4 ms·

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 exi

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.

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.