3 ms·

I agree. Just because a thing exists (the FDA or taxes for instance), doesn't make it a good thing.

by patricius 8y ago

jcora 8y ago
Wow look, an ancap in 2018!
- patricius 8y ago
  Yeah. I feel pretty lonely here... :'(
  - logfromblammo 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    [deleted]
Fnoord 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
      > 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. That burden of proof lay originally with those that introduced, e.g., the FDA. We could go back to investigate whether we find that proof sufficient, if any was even provided, but your interpretation of the proof would perhaps be different than mine. But decisions like creating an FDA are not based on proof, I would argue. It is based on other factors, especially on what can give government more power and what people will vote for. The average voter does not investigate any proof on the matter, but instead rely solely on gut feeling, for instance the feeling that drug companies are greedy enough to deliberately release drugs they know will harm people.

I agree. Just because a thing exists (the FDA or taxes for instance), doesn't make it a good thing.

jcora 8y ago

Wow look, an ancap in 2018!

patricius 8y ago
Yeah. I feel pretty lonely here... :'(
- logfromblammo 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  [deleted]

Fnoord 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    > 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. That burden of proof lay originally with those that introduced, e.g., the FDA. We could go back to investigate whether we find that proof sufficient, if any was even provided, but your interpretation of the proof would perhaps be different than mine. But decisions like creating an FDA are not based on proof, I would argue. It is based on other factors, especially on what can give government more power and what people will vote for. The average voter does not investigate any proof on the matter, but instead rely solely on gut feeling, for instance the feeling that drug companies are greedy enough to deliberately release drugs they know will harm people.