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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not interested in talking about my personal utopia where everything works exactly like I want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's *exactly* what you want to talk about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you're obviously wrong. Read on.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never heard an AC proponent bemoan the fact that statism is a tolerated viewpoint. I've heard you complain numerous times about the oppression you suffer as a result of AC posts (in the politics forum, the horror!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about bisonbison but I welcome the AC debate! Where else would there be an opportunity to post up links to the Three Stooges?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep repeating the same thug responses. It's the real world, right? Oppression is the status quo, get over it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, that's not what critics of "anarcho"-capitalism are saying and that's not what bisonbison wrote, as his posts are still up.
Speaking for myself, I also want a lot of things changed in this world, so I am making some effort towards that goal. The better part of that work is discussing things with people - in order for me to either verify my ideas and convince other people or to learn things from others and improve my ideas (or change 'em). It's called politics -- if I can throw in a foreign word...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We statists do have an actual advantage over you here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What advantage to statists have "here"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I for one am not a "statist" -- in the sense that I certainly do NOT believe that everything is better if done by the "state".
But what is said here is that people who oppose or criticize "anarcho"-capitalism have the advantage of living and breathing (as you do too!) in a world which is closer to their idea of how best to run a society. While ACers are obliged to debate ideas based on something that has not yet being "tested" in real life.
In that sense, ACers are obviously talking (and bisonbison is "not interested in talking") about their personal utopias. But the critics of AC are not talking abt their personal utopias; that "non-AC" world is already out there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not interested in talking about my personal utopia where everything works exactly like I want.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's *exactly* what you want to talk about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you're obviously wrong. Read on.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never heard an AC proponent bemoan the fact that statism is a tolerated viewpoint. I've heard you complain numerous times about the oppression you suffer as a result of AC posts (in the politics forum, the horror!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about bisonbison but I welcome the AC debate! Where else would there be an opportunity to post up links to the Three Stooges?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep repeating the same thug responses. It's the real world, right? Oppression is the status quo, get over it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, that's not what critics of "anarcho"-capitalism are saying and that's not what bisonbison wrote, as his posts are still up.
Speaking for myself, I also want a lot of things changed in this world, so I am making some effort towards that goal. The better part of that work is discussing things with people - in order for me to either verify my ideas and convince other people or to learn things from others and improve my ideas (or change 'em). It's called politics -- if I can throw in a foreign word...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We statists do have an actual advantage over you here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What advantage to statists have "here"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I for one am not a "statist" -- in the sense that I certainly do NOT believe that everything is better if done by the "state".
But what is said here is that people who oppose or criticize "anarcho"-capitalism have the advantage of living and breathing (as you do too!) in a world which is closer to their idea of how best to run a society. While ACers are obliged to debate ideas based on something that has not yet being "tested" in real life.
In that sense, ACers are obviously talking (and bisonbison is "not interested in talking") about their personal utopias. But the critics of AC are not talking abt their personal utopias; that "non-AC" world is already out there.
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...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A personal experience
I tried to sell Walmart a few years back. The price they wanted to pay was below what I could accept (nothing wrong there), so we passed.
I know somebody who did sell them a product. The item performed well and they told thim they were ready to reorder. They gave him an order for five times what he sold them originally, but at 60% of the price. When he told them he could't sell at that price, they increased their offer to 70% and told him take it or leave. He had no choice but to leave it.
I remember reading in a trade journal about one other company that was very dependent on their Wal-mart orders. On Wal-Mart's purchase orders at that time, the small print on the back said that all orders were cancellable up until the date of shipment. Wal-Mart decided to cancel one of his orders the day before the ship date, because they were able to get the product cheaper. The company sued, claiming, IRIC, that it was an unfair contract. They won and Wal-Mart had to take the goods.
Again, my point is that a company with the market power of Wal-Mart takes on some of the characteristics of a sovereign entity such as a country.
I know somebody who did sell them a product. The item performed well and they told thim they were ready to reorder. They gave him an order for five times what he sold them originally, but at 60% of the price. When he told them he could't sell at that price, they increased their offer to 70% and told him take it or leave. He had no choice but to leave it.
I remember reading in a trade journal about one other company that was very dependent on their Wal-mart orders. On Wal-Mart's purchase orders at that time, the small print on the back said that all orders were cancellable up until the date of shipment. Wal-Mart decided to cancel one of his orders the day before the ship date, because they were able to get the product cheaper. The company sued, claiming, IRIC, that it was an unfair contract. They won and Wal-Mart had to take the goods.
Again, my point is that a company with the market power of Wal-Mart takes on some of the characteristics of a sovereign entity such as a country.
m......well put and worthy of a detailed response.
It's a big ball of yarn.....Let's begin to unravel it.
