The Centrist Pundit

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Extended debate

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

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.

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

This is not the only way that peers review one's work. Before you embarass yourself further by persisting that scientists must try and reproduce their colleagues' experimental results before passing judgement, run a damn google. There must be something out there.

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

And why is government magically better at this task than anyone else? How is government magically able to do this cheaper? What's the special sauce?

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

You did not understand the point. Cost does not include only monetary figures. (The giveaway should have been the words "costly in every sense of the word".)

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

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

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

Who said anything about building a road in order to own it? You're not gonna stop me from buying one mile of road, are you?

And possibly creating a trading market, futures an' all, with miles of road as the traded unit?

And how all of a sudden "efficiency" comes into play, to magically and immediately optimize things in your world? Until we get to a point of "efficiency" (or "equilibrium", or whatever), we're supposed to go through a bit of trials and tribulations!

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

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.

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

I didn't say it was the only alternative, I said that it is a very distinct possibility - and it renders the whole argument abt all public roads being actually private completely unworkable. (One immediately sees the need to have universal rules and regulations for traffic not to stand still!)

Your debating tactics BTW are getting more and more obtuse.

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

So it's not necessary [to always take drugs], therefore we need someone to prevent us from getting it.

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

I'm merely pointing out to you something useful abt drugs, since drugs happen to be the topic we're using as an example. Ignore the advice if you want, it has nothing to do anyway with the issue. (I brought it up only because you wrote "How many lives could have been saved by drugs the FDA quashed or bogged down in red tape for years?" You'd be surprised by how few!)

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

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.

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

Certainly you would get information! You'd get information from different doctors -chosen by you-, evaluate the information and then proceed according to your own, individual judgement, right? I guess I can't get it across that this involves a tremendous amount of time lost. Every time you want to make any informed decision you want everything to start from zero. The very idea that someone might have judged something as dangerous before you make your own judgement is anathema. Alrighty.

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

My choice to take experimental cancer drugs ... is going to cause havoc to your way of living?

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

No. But your choice to stop paying taxes might. Or your choice to follow your own rules and regulations when speeding past the intersection.

The Debate Escalates

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.

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

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

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?

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

It's problematic trying to show people like you, who think in absolutist/manichean terms, that not everything is black and not everything is white. 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 ?

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.

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 ?...

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

Tell me, I'm taking down notes already.

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.

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.

Additional analysis of the FDA

A rebuttal to the market-anarchists

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

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

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

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? Because, as was already explained a dozen times here, that's what the FDA does - among other, many things.

Click on the damnn link already.

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

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?

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

We've been through this as well but you seem to be treating well-trodden ground as something new. Must be part of the AC world, where everything is up for grabs, in eternal circles.

Industry-mandated standards can be the answer for lots of regulations. (You should have remembered I told you I'm using such standards in my work almost every day!) Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Some of the time, the government needs to step in and issue standards, often in line, often beyond what the indutsry has mandated - if it has. Sometimes that's a better thing then industry-mandated standards; sometimes it's not.

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.

Better treat the whole thing as a sitcom pilot.

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?

What kind of buildings are you entering?? (I suspect a government agent, here, folks. )

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

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

I see such a set-up as a Three Stooges sketch.

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

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

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

"Retarded"? The Three Stooges are not retarded. They are extremely intelligent. A lot of their ideas would fit right in with "Anarcho"-Capitalism!

All You Need To Know About AnarchoCapitalism

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

You still can't articulate a coherent argument.

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

What exactly are you looking for? I have explained, I trust, as best as possible, how I feel abt agencies such as the FDA. Your argument was this:

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.

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!) And I conceded the inherent shortcomings of any hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation in another post. And I stated that I would still prefer the FDA to exist rather than the alternative, because their motive is very different fromthe manufacturers'. 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. 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.

Now : What part of that argument do you still not understand or find "incoherent"? It's all deja vu, mind you...

Re-examining the FDA

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

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

The profit maximization objective is not the right tool to decide what ride is safe for my child,

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

Why don't you decide what is safe for your child?

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

I usually do. But when I want some technologically adnaced product, such as a drug, I must rely on the opinion of experts, people such as chemists, biologists, doctors, etc. I'm neither. Even if was, I could not realistically conduct a one-man research amongst experts for every drug I want to give to my child, so I am relying on the opinion of those experts, more or less on blind faith. ("More or less" because a modicum of research usually goes on, as with most people in such situations. We try our best to do the best for ourselves and our kin.)

And I'd rather rely first on the opinion of people (such as the people who allow the drug in the market, in the first place) who do NOT stand to gain if drug XYZ is a best seller, than otherwise. A simple matter of getting the priorities right - and working for me.

