who take it end up developing brain cancer after ten years. Oops.

In my world, it would have never gone to market until at least a decade of rigorous scientific research to ensure its safety. The FDA would have almost certainly put the brakes on it. In your world, it would have probably been rushed to market and killed tens of millions of people. Do you see the difference?

Again, that example can just as easily apply to the government. Change '10 years' to 'shortly after however long FDA approval takes.' There are always risks. Should we mandate that drug testing trials ought to take until every test subject dies of old age, to be 100% sure that the absurd scenario you describe never happens?

No, it doesn't also apply to the government. I'm telling you, it would have never been approved by the FDA and gone to market. Different standards would apply to different drugs because of their chemical makeup. This is a matter of science. We actually can know something about the structure of the drugs we sell and their possible safety risks. And we can know roughly how long it would take to determine whether or not a drug is safe.

The scenario I describe is not absurd. It's perfectly plausible. You just want to think it's absurd because you want to abolish the FDA. Safety matters.

You can't compare a perfect FDA to the nothing at all--you have to compare how the FDA actually works to how the market actually works. The market would provide better certification because there's competition, which the FDA does not face. If a certification firm does a bad job, and certifies dangerous drugs, they'd go out of business. If the FDA does a bad job, and releases dangerous drugs, they get more power and funding. In a free market, the best rise to the top--in government, the worst rise to the top. If you think these firms wouldn't catch a dangerous drug, why do you think the FDA would?

Corporations wouldn't legally *have* to use these certification agencies, but 1) they could lose money in the future if they released a dangerous drug 2) they'd lose money right away, because stockholders wouldn't appreciate a company taking huge risks with their money 3) not many stores would sell un-certified drugs and 4) not many people would want to buy them anyway. People buy dangerous drugs today because since they're FDA-approved, they think they're safe. People would risk their life on a potentially dangerous drug if they were dying of AIDS or something, but not to cure their runny nose.
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
12/8/2010 11:44:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, again, "There are always risks. Should we mandate that drug testing trials ought to take until every test subject dies of old age, to be 100% sure that the absurd scenario you describe never happens?"
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:45:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2010 11:33:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/8/2010 11:30:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/8/2010 11:19:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The scenario I describe is not absurd. It's perfectly plausible.

A plague spreads.

Someone has a cure. The FDA holds up the cure for research. Everyone dies.

Yeah, nice try. If 100 million people were going to die in a year from some plague, the FDA would release a possible cure they had even if they didn't know it was perfectly safe.
That assumes they know in advance how many people are going to die.

This would happen even if they didn't know how many people would die.


People should be able to determine for themselves whether the testing is adequate.

Ahh... I don't know. We can't have a society that is beleaguered by tens of millions of stupid sick people who took a really unsafe drug and ended up dying or becoming paralyzed as a result.
Sure we can. They were stupid people. I'd be more worried if they DIDNT face the consequences of their actions.

You're going to have to pay for this either way. Even if not directly, you will hurt as the rest of society hurts. This scheme is not in your rational self interest, trust me.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 11:47:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Incidentally, the FDA does in fact hold up treatments for illnesses that are death sentences. Even if numbers of people affected make a difference, ought they really?
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.