The Census is invasive, says Michigan

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Another example of what many people define as "socialism".

There are groups in the US who want to do away with:

From my classically liberal perspective, you do not comprehend the issues (some of which you fairly nail, but are completely off the mark)

- public schools (which teach only the government's agenda)

J.S. Mill, a classical liberal like myself, thought that public schools created a singular thought process which would be dangerous to the growth of the mind. That being said, of the few things that I think the government should do, education is one of them.

- the road and highway system (yes, every person is assigned a stretch of road to care for)

Assigned? That sounds like fascism, not a libertarian dream. Furthermore, the rather standard argument is that corporations would build the roads (not contracted out, but over sole design), however a Hayekian (and thus free-market perspective) is that there is a market gap which the government must provide.

- the FCC, FAA, FDA and and other "socialist" programs (sure, let's get rid of regulations regarding airplanes and flying!)

Regulations aren't necessary. They're heavy-handed and generally hurt, instead of help. Let the market decide. The only regulations necessary are those which ensure property rights. As long as property rights are in place, the economic system will remain in place.

- public libraries (because everyone has professional journal and historic works at home

You're confusing things rather badly, this was the point where I realized you did not understand what you were talking about. The argument is NOT against libraries, it is against the state funding libraries. Libraries are easily created through private means. Carnegie (that evil baron-capitalist) created a lot of libraries out of his own pockets. Shoot, he was the one who created the foundation which led to TIAA-CREF.

- Police (if we all had guns, we wouldn't need the police!!), fire departments (I got nothing on this one. Just let everything burn down)

There have been some very good arguments for a private police force. That being said, they still have to be paid. Police/Firefighters are an example of market gap (along with streets and street signs and a few other things). However, a libertarian would propose "user fees".

For example, why should you pay for taxes for a firefighter if you live in an apartment? Those taxes should only be paid for by the owner of the apartment. Why should you pay for streets when you're bound to your bed? Cars should have a high user fee for the roads that would have to be paid, rather than unspecific taxation for something someone doesn't use. It leads to problems, sure. But in my opinion, alot less problems than the current system.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

From my classically liberal perspective, you do not comprehend the issues (some of which you fairly nail, but are completely off the mark)

I was offering specific examples for PiKA2001, who suggested that I was being "overly dramatic". I am not an expert in anything, nor do I try to be. I don't have all of the information, but I wanted to provide examples to PiKA, of services that people are rallying against in the fight against "socialism".

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Regulations aren't necessary. They're heavy-handed and generally hurt, instead of help. Let the market decide. The only regulations necessary are those which ensure property rights. As long as property rights are in place, the economic system will remain in place.

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high. That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems. Don't even get me started on the "health supplements" that don't even have to be regulated but have major health risks, are falsely advertised and routinely removed from the market. I for one thank our government for doing it's job with the FDA. We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high.

You just contradicted yourself.

Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness? They would test it till it was necessary, so their reputations would not be further dragged through the mud. The FDA is unnecessary, it only impedes life-saving products. Furthermore, it prohibits things that are not necessarily needed to be prohibited.

That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems.

Wait, so is the FDA necessary or unnecessary? Do you think there would be more without it?

We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

We also have a drug market which impedes life-saving medication from saving lifes now. If you didn't know a drug's side effects, but it could possibly save your life...would you take it? I probably would, as long as I was assured one of the side effects wasn't death. (and, through the companies advanced testing to ensure less losses, that would probably not be one of the side effects. Another thing to consider is that these drug companies would no longer have the FDA to be like "look, they tested it so it's not so much our fault", so I would imagine a judge would be willing to take even more from the drug company thus making the possibility of risk larger, thus making it necessary for greater testing. (but that's just a side effect, it kind of just came to me)

The examples which you displayed have things a bit confused. Alot of those items are not socialist, though they are government funded. I can't tell if the b12 site was joking or not. Now a Rothbardian libertarian might agree that those parts of the government are unnecessary, but he's more of an anarcho-capitalist. A Hayekian libertarian would certainly say that many of them are necessary to fill the market gap. My conclusion is that he probably has no understanding of philosophical libertarianism or classical liberalism and just wrote a bunch of stuff the government does.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

You just contradicted yourself.

Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness? They would test it till it was necessary, so their reputations would not be further dragged through the mud. The FDA is unnecessary, it only impedes life-saving products. Furthermore, it prohibits things that are not necessarily needed to be prohibited.

Wait, so is the FDA necessary or unnecessary? Do you think there would be more without it?

We also have a drug market which impedes life-saving medication from saving lifes now. If you didn't know a drug's side effects, but it could possibly save your life...would you take it? I probably would, as long as I was assured one of the side effects wasn't death. (and, through the companies advanced testing to ensure less losses, that would probably not be one of the side effects. Another thing to consider is that these drug companies would no longer have the FDA to be like "look, they tested it so it's not so much our fault", so I would imagine a judge would be willing to take even more from the drug company thus making the possibility of risk larger, thus making it necessary for greater testing. (but that's just a side effect, it kind of just came to me)

This displays your complete ignorance of what the FDA actually does. Since I actually know people who have worked for the FDA, know what the agenda of the FDA is, know what medications are actually coming out, what medications have been withdrawn from the market and why, which medications have not been approved here that are approved in other countries and why, I might have a little better understanding of the intricacies of this issue. The FDA has a very important role in our country that a "free market" would NOT replace. You ask, "Why the hell would they put out bad products especially in this climate of advance litigiousness?" They do it because in a lot of cases it is very hard to PROVE that their drug caused a problem when a lot of illness are multi-factorial. They also are willing to accept a certain amount of liability to profit ratio, ie. the Vioxx fiasco (the company had the information that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and stroke but hid the data!)Safety in medications, effectiveness and benefits are important, and especially important if you are asking an insurance company to pay for a medication or advise a physician that a medication is indicated in a specific medical condition or more importantly, ask a patient to trust that a pill will help them more than it will hurt them! There are so many supplements on the market that claim to treat certain illnesses that don't have to prove it. Patients take these and never get any better. They have no recourse. At least with the FDA approved medications, there is science to back them up, and the FDA has made sure that the insurance company has lined all their ducks in a row to make sure that the drugs are as safe as possible without obstructing the flow of new medications. If you poll physicians, I think you'll find an overwhelming majority who support the FDA and its work.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high. That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems. Don't even get me started on the "health supplements" that don't even have to be regulated but have major health risks, are falsely advertised and routinely removed from the market. I for one thank our government for doing it's job with the FDA. We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

That's basically how it works now. They get released on the market and then if there's a problem the FDA pulls it, if they haven't gotten their bribe money from GSK yet.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I call mega-BS on that! Without the FDA, we would have pharmaceutical companies putting out any medication without properly testing them then withdrawing them from the market before the cost of litigation gets too high. That may be okay from a business perspective, but from a medical and an ethical perspective, it's not okay! We already don't like when drugs get past our strict testing with the FDA, and we end up with drugs like VIOXX, or Phen/Fen causing problems. Don't even get me started on the "health supplements" that don't even have to be regulated but have major health risks, are falsely advertised and routinely removed from the market. I for one thank our government for doing it's job with the FDA. We have the safest drug market in the world thanks to their work.

That's basically how it works now. They get released on the market and then if there's a problem the FDA pulls it, if they haven't gotten their bribe money from GSK yet.