Firstly, this is not a black and white issue. Wal-Mart is NOT either all-bad or all-good.
Let’s use a poker simile to get going.......
How many times have you heard as an answer “It all depends” to a question about a hand or situation? Advanced players know all too well the nuances and implications of that answer. Less advanced players, who are looking for a black-and-white answer get frustrated easily with that answer. More often than not, they are unwilling or unable to accept that the scenario is much more complicated than it appears on the surface.
It is my opinion that in dealing with the “Wal-Mart” issue, we have somewhat of a similar situation.
I believe that for us to fully understand the complex dynamics, it is instructive to view them from three different perspectives:
The Vendor - Anyone who sells products to Wal-Mart for resale to the general public.
The Merchant - (In this case, Wal-Mart) but for the purpose of this exercise, any retailer engaged in re-selling products.
The Consumer – The end user who purchases the products from the Merchant.
If we keep the above in mind, and look at the dynamics of what happens in the day-to-day world of a Wal-Mart from each of these three perspectives, it will become clear that there are indeed no simple answers to the question of Wal-Mart: good or evil.
There are however substantiated, documented details of business practices that will shed considerable light on the subject, and form a baseline upon which one can make an informed opinion.
As my experience and expertise is in consumer electronics, I will use that product category to begin the journey.
It is important to understand that there is different ‘utility’ to be applied to different categories of products, and what may apply to one category does not apply to the other. I will address this issue later on.
Let us begin with the following product example: An AM/FM/CD Radio for the car. The brand name I am about to use is for example only, so please do not take the case I am about to make to have anything specific to do with them.
Let’s choose the brand name Sony. Why Sony and not brand unknown XYZ? Glad you asked. To answer we must digress and talk a bit about merchants.
It can be said that there are two primary types of merchants: Growers and Harvesters.
Growers: These are the guys that can ‘build a line’. They have a recognized credibility with their customer base. Their opinions are trusted and their recommendations of product selection are generally accepted to be objective and based in fact. For vendor XYZ, if you have a better product, these are the guys you want to sell to. You NEED them to establish your products credibility in order to ‘build your brand name’, which, everything else being equal will mean increased profit and growth for vendor XYZ.
Growers are also known as “Specialist Retailers”. They survive on lower volume at higher gross margins and justify the additional margin by the services that they provide that are not generally available at the Wal-Marts (or other ‘Big Box’ merchants). They can exist in the long run only if they truly ‘add value’ to the buying proposition. Those who cannot eventually will go out of business.
Harvesters: Harvester merchants serve the prime purpose of delivering to a vendor the largest and broadest cross section of consumers. A vendor must meet a select set of criteria before they can legitimately serve as a supplier to a big box. With few exceptions, they must have a reasonably known ‘brand identity’. They must be able to supply the volume needs of the big boxes.
Harvesters do not ‘build brands’....They ‘harvest’ the volume potential of a brand that has been previously built.
It is important to understand that I imply neither good nor bad to either Growers or Harvesters....It is simply a description of a mode of retail trade for the purpose of understanding how the big picture works.
Let’s get back to our Sony AM/FM/CD Radio now.
‘Critical Mass’ must be reached before a Wal-Mart and a Sony agree to engage in business. Some of the components of that critical mass are:
.....to be continued.
It’s late, I’ve moved a lot of snow today, and I’m tired.
It's a big ball of yarn.....Let's begin to unravel it.
Firstly, this is not a black and white issue. Wal-Mart is NOT either all-bad or all-good.
Let’s use a poker simile to get going.......
How many times have you heard as an answer “It all depends” to a question about a hand or situation? Advanced players know all too well the nuances and implications of that answer. Less advanced players, who are looking for a black-and-white answer get frustrated easily with that answer. More often than not, they are unwilling or unable to accept that the scenario is much more complicated than it appears on the surface.
It is my opinion that in dealing with the “Wal-Mart” issue, we have somewhat of a similar situation.
I believe that for us to fully understand the complex dynamics, it is instructive to view them from three different perspectives:
The Vendor - Anyone who sells products to Wal-Mart for resale to the general public.
The Merchant - (In this case, Wal-Mart) but for the purpose of this exercise, any retailer engaged in re-selling products.
The Consumer – The end user who purchases the products from the Merchant.
If we keep the above in mind, and look at the dynamics of what happens in the day-to-day world of a Wal-Mart from each of these three perspectives, it will become clear that there are indeed no simple answers to the question of Wal-Mart: good or evil.
There are however substantiated, documented details of business practices that will shed considerable light on the subject, and form a baseline upon which one can make an informed opinion.
As my experience and expertise is in consumer electronics, I will use that product category to begin the journey.
