About Matthew (Okay - Let me toot my horn)

[William Joyce]

Originally posted by matt
As long as you don't engage in fraud against your employees or tenants...and as long as you don't become violent against your tenants, I don't give a darn what you do.

You're thinking in the right direction here, I believe, but let me put this to the test. Say that 100 of me and my buddies decide, guess what, we're the new government (work hypothetically with me here). We are the new government, and guess what? We've picked you to be our slave.

What would you do to get out of this situation? If anything?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by William Joyce
You're thinking in the right direction here, I believe, but let me put this to the test. Say that 100 of me and my buddies decide, guess what, we're the new government (work hypothetically with me here). We are the new government, and guess what? We've picked you to be our slave.

What would you do to get out of this situation? If anything?

I believe even matty's libertarian nation would still have a constitution which protected individual liberties, like the one we have now. So it seems your scenario, the point of which I'm not sure, is handled nicely by constitutional provisions against slavery. You're talking about tribalism. Wrong continent. That's not what matt is talking about.

Good morning william.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by eric
Yes Matt, I have. My company has also paid for approvals and good reviews. So much for unbiased approvals and ratings.

Lets get real for a moment, can you imagine if there was no FDA, how do you know the next time you take a cold medication you are not swallowing a poision from a lack of safety controlls and testing. When people start dying ?

We need to use common sense when we speak of regulation/de-regulation.

Yes. There are some private companies from which you can buy "stamps of approval". Yet there have been times in which government agencies have been successfully bribed by private companies that should have been fined or denied rights to engage in different activities. At least in the private sector there are different organization to which you may apply for membership or from which you can request approval. Their interests overlap.

If there were no FDA, I'd be more careful about the medicines I consume. I'd ask friends, family, neighbors, and associates for their opinions. (There may also be private evaluation firms. I'd look for such firms' symbols.) Unlike the ease a company might have with bribing a monopolistic governmental evaluation agency, I doubt that it can bribe many consumers, whose opinions I might gather, to give false praise.

I'll repeat a previous comment: even though a bad drug might get through, more harm comes through the delay of approving good drugs. Perhaps the FDA should exist for those who want products it approves. Yet, the public shouldn't be denied drugs that have yet to be approved by the FDA.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Yes. There are some private companies from which you can buy "stamps of approval". Yet there have been times in which government agencies have been successfully bribed by private companies that should have been fined or denied rights to engage in different activities. At least in the private sector there are different organization to which you may apply for membership or from which you can request approval. Their interests overlap.

Good point.

If there were no FDA, I'd be more careful about the medicines I consume. I'd ask friends, family, neighbors, and associates for their opinions. (There may also be private evaluation firms. I'd look for such firms' symbols.) Unlike the ease a company might have with bribing a monopolistic governmental evaluation agency, I doubt that it can bribe many consumers, whose opinions I might gather, to give false praise.

I'll repeat a previous comment: even though a bad drug might get through, more harm comes through the delay of approving good drugs. Perhaps the FDA should exist for those who want products it approves. Yet, the public shouldn't be denied drugs that have yet to be approved by the FDA.

Is there time enough to do all this research on every substance in our lives? That's my only concern. I still like all this theoretically.

 

[eric]

Perhaps the FDA should exist for those who want products it approves

Now that solution I would go along with, as long as the people who buy non-FDA approved drugs are willing to forfiet their legal rights to sue either the drug company or the US government. Having FDA approval for a drug is a mitigating factor in lawsuits against drug manufacturers, and does set standards which are benchmarks for quality control, thereby reducing liability.

Second the above said people must also be willing to bear the costs incurred thru the use of a bad or ineffective product. I do not want my tax dollars spent on someone's experiment !

 

[mattskramer]

"What about the accreditation of physicians? Do you want to personally ask some quack 21 questions to determine if you should let them operate on you? Do you have staff to verify all his transcripts? Or are you just going to take his word?"

A girl used to braid neighbors' hair for a small charge. She did good work and was very popular. Well establish beauty salons complained to the government that she did not have the proper license do what she was doing. She was order by government agents to stop providing the service until she received the proper license. In order to get such a license, she would have had to take courses in SHAMPOO and other hair-related subjects (even though she did nothing to the customers' hair but to braid it). After having taken these expensive courses, she would have had to go through the time and trouble of applying for the exam, taking it, and passing it.

