A world without capitalism

Originally posted by normbenign
The human condition is present in all forms of government and economies. Centralizing power in government only makes some humans more powerful than others, but doesn't make them less human. If you said a "rule of law" applicable to all is necessary, I would agree, but the system of regulation differing by who is being regulated leads to great moral risk ...[text shortened]... eighbor honestly, man to man, than one of us calling the cops to see that our way is preferred.

"Briefly, I trust much more dealing with my neighbor honestly, man to man, than one of us calling the cops to see that our way is preferred"

The analogy to police is appropriate.

As a chemist retired from the pharmaceutical industry I understand why the USA has food and drug regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_sulfanilamide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

When my "neighbor" is a corporation, I need help from the git go.

Originally posted by Wajoma
James Fulcher? Now I need to define the word 'reputable' and 'definition.'

...but not 'BS'.

ATY sure knows what that is already.

While you're at it try defining "true" and "Scotsman"

Originally posted by JS357
"Briefly, I trust much more dealing with my neighbor honestly, man to man, than one of us calling the cops to see that our way is preferred"

The analogy to police is appropriate.

As a chemist retired from the pharmaceutical industry I understand why the USA has food and drug regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_sulfanilamide

http://en.w ...[text shortened]... ipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

When my "neighbor" is a corporation, I need help from the git go.

Yes, but your examples supporting the FDA are all failures. Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous anyway. Perhaps without the government regulatory bodies, corporations would have far less cover, and might be more apt to care for those issues themselves. Even with FDA protection a bad drug can cost the company more than the billions in law suits.

I'm sure some regulation is justified, and other just results in discrimination, and unforeseen bad endings.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you say you want more "liberty and responsibility", you would do well to think a bit more about what those concepts (ought to) mean. You could always read J.S. Mill's classic On Liberty. It is a bit outdated, especially considering Mill's pro-colonial views, but a good read nonetheless.

I've read "On Liberty".

Originally posted by normbenign
Yes, but your examples supporting the FDA are all failures. Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous anyway. Perhaps without the government regulatory bodies, corporations would have far less cover, and might be more apt to care for those issues themselves. Even with FDA protection a bad drug can cost the company more than the billions in law suits.

Yes, but your examples supporting the FDA are all failures. Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous anyway.

READ THE REFERENCE:

Aside from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Harrison Act of 1914 banning the sale of some narcotic drugs, there was no federal regulatory control ensuring the safety of new drugs until Congress enacted the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in response to the elixir sulfanilamide poisoning crisis.

So to which failure of regulation do you refer when there was no regulation to fail? And by whom was this elixir approved in the absence of a regulator from whom to seek approval?

Originally posted by finnegan

Yes, but your examples supporting the FDA are all failures. Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous anyway.

READ THE REFERENCE:
[quote]Aside from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Harrison Act of 1914 banning the sale of some narcotic drugs, [b]there was no federal regulatory control ensuring the safety of new ...[text shortened]... ? And by whom was this elixir approved in the absence of a regulator from whom to seek approval?

I stand corrected on the first, but stand by my remarks on the Thalidomide case, and many others where FDA simply cost money and lives, and still did poorly at certifying a "safe and effective" drug.

Originally posted by JS357
This depends on what is recognized as a legitimate way to acquire property. We can take the Europeans' arrival in the "New World" for discussion.

For your benefit JS I will amend my original statement. (In italics)

"All it takes is for two people to recognise each others right to rightfully acquired property. They don't even need to trade and they don't need money, and one does not need to be rich, and it is not required that one works and one dosen't. In other words ATY is in full on BS mode."

Although you will see it is a redundancy, you could not misconstrue my original statement to mean.

"All it takes is for two people to recognise each others right to stolen property. They don't even need to trade and they don't need money, and one does not need to be rich, and it is not required that one works and one dosen't. In other words ATY is in full on BS mode. "

Originally posted by normbenign
Yes, but your examples supporting the FDA are all failures. Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous anyway. Perhaps without the government regulatory bodies, corporations would have far less cover, and might be more apt to care for those issues themselves. Even with FDA protection a bad drug can cost the company more than the billi ...[text shortened]... e regulation is justified, and other just results in discrimination, and unforeseen bad endings.

"Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous "

You are operating from ignorance. There was no regulatory approval granted, as there was no regulatory review required at that time.

Get the facts. Your "perhaps" is wishful. Seriously.

Originally posted by JS357
"Stuff that was approved, and then turned out to be dangerous "

You are operating from ignorance. There was no regulatory approval granted, as there was no regulatory review required at that time.

Get the facts. Your "perhaps" is wishful. Seriously.

Their are laundry lists of drugs which save lives in other countries which aren't approved by FDA. There are also laundry lists of drugs which ambulance chasers are suing as "bad drugs" trolling on TV for clients. On the F part, tainted food still gets to market, with FDA providing cover.

On other regulated products, for example banking is probably more regulated than anything other than nuclear energy. Yet there are cries for more. Cars are better than ever, mainly due to engineering improvements by manufacturers, not government regulations. Every year the luxury brands like Mercedes and Lexus innovate new safety features, and those can afford them willingly pay the price. These features tend to move downstream to less expensive brands, but the spectacle of ten and fifteen year old cars being recalled for defects makes my skin crawl.

Originally posted by normbenign
I've read "On Liberty".

It's a pity it didn't encourage you to think about the concept of liberty.

Originally posted by normbenign
Their are laundry lists of drugs which save lives in other countries which aren't approved by FDA. There are also laundry lists of drugs which ambulance chasers are suing as "bad drugs" trolling on TV for clients. On the F part, tainted food still gets to market, with FDA providing cover.

On other regulated products, for example banking is probably m ...[text shortened]... t the spectacle of ten and fifteen year old cars being recalled for defects makes my skin crawl.

There is very poor quality of regulation in the case of drugs, of food and of banking. In each case, the defect lies in bending over backwards to facilitate the interests of the corporations / banks at the expense of the public interest. Opposition to effective regulation comes from those seeking to protect corporate interests and they use your type of free market arguments in favour of light regulation. (A bit of light regulations is fine as that gulls the public into imagining anyone gives a s**t.) Having sought to prevent regulation at all, to minimise it where it was unavoidable, to weaken it, to deregulate and to remove it where they can, the same voices then blame the regulators for its failure to do its job whenever things go wrong.

What increasing numbers of people are realizing is that we need more and better and more independent regulation and we need protection from corporate interests.

Originally posted by finnegan

What increasing numbers of people are realizing is that we need more and better and more independent regulation and we need protection from corporate interests.

Independent regulation. Now you're getting it, it's starting to gestate, a wee speck of freedom has crept into finnegans mind, let it grow man, let it grow.

Independent, private regulation. Privatise the FDA, people can then choose to consume FDA approved drugs or risk other alternatives.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Independent regulation. Now you're getting it, it's starting to gestate, a wee speck of freedom has crept into finnegans mind, let it grow man, let it grow.

Independent, private regulation. Privatise the FDA, people can then choose to consume FDA approved drugs or risk other alternatives.

Bizarre interpretation. If people can choose to consume drugs ruled unsafe it follows that the producers can persist in selling drugs that have been ruled unsafe. So how will that work? They could just as well remove all regulation in which case, as we know from the track record, the drug companies will cheerfully push poisons and call them health foods. The Food industry already does. And people will buy them and be harmed. They already do.

Just try switching on your head some time. It might surprise us all.

Originally posted by finnegan
Bizarre interpretation. If people can choose to consume drugs ruled unsafe it follows that the producers can persist in selling drugs that have been ruled unsafe. So how will that work? They could just as well remove all regulation in which case, as we know from the track record, the drug companies will cheerfully push poisons and call them health foods. Th ...[text shortened]... armed. They already do.

Just try switching on your head some time. It might surprise us all.

Perhaps Wajoma has taken too much mercury medicine.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps Wajoma has taken too much mercury medicine.

...or not enough? I recommend double the dosage.