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

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

...who is qualified to fly an airplane...

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

Don't fly on a plane with poorly qualified pilots. I have a feeling that imcompetant piloting would get some costly bad reviews rather quickly.

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

The process of weeding out the qualified from the unqualified -and identifying the so 'n so qualified- would involve a serious cost in human health and lives. Especially if we'd want to get statistically significant about it.

(The mobsters have a say, presumably, that goes "If there is any doubt, there is no doubt". But would we want to praise or condemn someone on the basis of a few trials? Therefore, we'd need a lot of accidents before we'd stop doing business with an airline or fly with a certain pilot. If he'd survive, that is.)

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

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

...or which car has priority in an intersection...

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

Right, because you assume incorrectly that private roads would be unregulated. You don't think there's a demand to enforce some basic safe driving laws, if they are in fact a problem?

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

LOL. Again with the "privatize-all-roads" obsession! You must be assuming that every private owner of those private roads will have the same rules and regulations and signs across the country.

Anyway, nothing personal but I do think this is a pretty idiotic argument in the first place. I cannot argue with a straight face the viability of private roads everywhere. Flashes of a Three Stooges sketch. Sorry.

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

The functionality of Soviet Communism was to create a welfare state to establish equality and eventually provide peace and happiness in the Marxist utopia.

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

Anyone who suggests the mere notion of organising something as a society is accused of totalitarian leanings by "anarcho"-capitalists. How boring this becomes, after a while.

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

The ... FDA [is] run by human beings; fallible, and easily corruptible ... What are their incentives to provide a careful service? Good will? HAH!

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

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.

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

Defending the FDA

These Anarchists are getting out of hand!

What if the the FDA had banned this drug in response to pressure from the fundies? Do you still like their coercive role now?

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

Then the FDA would not be up to its task - and the good citizens of the USA should be agitating against the cowardly behavior. The right play would not be to dismantle agencies such as the FDA and allow a free-for-all in what gets sold by the pharmaceutical corporations as drugs. The right play would be to set the FDA straight.

And shield it from attacks by the Christian Right.

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

Who defines "more harm than good"?

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

The experts appointed by our elected representatives. In this case, the FDA.

Do you suggest that we allow any substance which for-profit corporations (god bless 'em!) put up on the shelves -- and then we allow the free market to sort out the dangerous stuff from the good stuff? Thanks, but no thanks.

I accept, of course, that people can be corrupt and dishonest whether they're working for the FDA or GlaxoSmithKline. But the stated objectives of the two employers are different and the difference is significant.

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

The risks of [a] drug are not decided by ... the FDA. The risks are simply a function of the numbers. You should know that.

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

Did I claim the FDA makes judgement calls? That it bases its calls on tarot cards? Or intuition?

Or on anything except "the numbers"?

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

The FDA wholly relies on the drug producer's OWN TRIAL DATA when approving drugs. Did you know that?

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

Even if it did, so what? The FDA has a valuable and worthy job - and American citizens should see that the agency is both allowed and directed to do the job well.

But the FDA's work actually involves much more than "relying on the drug producers' data", as you over-simplifingly put it. You make it sound as if the FDA is merely looking at a bunch of papers and then stamping them with a grand seal of approval. Here is the FDA's Drug Review Process. Did you know about that?

A view on Libertarianism

I think a typical libertarian position would be similar to the one you outlined. However, it was argued and some people agreed that the war in Iraq was a defensive war. Of course, it was preemptive, but we were still "defending" ourselves against a perceived future attack. While many libertarians were likely skeptical of this line of reasoning, it is possible that some libertarian-leaning individuals accepted this argument.

Libertarianism is based on a notion of limited government. I have certain leanings in that direction. However, when push comes to shove, it is hard to limit government.

There are some historical instances in the U.S. where the libertarian approach would not have achieved the best result. Think back to labor conditions in the late 19th and early 20th century. Now it could be argued that we have gone too far in the other direction today, but most reasonable people would say that there was a need for government to curb those business practices. Similarly with civil rights.

I personally am not willing to accept that the libertarian approach to government is always best, but I do think we as a country should go back to it more often. We do not need the government trying to make gas prices lower during an election year, or investigating steroid use in major league baseball, or trying to criminalize online gambling.

In my opinion, the way that the U.S. and the rest of the world operates makes it impossible to go back to the extreme limited government (national defense, property rights protections only) that I associate with libertarianism. For better or worse, government plays a role in things like interstate commerce and disaster preparedness, for example. I still think it is a good idea to reign in government and focus it on tackling a limited set of responsibilities, even though my idea of a "reigned in" government would still be involved in a lot of things that pure libertarians would object to.