A little old housekeeper made cookies that were very popular with her neighbors. She would give the cookies away to family, friends, and neighbors. Making so many cookies kept her very busy. One person recommended that she sell them. She started to see them from her home. Local bakeries did not like this cheap and friendly competition, so they complained to government. The government shut her "business" down because it didn't meet the government's health and safety guidelines, and she didn't have the permits or license required.

A poor lady tried to earn some extra money by baby-sitting local kids at their home. Her fees were cheep and neighbors said that she was great with the children. Well...daycare centers contacted authorities. Government agents concluded that one of her door frames was 1 inch too narrow. The government demanded that she get the costly adjustment made to her house or cease her baby-sitting service.

Concerning the medical field: There are many stories about how it protects its own from criticism and competition. As alternative medicine gains in popularity, established doctors and hospitals are calling on government to crack down on these "unapproved" services and they are trying to keep such individuals from considering alternatives.

Licensing is little more than a way for well established businesses to bribe the government (for lack of a better word) to keep them from having to face cheep competition. As with the braider, cookie maker, and babysitter, I'd let the reputation of the service provider speak for itself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
"What about the accreditation of physicians? Do you want to personally ask some quack 21 questions to determine if you should let them operate on you? Do you have staff to verify all his transcripts? Or are you just going to take his word?"

A girl used to braid neighbors' hair for a small charge. She did good work and was very popular. Well establish beauty salons complained to the government that she did not have the proper license do what she was doing. She was order by government agents to stop providing the service until she received the proper license. In order to get such a license, she would have had to take courses in SHAMPOO and other hair-related subjects (even though she did nothing to the customers' hair but to braid it). After having taken these expensive courses, she would have had to go through the time and trouble of applying for the exam, taking it, and passing it.

A little old housekeeper made cookies that were very popular with her neighbors. She would give the cookies away to family, friends, and neighbors. Making so many cookies kept her very busy. One person recommended that she sell them. She started to see them from her home. Local bakeries did not like this cheap and friendly competition, so they complained to government. The government shut her "business" down because it didn't meet the government's health and safety guidelines, and she didn't have the permits or license required.

A poor lady tried to earn some extra money by baby-sitting local kids at their home. Her fees were cheep and neighbors said that she was great with the children. Well...daycare centers contacted authorities. Government agents concluded that one of her door frames was 1 inch too narrow. The government demanded that she get the costly adjustment made to her house or cease her baby-sitting service.

Concerning the medical field: There are many stories about how it protects its own from criticism and competition. As alternative medicine gains in popularity, established doctors and hospitals are calling on government to crack down on these "unapproved" services and they are trying to keep such individuals from considering alternatives.

Licensing is little more than a way for well established businesses to bribe the government (for lack of a better word) to keep them from having to face cheep competition. As with the braider, cookie maker, and babysitter, I'd let the reputation of the service provider speak for itself.

I agree that too much is regulated. And many times the regulation is simply due to the lobbying of the professional group to keep out competition.

It IS ridiculous to certify hairstylists and chinese massage technicians. I agree on many points with what you've said.

So I've only agreed. Why did I post? I just don't want to have to go to medical school to become knowledgeable enough to choose a doctor. I guess I could just go with the concensus of opinion of several consumer groups. But they could be paid off. I know. I know. The government is corrupt with an agenda as well, and government regulation is not the panacea of the modern era. I know . I know. Shit. Maybe I don't know.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
So I've only agreed. Why did I post? I just don't want to have to go to medical school to become knowledgeable enough to choose a doctor. I guess I could just go with the concensus of opinion of several consumer groups. But they could be paid off. I know. I know. The government is corrupt with an agenda as well, and government regulation is not the panacea of the modern era. I know . I know. Shit. Maybe I don't know.

Is there a question in there somewhere?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by eric
Now that solution I would go along with, as long as the people who buy non-FDA approved drugs are willing to forfiet their legal rights to sue either the drug company or the US government.

Second the above said people must also be willing to bear the costs incurred thru the use of a bad or ineffective product. I do not want my tax dollars spent on someone's experiment !

I agree to an extent. Yet, I think that individuals should be allowed to sue against whomever (the company for non-FDA-approved drugs / the FDA for FDA-approved drugs) declares the product safe when it is not safe. It is somewhat related to my position on fraud.

