The Census is invasive, says Michigan

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

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.

She's not necessarily talking about libertarian perspectives though.

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.

You did notice the banking problems we've had the last few years?

And what AOIIAngel said about the FDA. Who would put out bad products in this age of litigiousness? Seriously? The same people/corporations who try to do it now.

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.

She's not confusing things rather badly, you didn't read. She said public libraries -- libraries funded with public funds.

Like I said, I don't think she was trying to reflect a classic libertarian position, but rather the extreme positions of patriot movement types -- the ones who refuse to put ZIP codes on their letters because that's an acknowledgment of government authority and intrusion. (Yep, I've dealt with them -- address the letter just right or they won't accept delivery.)

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You did notice the banking problems we've had the last few years?

Yeah, due to the federal governments regulation of our money, yes I have seen them.

She's not confusing things rather badly, you didn't read. She said public libraries -- libraries funded with public funds.

Yes. But she makes the assumption that those are the only libraries available (when she sarcastically says "because everyone has professional journal and historic works at home"). If the only other option to public libraries, was professional journal and historical works at home, that would concede that there were no private libraries. Private libraries can provide the same service at a cheaper price with greater availability.

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.

I'm not sure this puts you in a better place.

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.

Yeah. But the FDA doesn't catch these. So what is it's use again?

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!)

So, the FDA couldn't stop them. What, again, is the FDA's point?

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.

You're not quite understanding the issue. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a process for drugs to be validated as good drugs. I'm saying the government doesn't need to have any part of it. Undoubtedly, the drug companies or an independent agency will likely be formed (possibly by consumers) in order to test the product, which will then be certified through that measure. Society naturally forms these organizations, a government doesn't need to create it. Perhaps there will be several of these organizations each with different levels of credibility and safety. A doctor might say "Oh, this drug is XYZ certified but it's not ABC certified, so I won't recommend it." That would be the likely nature of things without an FDA.

edit: In my utopia, this sort of system I would prefer for many types of certification, including lawyers, surveyors, and other occupations where some sort of certification of learning is necessary for practice.