Harry Browne article

[Gem]

Sure we have! There are many possible remedies for this that don't involve the punishment of the non-cheaters too, and I have discussed many of them here.

I don't remember them, could you give us one of those ideas? And We aren't talking about punishement, we're talking about prevention.

I've shown many different times in many different threads that that is false.

http://www.qray.com/index.asp

The free market prevents good companies (or at least gives them a pretty good incentive) not to, but that doesn't mean there won't be any, as shown on the link.

Besides, what does being well-known have to do with anything?

A private company that debunks bad drugs has no real power if people know nothing of it. Kinda like all the q-ray buyers who probably never heard of JREF. Being a well known debunker means that you can educated people about the scams repeatedly used.

Are people suddenly less protected if they don't happen to know about it?

Yes. If I had never heard of skepticism and JREF, my chances of being scammed or beleiving in the paranormal would have been pretty high. For example, my doctor prescribes to me a drug for my illness. If I know about a certain organization that shows which drugs are NOT effective or have risks attached to them, and I know about the organization, then I can check the organization to be sure. If I had not, I would have to take my doctor's word for it, or seek a second opinion (which takes time and money, unlike the organization which does it for free).

Which doesn't work. Ask any company and they'll tell you how important reputation is to a brand name. Look at how much Tylenol suffered after people tampering with their product resulted in the death of (if memory serves) nine people, and that wasn't even their fault! It took them years to get their reputation back. They seriously considered rebranding.

That assumes the comapny is in for the long run. If it's in for the short run, it won't care about it's image because it'll be gone. Also I am looking at this story:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/

"Oxicontin under fire."

"The Sentinel's investigation tracked how three key forces--Purdue's strong marketing campaign, the government's lax controls, and a medical community unchooled in OxyContin's true power--have contributed to a wave of addiction and death."

Later, I recall that doctors prescribed the drug to boost visits to their offices, for PROFIT. *cough*

Support this. Also support it in light of the fact that the costs of regulatory compliance in this country are greater than all corporate profits combined.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01135.html

The President's budget request for the Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year (FY) 2003 (October 1, 2002-September 30, 2003) totals $1.727 billion

Is 1.7 billion enough?

And it doesn't mean I support regulation that I support too much regulation. Doesn't mean I support taxes that I support big taxes.

When has the government "done away" with anything it has imposed? Look on your phone bill—you're still paying the tax on the Spanish-American War!

That's an easy one, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) received it's "honorable discharge" in 1943. In other words: it wasn't needed anymore, so they disbanded it.

As for the taxes, it's really another issue.

Gem

 

[shanek]

I don't remember them, could you give us one of those ideas?

Many of them I've mentioned in this very thread! Standards and testing bodies like UL, proper liability cases which target directly those causing the harm, consumer reporting agencies, etc. All of these things protect us from harmful products at least as well as government regulation.

And We aren't talking about punishement, we're talking about prevention.

No, you're talking about punishment. You're advocating using the force of a gun to restrict what people can do.

http://www.qray.com/index.asp

Wow! You know what, you're right! That's a perfect example of the godawful kinds of things we'd have if government regulation didn't prevent them. Why, isn't it great that such a thing isn't available under our government regulations that protect us so well...oh, wait a minute—you can buy them! They're for sale right on the site!

So, how does this support the idea that government regulations protect us from harmful products?

but that doesn't mean there won't be any,

When did I say there wouldn't be any?

Yes. If I had never heard of skepticism and JREF, my chances of being scammed or beleiving in the paranormal would have been pretty high.

Uh, nice way to change the subject. We were talking about UL. Why are people less protected by UL's standards practices just because they don't know about them?

(which takes time and money, unlike the organization which does it for free).

TANSTAAFL. They ain't doing it for free. That's just being delusional.

That assumes the comapny is in for the long run. If it's in for the short run, it won't care about it's image because it'll be gone.

And so will the company.

"The Sentinel's investigation tracked how three key forces--Purdue's strong marketing campaign, the government's lax controls, and a medical community unchooled in OxyContin's true power--have contributed to a wave of addiction and death."

