3 ms·
"But, but, but... who will build the roads!?" > And who decides that those tests are rigorous? Really? Who decides those things now? That's the whole point: l
by nateabele 12y ago
"But, but, but... who will build the roads!?"
> And who decides that those tests are rigorous?
Really? Who decides those things now? That's the whole point: look at all the disasters the FDA has approved (and the high barrier to entering the marketplace they create, which kills an unknowable number of things that could be tremendously beneficial).
People have to make decisions with the best information that they have. At least with a commercial entity, you can see where the interests are aligned, instead of operating under the delusion that benevolent agents of the state are out there working on your behalf.
Here's a parallel example: the FDIC exists to insure bank deposit holders up to $100k (formerly $250k, but oh well). Now, with the FDIC, you have every incentive to ignore your bank and assume that your deposits are safe. What about without the FDIC? Maybe you're more concerned with how your bank invests your money. Maybe you ask to see their balance sheet. Maybe you see how disastrously over-leveraged they are and take your money elsewhere. If that happens enough times, look at all the financial crisis you SUDDENLY DON'T HAVE.
That's a pretty over-simplified example, so here's a more direct one: there's a program operated by FEMA called the National Flood Insurance Program. The purpose is to provide affordable flood insurance for houses which the market has decided are too flood-prone to be insured, but for a very expensive policy, if at all. Just consider that for a second: FEMA is literally reinforcing their own existence by incentivizing people to live in places where floods might destroy their homes and kill them. I don't think it gets any more perverse than that (though realistically it probably does).
The state can't help you. All it can do is provide concentrated centers of control to attract those with power and influence, and all you get in return is a false sense of security. You're literally walking into a trap and turning your brain off.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago"Here's a parallel example: the FDIC exists to insure bank deposit holders up to $100k (formerly $250k, but oh well). Now, with the FDIC, you have every incentive to ignore your bank and assume that your deposits are safe. What about without the FDIC? Maybe you're more concerned with how your bank invests your money. Maybe you ask to see their balance sheet. Maybe you see how disastrously over-leveraged they are and take your money elsewhere. If that happens enough times, look at all the financial crisis you SUDDENLY DON'T HAVE." On the other hand, recorded history.