8 ms·

More evidence that we live in a very mixed economy, not under free market capitalism. Government agencies empowered to weild regulatory force against citizens

by javert 13y ago

More evidence that we live in a very mixed economy, not under free market capitalism. Government agencies empowered to weild regulatory force against citizens are a threat to everyone, and this is case in point.

gnaritas 13y ago
Good.
- javert 13y ago
  You don't have the right to boss me around. You are advocating putting up roadblocks between me, and my pursuit of values, and you should feel bad. (I do mean this with a hint of jocularity.)
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Says you, but we don't live in a society where everyone gets to make their own rules. As a country, we've decided we do have the right to boss you around, so we do. :)
    - javert 13y ago
      There is no logical chain of facts, starting with concrete perception of reality, that leads to the conclusion that society gets to coerce me. So, no, you do not have the right to coerce me. However, there is a logical chain of facts, starting with concrete perception of reality, that leads to the conclusion that we should establish government for protection from coersion. Society can pass a law to coerce people---at its own peril.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        I see your problem, you think logic matters, it doesn't, this isn't that world. In this world, numbers matter, votes, not logic. Rights are a social construct, we have whatever rights we've all agreed we have and no more. Any talk about natural rights and logic and positive vs negative rights is just that, meaningless talk; policy comes from those who acquire power, not those with the best arguments and facts. > Society can pass a law to coerce people---at its own peril. Look around, turns out it's not really perilous at all. It's actually the normal way the world works.
        javert 13y ago
        Don't turn this around as "my problem." I don't have a problem. I look at reality and I derive the correct conclusions. Including the fact that I live in a mixed economy. I am not the one in conflict with reality. Logic and talk are not meaningless. There are reasons that there once was an Enlightenment, ultimately culminating in the founding of the only contry originally based on the concept of individual rights---the United States. And hopefully we can get there again. Greater than the tread of mighty armies, is the idea whose time has come. Of course, to make the time come, much intellectual groundwork will have to be laid. > Look around, turns out it's not really perilous at all. It's actually the normal way the world works. It is perilous. For instance, the US is in a perma-recession. In the long run, this is quite dangerous. You are explicitly advocating that we ignore reality. That should be enough to make my point and probably everything else I just said is just distracting from it.
rimantas 13y ago
> not under free market capitalism I am so glad of this. Without regulatory force we would se much more threats to everyone from other citizens (and that's why regulations came into being).
- fogonthedowns 13y ago
  sometimes I think/believe I've accidentally stumbled upon a Ron Paul forum.
  - javert 13y ago
    I'm actually an Objectivist---I agree with the philosopher who had 5% of her system ripped out of context and stolen by the libertarians (i.e. Ron Paul people).
    - sanskritabelt 13y ago
      He is too impatient to toil slowly through the years for the things he wants. Too uncompromising to succeed in the way of the popular men who know how to get along with those in power. Too intolerant to “get along” with anybody. Too passionate not to burn with disgust for life as he sees it and with humiliation at not being above the mob, crushing it under his feet, giving it orders instead of trying to satisfy it, of crawling before it for its good graces. He is unable to understand how he can act and live as an equal with those he knows to be inferior to him, those he despises and had a right to despise.
      - sanskritabelt 13y ago
        For the record, that was Ayn Rand talking about (one of?) her favorite serial killers, who became the basis for a character in an unfinished novel, about whom she wrote: "[he] is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."
smacktoward 13y ago
> Government agencies empowered to weild regulatory force against citizens are a threat to everyone Yes! How dare those jack-booted thugs infringe on my freedom to sell "Dr." Smacktoward's Bona-Fide Health Elixir and Youth Restoring Tonic (99% water, 1% radium) to anyone dumb enough to buy it! It's turning into a dang police state, I tell you!
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Hyperbole aside, if "Dr" Smacktoward did actually develop a cheap and effective therapy that actually worked, the prior restraint employed by the FDA would likely keep it off the market. The same technique employed against snake oil may also be applied to real cures that might provide cost-effective competition to multibillion-dollar blockbuster patent medicines.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    Yes, that's right; if you believe that you truly have developed a remarkable healing elixir in your garage, the burden is on you to obtain scientifically valid proof that it does what you claim it will do before you can go around selling it to people. Whether or not you see this as a horribly unjust burden imposed by an unfeeling government will probably depend on whether you are the inventor or the person the inventor was planning on selling it to.
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      If you apply that standard to other products, such as software, what happens? If you cannot distribute software that is certifiably bug-free and algorithmically correct, that is warranted to be fit for a specific purpose, what happens? If you cannot sell a car if it cannot go 70 miles-per-hour, consuming fuel at 50 miles-per-gallon, and have zero fatalities in a head-on collision, what happens?
    - Zoomla 13y ago
      too bad they are not as rigorous with the food we eat. One example is that they don't even have the resources to check if the food manufacturers claims are true (you can't be sure what type of fish you eat nowadays).

