the only time the FDA has done any type of physical incarceration is when people knowingly commit fraud, and it's usually top level execs who make the decision. Most of it is punitive damages, so I'm not really sure where your gun example comes into play
Tell, me, what does the government do if you don't pay them? That's like saying a mugger isn't really committing a violent act if he asks for your money at gunpoint first, because he hasn't actually shot you yet to take it.
It also looks like you have issues with trusting other people
Not at all. What I have "issues" with is people telling me what I can and can't do with my own body. This man wants to sell me a pill; I want to buy the pill. Who are you or anyone else to threaten me with financial or bodily harm for doing it? And to make matters worse, you then tell me that you have to hurt me for my own good. I'd much prefer if it you and your ilk just stayed the hell out of my life, actually. I know you won't, though.
First off, you don't need the FDA to prosecute a company for fraud.
This is just a case study, in my opinion, of what an entire market with "rational actors" would act like.
As opposed to having the wise, learned elitists at the top to make decisions for us, you mean? Airborne is useless. I don't buy it, and I tell everyone I know that asks about it that it's useless. The thing is, I don't grab a gun, walk into a Walgreens, and threaten to hurt the clerk for selling it. (People forget that this is the entire purpose of the government; to threaten with violence. If you wouldn't do it yourself, why does it suddenly become acceptable and moral to pay someone else to do it for you?)
Like I said, I think the system needs some fixing, but that doesn't mean to blow it up entirely.
The FDA is not the system. The FDA is one particular leech on the system. Dynamiting the FDA is not blowing up the system entirely.
I still don't feel confident that I have the ability to make rational decisions, partly because I don't have a microscope to look at every drug coming through the market to check for biological contaminants or that I'm able to go through volumes of phase 1, 2, 3 and 4 studies which tease out all the side effects.
You don't necessarily have to, as long as you make the choice to buy goods with a reputable third-party cert. I wouldn't buy a copy of every car I'm interested in just to crash test it myself, for example.
As for 3rd party evaluators, doesn't this put us in the same exact situation? Why does anyone think that there would be less corruption in a third party system?
There would undoubtedly still be corruption, but the key point is that no third-party cert company would have the power to outright ban products that they didn't certify. With the FDA, you have a huge problem with regulatory capture, whereby the incestuous relationship between corporate profits and government force scheme to keep out competitors so that they can extract monopoly rents from citizens.
In a free system, I can choose to patronize an ethical company over an unethical one. Tell me, who can I choose to give my business to if the FDA is the corrupt one?
History, mainly. Walgreens isn't going to sell a knock-off that kills their customers, if they can help it. In a market without the FDA, third-party certs would be invaluable.
"Oh, Drug Underwriters Inc. signed off on their facilities. I know that no facility they've ever signed off on has released any contaminated pills, so that's a good endorsement."
Dang, I can get my meds for half price from this place. I need the money to eat, so yeah, let's do it.
So the answer is to make them so expensive through regulation, that those same people have to choose between eating and getting their meds? How does that help anyone?
People spend tens of millions of dollars on fake medication already with the FDA involved
And here we see that the failure of the system is used as evidence for why the system is needed. (Reminds me of arguments for the war on illegal drugs too, now that you mention it.) Maybe if people didn't believe that a benevolent dictator in a government office building would do their thinking for them, they'd start to do some themselves.
All the abusive husbands who use the excuse "Hey, she started it! She didn't have dinner ready when I got home!" will be happy to know they have you on their side to help them rally against their "instigating" wives.
a) do the copyright laws violate the first amendment?
Ambiguous question. Which copyright laws? Any? All? Are you asking for a legal opinion as determined by the courts or a moral opinion backed up by a personal philosophy?
b) is downloading copyright material without a license legal?
Nope.
c) is helping people to break the law an offence?
Another ambiguous question. How is this alleged offender "helping"? Does the telephone company criminally "help" drug dealers by offering them the communication service they need to connect with their customers? If I link to ThePirateBay in my post, am I criminally "helping" infringers? What if I only link to YouTube instead?
Maybe when you can ask proper questions, you'll get proper answers.
Again, would you buy drugs from a no-name company over the internet?
There is an important role for third-party evaluations and certifications in the market, but it doesn't have to be done by a massive government bureaucracy with the sole power to decide who can and can't sell their products, enforced by armed men who will kidnap you and throw you in cage for years at a time if you don't comply.
The only support that can be mustered in favor of the FDA existing is disgusting mixture of "I'm smarter than the unwashed masses" elitism combined with "if the government doesn't do with guns, it will never be done" stupidity.
Absolutely, if the condition of the car was not as advertised. You also left out his other example, but I guess it's not hard to see why.
"OK so do people die when they smoke cigarettes, or . . . wait. Um, I guess I can just use the weaker car dealer example instead and ignore the one that obviously disproves my point because I'm an intellectually dishonest hack!"
You are exactly right. I have revised my stance on net neutrality laws for this very reason. The only way Congress will make a law is if it can be perverted to give big business and industry over everyone else.