It is important to understand that there is different ‘utility’ to be applied to different categories of products, and what may apply to one category does not apply to the other. I will address this issue later on.
Let us begin with the following product example: An AM/FM/CD Radio for the car. The brand name I am about to use is for example only, so please do not take the case I am about to make to have anything specific to do with them.
Let’s choose the brand name Sony. Why Sony and not brand unknown XYZ? Glad you asked. To answer we must digress and talk a bit about merchants.
It can be said that there are two primary types of merchants: Growers and Harvesters.
Growers: These are the guys that can ‘build a line’. They have a recognized credibility with their customer base. Their opinions are trusted and their recommendations of product selection are generally accepted to be objective and based in fact. For vendor XYZ, if you have a better product, these are the guys you want to sell to. You NEED them to establish your products credibility in order to ‘build your brand name’, which, everything else being equal will mean increased profit and growth for vendor XYZ.
Growers are also known as “Specialist Retailers”. They survive on lower volume at higher gross margins and justify the additional margin by the services that they provide that are not generally available at the Wal-Marts (or other ‘Big Box’ merchants). They can exist in the long run only if they truly ‘add value’ to the buying proposition. Those who cannot eventually will go out of business.
Harvesters: Harvester merchants serve the prime purpose of delivering to a vendor the largest and broadest cross section of consumers. A vendor must meet a select set of criteria before they can legitimately serve as a supplier to a big box. With few exceptions, they must have a reasonably known ‘brand identity’. They must be able to supply the volume needs of the big boxes.
Harvesters do not ‘build brands’....They ‘harvest’ the volume potential of a brand that has been previously built.
It is important to understand that I imply neither good nor bad to either Growers or Harvesters....It is simply a description of a mode of retail trade for the purpose of understanding how the big picture works.
Let’s get back to our Sony AM/FM/CD Radio now.
‘Critical Mass’ must be reached before a Wal-Mart and a Sony agree to engage in business. Some of the components of that critical mass are:
.....to be continued.
It’s late, I’ve moved a lot of snow today, and I’m tired.
A detatched rational look at prolife v prochoice
Is hair human?
No
Fingernails?
No
Your arm?
No
Sperm?
No
These are really stupid ass retorts you know.
Should we start counting pregnant women as 2 people for purposes of the census/defining representation?
If you want.
Should a fetus be able to own real and/or personal property --- not just a future interest, but a present interest?
Exactly what property would they own?
Should citizenship (one of the rights of being born in this country) be granted upon conception?
I don't think live begins at conception (probably halfway through), but as a society we should get together and decide when live begins, not a court.
Should citizenship (one of the rights of being born in this country) be granted upon conception?
See above comment about conception, but once again society should get to determine when live begins, not courts.
Unmarried Man gets woman pregnant. Man's only offspring would be the fetus. Should all of his property go to the fetus?
Assuming property is automatically inherited by next of kin in lieu of will (is that how it works?) then sure. Don't see a problem. Is it all that different then an infant inheriting wealth.
Now there is a miscarriage, all of the property now goes to the Mom, right? After all the fetus, who owned all of the property died without a will. Now all of the estate of the fetus goes to the mom.
I don't think that is how inheritance law would work if an infant died, but I'm no expert on inheritance law (never inherited anything).
For all you inheritance law questions treat the fetus as if it were a newborn infant.
No
Fingernails?
No
Your arm?
No
Sperm?
No
These are really stupid ass retorts you know.
Should we start counting pregnant women as 2 people for purposes of the census/defining representation?
If you want.
Should a fetus be able to own real and/or personal property --- not just a future interest, but a present interest?
Exactly what property would they own?
Should citizenship (one of the rights of being born in this country) be granted upon conception?
I don't think live begins at conception (probably halfway through), but as a society we should get together and decide when live begins, not a court.
Should citizenship (one of the rights of being born in this country) be granted upon conception?
See above comment about conception, but once again society should get to determine when live begins, not courts.
Unmarried Man gets woman pregnant. Man's only offspring would be the fetus. Should all of his property go to the fetus?
Assuming property is automatically inherited by next of kin in lieu of will (is that how it works?) then sure. Don't see a problem. Is it all that different then an infant inheriting wealth.
Now there is a miscarriage, all of the property now goes to the Mom, right? After all the fetus, who owned all of the property died without a will. Now all of the estate of the fetus goes to the mom.
I don't think that is how inheritance law would work if an infant died, but I'm no expert on inheritance law (never inherited anything).
For all you inheritance law questions treat the fetus as if it were a newborn infant.
Statists and PVN
First off, I don't want anyone to go away thinking I'm some Chomskyite anarchosydacalist. Truth be told, I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on a lot of issues regarding the state and it's legitimacy. My ideas on a lot of things are nebulous and I'm still trying to get them sculpted. Now that that's out of the way...
Obviously, work cannot get too bad for me because there are laws in place to make sure I'm not exploited 100%, but I think it's severely intellectually dishonest to claim that work contracts made between someone in poverty and someone with the power to feed them or keep them starving a bit longer are "free" contracts. What Chomsky pointed out is that without a leash the invisible hand will turn into the invisible 300 pound rottweiler. Work contracts in an AC society will be about as "free" as they are for me now, minus protective laws, and these 'contracts' would dissipate into even more unbalanced power and oppression. Someone else here called this an "ad hominem" attack on AC. Hypothesizing the effect of an unbridled invisible hand and coming to the conclusion that it will be horrible isn't really an ad hominem attack. Although I am open and willing to seriously chew on the defenses of AC.
Whenever a statist tells PVN that he is free to leave, he points out that he shouldn't have to move because of our tyranny. I put forth that if he can call all work contracts free, regardless of the extreme power imbalance between the parties, regardless of starving children, then statists can tell him to move rather than having 99.99% of the country change their ways for him. One intellectually dishonest statement deserves another.
Boro, I live in Oak Park, Il., a suburb just west of Chicago. I moved here from Georgia after college because I figured the job market would be better. Holy [censored] what I wrong.
Like I said, I'm more than willing to listen to the arguments for AC. I've got some anarchist leanings, so it's a nice change of pace. However, I don't want to hear tripe couched in phraseology like "jackbooted thugs." It's a total turn off and whenever I find myself agreeing with you guys someone eventually coughs up a hug
Obviously, work cannot get too bad for me because there are laws in place to make sure I'm not exploited 100%, but I think it's severely intellectually dishonest to claim that work contracts made between someone in poverty and someone with the power to feed them or keep them starving a bit longer are "free" contracts. What Chomsky pointed out is that without a leash the invisible hand will turn into the invisible 300 pound rottweiler. Work contracts in an AC society will be about as "free" as they are for me now, minus protective laws, and these 'contracts' would dissipate into even more unbalanced power and oppression. Someone else here called this an "ad hominem" attack on AC. Hypothesizing the effect of an unbridled invisible hand and coming to the conclusion that it will be horrible isn't really an ad hominem attack. Although I am open and willing to seriously chew on the defenses of AC.
Whenever a statist tells PVN that he is free to leave, he points out that he shouldn't have to move because of our tyranny. I put forth that if he can call all work contracts free, regardless of the extreme power imbalance between the parties, regardless of starving children, then statists can tell him to move rather than having 99.99% of the country change their ways for him. One intellectually dishonest statement deserves another.
Boro, I live in Oak Park, Il., a suburb just west of Chicago. I moved here from Georgia after college because I figured the job market would be better. Holy [censored] what I wrong.
Like I said, I'm more than willing to listen to the arguments for AC. I've got some anarchist leanings, so it's a nice change of pace. However, I don't want to hear tripe couched in phraseology like "jackbooted thugs." It's a total turn off and whenever I find myself agreeing with you guys someone eventually coughs up a hug
Monday, July 9, 2007
Pro-life follow up
Roe v. Wade allows abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, and supercedes all state laws to the contrary. The only reason such laws are not challenged by the ACLU/Planned Parenthood is because demand for late-term abortions in states where the procedure is banned is nearly non-existent (the few who really desire one can always go to a neighboring state), and few abortionists are qualified (you have to be qualified to kill something, oh the irony, I guess if they screwed up the baby might live) to perform late-term procedures, so the laws have little if any effect.
Also, pro-aborts do everything they can to stifle debate about abortion procedures (look at the way they react when the procedure is displayed in photos/videos), because people who have seen an abortion procedure and understand what actually goes on are much more likely to oppose it, for obvious reasons (obvious if you've ever seen one, that is).
Also, pro-aborts do everything they can to stifle debate about abortion procedures (look at the way they react when the procedure is displayed in photos/videos), because people who have seen an abortion procedure and understand what actually goes on are much more likely to oppose it, for obvious reasons (obvious if you've ever seen one, that is).
Response to pro choice outrage :
I can understand supporting a woman's right to do something regarding her own body, and that that is argued by many to be different than murder.
There is a paradox here that I have not resolved. Also, let me just state I'm not trying to comment here on my own personal views of abortion. Ok, moving on:
The pro-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion isn't really murder, and that a woman's right to choose regarding her own body is paramount.
The anti-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion is murder, which is unjustified for matters of convenience (whereas saving the life of the mother would be a different story).
So: if it isn't murder for a woman to obtain a late-term abortion, then it also isn't murder if someone else kills that same fetus at the same stage of development. A third-party killing that fetus without the mother's permission would be interfering with a woman's right to choose, but it wouldn't be murder by the definition commonly held by the pro-abortion camp.
