TheAvowedAnarchist

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Check out my Anarchist website!

Come here and post in my forum :P
http://AnarchoCapitalism.zakyoung.com/

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

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?

FDA - Freedom Doesn't Allow (it)

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

You seem to be dismissive of the idea. Is this something new for you? Have you not hear before of scientists passing judgement on other scientists' findings?

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

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

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

We've been through this as well but you seem to be treating well-trodden ground as something new.

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

You brought it up. Now you complain that you repeat yourself.

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

But the suggestion that ONLY the private corporations are ALWAYS the best at making decisions and setting standards which affect more than themselves (e.g. who will fly a planeful of passengers over the cities) does not even pass the giggle test.

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

Why? Because private corporations can increase profits by having their planes crash into cities?

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

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

Why would every mile be owned by someone else?

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

Why would it not be? Are you saying thet "every time you walk into a building" someone owns all the floors?

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

When I walk into a building, all of the floors are owned by someone, but in most cases, the floors have a single owner. Why would road ownership be divided up into small chunks of a mile or less?

And either way, why should I be afraid of this? I drive on roads with different owners all the time.

Sometimes these owners use different signs. Amazingly, I haven't yet gotten so confused that I drove into a tree.

This is a great tactic for you, though. First say something that has no basis (every mile will be owned by a different owner), then follow it up with something that has even less basis. Then you can have your opponent spinning wheels on these red herrings, which distracts attention away from the real issue. And you're very, very good at coming up with nonsensical things. Play to your strengths. And you beautifully combine it with the "mention a dead horse then act all surprised and bored when it gets talked about" tactic (which you did with roads *and* pilots!). You might want to throw in a few more French phrases, though. The illusion of sophistication is crucial to pulling this off.

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

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

So if the government doesn't test drugs, you'll have no choice but to blindly believe whatever the producer of the drug tells you? Even though that's what you're doing now, since the FDA bases their decisions on data supplied by the manufacturer?

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

And I respond that, yes, that's what I do -- only they are not (as you deviously call 'em) just "bureaucrats"; they are scientists.

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

So you *do* blindly beleive whatever the manufacturer tells you?

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

And they do their own work, independently (supposedly) of the manufacturers, but using manufacturers data, provided the data and the work behind it meet the FDA criteria. (Click on the damn link already!)

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

Oh. So they don't reproduce, they just run the same numbers through the same formula. But they do it independently!

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

And I conceded the inherent shortcomings of any hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation in another post.

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

You conceded that bureaucracies perpetuate themselves. You forgot to concede that bureucratic monopolies with coercive authority are huge chokepoints. They hold product from market longer than necessary (sometimes "forever"), and when they allow bad product to the market, the results are catastrophic.

What happened with Vioxx? Did the failure occur in the FDA's "supposedly" independent work, or the criteria they set for judging the data and work?

In a free market with multiple, independent, competing testing labs, would this have been found sooner or later?

When there is one monopoly agency, failures affect a larger market.

The negatives of flipside of this (drugs that are kept from market) are even harder to discern. How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years?

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

And I stated that I would still prefer the FDA to exist rather than the alternative, because their motive is very different fromthe manufacturers'.

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

You haven't shown that a coercive monopoly is the only way to provide an agency with motives different than the manufacturers'.

The remainder of this post is really the only part I'm interested in hearing your response to. I'll read whatever you write in response to the above (and probably continue the conversation), but the stuff below is the real issue.

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

And I elaborated on that : Having a government agency that prevents some drugs from circulating and forces a significant amount of time to lapse (in order for drug effects to manifest themselves better) is a good thing, IMO.

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

It might be good for you. And if you determine such, then feel free to not use new drugs. My doctor and I might decide that we're willing to risk using a new, experimental drug in some situations (terminal illness is the obvious case). Our decision to accept such risk in no way forces you to do the same.

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

Yes, the FDA is probably in need of re-organisation but it's still better to have it.

And, by the way, that's what the citizens of the society in which you have decided to live yourself too, have (freely) decided it's best for them.

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

Like I said, if someone thinks that it's 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?

Putting the nail in the FDA's coffin

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

The FDA people who decide about various things, including drugs, are not simple MBAs. They are qualified scientists. But you knew that.

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

"Scientists" who look at somebody else's research.

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

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

So if government doesn't license pilots, airlines will just let anyone who wants to fly their planes in order to figure out who can do it and who can't? That doesn't even pass the giggle test.

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

Giggle all you want. I have already explained to you, in another thread, that the issue is not the out-and-out unqualified pilots (although, theoretically anyone could fly once, in your anarchist vision of the world!) -- but the uncertain levels of expertise; the persons who are not surely qualified nor surely unqualified. A robust process of qualification meeting industry-mandated and/or government-mandated standards is, in fact, the efficient and right play.