THANK YOU. I wish more people understood this.
Everyone is aware that our politicians are crooks that funnel our money to big business through regulatory capture schemes and corporate handouts, and yet they expect that given power over the internet for "net neutrality" purposes, the politicians will suddenly start working for the benefit of the people. It's like some form of mass delusion.
"But . . . but . . . it has the word neutrality in it! Next you'll tell me that the patriot act didn't secure our freedoms like they claimed!"
Would you buy pills from some guy who makes them out of his living room? Why do you need the FDA to tell you that might not be a good idea?
I know, I know, you would never do something like that. It's all the other stupid people out there that need your wise council on what is and isn't good for them.
Good thing educated folks like you and the FDA are here to tell us what's what, or the unwashed masses would be stabbing themselves in the eyes with their forks and eating mud out of the gutter.
Would have been if you could have excluded patent lawyers from the vote altogether. Their livelihood depends on them, so of course they are going to vote in favor of patents
Not true. I know of at least one patent lawyer who has appeared in the comments on this very site who doesn't believe in patents, but does the job to help companies defend themselves from offensive patents.
To be honest, vaccinations should be mandatory, period.
Yeah! I want government to have the power to inject anything they want into me or my children, and not have any say about it! That's the ticket to a better world!
(And yes, my kids will damn sure be vaccinated, but it will be because it's the right choice, and not because some douche-nozzle politician decides they get to micro-manage every aspect of my life and body.)
By the way, the constitution applies in public and private matters.
No it doesn't. It may apply in the courts (including civil courts), but we're still talking about government there. There are consequences for speech. If you say mean things about me, perhaps I won't be your friend anymore. If I invite you to my home and you shout obscenities at my children, perhaps I'll ask you to leave. Scream about "free speech" all you want in those cases, but it doesn't make a lick of difference. Free speech does not require me to be your friend, or require me to let you tell at my children.
And it also doesn't apply in cases of private contract. If you sign a contract that says I'll pay you now if you won't say mean things about me later, you still have to hold up your end of the bargain or be in breach of contract. "Free speech" has nothing to do with it.
Beyond free speech, you may have a right to own and carry a gun (a right that I strongly support, by the by), but that doesn't mean you can take your gun on someone else's property if they don't want you to.
The constitution ties the hands of government, not the hands of the citizenry.
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell, me, what does the government do if you don't pay them? That's like saying a mugger isn't really committing a violent act if he asks for your money at gunpoint first, because he hasn't actually shot you yet to take it.
It also looks like you have issues with trusting other people
Not at all. What I have "issues" with is people telling me what I can and can't do with my own body. This man wants to sell me a pill; I want to buy the pill. Who are you or anyone else to threaten me with financial or bodily harm for doing it? And to make matters worse, you then tell me that you have to hurt me for my own good. I'd much prefer if it you and your ilk just stayed the hell out of my life, actually. I know you won't, though.
Violence is all anyone knows anymore, apparently.
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is just a case study, in my opinion, of what an entire market with "rational actors" would act like.
As opposed to having the wise, learned elitists at the top to make decisions for us, you mean? Airborne is useless. I don't buy it, and I tell everyone I know that asks about it that it's useless. The thing is, I don't grab a gun, walk into a Walgreens, and threaten to hurt the clerk for selling it. (People forget that this is the entire purpose of the government; to threaten with violence. If you wouldn't do it yourself, why does it suddenly become acceptable and moral to pay someone else to do it for you?)
Like I said, I think the system needs some fixing, but that doesn't mean to blow it up entirely.
The FDA is not the system. The FDA is one particular leech on the system. Dynamiting the FDA is not blowing up the system entirely.
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't necessarily have to, as long as you make the choice to buy goods with a reputable third-party cert. I wouldn't buy a copy of every car I'm interested in just to crash test it myself, for example.
As for 3rd party evaluators, doesn't this put us in the same exact situation? Why does anyone think that there would be less corruption in a third party system?
There would undoubtedly still be corruption, but the key point is that no third-party cert company would have the power to outright ban products that they didn't certify. With the FDA, you have a huge problem with regulatory capture, whereby the incestuous relationship between corporate profits and government force scheme to keep out competitors so that they can extract monopoly rents from citizens.
In a free system, I can choose to patronize an ethical company over an unethical one. Tell me, who can I choose to give my business to if the FDA is the corrupt one?
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
History, mainly. Walgreens isn't going to sell a knock-off that kills their customers, if they can help it. In a market without the FDA, third-party certs would be invaluable.
"Oh, Drug Underwriters Inc. signed off on their facilities. I know that no facility they've ever signed off on has released any contaminated pills, so that's a good endorsement."
Dang, I can get my meds for half price from this place. I need the money to eat, so yeah, let's do it.
So the answer is to make them so expensive through regulation, that those same people have to choose between eating and getting their meds? How does that help anyone?
