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.