[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I might as well still be in the USMC where all we got was ibuprofen for every ill.
“Doc, I broke my leg.”
“Motrin and increase water consumption Marine.”
mike[/quote]
You forgot:
“3 days light duty…do you need a “No PT” chit?”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How did we survive then? Many didn’t! Many died because of poor food and poor sanitation. Our government has forced change in both areas.
Government is not good at many things but it is better than business at keeping clean air, clean water, unadulterated food and medicine. Private business has a place in all these things but they must be forced to do it.[/quote]
Not to be wholly heartless, but I mean how did we as a species survive? I’m not into freedom because it’s how I enjoy my life. I’m in this for the species man. Freedom is the best way for human life to survive and populate the whole damned universe.
I was watching a show on whitetail hunting last night and an idea came to me. The bulk of the show they were talking about tree stands. They had this guy on there who fell out of his tree stand and got crippled for three years. He then went on to start a non-profit that inspected tree stands for strength and stability. Seems to be that in the absence of the FDA, similar organizations would step up to check food quality and such, considering that food is a wee bit more important than tree stands.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I was watching a show on whitetail hunting last night and an idea came to me. The bulk of the show they were talking about tree stands. They had this guy on there who fell out of his tree stand and got crippled for three years. He then went on to start a non-profit that inspected tree stands for strength and stability. Seems to be that in the absence of the FDA, similar organizations would step up to check food quality and such, considering that food is a wee bit more important than tree stands.
[/quote]
Precisely. The statist would take this example and determine that we need a separate agency within the government regulating tree stands. In a free society with no government individuals step up to the occasion. There are always people who want to help. The vast majority of people act in their own best interest and they see the community they occupy as part of that interest (whether that community is local or belongs to some segment of society). The federal government and government in general is removed from the community.
So here’s one of the questions that seems to be being discussed: Suppose you have a market where a product is completely unregulated and where it is easy for the manufacturer to misrepresent the product because the consumer has little or no ability to detect fraud. What would be the level of deception and harm in such a market?
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS appears to think the level of fraud and harmful practices would be quite low:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think no company would offer products that purposefully hurt their customers as it is self defeating. [/quote]
and
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If the number of individuals who are “evil” in society was that great the division of labor and knowledge wouldn’t matter and nothing would get done anyway. It is the fact that humans rely on cooperation and that individuals do look out for their own interests that we can be safe. [/quote]
Zap, on the other hand, appears to believe that such a market would be filled with “snake-oil salesmen.”
It just so happens that the food market was such a market prior to the 19th. Governments were aware that adulterated food was a potential problem and they passed laws to make common adulterations illegal, but, once the product left the manufacturer, they had no means of detecting adulterations. Which left the market essentially unregulated.
Then in the 19th century, that changed: our knowledge of chemistry grew and microscopes came into use. Adulterations could now be detected.
So what did they find when they turned to testing the products of this unregulated market? Does this test case support LIFTICVSMAXIMVS or Zap? Door number 1 or door number 2?
You can find the answer here:
http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2005Mar/Thefightagainstfoodadulteration.asp
If you don’t want to bother reading this (although I think it makes for interesting reading–just don’t read it before dinner), Zap wins the prize. Product adulteration was rife, to the point of the majority of tested products being adulterated, and often with known poisons.
The simple fact is that such a market rewards cheaters, since they can substitute inexpensive ingredients for more expensive ones and increase their profit. Thus it is in their self-interest to cheat. Even if they personally would prefer not cheat, their ability to make money honestly is compromised by being in direct competition with other cheaters. I agree with LIFTICVSMAXIMVS that most humans are not evil, but they do have an nearly endless capacity for rationalization and self-delusion, especially when their well-being and the well-being of their family is at stake. Remember too, that this was the 19th century, and failure to make a living could result in debtor’s prison, prostitution, starvation, or the work house. The stakes of business failure were high for these folks.