People spend tens of millions of dollars on fake medication already with the FDA involved
And here we see that the failure of the system is used as evidence for why the system is needed. (Reminds me of arguments for the war on illegal drugs too, now that you mention it.) Maybe if people didn't believe that a benevolent dictator in a government office building would do their thinking for them, they'd start to do some themselves.
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re:
Giving away lemonade is now "instigating"?
All the abusive husbands who use the excuse "Hey, she started it! She didn't have dinner ready when I got home!" will be happy to know they have you on their side to help them rally against their "instigating" wives.
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
a) do the copyright laws violate the first amendment?
Ambiguous question. Which copyright laws? Any? All? Are you asking for a legal opinion as determined by the courts or a moral opinion backed up by a personal philosophy?
b) is downloading copyright material without a license legal?
Nope.
c) is helping people to break the law an offence?
Another ambiguous question. How is this alleged offender "helping"? Does the telephone company criminally "help" drug dealers by offering them the communication service they need to connect with their customers? If I link to ThePirateBay in my post, am I criminally "helping" infringers? What if I only link to YouTube instead?
Maybe when you can ask proper questions, you'll get proper answers.
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re: Re: Re:
There is an important role for third-party evaluations and certifications in the market, but it doesn't have to be done by a massive government bureaucracy with the sole power to decide who can and can't sell their products, enforced by armed men who will kidnap you and throw you in cage for years at a time if you don't comply.
The only support that can be mustered in favor of the FDA existing is disgusting mixture of "I'm smarter than the unwashed masses" elitism combined with "if the government doesn't do with guns, it will never be done" stupidity.
On the post: Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google
Re: Now if only they'd prosecute Google for anti-trust.
Err, being convicted of a crime now means you're immoral? In what universe do you live?
On the post: Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely, if the condition of the car was not as advertised. You also left out his other example, but I guess it's not hard to see why.
"OK so do people die when they smoke cigarettes, or . . . wait. Um, I guess I can just use the weaker car dealer example instead and ignore the one that obviously disproves my point because I'm an intellectually dishonest hack!"
On the post: Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google
Re: Re: Re: Punish success, reward failure
THANK YOU. I wish more people understood this.
Everyone is aware that our politicians are crooks that funnel our money to big business through regulatory capture schemes and corporate handouts, and yet they expect that given power over the internet for "net neutrality" purposes, the politicians will suddenly start working for the benefit of the people. It's like some form of mass delusion.
"But . . . but . . . it has the word neutrality in it! Next you'll tell me that the patriot act didn't secure our freedoms like they claimed!"
On the post: Are The FDA & The Patent System Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives Again?
Re:
I know, I know, you would never do something like that. It's all the other stupid people out there that need your wise council on what is and isn't good for them.
Good thing educated folks like you and the FDA are here to tell us what's what, or the unwashed masses would be stabbing themselves in the eyes with their forks and eating mud out of the gutter.
On the post: Debate On Software Patents Fails To Convince Silicon Valley That Patents Increase Innovation
Re: A better representation
Not true. I know of at least one patent lawyer who has appeared in the comments on this very site who doesn't believe in patents, but does the job to help companies defend themselves from offensive patents.
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Wow!
*GASP*
Rich people?!? GRAB THE PITCHFORKS!
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re:
Yeah! I want government to have the power to inject anything they want into me or my children, and not have any say about it! That's the ticket to a better world!
(And yes, my kids will damn sure be vaccinated, but it will be because it's the right choice, and not because some douche-nozzle politician decides they get to micro-manage every aspect of my life and body.)
On the post: Would You Volunteer For An Organization That Makes You Sign Away Your Right To Ever Say Anything Negative About It?
Re: Re: Re:
No it doesn't. It may apply in the courts (including civil courts), but we're still talking about government there. There are consequences for speech. If you say mean things about me, perhaps I won't be your friend anymore. If I invite you to my home and you shout obscenities at my children, perhaps I'll ask you to leave. Scream about "free speech" all you want in those cases, but it doesn't make a lick of difference. Free speech does not require me to be your friend, or require me to let you tell at my children.
And it also doesn't apply in cases of private contract. If you sign a contract that says I'll pay you now if you won't say mean things about me later, you still have to hold up your end of the bargain or be in breach of contract. "Free speech" has nothing to do with it.
Beyond free speech, you may have a right to own and carry a gun (a right that I strongly support, by the by), but that doesn't mean you can take your gun on someone else's property if they don't want you to.
The constitution ties the hands of government, not the hands of the citizenry.
On the post: Would You Volunteer For An Organization That Makes You Sign Away Your Right To Ever Say Anything Negative About It?
Re: How can ...
On the post: Would You Volunteer For An Organization That Makes You Sign Away Your Right To Ever Say Anything Negative About It?
Re:
Go up to your boss tomorrow at work and call him a retard and see how long you remain free from consequences.
On the post: Argentine ISPs Block Over A Million Blogs In Response To Court Order To Block Two
Taking Lessons from ICE
On the post: Erik J. Heels's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Chaos
Love it!
On the post: Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>