|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Libertarian academic organizations are as good as other academic organizations. I don't understand your snide dismissal here, unless you're a very recent "liberal arts" grad and you've confused university bias against libertarianism for lack of credibility. |
He called jaykimf's source "blatant socialist propaganda" and followed with a Wikipedia link outlining its biased background. I've simply been following suit. He set the table we're all eating at. If he wants his biased sources to be discussed (which I still did anyway), he should afford others the same courtesy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is where we disagree visitorq, the government CAN protect us from an incredible amount of things, from obvious things like murder and rape, to more covert dangers like dangerous chemicals in food and water. It blows my mind that you can insist that the FDA causes more harm than good; I would (and technically do) bet my life on the fact that the FDA protects way more people than it harms. For every chemical that gets through, many get banned. Things like food labeling allow people to make their own choices about what to consume. It is possible to REMOVE a freedom (like a company's freedom to label the way they want) with a net result of freedom being ADDED (customer's freedom to make informed choices). Regulation can allow for people to be "the most free".
We all admit that the government's not perfect; but to tear down institutions that have been protecting us for a long time because they make a few mistakes is an overreaction. You seem to confuse giving the government this kind of regulatory power with "disarm[ing] or coerc[ing] the public in the name of security". I too, am concerned by many of the rights Americans are losing in post-911 America, but the problems need to be addressed specifically, not the absolute removal of governmental powers.
To address your long winded posting (ranting?):
You come from 1 school of thought. A school of thought that is not popular (though not without merit) among economists. Just because you read something by them does not make it true, ESPECIALLY if the majority of the academic world disagrees.
(source: 1 college professor and 4 econ graduates).
Wikipedia's reliability has been demonstrated to you many times. I'll offer this link 1 more time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_wikipedia
Since Wikipedia is (obviously) a terrible source for it's own reliability, I'll give the same advice as before: look at the sourced articles. This one in particular:
http://www.stats.org/stories/2009/are_chemicals_killing_us.html
Which has this excerpt:
"WebMD is the only news source whose coverage of chemical risk is regarded as accurate by a majority (56 percent) of toxicologists, closely followed by Wikipedia�s 45 percent accuracy rating. By contrast, only 15 percent describe as accurate the portrayals of chemical risk found in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal."
I read all the information on there awhile ago. It's why I'm comfortable linking to Wikipedia. Your continued bashing of it's use shows only that you didn't read anything about it or are just unable to change your mind. If it's the latter, than there is no point in anyone having a discussion with you, as you will never change your mind (unless you read something by an Austrian economist).
Special note on this one
| Quote: |
| Aha, look at you squirming now! "Other living expenses"? You mean INFLATION. Which means: I was right, and you were wrong. Just admit it and chalk it up to a lesson learned. |
The two things we've talked about straining the middle class, medical expenses and tuition fees, have grossly outpaced inflation. Those were also mentioned in the article as other living expenses. You know what wasn't? Inflation.
And finally, learn how to hold an adult conversation. You sound like a child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| This is where we disagree visitorq, the government CAN protect us from an incredible amount of things, from obvious things like murder and rape, to more covert dangers like dangerous chemicals in food and water. It blows my mind that you can insist that the FDA causes more harm than good; I would (and technically do) bet my life on the fact that the FDA protects way more people than it harms. For every chemical that gets through, many get banned. Things like food labeling allow people to make their own choices about what to consume. It is possible to REMOVE a freedom (like a company's freedom to label the way they want) with a net result of freedom being ADDED (customer's freedom to make informed choices). Regulation can allow for people to be "the most free". |
Criticisms of the FDA:
Overregulation
-Alleged problems in the drug approval process
-Allegations that FDA regulation causes higher drug prices
-Allegations of censorship in food and drug labeling
Bias
-Allegations of undue pharmaceutical industry influence
-Allegations regarding management and FDA scientists
I'm actually most concerned with the false imprimitur of safety and reliability regulatory agencies provide to corporations. People calmly assume that if its FDA-approved, its safe. And in some cases, regulatory compliance becomes a safe harbor from tortious liability, a favorite lawmaking tactic of the Bush administration. Regulatory agencies also provide covert protectionism by favoring US products over foreign products. In the case of medicine, this practice can actually imperil lives.
