4 ms·

Or any agency. A mother state isn't wrong. It doesn't do things without some merit for some people. It's just that the hand holding is frustrating to the more i

Or any agency. A mother state isn't wrong. It doesn't do things without some merit for some people. It's just that the hand holding is frustrating to the more independent of us (including me) who would rather take risks and be freer.

gnaritas 13y ago
Finally, some honestly; yes it's frustrating, but given that the vast majority of the population aren't like you, it makes sense that they set up a society to cater to their needs, and it's pretty clear most prefer a paternalistic government simply to remove the need to think about so much stuff. Most people don't want a world where a bad decision about something they don't have the knowledge to even make correctly can kill them.
- crusso 13y ago
  Your mistake in your argument is in assuming that making the choice to abdicate making decisions to lessen risk actually lessens the risk. There is also the very solid argument to be made that by choosing to lessen risk, you stifle innovation and produce an overall much worse system in terms of beneficial outcomes.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    The mistake in your argument is assuming people are good; they aren't, without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load. The FDA exists to protect unwitting consumers from bad people, not to spur innovation. For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save. Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people.
    - PKop 13y ago
      Are regulators not people? Are they infallible? Are there no obvious market mechanisms that will punish con men peddling their inferior products? Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation I don't think this unqualified statement makes sense. Shouldn't the opportunity cost of the benefits of innovations not produced, weighed against the risks present in allowing a market to produce them, play a factor? And this would no doubt be different for each and every possible innovation.
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        > Are regulators not people No. They are robots. Robots that know better. How dare you ask such good questions! You now owe us 40$ for violating my authority citizen! > Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation Again, would the OP rather live in a world with 100% risk, 100% innovation, or 0% risk, 0% innovation. I know what I'd choose. There's a pretty common theme in some sci-fis that living without risk isn't even life. Something to think about...
        mikeash 13y ago
        Doesn't 100% risk imply that we die immediately? Not really "living" then.
        tokenizer 13y ago
        But the 100% innovation would fix that instantly... You broke my horrible if or else argument! I took it more as being 100% responsible for your actions. But also yielding 100% control of those decisions/creations. But your point stands. Both options yield death. One instant and real, the other grey and indifferent.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        We don't all share your faith in the market; it's as simple as that. Until you understand that, you won't understand those who don't agree with you. > I don't think this unqualified statement makes sense. It wasn't unqualified, it had a context that you removed, I'm specifically talking about the medical market, not just any random innovation.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    IMO gnaritas lacks the understanding I'm sure we both share in his reply to this message: That con men don't disappear with regulations. They simply become regulators and monopolists. > The mistake in your argument is assuming people are good So let us give control over some people, to others! That fixes the problem with the human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition)... > without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load. I'd take thousands of small, grassroot scams, that can be corrected through communal means (boycotting and community awareness) than by one huge one. If the Fed sanctions a pharmaceutical drug that kills thousands, is that worse than a few peddlers selling whatever drugs they want like what currently exists under the nose of the Fed? If you ask me, some illegal drugs are less harmful than legal ones! And that's pure free market with a dash of mafiosa government resistance (guns, extortion, other things to become powerful to fight the powerful). > For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save. And yet, while the FDA didn't exist in the centuries preceding 1906, the formation of the FDA, we see innovations saving lives, and more and more people living meaningful existences. I doubt any community of people would be stupid enough to continue to consume harmful chemicals to degree that harms more than of it harms us now. These organizations exist, yet childhood obesity is the highest it's ever been. Americans consume alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and drugs live they always have. These things haven't be struck a