Conversely: if it is murder for a third-party to kill that fetus without permission, it is also murder for a woman to have it done by her own permission.
To maintain a consistent position, neither side can have it both ways.
What CAN be both ways, and is consistent, would be the following view: if willful abortion isn't murder, then forcible killing of the fetus by a third-party constitutes an assault/battery/infringement on the woman herself, and does not constitute a murder of the fetus.
If the fetus is given independent status to the extent that it can be considered murdered, then abortion cannot escape that charge also, although abortion may have in varying degrees extenuating circumstances or even necessity (to save the mother's life) as an excuse.
The woman clearly has more right to decide matters than would a third-party have the right to kill the fetus absent her consent, but the categorization of murder (or perhaps something lesser such as manslaughter) must be consistently applied, or not, regardless or who kills the fetus.
I don't see how this can be thought of logically and consistently in any other fashion; thus the paradox of which I spoke, which appears to me to be inherent in the positions of those who would call it murder for a third-party but not for the mother. At least, SBR, you said you support the right of the mother to murder her own fetus until it can survive on its own. edit: So your position is not inconsistent in the way you categorize the fetus. (I'd wonder if you meant a young born infant too, as it clearly cannot survive on its own either, but I doubt you meant that. Also, many premature babies survive just fine with a bit of special care. But that's a different discussion).
The fetus either counts as a human being capable of being murdered, or it doesn't. Many factors can impact whether an act is considered murder or not, but the categorization of murder is never dependent on who does the killing.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Thanks for reading.
There is a paradox here that I have not resolved. Also, let me just state I'm not trying to comment here on my own personal views of abortion. Ok, moving on:
The pro-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion isn't really murder, and that a woman's right to choose regarding her own body is paramount.
The anti-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion is murder, which is unjustified for matters of convenience (whereas saving the life of the mother would be a different story).
So: if it isn't murder for a woman to obtain a late-term abortion, then it also isn't murder if someone else kills that same fetus at the same stage of development. A third-party killing that fetus without the mother's permission would be interfering with a woman's right to choose, but it wouldn't be murder by the definition commonly held by the pro-abortion camp.
Conversely: if it is murder for a third-party to kill that fetus without permission, it is also murder for a woman to have it done by her own permission.
To maintain a consistent position, neither side can have it both ways.
What CAN be both ways, and is consistent, would be the following view: if willful abortion isn't murder, then forcible killing of the fetus by a third-party constitutes an assault/battery/infringement on the woman herself, and does not constitute a murder of the fetus.
If the fetus is given independent status to the extent that it can be considered murdered, then abortion cannot escape that charge also, although abortion may have in varying degrees extenuating circumstances or even necessity (to save the mother's life) as an excuse.
The woman clearly has more right to decide matters than would a third-party have the right to kill the fetus absent her consent, but the categorization of murder (or perhaps something lesser such as manslaughter) must be consistently applied, or not, regardless or who kills the fetus.
I don't see how this can be thought of logically and consistently in any other fashion; thus the paradox of which I spoke, which appears to me to be inherent in the positions of those who would call it murder for a third-party but not for the mother. At least, SBR, you said you support the right of the mother to murder her own fetus until it can survive on its own. edit: So your position is not inconsistent in the way you categorize the fetus. (I'd wonder if you meant a young born infant too, as it clearly cannot survive on its own either, but I doubt you meant that. Also, many premature babies survive just fine with a bit of special care. But that's a different discussion).
The fetus either counts as a human being capable of being murdered, or it doesn't. Many factors can impact whether an act is considered murder or not, but the categorization of murder is never dependent on who does the killing.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Thanks for reading.
Pro choice outrage? Where!
Bobby Cutts is accused of mudering a Canton, Ohio woman and her nearly nine month old fetus i.e. two counts of murder in a highly publicised case.
Hearing for two facing charges in death of pregnant mom...
He is charged with murdering the fetus in part due to the passage of the "Laci Peterson Law" in 2003:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
We don't know that much about the case against Cutts but I'm willing to wager that the prosecution will state that Cutts was motivated to kill Davis due to her impending pregnancy at least in part. Given that Cutts has fathered children already (from women besides Davis as well) he's probably paying a fair of child support. We'll see what the case is against Cutts.
Pro Choice advocates came out against the "Laci Peterson" law when it was being considered stating that it infringed on women's abortion rights. Here's a sampling of the objections:
Interested Persons Memo on Attempts to Create Fetal Rights: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003
"The ACLU fully supports efforts to punish acts of violence against women that harm or terminate a wanted pregnancy. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is an inappropriate method of imposing such punishment, however, because it dangerously seeks to separate the woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law....