| Quote: |
Allegations of undue pharmaceutical industry influence
Critics have disputed the claim that the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment has improved the speed of drug approvals.[43] The advocacy group Consumer Union has claimed that the primary effect of this program has been to increase the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on FDA policy,[44] similar to the effect meat industry user fees have had on the USDA.[45]
The journal Nature reported in 2005 that 70% of FDA panels writing clinical guidelines on prescription drug usage contained at least one member with financial links to drug companies whose products were covered by those guidelines. In the most egregious instance, every member of a panel which recommended the use of epoeitin alfa in HIV patients had received money from a manufacturer of that drug.[46] On March 21, 2007 the FDA announced new guidelines disqualifying experts from serving on advisory committees if they had received financial compensation from a drug company potentially affected by the committee's recommendations.[47]
The FDA has been criticized regarding delayed approval of foreign drugs to protect the US pharmaceutical companies from foreign competition. Eli Lilly and Company's drug fluoxetine (Prozac) was the first serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor to be approved by the FDA. Kali-Duphar, the Dutch manufacturer of another antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox), had first attempted to apply for FDA review in the early 1980s (much earlier than Eli Lilly) but fluvoxamine was not approved until the rights were bought by the US pharmaceutical company Reid Rowell. Critics have suggested that the FDA was attempting to protect Eli Lilly's fluoxetine so it could gain a foothold in the US market before approving fluvoxamine.[48] Similarly, some critics argue that the FDA delayed the approval of Meroxyl (terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid), the most effective UV protectant (particularly against UV A) in clinical use to allow for US companies to develop competing products. Meroxyl has been available in Europe since 1991 but it only was approved in 2006 by the FDA and this delay allowed for Neutrogena to release helioplex which is a competitor for meroxyl. Helioplex differs from meroxyl in that it prevents the breakdown of avobenzone enhancing its UV protection. |
I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:23 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
Big business created regulation as a response to its own misbehavior, just as it created unionization. What exactly is the difference between free markets and free government? If they control the government, what's the difference between big business and big government? The modern libertarian dialogue essentially boils down to the tragically naive notion that government oppresses but business doesn't. This is pretty much a repeat of the church v government struggle that took, well, 2000+ years to resolve.
Why is business any better a religion than the church? Is not the idea of campaign finance reform an attempt at separation of business from state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Isn't the Ludwig Von Mises institute run by Lew Rockwell of the Ron Paul newsletter infamy? Austrian economics doesn't have the same credibility as other forms of economics. Unless my understanding of Austrian economics is flawed praxeology just doesn't carry the same weight as empirical studies. |
"Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist" http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
An intelligent and well reasoned article if you are interested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
Big business created regulation as a response to its own misbehavior, just as it created unionization. What exactly is the difference between free markets and free government? If they control the government, what's the difference between big business and big government? |
Corporatism is defined as the merger between state and corporate power. Without the state (the real muscle in the arrangement) big business cannot hold power over the rest of society. If people get fed up up with a certain business, they are free to boycott it or start a new business to outcompete it in the market.
When government steps in, however, peoples' money is taken from them by force (taxes) and redistributed how the government sees fit. People are forced to use a single currency printed by a central bank (backed by government), which gives the banks an unlimited amount of money they can create out of thin air to invest in big businesses they control. Unfair trade advantages and regulation that favors big business can be imposed on everyone. Monopolies can be granted. Like-minded people from the public and private sector get together like a big mafia and use their power to take from the public.
Without government, there is little big business can do to coerce anyone. In some instances big companies might actually try to resort to hiring thugs to intimidate striking coalminers etc., but those workers were rarely non-violent themselves (often damaging property or preventing outside workers from exercising their freedom to cross picket lines etc.); and regardless, the point is that such use of force (while usually unjustified) pales in comparison to the force of the state. The state can literally dominate an entire society by force. A free market enterprise simply does not have the power to do that (and please don't bring up the East India company or something that was about as "free market" as the imperialist monarchy that granted it a trade monopoly).
