5 ms·

Great, don't use it then. Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money?

by snitko 13y ago

consonants 13y ago
Why do you believe the pursuit of profits trumps the democratic decisions of the people?
cscurmudgeon 13y ago
>> Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money? I am not doing that. The FDA is doing that. That is their job. If you disagree with that, you should also be okay with charlatans selling snake oil.
- snitko 13y ago
  You are paying for it with your tax money, therefore you are doing it. I'm not okay with selling snake oil, but I think it is wrong to prevent other people from buying it. It's okay to inform them it's a bad idea to buy certain things - it's dictatorship to prevent them from doing so. If you can't convince somebody, it's your problem, not that person's problem. FDA doesn't convince, it just comes and shuts you down or doesn't allow you on the market. Besides, where is FDA when charlatans sell homeopathic medicine? Show me a little consistency here.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    I never said that the FDA is perfect or covers all bad cases. Just because a few bad apples can escape the law now, in letter, does not mean that we should not have regulation. Medical regulation is far from dictatorship. It is orthogonal to it. Just because a govt. prevents from doing X, does not mean by default that the govt. is a dictatorship. X has to be something basic like the right to live or the right to free speech. The FDA is not brutishly shutting down 23andme. They seem to have reasonably tried to work with 23andme. But the startup has been stubborn.
    - snitko 13y ago
      You don't get my point. I'm questioning the existence of the FDA itself. What's your excuse for not letting each individual decide for himself what he wants to spend his money on? It's his money after all. He didn't ask you to pay for what he wants. What is your problem with that?
      - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
        I get your point. I don't get anarchists who don't want regulation but want things like the Internet and technology funded almost entirely by governments. A true anarchist would live in the wild and survive on leaves, branches, sticks and stones. Don't use roads, don't use the internet, don't use any of modern medicine (look up on how much the NSF, DARPA, DoD, NASA have contributed to modern science and technology. It is not as though Google materialized out of thin air.) None of these companies operate in a vacuum. They stand on society's shoulders and have to operate within acceptable legal boundaries which stem from ethical standards. Also, from an operational view, if bad companies mess up, taxpayers end up footing the bill. (Before you delve into more predictable hyperbole: I am not advocating for complete govt. control of everything like in N. Korea.)
        snitko 13y ago
        > A true anarchist would live in the wild and survive on leaves, branches, sticks and stones. I think this image of anarchists was partly intentionally created by governments. Anarchists, at least those who endorse free market enterprise, believe in rules. However, they see government as an ultimate monopoly that issues rules and enforces them with unchallengeable force. If you agree with me that monopolies are not good for consumers, then it only takes a little step further to see that government is indeed a monopoly. Why does it have to say who can marry whom, who can smoke what and who can buy what? The alternative isn't living in the woods. The alternative is having a polylegal system and private protection agencies. You choose an agency and a package of rules you like and start paying. If you dislike the services - you unsubscribe and stop paying, you don't wait for the next election. Moving to a different country cannot be considered a true alternative, since it's usually complicated, expensive and you still are forced (not asked) to pay, like it or not. > None of these companies operate in a vacuum. They stand on society's shoulders and have to operate within acceptable legal boundaries which stem from ethical standards. Society doesn't equal government. > Also, from an operational view, if bad companies mess up, taxpayers end up footing the bill. That's because you have taxpayers and government can bail out companies which are in bed with it. If you didn't have taxes, people would simply let a bad actor fail and be replaced by a better one.

Great, don't use it then. Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money?

by snitko 13y ago

Great, don't use it then. Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money?

consonants 13y ago

Why do you believe the pursuit of profits trumps the democratic decisions of the people?

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

>> Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money? I am not doing that. The FDA is doing that. That is their job. If you disagree with that, you should also be okay with charlatans selling snake oil.

snitko 13y ago
You are paying for it with your tax money, therefore you are doing it. I'm not okay with selling snake oil, but I think it is wrong to prevent other people from buying it. It's okay to inform them it's a bad idea to buy certain things - it's dictatorship to prevent them from doing so. If you can't convince somebody, it's your problem, not that person's problem. FDA doesn't convince, it just comes and shuts you down or doesn't allow you on the market. Besides, where is FDA when charlatans sell homeopathic medicine? Show me a little consistency here.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  I never said that the FDA is perfect or covers all bad cases. Just because a few bad apples can escape the law now, in letter, does not mean that we should not have regulation. Medical regulation is far from dictatorship. It is orthogonal to it. Just because a govt. prevents from doing X, does not mean by default that the govt. is a dictatorship. X has to be something basic like the right to live or the right to free speech. The FDA is not brutishly shutting down 23andme. They seem to have reasonably tried to work with 23andme. But the startup has been stubborn.
  - snitko 13y ago
    You don't get my point. I'm questioning the existence of the FDA itself. What's your excuse for not letting each individual decide for himself what he wants to spend his money on? It's his money after all. He didn't ask you to pay for what he wants. What is your problem with that?
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      I get your point. I don't get anarchists who don't want regulation but want things like the Internet and technology funded almost entirely by governments. A true anarchist would live in the wild and survive on leaves, branches, sticks and stones. Don't use roads, don't use the internet, don't use any of modern medicine (look up on how much the NSF, DARPA, DoD, NASA have contributed to modern science and technology. It is not as though Google materialized out of thin air.) None of these companies operate in a vacuum. They stand on society's shoulders and have to operate within acceptable legal boundaries which stem from ethical standards. Also, from an operational view, if bad companies mess up, taxpayers end up footing the bill. (Before you delve into more predictable hyperbole: I am not advocating for complete govt. control of everything like in N. Korea.)
      - snitko 13y ago
        > A true anarchist would live in the wild and survive on leaves, branches, sticks and stones. I think this image of anarchists was partly intentionally created by governments. Anarchists, at least those who endorse free market enterprise, believe in rules. However, they see government as an ultimate monopoly that issues rules and enforces them with unchallengeable force. If you agree with me that monopolies are not good for consumers, then it only takes a little step further to see that government is indeed a monopoly. Why does it have to say who can marry whom, who can smoke what and who can buy what? The alternative isn't living in the woods. The alternative is having a polylegal system and private protection agencies. You choose an agency and a package of rules you like and start paying. If you dislike the services - you unsubscribe and stop paying, you don't wait for the next election. Moving to a different country cannot be considered a true alternative, since it's usually complicated, expensive and you still are forced (not asked) to pay, like it or not. > None of these companies operate in a vacuum. They stand on society's shoulders and have to operate within acceptable legal boundaries which stem from ethical standards. Society doesn't equal government. > Also, from an operational view, if bad companies mess up, taxpayers end up footing the bill. That's because you have taxpayers and government can bail out companies which are in bed with it. If you didn't have taxes, people would simply let a bad actor fail and be replaced by a better one.