In summary, in general, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't commit violence or fraud against another.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Is there a question in there somewhere?

Just concerns, smartass. Do any of those things concern you? I guess you have lots of freetime to research every drug on the market. Good for you.

 

[Moi]

What you are all missing as the point is that, to me, the government wasn't created to ensure that everyone in this country live their lives harm-free. Yes of course life has hazards. I just don't believe that the government can or should try to ensure that the citizens of this country live forever, have every single ailment either prevented or fixed or that every scheister be prevented from getting victims.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Just concerns, smartass. Do any of those things concern you? I guess you have lots of freetime to research every drug on the market. Good for you.

Hey...hey...take it easy. Just playin'. Yeah. I understand that each side has its negatives and positives. Still, based on my thinking through them, I still think that, at the very least, businesses and drugs, should exist that don't have the government's stamp of approval (provided the individual businesses are not engaged in fraud or undue violence).

 

[eric]

I will say one thing in conclusion; if one of your children died because of food contamination, poisioning, or unsafe drugs, I seriously doubt you would feel the same way, correct me if I am wrong. I would hope the money you would receive from a lawsuit or the knowledge that the next consumer would not suffer the same fate, would not in your mind replace that child.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Hey...hey...take it easy. Just playin'. Yeah. I understand that each side has its negatives and positives. Still, based on my thinking through them, I still think that, at the very least, businesses and drugs, should exist that don't have the government's stamp of approval (provided the individual businesses are not engaged in fraud or undue violence).

OK. sorry I used the A__ word.


Should. A lot of things should be a lot of ways. The fact is we live in a world where e society at large is forced to pay for the mistakes of idiots. So when people take drugs that cripple them from a quack, society pays. If we weren't already moved this far toward the "social" paradigm of reality, it wouldn't matter. The fact is the government WILL pay when a moron doesn't study the pharmacopeia. And it will come out of your pocket. If we didn't have to pay for the mistakes of idiots, I wouldn't care. but we do.

I used to be you, matt. I know it's much easier to be ideologically pure. But that's not the world.

 

[eric]

Oh and by the way, you can legally obtain non-FDA approved drugs. You are required to sign a waiver of liability, releasing the US government from any and all liability arising out of the use of the drug. I have done this with drugs that I have ordered from European drug manuafacturers who sold non-FDA approved neurotrophic drugs that I researched and wanted to try.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by eric
Oh and by the way, you can legally obtain non-FDA approved drugs. You are required to sign a waiver of liability, releasing the US government from any and all liability arising out of the use of the drug. I have done this with drugs that I have ordered from European drug manuafacturers who sold non-FDA approved neurotrophic drugs that I researched and wanted to try.

I'm suprised you can do that. That's cool. The existence of the waiver proves the validity of my model. Sweet.

 

[eric]

Yes, it originated from AIDS groups who were pressing the US government to let them try experimental drugs from overseas. The good thing it was not restricted to any particular class. There are limitations though, for instance you can not order controlled substances, hey have to give a little.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by eric
There are limitations though, for instance you can not order controlled substances, hey have to give a little. [/B]

Damnit. You can understand after the country was paralyzed by reefer madness in the 20's!

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by eric
I will say one thing in conclusion; if one of your children died because of food contamination, poisioning, or unsafe drugs, I seriously doubt you would feel the same way, correct me if I am wrong. I would hope the money you would receive from a lawsuit or the knowledge that the next consumer would not suffer the same fate, would not in your mind replace that child.

For one example, out of many, on how paternalistic government kills its citizens (acting as if it knows how to take care of us more so than we know ourselves) see http://devfff.ddmweb.com/freedom/1297d.asp

If a business, or government served something that caused a child to die it would be a tragedy. The money a plaintiff may receive in either case would not bring the child back.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by eric
Oh and by the way, you can legally obtain non-FDA approved drugs. You are required to sign a waiver of liability, releasing the US government from any and all liability arising out of the use of the drug. I have done this with drugs that I have ordered from European drug manuafacturers who sold non-FDA approved neurotrophic drugs that I researched and wanted to try.

Cool. I got an idea...I wonder if we can treat Social Security the same way. "He government...let's make a deal. If you won't require me to pay any more into social security from this day forward, then when I come of age to receive social security benefits, I will decline them. What do ya say?