Further debate on FDA between idiot and anarchist

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you not heard before of scientists passing judgement on other scientists' findings?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Usually when that happens, the judges attempt to reproduce the findings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me, what?

I guess that takes care of the peer review process. Ah well.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You admit the FDA doesn't reproduce anything, they just review data. In the "real" scientific world, when a scientist claims X, other scientists try to reproduce X. That's how cold fusion was found to be bogus. Nobody could reproduce it.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already told you: The main problem is not obviously qualified pilots or obviously unqualified pilots (we are using airplane pilots as an example) -- but people who are neither obviously qualified nor obviously unqualified, as pilots.

Get it yet ?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Got it. And why is government magically better at this task than anyone else?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I already told you that the process of sorting the lot through an AC, "free-market", free-for-all "process" would be costly in every sense of the word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How is government magically able to do this cheaper? What's the special sauce?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would road ownership be divided up into small chunks of a mile or less?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would it not ?

Are you suggesting some kinda government law (the horror! ) that would impose a minimum of "private road ownership" of, say, fifty miles ?...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, I don't see any reason to assume that people are going to have an interest in developing a one-mile stretch of road between two other one-mile stretches of road. Efficiencies suggest that if you're going to go through all the trouble of building a road, you'll build more than one mile. Of course, some people might, in certain situations, choose to build a one-mile road.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I read your blather about my supposedly devious debating tacticts and it's unworthy of a response. Try and concentrate on the issue: You think the reason that most public roads are ..well, public has something to do with ...tyranny or something, and it's not just a matter of obvious, elementary practicality? Then prove it. History is against you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So it's impractical to have roads with different owners every mile. Therefore, the alternative to government owning all roads is to have different owners every mile. What an argument.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What part exactly don't you understand abt using a second tier of scientists (who are *not* working for the manufacturer) to help me make up my mind abt drug XYZ which the manufacturers' scientists claim it's good for me?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where have I said you should be prevented from getting expert opinions?


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I forgot that the very notion of peer review is alien to you. Alright. Explain to me then how an "anarcho"-capitalist would go about choosing a drug (just think of the situation as an emergency) amongst many choices without any information at all from an outside scientific agency such as the FDA? You have drug "Cheapodrix", "Toxicalgine" and "Placebol" to choose from and the kid is trmebling from a fever.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who said you can't get any information? The alternative to government-supplied information is no information.

It's always the same. The alternative to government is living in a cave.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No FDA seal of approval, no nothing. No doctor is anywhere to be found -- and the pharmacist guy is an "anarcho"-capitalist like you!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, all doctors will be prevented from issuing advice. This gets better and better. Remember what I said about your tactic of using nonsensical arguments? That you decided wasn't worth responding to? You're doing it again.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our topic happens to involve drugs. We could be using other examples of "anarcho"-capitalist impasses. I gotta confess I have a lot of insight into the matter from a close relative, a general surgeon (now retired), who has used in his life only the absolute minimum of drugs. (Yes, he did anaesthetize 'em! ) He also performed surgery only when necessary -a rarity among surgeons, this-- but that's not relevant.

Trust me when I tell you this: Man needs very, very, very few drugs in life to get by in life. If you don't get anything else out of our little exchanges, take this: You could spend the rest of your life outside the reach of drugs and most probably not be affected at all by that (outside of some serious viral outbreak).

On the other hand, it is the explicit objective of drug manufacturers to treat drugs as any other product, such as CDs, athletic shoes or chocolates: Drugs need to be "improved", "re-packaged", "expand their share in the market", "raise their unit profit margins", etc. It's a most unfortunate situation and we must recognize it for what it is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So it's not necessary, therefore we need someone to prevent us from getting it.

People survived before the internet, therefore the government should arbitrarily restrict its use, since it's obviously not vital. Internet providers are just trying to get rich off of non-vital services!


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone thinks that [having the FDA around] is good for him, then I have no problem with it. Feel free to fund the FDA on your own and abide by its recommendations. Why do you need to force other people to pay for it and force them to follow its recommendations?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We live in a system of democracy. You have to demonstrate a practical way, for you, of living amongst other people (who have chosen or are simply content to live in a democracy) without causing havoc to their way of living, by refusing to pay taxes, tolls, etc. Beyond arguing the theoretical pros and cons of "anarcho"-capitalism, you have to find a way to live amongst the subjects of "democratic tyranny" -- at least for awhile; until your vision of "anarcho"-capitalism becomes a reality, I mean.

That's the best I can offer to you, honestly, and to any other utopian visionary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My choice to take experimental cancer drugs (which I probably don't need) is going to cause havoc to your way of living?