Oddly enough, most libertarians would love to return us to the 19th century system of little regulation and no safety net. It baffles me as to why–but apparently this time around, it will bring out the Best in People and turn this world of ours into the Best of All Possible Worlds.
I don’t think I’ll be voting for Ron Paul.
Before the formalization of government how did man ever figure out what he could or couldn’t put in his body?
The division of labor and knowledge implies man is better suited to specialization which required him to learn to trade his labor and knowledge with others of differing capabilities to fill gaps in his own capabilities. Since he was able to contemplate his own health he sought to affect it through the intake of medicine. He relied on men whom specialized in medicine whom also worked to advance its technology from primitive to modern between generations. This was only mediated by cooperation between the division of labor and not by dictate of government.
Government can only protect life which requires making it a crime to commit acts of unwarranted violence or fraud against a person. This does not mean we need regulation for everything that could cause harm to our lives. If the result of some product is harm to a person it is a crime. Only actions that have already happened can be considered a crime. Conspiracy is not a crime and should not be considered a crime unless it actually has caused harm to a person. In other words no harm no foul.
Snakeoil doesn’t need official government regulation anymore than alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. I am protected by my own best interest.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way. [/quote]
It’s not the government’s business to protect people from themselves. If you are dumb enough to buy some of the stupid shit on the market then you are going to find some other kind of trouble to get yourself into anyway. All the FDA needs to do is test the supplements to make sure they contain what they are supposed to contain, not systematically suppress everything that competes with pharmaceutial profits.
Ron Paul also strongly opposes the Orwellian mental health initiatives that would subject all school-age children to psychiatric screening and subsequent drugging. He is the only candidate who is smart enough to understand that the psychiatric establishment is nothing more than an institutionalized drug peddling scam.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It seems Ron Paul would open us up to every dishonest snake oil salesman that comes along. How would he protect us from poor quality products and deceptive marketing or would he say the federal government does not have that responsibility and walk away?
I think the food and supplement industry need redirection and I think corporate lobbying hurts us (jamming soy and corn in all our food etc) but I don’t see Paul giving us an intelligent solution, I just see him swinging the pendulum too far the other way.
It’s not the government’s business to protect people from themselves. If you are dumb enough to buy some of the stupid shit on the market then you are going to find some other kind of trouble to get yourself into anyway. All the FDA needs to do is test the supplements to make sure they contain what they are supposed to contain, not systematically suppress everything that competes with pharmaceutial profits. [/quote]
Aren’t you the guy that was whining that a doctor messed your foot up? If you are dumb enough to chose the wrong doctor…
yeah i was dumb enough to choose the wrong doctor, but the government wouldn’t have been able to pick a better one
[quote]belligerent wrote:
yeah i was dumb enough to choose the wrong doctor, but the government wouldn’t have been able to pick a better one[/quote]
If the government wasn’t shielding you from crappy food, drugs and supplements it would be 1000 times harder to pick good things to put in your body.
I don’t agree with everything the FDA does but it plays an important role in keeping us safe.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If the government wasn’t shielding you from crappy food, drugs and supplements it would be 1000 times harder to pick good things to put in your body.
[/quote]
No it wouldn’t. Individuals would fill the gap with more consumer advocacy. If the government has never gotten involved with medicine in the first place we wouldn’t now be so dependent on them for protection. We have allowed a monopoly to decide what is best for us – not a good precedent.
This thing called the internet has actually given individuals the ability to find information. Of course, as always, consult with your doctor before attempting any therapy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If the government wasn’t shielding you from crappy food, drugs and supplements it would be 1000 times harder to pick good things to put in your body.
No it wouldn’t. Individuals would fill the gap with more consumer advocacy. If the government has never gotten involved with medicine in the first place we wouldn’t now be so dependent on them for protection. …[/quote]
You live in fantasy land my friend.
Necessity is the plea of slaves and tyrants alike–William Pitt (Damn if I don’t feel the need to dust that one of weekly.)