By creating a separate offense for injury to a fetus, this bill attempts to endow the fetus with legal rights distinct from the woman who has been injured. This legislation would thus dramatically alter the existing legal framework by elevating the fetus to an unprecedented status in federal law....
This bill ignores the unity between the pregnant woman and the fetus she carries. Penalty enhancements appropriately punish criminal behavior while embracing that unity."
So if Mr. Cutts is convicted of what he's accused of he shouldn't be penalized for what he did to a nearly nine month old fetus?????????????????
NOW Urges Immediate Action to Prevent Devastating "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" from Passing in Senate
"Under the disguise of maternal and fetal protection, reproductive freedoms are once again under attack," said NOW President Kim Gandy responding to today's vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997). "This legislation is another despicable attempt to undermine abortion rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade."
"If members of Congress want to address the pervasive problem of violence against pregnant women, then they need to pass increased funding for education and for enforcement," said Gandy.
So are we to understand that NOW believes that Mr. Cutts shouldn't be punished due to his lack of education. Also is prosecuting Mr. Cutts for the alleged crime of murdering a nearly nine month old fetus is something that has nothing to do with enforcement????
I would expect the ACLU and NOW to be going to bat for Mr. Cutts on the charge of killing the fetus at some point if Mr. Cutts is convicted. That would be something to behold.
Hearing for two facing charges in death of pregnant mom...
He is charged with murdering the fetus in part due to the passage of the "Laci Peterson Law" in 2003:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
We don't know that much about the case against Cutts but I'm willing to wager that the prosecution will state that Cutts was motivated to kill Davis due to her impending pregnancy at least in part. Given that Cutts has fathered children already (from women besides Davis as well) he's probably paying a fair of child support. We'll see what the case is against Cutts.
Pro Choice advocates came out against the "Laci Peterson" law when it was being considered stating that it infringed on women's abortion rights. Here's a sampling of the objections:
Interested Persons Memo on Attempts to Create Fetal Rights: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003
"The ACLU fully supports efforts to punish acts of violence against women that harm or terminate a wanted pregnancy. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is an inappropriate method of imposing such punishment, however, because it dangerously seeks to separate the woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law....
By creating a separate offense for injury to a fetus, this bill attempts to endow the fetus with legal rights distinct from the woman who has been injured. This legislation would thus dramatically alter the existing legal framework by elevating the fetus to an unprecedented status in federal law....
This bill ignores the unity between the pregnant woman and the fetus she carries. Penalty enhancements appropriately punish criminal behavior while embracing that unity."
So if Mr. Cutts is convicted of what he's accused of he shouldn't be penalized for what he did to a nearly nine month old fetus?????????????????
NOW Urges Immediate Action to Prevent Devastating "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" from Passing in Senate
"Under the disguise of maternal and fetal protection, reproductive freedoms are once again under attack," said NOW President Kim Gandy responding to today's vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997). "This legislation is another despicable attempt to undermine abortion rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade."
"If members of Congress want to address the pervasive problem of violence against pregnant women, then they need to pass increased funding for education and for enforcement," said Gandy.
So are we to understand that NOW believes that Mr. Cutts shouldn't be punished due to his lack of education. Also is prosecuting Mr. Cutts for the alleged crime of murdering a nearly nine month old fetus is something that has nothing to do with enforcement????
I would expect the ACLU and NOW to be going to bat for Mr. Cutts on the charge of killing the fetus at some point if Mr. Cutts is convicted. That would be something to behold.
When analyzing whether the civil liberties have been eroded, asking a specific person how it has impacted him is not the correct way to proceed.
The question to be asked is does the policy underquestion impact anyone's civil rights (including, unfortunately, those of alleged and suspected criminals). If it does, then the policy needs to be reviewed on that basis.
The second question to ask is whether the policy under question could impact someone who is not guilty of any alleged crime.
For example, the wiretapping rule, may impact a legitimate importer of good, if the party on the other side fears (rightly or wrongly) that he is on this secret, warrantless, database of foreign phone numbers being monitored.
Or, may impact a lawyer who has a foreign client he is representing on some matter but the client fears being on this list.
There is no question that this secret list of foreign numbers, the warrantless nature of the beast, and the lack of any oversight erodes civil rights.
Is it the case that the benefits outweigh the erosion of rights? How many rights can be eroded in pursuit of the benefits? How many rights can be eroded by secret decisions made by the administration? Should we be willing to trust any administration (on principle) and allow this kind of erosion in secrecy and without review?
The question to be asked is does the policy underquestion impact anyone's civil rights (including, unfortunately, those of alleged and suspected criminals). If it does, then the policy needs to be reviewed on that basis.