by javert 13y ago

gnaritas 13y ago

Good.

javert 13y ago
You don't have the right to boss me around. You are advocating putting up roadblocks between me, and my pursuit of values, and you should feel bad. (I do mean this with a hint of jocularity.)
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Says you, but we don't live in a society where everyone gets to make their own rules. As a country, we've decided we do have the right to boss you around, so we do. :)
  - javert 13y ago
    There is no logical chain of facts, starting with concrete perception of reality, that leads to the conclusion that society gets to coerce me. So, no, you do not have the right to coerce me. However, there is a logical chain of facts, starting with concrete perception of reality, that leads to the conclusion that we should establish government for protection from coersion. Society can pass a law to coerce people---at its own peril.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      I see your problem, you think logic matters, it doesn't, this isn't that world. In this world, numbers matter, votes, not logic. Rights are a social construct, we have whatever rights we've all agreed we have and no more. Any talk about natural rights and logic and positive vs negative rights is just that, meaningless talk; policy comes from those who acquire power, not those with the best arguments and facts. > Society can pass a law to coerce people---at its own peril. Look around, turns out it's not really perilous at all. It's actually the normal way the world works.
      - javert 13y ago
        Don't turn this around as "my problem." I don't have a problem. I look at reality and I derive the correct conclusions. Including the fact that I live in a mixed economy. I am not the one in conflict with reality. Logic and talk are not meaningless. There are reasons that there once was an Enlightenment, ultimately culminating in the founding of the only contry originally based on the concept of individual rights---the United States. And hopefully we can get there again. Greater than the tread of mighty armies, is the idea whose time has come. Of course, to make the time come, much intellectual groundwork will have to be laid. > Look around, turns out it's not really perilous at all. It's actually the normal way the world works. It is perilous. For instance, the US is in a perma-recession. In the long run, this is quite dangerous. You are explicitly advocating that we ignore reality. That should be enough to make my point and probably everything else I just said is just distracting from it.

rimantas 13y ago

> not under free market capitalism I am so glad of this. Without regulatory force we would se much more threats to everyone from other citizens (and that's why regulations came into being).

fogonthedowns 13y ago
sometimes I think/believe I've accidentally stumbled upon a Ron Paul forum.
- javert 13y ago
  I'm actually an Objectivist---I agree with the philosopher who had 5% of her system ripped out of context and stolen by the libertarians (i.e. Ron Paul people).
  - sanskritabelt 13y ago
    He is too impatient to toil slowly through the years for the things he wants. Too uncompromising to succeed in the way of the popular men who know how to get along with those in power. Too intolerant to “get along” with anybody. Too passionate not to burn with disgust for life as he sees it and with humiliation at not being above the mob, crushing it under his feet, giving it orders instead of trying to satisfy it, of crawling before it for its good graces. He is unable to understand how he can act and live as an equal with those he knows to be inferior to him, those he despises and had a right to despise.
    - sanskritabelt 13y ago
      For the record, that was Ayn Rand talking about (one of?) her favorite serial killers, who became the basis for a character in an unfinished novel, about whom she wrote: "[he] is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

smacktoward 13y ago

> Government agencies empowered to weild regulatory force against citizens are a threat to everyone Yes! How dare those jack-booted thugs infringe on my freedom to sell "Dr." Smacktoward's Bona-Fide Health Elixir and Youth Restoring Tonic (99% water, 1% radium) to anyone dumb enough to buy it! It's turning into a dang police state, I tell you!

logfromblammo 13y ago
Hyperbole aside, if "Dr" Smacktoward did actually develop a cheap and effective therapy that actually worked, the prior restraint employed by the FDA would likely keep it off the market. The same technique employed against snake oil may also be applied to real cures that might provide cost-effective competition to multibillion-dollar blockbuster patent medicines.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Yes, that's right; if you believe that you truly have developed a remarkable healing elixir in your garage, the burden is on you to obtain scientifically valid proof that it does what you claim it will do before you can go around selling it to people. Whether or not you see this as a horribly unjust burden imposed by an unfeeling government will probably depend on whether you are the inventor or the person the inventor was planning on selling it to.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    If you apply that standard to other products, such as software, what happens? If you cannot distribute software that is certifiably bug-free and algorithmically correct, that is warranted to be fit for a specific purpose, what happens? If you cannot sell a car if it cannot go 70 miles-per-hour, consuming fuel at 50 miles-per-gallon, and have zero fatalities in a head-on collision, what happens?
  - Zoomla 13y ago
    too bad they are not as rigorous with the food we eat. One example is that they don't even have the resources to check if the food manufacturers claims are true (you can't be sure what type of fish you eat nowadays).