Related Articles

64 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

Oooooooooooooooooor what could ACTUALLY happen is food producers just stop screening their produce for contaminants cause all that costs like, money ‘n’ shit, let the FDA slap on whatever generic label about ‘hey everybody stuff in here could kill you’, and dump the shit-spinach off on economically marginalized communities where people have pretty much no option except buying the shit-spinach and hey, it won’t kill too many people except for children and the elderly.

Or they could dump it everywhere. I mean, now you’re arguing that if the regulators don’t do their jobs and the businesses cut costs then you’re going to get poisoned foods in the marketplace.

But this is true under any government model. What model do you prefer? A socialist government where the FDA doesn’t do its job? A feudal system in which corporations sell poisoned produce? An autocracy run by incompetent and greedy administrators? A pure Greek-style democracy in which we all get together and mandate by popular vote laws that don’t get enforced?

At this point, you’re just saying, “Bureaucracy failures are bad! Libertarians are stupid!” without drawing any connection between the two.

What’s your point? Perhaps next you can argue for fiat currency by telling me how the SEC isn’t properly monitoring equity markets. Or maybe higher taxes can be rationalized by telling me Michael Brown did a bad job running FEMA. There’s no correlation here.

A smartly run small government will kick the pants out of a sloppily run big government and a smartly run big government will kick the pants out of a sloppily run small government. That doesn’t say anything about the merits of libertarianism against the current capitalist-socialist hybrid system.

ReplyReply
mygif
...and drew rye in said on January 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm

MGK, I’m here to ask you a question.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

ReplyReply
mygif

MGK, I’m here to ask you a question.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Nobody wants to buy sweat.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Or they could dump it everywhere. I mean, now you’re arguing that if the regulators don’t do their jobs and the businesses cut costs then you’re going to get poisoned foods in the marketplace.”

No, he’s not. He’s arguing that under your “transparency” system if the regulators do do their jobs and the companies cut costs, that you’ll get poisoned foods in the marketplace.

So…ban the poisoned spinach? My God, just look at the silliness of that question! Of course ban the poisoned spinach. And if you don’t ban the poisoned spinach…

“Can I help you, sir?”

“Yeah, um…I was looking for the poisoned spinach?”

“All of our poisoned foodstuffs are in the ‘Poison’ aisle, sir.”

Let me ask you this, Zifnab: what about medications? What’s the role of the transparency agency there?

ReplyReply
mygif

No one is fully entitled to the sweat of their brow. Not when the fruits of their labor are heavily dependant upon those around them- which, in any civilization, is true.

ReplyReply
mygif

I think a lot of people here are missing out on the opportunity.

Libertarians.

Libertarians wanting to leave behind society.

Society is where we live.

Why aren’t we funding this?

ReplyReply
mygif
Consumer Unit 5012 said on January 25th, 2009 at 5:30 am

Heh. A friend of mine with a cynical mind told me that if she ever gets rich, she’ll buy an island somewhere, and sell shares in it Libertarians who want to establish their ‘perfect society’.

With hidden cameras everywhere to capture its inevitable descent into madness and ruin, of course. She figures it’d be the Reality-TV hit of the decade.

ReplyReply
mygif

I just hope all this gets used in BioShock 2.

ReplyReply
mygif

Damn, Justin beat me to it.

I was just thinking “Wasn’t this the plot for a videogame/criticism of libertarianism?” Is it just too obvious to warrant concern?

ReplyReply
mygif

Let me ask you this, Zifnab: what about medications? What’s the role of the transparency agency there?

My argument was that Libertarianism has some degree of merit. There is, in fact, such thing as “too much government”. In the spinach case, some could argue that simply forcing a food producer to label the degree of taint in his food supply would drive the bad producers out of business. I don’t really agree with that, but I do agree with the idea that the FDA’s first job is in identifying the safe food from the unsafe food and making any regulatory decisions from there.

This is in contrast to the current government system that bans trade with countries on ideological grounds – my example case being Cuba – and THEN tests the remaining allowed imports for toxins (and not particularly well, at that, in the last 8 years).

The former setup – test for toxins, then ban on toxins – is decidedly more libertarian than the latter – ban on ideological grounds, then test for toxins.

Medications are another perfect example. We have a de facto ban on foreign generic drugs. I can go to Sweden and buy allergy medication for 10 cents a pill that would cost me a dollar a pill in the states. Sweden’s meds are as safe as America’s, but American pharmaceutical industries have set up a sheltered little marketplace walled off by the US Government.

Again, the matter isn’t one of testing foreign drugs and banning those that are dangerous. We have a blanket ban and test only drugs allowed by an FDA in the thrall of major firms like Pfizer and Merck. A more libertarian-minded government would embrace foreign generic drugs on a “works / fails” basis. The goal would be to increase transparency on drugs that don’t work – Phen-Phen, Vioxx, etc – and decrease barriers to entry on drugs that do work. That should be the FDA’s top priority. Only after a drug fails testing should it be a candidate for banning.

ReplyReply
mygif

As they say, never trust someone who’s self-analysis of political affiliation can’t be differentiated from a self-compliment (or worse, a cult with a new gospel). “Objectivists” (that is seriously the most ridiculous name ever) or “libertarians” (“libertarians” not so much at first, but nowadays is just beyond silly — Bill O’Reilly might as well say “I’m a Kick-Ass Liberty Dude of Free Freeness of Freedom”)…

People might as well call themselves “Realisteans”, “Truthinessists”, “Freedomizers” or “Awesomenites”.

ReplyReply
mygif

Zifnab…

I’m sorry, I don’t really know where to begin. So I guess I’ll just say I think you’ve got hold of some bad information there, and I would urge you to do some further research into the matter.

ReplyReply
mygif

So I guess I’ll just say I think you’ve got hold of some bad information there, and I would urge you to do some further research into the matter.

Are you denying the Cuban Embargo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

That’s pretty well documented.

Or is this about the regulations on imported generic drugs?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/12/31/ap5871634.html
http://newsx.com/story/27790

Congress has been having this fight for the last 20 years.

There is a limited-government view on certain policies that make more sense than the protectionist corporatist racket we currently live under.

ReplyReply
mygif

No, I don’t care about the Cuban embargo, and one AP story is like another. But if your problem is “drugs are too expensive in America”, you’re sure taking the long way ’round to solve it.

Why are the Swedish allergy pills cheaper, eh? Really why.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments