3 ms·

> we don't have to risk having food poisoning if we choose the wrong grocery store Yet we still have food poisoning outbreaks. So this is false, no single inst

> we don't have to risk having food poisoning if we choose the wrong grocery store Yet we still have food poisoning outbreaks. So this is false, no single institution is omnipotent and without error. This is a soluble problem - force institutions to justify their existence, rather than forcing individuals to abide by their rulings. > if we don't regulate the oligopolistic markets we have in everything today (how many pharma companies are there?) we are in enormous danger of everyone losing confidence in food and medicine supplies. Nobody wants that. Indeed it is an oligopoly, because of the enforced regulatory regime. So your argument is circular - we need enforced regulation because of the oligopoly caused by enforced regulation. Pragmatically, I agree that it would be mayhem if the FDA was simply abolished tomorrow. My solution is to abolish their enforced regulatory power and allow individuals to decide for themselves whether they want to give authority to the FDA exclusively or instead heed the judgements of other bodies that might be more competent.

bediger4000 7y ago
Yes, we still have food poisoning outbreaks. No institution is all-powerful or all-knowing. I'm 100% positive we have fewer food poisonings with the FDA than we'd have without it. Your "this is false" assertion is, while technically true, fairly obviously a case of asking for perfection before doing anything. Given that the Trump administration is scaling regulation of pork products way back (https://www.specialtyfood.com/news/article/trump-administration-increase-self-regulation-pork-industry/ https://www.specialtyfood.com/news/article/trump-administrat...) we get to be part of an experimental test of this! I disagree with you about oligopoly because of regulations. If we enforced sensible anti-trust laws as we did from about 1900-1960, we wouldn't be in the dilemma of having 3 pharma companies, or 3 grocery store companies, or 1 ISP. Yes, the regulatory environment is a result of capture and oligopoly, but without the regulation, the oligopolies, which have close to zero market forces to check them, would really abuse the consumers. Asserting that this is circular is kind of like saying that without ticks, rabbits wouldn't have need of blood. Ticks, (and/or similar blood suckers) co-evolve with their hosts. Regulatory environments, particularly when the agency has been captured, and I'm sure we can agree that the FDA has been captured, co-evolve.

bediger4000 7y ago

Yes, we still have food poisoning outbreaks. No institution is all-powerful or all-knowing. I'm 100% positive we have fewer food poisonings with the FDA than we'd have without it. Your "this is false" assertion is, while technically true, fairly obviously a case of asking for perfection before doing anything. Given that the Trump administration is scaling regulation of pork products way back (https://www.specialtyfood.com/news/article/trump-administration-increase-self-regulation-pork-industry/ https://www.specialtyfood.com/news/article/trump-administrat...) we get to be part of an experimental test of this! I disagree with you about oligopoly because of regulations. If we enforced sensible anti-trust laws as we did from about 1900-1960, we wouldn't be in the dilemma of having 3 pharma companies, or 3 grocery store companies, or 1 ISP. Yes, the regulatory environment is a result of capture and oligopoly, but without the regulation, the oligopolies, which have close to zero market forces to check them, would really abuse the consumers. Asserting that this is circular is kind of like saying that without ticks, rabbits wouldn't have need of blood. Ticks, (and/or similar blood suckers) co-evolve with their hosts. Regulatory environments, particularly when the agency has been captured, and I'm sure we can agree that the FDA has been captured, co-evolve.