4 ms·

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 ve

by 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!

by crusso 13y ago

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!