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...