Later, I recall that doctors prescribed the drug to boost visits to their offices, for PROFIT. *cough*

Wow! I guess it's just such a great thing that we've got the FDA stopping drugs like this from...uh....from, uh....what exactly did they do to stop this again?

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01135.html

And what exactly does this prove?

Is 1.7 billion enough?

Enough for what? An organization that has killed over 200,000 people by denying them the medicine that would have saved their lives? And you're also neglecting to take into account the fact that the drug companies have to spend about $800 million to get a single drug approved by the FDA, in a process that can take over ten years, and is riddled with bureaucratic delays and repeating of efforts. All the while people who could benefit from the drug are suffering and even dying.

That's an easy one, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) received it's "honorable discharge" in 1943. In other words: it wasn't needed anymore, so they disbanded it.

Not quite. The WPA was disbanded, but the boondoggles it funded continue.

 

[billydkid]

BS

I"Oxicontin under fire."

"The Sentinel's investigation tracked how three key forces--Purdue's strong marketing campaign, the government's lax controls, and a medical community unchooled in OxyContin's true power--have contributed to a wave of addiction and death."

Later, I recall that doctors prescribed the drug to boost visits to their offices, for PROFIT. *cough*

Part of the BS drug war hysteria. For many people oxycontin has been a godsend. Live with intractable pain for a few years and try finding relief in this climate of drug hysteria and then see how you feel about people "protecting" you from oxycontin. Idiots will abuse anything. Should we withhold pain relieving medication from those in cronic, debilitating pain in order to protect idiots from abusing themselves?

 

[Gem]

Many of them I've mentioned in this very thread! Standards and testing bodies like UL, proper liability cases which target directly those causing the harm, consumer reporting agencies, etc. All of these things protect us from harmful products at least as well as government regulation.

How do you know they protect us as well as government regulation?

No, you're talking about punishment. You're advocating using the force of a gun to restrict what people can do.

Regulation IS prevention by punishment. And yes, I'm using force to restrict what people can do, and I see nothing wrong with it when well applied.

Wow! You know what, you're right! That's a perfect example of the godawful kinds of things we'd have if government regulation didn't prevent them. Why, isn't it great that such a thing isn't available under our government regulations that protect us so well...oh, wait a minute—you can buy them! They're for sale right on the site!

So, how does this support the idea that government regulations protect us from harmful products?

That means we just need a regulation that's more effective and powerful. I haven't found Q-ray on the UL website. I'll get into effectiveness later.

Uh, nice way to change the subject. We were talking about UL. Why are people less protected by UL's standards practices just because they don't know about them?

I thought the subject was regulation, government vs private.

They aren't protected by their standards if they don't know them because if they see a scam/defect product, they won't know what to look for! Example: I'm buying a computer. Looks like a nice deal, I buy it. Turns out it's a bad product. I go look online and find UL with their nice warning on the very computer I bought. If I had known before my transaction, I would have bought. But with a government agency, I know where to look for.

TANSTAAFL. They ain't doing it for free. That's just being delusional.

Since when did it cost anything to look at UL's list of defect products? That's what I meant, they don't charge you anything, but a doctor's visit will.

And so will the company.

Which can pop up with another name at another location. The possibilities of a free country, to set up business whereveer and whenever you want.

Wow! I guess it's just such a great thing that we've got the FDA stopping drugs like this from...uh....from, uh....what exactly did they do to stop this again?

I suspect it was biased in favor of the consumer. Billydkid does have a point. It's debatable. I pointed out this story because
A) Business marketing campaign.
B) LAX regulations!
C) Doctors lacking the knowledge about the drug.
D)

that doctors prescribed the drug to boost visits to their offices, for PROFIT.

And what exactly does this prove?

That the agency has a bigger budget than private organizations.

Enough for what? An organization that has killed over 200,000 people by denying them the medicine that would have saved their lives? And you're also neglecting to take into account the fact that the drug companies have to spend about $800 million to get a single drug approved by the FDA, in a process that can take over ten years, and is riddled with bureaucratic delays and repeating of efforts. All the while people who could benefit from the drug are suffering and even dying.