blow one bit by regulation. They've simply become more expensive, and the big man in town takes their cut. > Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people. Big red flag that we're not arguing with someone logical. "Bad people"... Like who? The Nazis? Or maybe the Jews? You can use this hatred/disgust/mistrust/contempt/negative energy for so much evil/bad/badder/worse! Why is lessening risk more important that innovation? We've reduced a tremendous amount of risk in the last 100 years. From labour laws to life expectancy to homicide. Can we please stop feeling like we need bureaucrats to run our lives? I'd love to ask gnaritas whether they would prefer a society with no risk and innovation, or a society with massive risk and massive innovation. Arguing even for the status quo puts you in the more favourable side IMO at the get go. I also love how they class people as either bad, or innovative, as I'm sure they dream of some sort of utopia where you either create something of worth before the age of 12, in which you would become a part of the ruling, innovative class, or not, in which case you are controlled by that class. But yes gnaritas you're right. Please pass more laws, more regulations, and create more prisons and fines so we can deal with all of these bad people! In fact, I think I just violated regulation g.r.a. 101 - You cannot challenge the authority of someone who knows whats best for you!
- tokenizer 13y ago
  That said, I do have a problem with it's conclusion. We gave up the monarchy system (to a degree in Western Politics) because a privileged class can never truly choose the correct course of action for subclasses. We replaced this with a pseudo monarchistic, pseudo technocratic, representative democracy, yet all our problems with War, Poverty, Oppression, and Moral Decay continue unabated. We're at a pivotal point in our history, where we're coming to the realization that democracy doesn't work, and that we're either going to have to commit to some consistent narrative, or perish while we convulse with confusion over the increasing chaos. If you ask me I wasn't saying this system was by any means proficient in it's duties to any degree. I was just pointing out that some/many people simply don't care, in other words, they are apathetic. And why not? Individuals can't communicate at the communal level like they used too, and we have no power against bureaucracy. That said, we only live once. It's no use trying to make the world a better place for the next generation, the one after that, or the one after that. Humans will go extinct in the future. Nothing will remember us on this mortal plane after 1 million years. The things we bicker about are profoundly insignificant to the universe. IMO, we don't merit existence outside of this planet if we can't feed the people we have on this one. Let's not spread suffering amongst the stars with us.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    War, Poverty, and Oppression are better today than they have ever been at any point in history. Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      > Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated. I meant the decay of the family during child rearing. The skyrocketing divorce rates since the 2nd world war. The increasingly consumerist yet more alienated individual. Our society that tells our children that women are sex objects, and that ALL men are perverts or rapists. A society that cares more about celebdom than the starvation and suffering within it's borders. A society that disdains racism/intolerance, yet still disenfranchises millions of Native Americans and black African Americans. I'm not trying to say you subscribe to those things. Just clarifying my point that our competitive/psychopathic society has consequences. As someone who cares about morals (not an American republican, but rather a Canadian Leftist) I think this will only carry our system forward. Trust me I don't really care if we're lead as a society by authoritarianism, it's just that I'd rather we utilise that system of government's speciality (efficiency) and attempt to use the current resources we have to develop space technology that can mine efficiently. If not, then let's just live freer happier lives while we can? I'm not disagreeing with governance, just federalism/nationalism/globalism. Let's just run cities? More of a say, more of an impact, and no one else to blame but your own community. Besides, I know that where I live, towns nearby won't raid us. In fact, we'd probably form some confederacy, and share some- dammit! I created a federal government again... I don't have the answers. But there's plenty of problems (the first step is admitting it!). If you can't see a bleaker future than our grandparents did, than you're not seeing what I see in the next 40 years.
- PKop 13y ago
  Then setup a ratings agency to make decisions for those people who want to outsource their judgement to a bureaucracy. Don't prevent those of us who want to make our own decisions (which may at times simply be to defer to some other knowledgable 3rd party besides the FDA whom we trust more. Point is, #choices)

