7 ms·

I find public health inspectors also make it more expensive to run a restaurant. Perhaps the solution to their tight margins would be to abolish health inspecti

I find public health inspectors also make it more expensive to run a restaurant. Perhaps the solution to their tight margins would be to abolish health inspections.

Fnoord 9y ago
While you're at it, tax makes it more difficult to run a business and making a living. Let us abolish tax as well.
- patricius 9y ago
  I agree. Just because a thing exists (the FDA or taxes for instance), doesn't make it a good thing.
  - jcora 9y ago
    Wow look, an ancap in 2018!
    - patricius 9y ago
      Yeah. I feel pretty lonely here... :'(
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        Anarcho-capitalism largely depends on a belief that human nature is essentially good, and prone to spontaneous cooperation. It is also heavily dependent on reputation, which scales poorly, or on trustless technologies, which aren't yet mature. I'm still anarchist in 2018, but I haven't been anywhere near the an-cap territory of it since around 2006. Sticking to a political dogma out in the libertarian hinterlands is really only good for pointlessly arguing with other libertarians on the Internet. That can be fun sometimes, but it's not as entertaining as it used to be, what with everyone pointing at Twitler and saying "You see? This is exactly as (insert libertarian variant) predicted!"
        miragle 9y ago
        Anarcho-capitalism largely depends on a belief that human nature is essentially bad, and that magically, goodness manifests itself from the concentration of badness.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Although I don't disagree with your point, that wasn't my point. My point is that these things have different aspects (some of which are arguably useful, some perhaps in your eyes less so or not) but removing them has serious consequences. It is easy to be against something (for example, paying taxes) but removing taxation has serious consequences which have to be accounted for.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Keeping them as they are also has serious consequences that are rarely examined, or even raised for consideration. The public interest is for medical treatments to have the following qualities: safe, effective, affordable. The business interest for healthcare providers is for medical treatments to have the following property: profitable. Those interests only partially overlap. It is possible to imagine many different institutional architectures that cater to the public's interests, and a large number of them are theoretically better than the actual results yielded from the FDA and the rest of the modern American health care system. Thus, one of the consequences of maintaining the status quo is the foregone advantage of moving to a different and wholly incompatible system. That's the kind of argument only an economist could love, because it ties your brain up in knots trying to figure it out, and you can plausibly justify any prejudicial opinion you might care to support.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        > Keeping them as they are also has serious consequences that are rarely examined, or even raised for consideration. Yes, but the burden of proof lies with those who prefer an alternative. If you want to demonstrate an alternative is better, you need an honest and in depth comparison with the current. Just saying "the current sucks" isn't an argument. I do agree it is difficult for drugs like ketamine, psilocybin, and MDMA(/MDA/MDE/etc) to get research funding, but that doesn't mean the current options are useless; we know they are useful, just not in every case. Nor does it mean that those mentioned drugs are better; we do not know.
        patricius 9y ago
patricius 9y ago
I agree
kingofhdds 9y ago
>abolish health inspections. Well, it would be interesting to look at impartial cost/efficiency research regarding "health inspections". I routinely travel to countries where those inspections are just a pure formality, or completely non-existent - and, I must say, in most cases there's no trouble finding a good, safe place to eat.

I find public health inspectors also make it more expensive to run a restaurant. Perhaps the solution to their tight margins would be to abolish health inspections.

Fnoord 9y ago

While you're at it, tax makes it more difficult to run a business and making a living. Let us abolish tax as well.

patricius 9y ago
I agree. Just because a thing exists (the FDA or taxes for instance), doesn't make it a good thing.
- jcora 9y ago
  Wow look, an ancap in 2018!
  - patricius 9y ago
    Yeah. I feel pretty lonely here... :'(
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism largely depends on a belief that human nature is essentially good, and prone to spontaneous cooperation. It is also heavily dependent on reputation, which scales poorly, or on trustless technologies, which aren't yet mature. I'm still anarchist in 2018, but I haven't been anywhere near the an-cap territory of it since around 2006. Sticking to a political dogma out in the libertarian hinterlands is really only good for pointlessly arguing with other libertarians on the Internet. That can be fun sometimes, but it's not as entertaining as it used to be, what with everyone pointing at Twitler and saying "You see? This is exactly as (insert libertarian variant) predicted!"
      - miragle 9y ago
        Anarcho-capitalism largely depends on a belief that human nature is essentially bad, and that magically, goodness manifests itself from the concentration of badness.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- Fnoord 9y ago
  Although I don't disagree with your point, that wasn't my point. My point is that these things have different aspects (some of which are arguably useful, some perhaps in your eyes less so or not) but removing them has serious consequences. It is easy to be against something (for example, paying taxes) but removing taxation has serious consequences which have to be accounted for.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Keeping them as they are also has serious consequences that are rarely examined, or even raised for consideration. The public interest is for medical treatments to have the following qualities: safe, effective, affordable. The business interest for healthcare providers is for medical treatments to have the following property: profitable. Those interests only partially overlap. It is possible to imagine many different institutional architectures that cater to the public's interests, and a large number of them are theoretically better than the actual results yielded from the FDA and the rest of the modern American health care system. Thus, one of the consequences of maintaining the status quo is the foregone advantage of moving to a different and wholly incompatible system. That's the kind of argument only an economist could love, because it ties your brain up in knots trying to figure it out, and you can plausibly justify any prejudicial opinion you might care to support.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > Keeping them as they are also has serious consequences that are rarely examined, or even raised for consideration. Yes, but the burden of proof lies with those who prefer an alternative. If you want to demonstrate an alternative is better, you need an honest and in depth comparison with the current. Just saying "the current sucks" isn't an argument. I do agree it is difficult for drugs like ketamine, psilocybin, and MDMA(/MDA/MDE/etc) to get research funding, but that doesn't mean the current options are useless; we know they are useful, just not in every case. Nor does it mean that those mentioned drugs are better; we do not know.
      - patricius 9y ago

patricius 9y ago

I agree

kingofhdds 9y ago

>abolish health inspections. Well, it would be interesting to look at impartial cost/efficiency research regarding "health inspections". I routinely travel to countries where those inspections are just a pure formality, or completely non-existent - and, I must say, in most cases there's no trouble finding a good, safe place to eat.