Skeptic Project

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/143362#comment-1525711

The best is I was never presented with a counter-argument. All they did was say my link was from a liberal and call me names.

quite the discussion. They remind me of ZM members with all their BURN THE TROLL!-ing

I shouldn't have gone into the discussion the way I did. Next time, I won't go in at all.

What do they think about Stiglitz? Part of the conspiracy?

FDA and USDA requirements for things like milks, eggs, etc hardly destroy freedom, unless you believe that the opposite side -- when thousands of people died every year from food borne illnesses, especially children -- is some how more beneficial and free. In fact it's added to freedom, freedom from death, suffering, and so forth. Only someone insane or totally ignorant of science would honestly believe unpasteurized milk is better for you in any way.

I've never really gotten any real straight forward answers from Austrian Economists and Objectivists regarding children suffering due to their dog-murder-dog world, other than "well, the kids would learn what _not_ to do from the parents."

I don't think a serious economist or Austrian economist with ethics would view the world dog eat dog or where you can't get restituted for harm.

I feel people can be responsible to find out what drugs or health products are safe on their own from experts and consumers can demand companies to provide the necessary identification of their products in contracts and have restitution clauses if they were to get harm or if the supplier did not live up to their contract agreement. On occasion, the same FDA is slow in approving chemicals and supplements that are already deemed safe and beneficial by independent groups, which make people miss out on good stuff for their health. And trying to buy it overseas to bring it into the U.S. is heading into "illegal" territory. And what's ironic is most hospital patients are given drugs which are not FDA-approved for the prescribed use for sicknesses like cancer and AIDS.

As for getting rid of the FDA, not gonna happen anytime soon based on the current culture mindset of being very dependent and irresponsible. So if people want beneficial drugs that aren't FDA approved, they will have to continue to go overseas or get it "underground".

"How do we make sure that the expert who reviewed a product isn't paid by the manufacturer?"

Who's gonna pay them anyway? Consumers won't, people always pay for cure, but next to never for prevention.

edit: Well, maybe we should just make a contract that makes all citizens of one nation pay some amount of money for services like the...OH GOD THE EVIL TAX RUN FOREST RUN

Sky wrote:

What if a company comes out with a snake-oil scam medicine that doesn't work and actually kills and paralyzes some people. Instead of having a FDA to prevent it from being sold, you rather have it sold but then after it starts running lives, the victims/families are allowed to get restitution. Well what is that supposed to do? It won't give the victims their lives back, and new companies with new dangerous products are just going to keep showing up.

A scam implicates breach of contract. If a family member was to get killed, I agree, that is unrestitutional technically, but at the same time can cause the same supplier to go out of business, to be place in jail for life, to be put to death, etc. Even today, FDA approved drugs harms people or can harm people, so to think the FDA is like some holy arbiter when it comes to what drugs are safe is a fallacy. Look up a once FDA approved drug called Posicor as an example. That's why having more than one group or body of experts look into things would still be necessary where people can get feedback from various sources and be responsible in deciding whether or not they should consume chemical X or Drug X. The reality is, whether intentional or not, bad things can occur in economical interactions, which is why restitution is a Social Meta-Need, and people not being anonymous with their identities and where they have a background history on both themselves and the products they sell are a Social Meta-Need.

So after a company comes out with a new drug, people are going to wait for experts to do trials -out of the goodness of their hearts I guess? What if there are too many products and the unnamed experts don't give an opinion on every one? How do we make sure that the expert who reviewed a product isn't paid by the manufacturer?

You have science panels and research groups that already do peer review examination on the advantages and disadvantages of different chemicals and drugs. If people see no feedback of a particular chemical, just don't consume it due to the unknown risks. And it would be wise to go by experts who aren't anonymous with their identities. And it is interesting you brought up the point of what if they are too many products. So, how do you expect the FDA alone to be able to give proper feedback on every chemical or drug out there? It would just make sense for people to go with just the chemicals and products that already have positive feedback publicly and if they go with the ones that don't have any review or feedback, they are at their own risk here too.

Special Ed wrote:

Just look at food and drugs before the FDA and USDA, need I say more? Were people less responsible then?

I would say people had more room for responsibility then since there wasn't a Nanny dictating what you could buy and not buy, but just like now there were both bad and good stuff on the market. What people can demand more of is transparency of what is in their food and supplements, and contracts where the restitution would be heavily in favor of the consumer, which will in itself regulate the seller in making sure their products are very safe and with well written directions.

>> I would say people had more room for responsibility then since there wasn't a Nanny dictating what you could buy and not buy, but just like now there were both bad and good stuff on the market.

I just can't agree with that at all.

>> What people can demand more of is transparency of what is in their food and supplements, and contracts where the restitution would be heavily in favor of the consumer, which will in itself regulate the seller in making sure their products are very safe and with well written directions.

To be upheld by what court, especially in some sort of post-state society?

>> What are your reasonings for this disagreement?

Because thousands of people died every year from food borne illness alone, heroin was sold by Sears as a "cure" for morphine addiction, borax in hot dogs, etc. Haven't you read the Jungle on why having no government regulation over food is a terrible and disgusting idea? I just believe it's only wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

>> There could be non-government court services to choose from, but until then, people will just have to settle their disputes and contract breaches in government courts.

So you're saying you believe in at least some type of government in place, though minimal?

That's a good question, Aaron. Personally I think it depends on the economy. Both Austrian and/or Keynesian economics don't really work if you're not producing, which we are not, and which is also why most of the top economists on both sides agree that we may never see a lot of the lost jobs come back. That is of course unless we start making shit again, instead of just exporting crappy movies. Again, I'm not any kind of master of economics here, so that's just my opinion.

I would say drop in production. People don't buy American anymore. Take your pick, really. We still make decent on durable goods, and food, but that's almost the extent of us. Most of our labor vanished overseas. Nobody's buying our cars, our energy or our technology as much as they use to. Shit, almost everything in my house came from another country it seems.

I think Ed had some good insight on his ZG 2 debunking page, so I'd have to sort through it, but I think newer energies and technologies is what would make a big difference.

It seems like you try to incorporate the best of both models.

aaronmhatch wrote:

It seems like you try to incorporate the best of both models.

Something like that :)

@Domokato
I think we do have the technology and software to provide that information through the world wide web. But it will be important for consumers to include such disclosures in contracts and where the contracts are registered publicly and the identities of the persons in agreement are also disclosed. Thus, all businesses run by members of this social system will be completely open to scrutiny of all their activities by all other members (they can also give feedback on the business owners' member pages of the social system and on review websites, and sellers can do the same for consumers). They want this because it is the way that they both show their total honesty and attract total trust from other members and the consequent use of their products and services, and value exchanges for them. So, even if a business choose to hide information, word will be out there that they aren't disclosing enough information about their products and people will most likely not make value exchanges with them. The better your reputation and your disclosures, the more you can attract customers.

So, I can picture people looking up reviews of products and services on the web, and using a software to search for businesses owned by fellow members of this society on a public network, and filter products and services that meet their requirements. In addition, they can contact the sellers on how their products and services can meet their requirements.