9864250

5 ms·

1.
by 9864250 4y ago
Yes, it's against their will. The people dying because the FDA doesn't let them access lifesaving treatments that are available in other countries are not committing suicide. They are dying because doctors and pharmacists would go
2.
by 9864250 4y ago
No, I'm not a fan of something just because it's a market. A market is a morally neutral concept. I don't think Somalia is an example of when states get out of the way. I think it's an example of one extremely bad state
3.
by 9864250 4y ago
I don't think Somalia can properly be considered to have been stateless, but as you seem to think so, maybe you can explain why life expectancy, immunization, birth weight, infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, access to sani
4.
by 9864250 4y ago
I don't think the FDA has saved nearly as many people as it has killed, but it's going to be impossible to get good statistics on either variable. "Saving" someone against their will is not a good thing, so even if the F
5.
by 9864250 4y ago
There are many different kinds of laws that are supported under the banner of "right to repair", even some that I support, such as limitations to IP, even though I'm generally very sceptical to any proposal that is advised as
6.
by 9864250 4y ago
Sure, a group of experts is generally more likely to make a good decision when an objectivity good decision can be made (which is often not the case because individual preferences vary). If however, that group is able to enforce its will by
7.
by 9864250 4y ago
Market-like structures predate humanity[0], nobody invented or created markets. States only exist because of force. The state is literally the warlord who won, so it's you who are pro-warlord. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com&
8.
by 9864250 4y ago
Under the "opt-in regulation" system, a requirement could be to have insurance or other contingencies, but I think the main problem here is that it's proprietary. If it was open-source, I think anyone would have been able to
9.
by 9864250 4y ago
It depends on how burdensome they expect the law to be. Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law, but I'm sure there are hypothetical laws they would not comply with. In such a case, I expect apple would be willing to spend enough
10.
by 9864250 4y ago
Of course I'm against the war on drugs. I'm not a fan of industrial pollution, whether it's regulated or not. No, I don't think the state should play any role in making markets, in this case or others.
11.
by 9864250 4y ago
That's frankly a ridiculous straw man. A person can likewise not have enough knowledge, understanding, or time to make informed choices for other's survival. The difference is that when someone makes the wrong choice about their o
12.
by 9864250 4y ago
I don't support state enforced "truth in labelling", but if a company can lie to the state in order to put "cancer-free" on the label, it can also lie to the state in order to put banned carcinogens in the product.
13.
by 9864250 4y ago
My reason for my first sentence is my last sentence, which I do hold as self-evident. I probably think it's wrong to take choice away from individuals and give it to the state, in part for a similar reason you think it's wrong to
14.
by 9864250 4y ago
You are assuming they would sell a version of their product the state want them to sell (and that such a version would give you more options), rather than not sell it at all. That's not necessarily true. There are many products that ar
15.
by 9864250 4y ago
The state telling people they have to be blind or move to a different country is unquestionably controlling their bodies. The FDA kills thousands of people by not letting them access drugs and medical devices. I cannot understand wanting mo
16.
by 9864250 4y ago
No, the solution is not to give the state even more power over peoples bodies. I would never put proprietary software in my body unless I absolutely needed it to live, but that's a personal choice. It's wrong and contra productive
17.
by 9864250 4y ago
I feel like people would quickly demand the repeal of this law if Apple refused to comply and was banned in the UK. The average person (and the average politician) may not care about privacy or security, but they like Apple products. If I w
18.
by 9864250 4y ago
I don't know anything about him besides him having been a "Surveillance Officer" for 15 years. I feel the same about that as I feel about someone who has been a member of a crime gang or terrorist organization for that long.
19.
by 9864250 4y ago
My objection is not really that they hired him. I believe that people can change and no one is irredeemable, but I don't think they should advertise it like this. It's like hiring an ex-con who used to use your product to victimiz
20.
by 9864250 4y ago
Braking the law doesn't mean doing anything wrong, and a lot of the people these people harass haven't even broken the law. These people infiltrate and destroy innocent people's lives. Imagine meeting someone you love and hav
21.
by 9864250 4y ago
I don't see any problem with this. Buying a building for £15M doesn't make you £15M poorer because you can sell the building later. Additionally, as the funding came from a grant specifically for this purpose, it's not money
22.
by 9864250 4y ago
The media should not be on the same team as the government.
23.
by 9864250 4y ago
Of course the state is also just people. All organizations are comprised of individuals. The law is not an organization, so it's not itself people. The law is a statement made by people. Government is by consent in the sense that you n
24.
by 9864250 4y ago
But that would not make any sense if one person held all the dollars. The creditors would have no use for dollars, and the US would need to switch to another currency in order to be able to pay its employees. They could print however many d
25.
by 9864250 4y ago
If I owned all the dollars, the US would simply decide to start demanding taxes in something else because it could not use those dollars for anything. If it refused to switch to another currency, it would not be able to pay the people who w
26.
by 9864250 4y ago
Cryptocurrencies like Ether are backed by the network's virtual machine. You have to pay Ether to process a transaction on the Ethereum virtual machine and as transactions can do arbitrary computations, Ether is useful for things other
27.
by 9864250 4y ago
That's still ultimately targeted at the individuals who control and benefit from those assets. If a married couple own a car together, you can threaten to damage their car to influence their actions. The same is true if those two peopl
28.
by 9864250 4y ago
NDAs and non-disparagement clauses are consensual and can be agreed between individuals as well. They have nothing to do with corporations as such. Laws and regulations are ultimately enforced by means of violence against individuals. When
29.
by 9864250 4y ago
No, it's not possible to use violence against a corporation. It doesn't have a body, it can't feel pain, fear, etc. Ultimately, the violence needs to be directed at an individual. The government may (or may not) have declared
30.
by 9864250 4y ago
Freedom of speech is the freedom from violent consequence. When the government enforces a law, it does that by using or threatening individuals with violence. It cannot use violence against a corporation without using violence against an in

More ›