The second question to ask is whether the policy under question could impact someone who is not guilty of any alleged crime.
For example, the wiretapping rule, may impact a legitimate importer of good, if the party on the other side fears (rightly or wrongly) that he is on this secret, warrantless, database of foreign phone numbers being monitored.
Or, may impact a lawyer who has a foreign client he is representing on some matter but the client fears being on this list.
There is no question that this secret list of foreign numbers, the warrantless nature of the beast, and the lack of any oversight erodes civil rights.
Is it the case that the benefits outweigh the erosion of rights? How many rights can be eroded in pursuit of the benefits? How many rights can be eroded by secret decisions made by the administration? Should we be willing to trust any administration (on principle) and allow this kind of erosion in secrecy and without review?
A discussion with intolerance
The questions in quotation are real. I get them every day.
"I love posting Rush and Ann links to get the left fring wackos rowled up, Bison."
I'm a moderate liberal. I don't live on the fring.
"I happen to think that preemption through whatever means necessary is the best option to stop terrorism."
It's best to believe in an option that will never be pursued in a sane society. You're never proven wrong.
"So far, it has proven effective, at least as far as 2000 or so people who were going to fly to the US from Britain are concerned."
Stopping these plots has nothing to do with preemption. It's traditional intelligence work in action.
'Hey guys, it turns out police forces are a good idea, let's have a terribly planned ground war and occupation in iraq.'
"In this case, the ends justifiy the means."
Ugly.
"Does that make me a Neocon?"
No, it makes you an apologist for indiscriminate and hugely destructive violence.
"Tell me bisonbison, what's your solution to stopping international terrorism?"
International law enforcement. Sharing of intelligence resources between interested states. Allocation of resources away from pointless military expeditions towards interdicting the flow of weapons and communication between terrorist organizations operating in the mideast, east asia and europe. Removing American forces from middle eastern states where they serve primarily to assist the recruiting efforts of radical groups.
"Are we going to stop buying oil and ride bicycles?"
What?
"Are we going to have a hug in for suicide bombers?"
What?
"Are we going to let the UN handle it by sending an international peace keeping and observation force to New York?"
Ask me another stupid question, I dare you.
"Are we going to convert to Islam?"
You're on a roll.
"Please continue to stump for terrorists."
What?
"Oh and by the way, I thought this blog was closed a little while back because of things like name calling."
Sorry for the name calling, but how else to express this opinion: your description of the political landscape is ludicrous, your goals are unreachable, your suggested means of achieving those goals are horrific and callous, and your posts are entirely without merit.
I mean, I could write that, and explain at length why affection for the hateful writings of Ann Coulter and the deranged musings of Rush Limbaugh indicate that a person has said goodbye to complicated reality and wrapped themselves in a comforting, polarized world without nuance or regret.
Or I could call you an idiot.
"I love posting Rush and Ann links to get the left fring wackos rowled up, Bison."
I'm a moderate liberal. I don't live on the fring.
"I happen to think that preemption through whatever means necessary is the best option to stop terrorism."
It's best to believe in an option that will never be pursued in a sane society. You're never proven wrong.
"So far, it has proven effective, at least as far as 2000 or so people who were going to fly to the US from Britain are concerned."
Stopping these plots has nothing to do with preemption. It's traditional intelligence work in action.
'Hey guys, it turns out police forces are a good idea, let's have a terribly planned ground war and occupation in iraq.'
"In this case, the ends justifiy the means."
Ugly.
"Does that make me a Neocon?"
No, it makes you an apologist for indiscriminate and hugely destructive violence.
"Tell me bisonbison, what's your solution to stopping international terrorism?"
International law enforcement. Sharing of intelligence resources between interested states. Allocation of resources away from pointless military expeditions towards interdicting the flow of weapons and communication between terrorist organizations operating in the mideast, east asia and europe. Removing American forces from middle eastern states where they serve primarily to assist the recruiting efforts of radical groups.
"Are we going to stop buying oil and ride bicycles?"
What?
"Are we going to have a hug in for suicide bombers?"
What?
"Are we going to let the UN handle it by sending an international peace keeping and observation force to New York?"
Ask me another stupid question, I dare you.
"Are we going to convert to Islam?"
You're on a roll.
"Please continue to stump for terrorists."
What?
"Oh and by the way, I thought this blog was closed a little while back because of things like name calling."
Sorry for the name calling, but how else to express this opinion: your description of the political landscape is ludicrous, your goals are unreachable, your suggested means of achieving those goals are horrific and callous, and your posts are entirely without merit.
I mean, I could write that, and explain at length why affection for the hateful writings of Ann Coulter and the deranged musings of Rush Limbaugh indicate that a person has said goodbye to complicated reality and wrapped themselves in a comforting, polarized world without nuance or regret.