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

You're not saying anything new. So there is a demand for some sort of way to qualify pilots, but only the government can provide it? You even use the word "industry-mandated" but still maintain this can't be done without government?

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

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

Every building I go into has different, unstandardized signs for the restrooms. Somehow, though, I manage to find the men's room without confusion.

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

You're saying it would be the same thing with automobile roads, every mile of which would be owned by a different owner?

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

Why would every mile be owned by someone else?

What incentive do road owners have to make their signs confusing? If people can't figure out what the rules are, accidents go up, and accidents are bad for business.

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

I told you I see such a set-up as a Three Stooges sketch. Sorry for giggling.

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

Obviously, if it's not the way you want it, it's retarded.

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

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

So if the government doesn't test drugs, you'll have no choice but to blindly believe whatever the producer of the drug tells you? Even though that's what you're doing now, since the FDA bases their decisions on data supplied by the manufacturer.

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

I provided a link to the FDA website which presents in some detail what the agency is actually doing. Obviously, you have understood little of it, and even less abt my position on the matter. Plus ca change...

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

Exactly. It's always the same. You still can't articulate a coherent argument. You explicitly said that your inability to throughouly research drugs yourself is one of your reasons for supporting the FDA's authority over drugs, but then when someone says that's your position, you wonder why nobody "understands" your brilliant positions. And then you throw in a foreign phrase to give yourself that je ne sais quois.

More on the FDA...blah blah blah

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

I'd assume (I'd concede, if you want) that the primary objective of any organisation, and espcially of a bureaucratic, hierarchical organisatiion, is to perpetuate itself, i.e. the equivalent of the reproduction instinct in living beings. So, yes, the FDA, like most aforesaid organisations, first and foremost would want the necessity of its existence continuously affirmed and strengthened. Which would affect its overall work, in some way, one supposes.

Still, and that's the significant difference, such a motive pales in comparison to the importance of the motive behind the private organisation putting out its products (drugs): that organisation's sole objetive is profit maximization. Apparently, people have wisely decided to check that motive, as best as they could, through the creation of social woking agencies such as the FDA.

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

But when profit is a motive, and there is no government intervention stifling free trade and competition, then companies do have an incentive to provide safe products, since companies profit by getting voluntarily consenting customers, most of which would not like to purchase unsafe products. Your point about the average person not being an expert on drugs, etc., is irrelevant, since there are plenty of ways to get information on products that do not involve an agency that can coercively decide which products you can and can't use.

I really do not understand how you think the FDA has a real incentive to do a good job. Since the FDA does not actually serve anyone voluntarily, it can do as [censored] a job as it wants and still "perptuate itself" because it is a government agency funded through taxes, etc.
Bun when a company needs to "perpetuate itself", somehow they will almost surely provide unsafe products?? This makes no sense--they have far more incentive to provide good service than the FDA, since the company can only survive by profiting, and can only profit by selling a product people voluntarily buy. Like anything in the real world, obviously bad things can happen on a free market, and comanies concerned with profit may try to peddle poor products, but there is a system of checks and balances already in palce to prevent this--free trade and open competition (in theory--obviously we don't have anything close to that now, and eliminating the FDA is a small part of a bigger task).

Further analysis of the FDA

More explanations to idiots

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

[Cyrus rebuts to my comments on safety regulations and private roads]

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

I don't feel like addressing this again. Let's just make this easy: let's pretend that I provided an argument about why the free market can provide safety inspection based on supply and demand. You and several others disagree, and I and the rest of the ACer's argue your disagreements.

There, I like that better.

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

I'd assume (I'd concede, if you want) that the primary objective of any organisation, and espcially of a bureaucratic, hierarchical organisatiion, is to perpetuate itself, i.e. the equivalent of the reproduction instinct in living beings. So, yes, the FDA, like most aforesaid organisations, first and foremost would want the necessity of its existence continuously affirmed and strengthened. Which would affect its overall work, in some way, one supposes.

Still, and that's the significant difference, such a motive pales in comparison to the importance of the motive behind the private organisation putting out its products (drugs): that organisation's sole objetive is profit maximization. Apparently, people have wisely decided to check that motive, as best as they could, through the creation of social woking agencies such as the FDA.

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

The incentives are not terribly different. The FDA, like any market business, is run by people. Individuals. Greedy, self-serving, goal-oriented human beings. The people in the FDA want to increase their personal wealth just like the people in the drug companies.

The FDA, as a whole, has no collective hive mind trying to pertetuate itself, that's just an inevitable result of profit maximization. For the FDA administrators, like any government agency, to accomplish their goal of profit maximization (and thereby perpetuate itself), it has to be able to claim to the government that it needs more money. To claim this, it needs to fail.

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

I'd vote for the FDA to be re-organised, overhauled, whatever, but I would not vote to do away with the FDA.

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

You must use a different definition of "overhauled" than the one I'm used to