gnaritas 13y ago

Finally, some honestly; yes it's frustrating, but given that the vast majority of the population aren't like you, it makes sense that they set up a society to cater to their needs, and it's pretty clear most prefer a paternalistic government simply to remove the need to think about so much stuff. Most people don't want a world where a bad decision about something they don't have the knowledge to even make correctly can kill them.

crusso 13y ago
Your mistake in your argument is in assuming that making the choice to abdicate making decisions to lessen risk actually lessens the risk. There is also the very solid argument to be made that by choosing to lessen risk, you stifle innovation and produce an overall much worse system in terms of beneficial outcomes.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  The mistake in your argument is assuming people are good; they aren't, without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load. The FDA exists to protect unwitting consumers from bad people, not to spur innovation. For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save. Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people.
  - PKop 13y ago
    Are regulators not people? Are they infallible? Are there no obvious market mechanisms that will punish con men peddling their inferior products? Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation I don't think this unqualified statement makes sense. Shouldn't the opportunity cost of the benefits of innovations not produced, weighed against the risks present in allowing a market to produce them, play a factor? And this would no doubt be different for each and every possible innovation.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      > Are regulators not people No. They are robots. Robots that know better. How dare you ask such good questions! You now owe us 40$ for violating my authority citizen! > Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation Again, would the OP rather live in a world with 100% risk, 100% innovation, or 0% risk, 0% innovation. I know what I'd choose. There's a pretty common theme in some sci-fis that living without risk isn't even life. Something to think about...
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Doesn't 100% risk imply that we die immediately? Not really "living" then.
        tokenizer 13y ago
        But the 100% innovation would fix that instantly... You broke my horrible if or else argument! I took it more as being 100% responsible for your actions. But also yielding 100% control of those decisions/creations. But your point stands. Both options yield death. One instant and real, the other grey and indifferent.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      We don't all share your faith in the market; it's as simple as that. Until you understand that, you won't understand those who don't agree with you. > I don't think this unqualified statement makes sense. It wasn't unqualified, it had a context that you removed, I'm specifically talking about the medical market, not just any random innovation.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  IMO gnaritas lacks the understanding I'm sure we both share in his reply to this message: That con men don't disappear with regulations. They simply become regulators and monopolists. > The mistake in your argument is assuming people are good So let us give control over some people, to others! That fixes the problem with the human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition)... > without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load. I'd take thousands of small, grassroot scams, that can be corrected through communal means (boycotting and community awareness) than by one huge one. If the Fed sanctions a pharmaceutical drug that kills thousands, is that worse than a few peddlers selling whatever drugs they want like what currently exists under the nose of the Fed? If you ask me, some illegal drugs are less harmful than legal ones! And that's pure free market with a dash of mafiosa government resistance (guns, extortion, other things to become powerful to fight the powerful). > For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save. And yet, while the FDA didn't exist in the centuries preceding 1906, the formation of the FDA, we see innovations saving lives, and more and more people living meaningful existences. I doubt any community of people would be stupid enough to continue to consume harmful chemicals to degree that harms more than of it harms us now. These organizations exist, yet childhood obesity is the highest it's ever been. Americans consume alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and drugs live they always have. These things haven't be struck a blow one bit by regulation. They've simply become more expensive, and the big man in town takes their cut. > Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people. Big red flag that we're not arguing with someone logical. "Bad people"... Like who? The Nazis? Or maybe the Jews? You can use this hatred/disgust/mistrust/contempt/negative energy for so much evil/bad/badder/worse! Why is lessening risk more important that innovation? We've reduced a tremendous amount of risk in the last 100 years. From labour laws to life expectancy to homicide. Can we please stop feeling like we need bureaucrats to run our lives? I'd love to ask gnaritas whether they would prefer a society with no risk and innovation, or a society with massive risk and massive innovation. Arguing even for the status quo puts you in the more favourable side IMO at the get go. I also love how they class people as either bad, or innovative, as I'm sure they dream of some sort of utopia where you either create something of worth before the age of 12, in which you would become a part of the ruling, innovative class, or not, in which case you are controlled by that class. But yes gnaritas you're right. Please pass more laws, more regulations, and create more prisons and fines so we can deal with all of these bad people! In fact, I think I just violated regulation g.r.a. 101 - You cannot challenge the authority of someone who knows whats best for you!
tokenizer 13y ago
That said, I do have a problem with it's conclusion. We gave up the monarchy system (to a degree in Western Politics) because a privileged class can never truly choose the correct course of action for subclasses. We replaced this with a pseudo monarchistic, pseudo technocratic, representative democracy, yet all our problems with War, Poverty, Oppression, and Moral Decay continue unabated. We're at a pivotal point in our history, where we're coming to the realization that democracy doesn't work, and that we're either going to have to commit to some consistent narrative, or perish while we convulse with confusion over the increasing chaos. If you ask me I wasn't saying this system was by any means proficient in it's duties to any degree. I was just pointing out that some/many people simply don't care, in other words, they are apathetic. And why not? Individuals can't communicate at the communal level like they used too, and we have no power against bureaucracy. That said, we only live once. It's no use trying to make the world a better place for the next generation, the one after that, or the one after that. Humans will go extinct in the future. Nothing will remember us on this mortal plane after 1 million years. The things we bicker about are profoundly insignificant to the universe. IMO, we don't merit existence outside of this planet if we can't feed the people we have on this one. Let's not spread suffering amongst the stars with us.
- mikeash 13y ago
  War, Poverty, and Oppression are better today than they have ever been at any point in history. Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    > Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated. I meant the decay of the family during child rearing. The skyrocketing divorce rates since the 2nd world war. The increasingly consumerist yet more alienated individual. Our society that tells our children that women are sex objects, and that ALL men are perverts or rapists. A society that cares more about celebdom than the starvation and suffering within it's borders. A society that disdains racism/intolerance, yet still disenfranchises millions of Native Americans and black African Americans. I'm not trying to say you subscribe to those things. Just clarifying my point that our competitive/psychopathic society has consequences. As someone who cares about morals (not an American republican, but rather a Canadian Leftist) I think this will only carry our system forward. Trust me I don't really care if we're lead as a society by authoritarianism, it's just that I'd rather we utilise that system of government's speciality (efficiency) and attempt to use the current resources we have to develop space technology that can mine efficiently. If not, then let's just live freer happier lives while we can? I'm not disagreeing with governance, just federalism/nationalism/globalism. Let's just run cities? More of a say, more of an impact, and no one else to blame but your own community. Besides, I know that where I live, towns nearby won't raid us. In fact, we'd probably form some confederacy, and share some- dammit! I created a federal government again... I don't have the answers. But there's plenty of problems (the first step is admitting it!). If you can't see a bleaker future than our grandparents did, than you're not seeing what I see in the next 40 years.
PKop 13y ago
Then setup a ratings agency to make decisions for those people who want to outsource their judgement to a bureaucracy. Don't prevent those of us who want to make our own decisions (which may at times simply be to defer to some other knowledgable 3rd party besides the FDA whom we trust more. Point is, #choices)