Or I could call you an idiot.
civil liberties
Its not just a matter of the civil liberties I have lost, it is also a matter of the civil liberties conservatives want me to give up. Within that framework:
- More invasive airport security lines
- Privacy in my phone call/e-mail correspondance
- The right to Habeus Corpus if I am suspected of terrorism charges (the courts are doing a decent job here rolling back Bush Admin decisions here)
- Freedom of the Press (attacks on the NYT for exposing the violations of the Constitution)
- Freedom of Religion. Not really related to the WoT, but as an athiest the increasing government endorsement of evangelical Christianity is troubling to me
- Most of th 4th, 5th and 6th amendmenst if suspected of terrorism. And Bush decides who is a terrorist.
- Rights to peaceably assemble and petition government: restriction of protests near the President and other public events to "free speech zones
- More invasive airport security lines
- Privacy in my phone call/e-mail correspondance
- The right to Habeus Corpus if I am suspected of terrorism charges (the courts are doing a decent job here rolling back Bush Admin decisions here)
- Freedom of the Press (attacks on the NYT for exposing the violations of the Constitution)
- Freedom of Religion. Not really related to the WoT, but as an athiest the increasing government endorsement of evangelical Christianity is troubling to me
- Most of th 4th, 5th and 6th amendmenst if suspected of terrorism. And Bush decides who is a terrorist.
- Rights to peaceably assemble and petition government: restriction of protests near the President and other public events to "free speech zones
The Liberal Objections to the War on Terror
The main problems that liberals have with how Bush is waging the War on Terrorism are:
1. We don't believe that preemptive war is an effective means of fighting terroristm. In fact, it is obvious that when US throws it weight around the Mideast, it creates more terrorists. Frankly, at this point in time, more terrorists are being created than are being killed or captured and this is going to continue as long as we give very good reasons for muslims to blow [censored] up.
2. The violation of civil liberties. I am not being the least bit sarcastic by saying that if we surrender our civil liberties to fight the War on Terrorism, the terrorists have won. Civil liberties are the bedrock of what makes our country great and any President, who swore to uphold the Constitution, who chooses to ignore them deserves a special place in hell.
Since you asked, here is the Liberal's plan to win the War on Terrorism:
1. Leave Iraq.
2. Continue law enforcement actions
3. Improve border security/first responders
4. Diplomatic and cultural efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world
5. Respect the Constitution
Sure, it is a short plan, but there is nothing else we can do that has more than a remote chance of success. It has been proven time and time again, starting in Algeria v. France and continuing to the current insurgency in Iraq that military muscle will not win this conflict.
Oh, and the idea that liberals want another terrorist attack is baffling. People of all political persuasions were killed on 9-11 and this liberal is certainly worried about another terrorist attack. The reason people like me haven't taken the "if you don't like it, leave" suggestion is that we care about America and want it to be strong and free. That is why we are so vocal in our opposition to the Bush administration, because they are going about the War assbackwards. Please do not slander liberals with nonsense about wanting another terrorist attack.
1. We don't believe that preemptive war is an effective means of fighting terroristm. In fact, it is obvious that when US throws it weight around the Mideast, it creates more terrorists. Frankly, at this point in time, more terrorists are being created than are being killed or captured and this is going to continue as long as we give very good reasons for muslims to blow [censored] up.
2. The violation of civil liberties. I am not being the least bit sarcastic by saying that if we surrender our civil liberties to fight the War on Terrorism, the terrorists have won. Civil liberties are the bedrock of what makes our country great and any President, who swore to uphold the Constitution, who chooses to ignore them deserves a special place in hell.
Since you asked, here is the Liberal's plan to win the War on Terrorism:
1. Leave Iraq.
2. Continue law enforcement actions
3. Improve border security/first responders
4. Diplomatic and cultural efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world
5. Respect the Constitution
Sure, it is a short plan, but there is nothing else we can do that has more than a remote chance of success. It has been proven time and time again, starting in Algeria v. France and continuing to the current insurgency in Iraq that military muscle will not win this conflict.
Oh, and the idea that liberals want another terrorist attack is baffling. People of all political persuasions were killed on 9-11 and this liberal is certainly worried about another terrorist attack. The reason people like me haven't taken the "if you don't like it, leave" suggestion is that we care about America and want it to be strong and free. That is why we are so vocal in our opposition to the Bush administration, because they are going about the War assbackwards. Please do not slander liberals with nonsense about wanting another terrorist attack.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
The merits of compromise
While many may argue for extremist ideologies, it is the observable reality that every educated man can accept that it is compromise and consensus that drives the modern world; the principled stands are the priveledge of the powerless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)