On 11/19/2013 1:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/18/2013 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why the free
market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't answered my point.
And he's so concerned with anti-government straw men that he hasn't noticed
that a market requires government (including coercion) to define ownership
and punish fraud. Without government you couldn't own any more stuff than
you could carry and defend by force of arms.
I agree with Brent. Government can be the best thing a democracy can have,
... until bandits get power and perverts the elections and the state power
separations (and get important control on the media, etc.).
But we should make clear that a government has nothing to say about your
food, medications, sports, religious or sexual practices, etc. As long as
there are no well-motivated complains, the state can't intervene.
So you think it's a bad idea for the government to require testing
medications for safety.
The problem is always the same, the government has no incentive to
protect you, but a lot of incentive to protect lucrative businesses.
You mean the giant Ritalin industry?
Crazy stuff is not only allowed but actually encouraged, like giving a
powerful nervous system stimulant to kids whose brains are still
developing, with little research on the long-term effects.
My son was prescribed ritalin in high school and it helped him a lot. And his problem was
not that he was bored. I don't know why you think there is "little research on long-term
effects"? What's the research on the long term effects of HPV vaccines? Michelle Bachman
thinks they cause mental retardation - based on one anecdote.
is prescribed, by the way, because kids are bored in school. What a
shocker, must be a disease. Ritalin makes the kids more compliant and
productive. A bit creepy if you think about it, no?
Meanwhile paracetamol is mixed with other drugs like pain-killers and
opiates, so that people that abuse them get sick in horrible ways.
You liked the old "patent medicine" system better?
You don't like the government requiring food labels with contents? How
about airline safety requlations; why not just let the customers decide
based on reputation (that's what libertarians want)?
You talk as if there are only these two options. I also prefer to buy
food that comes with a label of contents. Apparently, both you and me
would prefer products with such labels. So there's a market for it,
right? Then certification: private certification companies would have
less incentives to lie, because once they are caught lying they lose
our trust and consequently their business.
And you think this company is going to do long-term research? How are they going to be
"caught lying" based on statistics from 20yrs after the fact? What would they have said
about alar on apples?
In the current model, they
are caught lying but nobody can show up and compete on better
Sure they can. There's nothing to stop you from starting a rating system for drugs and
selling it to consumers and doctors. Nothing except you don't have the money or time to
do the research and the only people who might fund it are the pharmaceutical companies.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.