Then it's time to reform the agency into modern times.

http://www.stopfda.org/

I'm posting their link because I realize that there is something wrong with the FDA, but not it's concept.

Why destroy something that has potential to do good? Like the first republic of france. Not exactly a shining beacon of democracy, is it? Does that mean that because it went defective, we should completely throw it away?

Not quite. The WPA was disbanded, but the boondoggles it funded continue.

Boondoggles it funded continue? Could you explain what you mean?

Gem

 

[Gem]

Part of the BS drug war hysteria. For many people oxycontin has been a godsend. Live with intractable pain for a few years and try finding relief in this climate of drug hysteria and then see how you feel about people "protecting" you from oxycontin. Idiots will abuse anything. Should we withhold pain relieving medication from those in cronic, debilitating pain in order to protect idiots from abusing themselves?

I'm using the story to prove other points. And the media is heavily biased on this, as they report private views of it.

Gem

 

[shanek]

How do you know they protect us as well as government regulation?

It's very simple: just compare the number of injuries and deaths due to, and the number of recalls of, products covered by private standards bodies like UL and those by government bodies like the USDA.

Regulation IS prevention by punishment. And yes, I'm using force to restrict what people can do, and I see nothing wrong with it when well applied.

Which brings me back to my original question: How can you justify punishing the non-cheaters?

That means we just need a regulation that's more effective and powerful.

Ah, I see. It isn't working, so we need more of it. Let's see, where have I heard logic like that before?...

I haven't found Q-ray on the UL website.

Why would you? It's not a product that falls under their classification. It's a piece of jewelry.

I thought the subject was regulation, government vs private.

Here is what you said:

Private organizations don't replace the government becase:
A) They are less known than government agencies (who heard of UL before Shanek spoke of it?

Ignoring the fact that UL is, in fact, a very well-known household name, your statement most certainly implies that UL is less effective than government regulation because fewer people have heard of it. I'm asking you to support that contention.

They aren't protected by their standards if they don't know them because if they see a scam/defect product, they won't know what to look for!

Go and try to find an electronic product sold in the US that doesn't bear the UL label somewhere. Go on. That label means that not only has UL tested the product and determined it to be safe, but that they've put their money where their mouth is by underwriting its safety, too. So the product you've purchased is safe even if you don't have a clue who UL is and don't even notice the label. The product is still safe.

Example: I'm buying a computer. Looks like a nice deal, I buy it. Turns out it's a bad product. I go look online and find UL with their nice warning on the very computer I bought. If I had known before my transaction, I would have bought. But with a government agency, I know where to look for.

And how would you have known about the flaw with the product any more easily with the government agency?

Since when did it cost anything to look at UL's list of defect products?

It doesn't, directly, but the costs of maintaining that list and keeping it available are bourne by somebody. With UL, this is done through the voluntary free market. With government regulation, this is done through the forceful taking of hard-earned money.

Which can pop up with another name at another location. The possibilities of a free country, to set up business whereveer and whenever you want.

And government regulation stops this, how?

That the agency has a bigger budget than private organizations.

And why does that make it more effective? Microsoft has more money than Linus Torvalds. That doesn't mean they wrote a better OS.

Then it's time to reform the agency into modern times.

And how could the FDA be reformed in a way that will not lead to the current mess by any means other than privatization?

Boondoggles it funded continue? Could you explain what you mean?

Just look around you. Those same programs are in place almost everywhere and perform almost exactly the same function. The WPA itself may not exist anymore, but once government started into that area, it didn't leave it.

 

[Gem]

Ok, this is pointless. We're just going to repeat our positions over and over again like Thanz pointed out.

As has happened before, I feel that at this point we are merely repeating ourselves to each other. I don't think that I will convince you of my position, and I don't think that you will convince me of yours. Rather than go on and on on this, I think it best that we agree to disagree on this and move on to argue another day.

I am sure that the same issues will come up again (the effect of regulations on safety), but hopefully they will be in a more specific context. I look forward to debating you again when we have something more concrete to talk about.

Gem