At the end of the day, you call a spade a spade: if a business is behaving tyrannically, then it should be resisted the same as tyrannical government. However, I reject the notion that the free market causes business to become corrupt, anymore than a peaceful, law abiding society causes some people to resort to theft or murder. It simply does not follow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| This is where we disagree visitorq, the government CAN protect us from an incredible amount of things, from obvious things like murder and rape, to more covert dangers like dangerous chemicals in food and water. |
Except that it doesn't protect you. 
Have you checked the murder and rape statistics in the US recently? How's that working out for you? Maybe you should be under house arrest for your own safety? I mean whatever it takes, right?
| Quote: |
| It blows my mind that you can insist that the FDA causes more harm than good; I would (and technically do) bet my life on the fact that the FDA protects way more people than it harms. For every chemical that gets through, many get banned. Things like food labeling allow people to make their own choices about what to consume. It is possible to REMOVE a freedom (like a company's freedom to label the way they want) with a net result of freedom being ADDED (customer's freedom to make informed choices). Regulation can allow for people to be "the most free". |
Your mind is blown by me pointing out basic reality to you? How much Koolaid do you drink?
The FDA is a sick joke. There are more toxic substances in our food supply than I could even list. Trans fats (which are deadly) have been in nearly everything for decades, all subsidized by the federal government. High fructose corn-syrup is the same. We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy. GMO's (which cause organ failure and sterilize rodents in lab tests) are not even labeled, and yet are found in foods all over the country. Bisphenol A, which is a toxic estrogen mimicker, is in many foods, and the FDA approves it. Apartame, which contains methanol, was initially deemed too dangerous, but after Searle and Co. (now owned by Monsanto) put Donald Rumsfeld on the project, it was put on the fast track for approval. Hormones in the dairy, pesticides in the fruits and vegetable, E. coli and prions in the meat - the FDA hasn't just failed to protect us, it was government policy that made things as they are. It's all big agriculture, which is heavily subsidized by the government.
Hell, the FDA will pretty well approve anything. Unless it's something nutritious like raw milk, that is (or something "evil" like medicinal marijuana).
| Quote: |
| We all admit that the government's not perfect; but to tear down institutions that have been protecting us for a long time because they make a few mistakes is an overreaction. |
| Quote: |
| You come from 1 school of thought. A school of thought that is not popular (though not without merit) among economists. Just because you read something by them does not make it true, ESPECIALLY if the majority of the academic world disagrees. |
| Quote: |
| (source: 1 college professor and 4 econ graduates). |
Huh? 
You just engage in one logical fallacy after the other. Appealing to authority does not make you correct. So stop doing it.
Wikipedia has its uses, but for in-debt analysis it is very limited. For simple factoid like who the King of Siam was 400 years ago, it's a solid source. And it does a decent job of summarizing many topics. But for a critical discussion about economics or politics, it's a weak and amateurish source and frankly pathetic to lean on to the overwhelming extent that you do. It really shows that you have no clue. Above all, wikipedia is for people who are just looking something up for the first time to try and glean some basic knowledge of something they know nothing about. Kind of like you and economics.
| Quote: |
Special note on this one
| Quote: |
| Aha, look at you squirming now! "Other living expenses"? You mean INFLATION. Which means: I was right, and you were wrong. Just admit it and chalk it up to a lesson learned. |
The two things we've talked about straining the middle class, medical expenses and tuition fees, have grossly outpaced inflation. Those were also mentioned in the article as other living expenses. You know what wasn't? Inflation. |
What?? Rising prices caused by an increase in the money supply is not inflation now? Did you actually just post that or am I misreading something?
Wow. Just stop and think about how ludicrous you are being. I've clearly won the point here. You cannot desperately try and claim after the fact that prices that outpace the rest of the CPI index are somehow magically (according to some made up notion in your mind that nobody else can understand) "not inflation". Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself now...
| Quote: |
| And finally, learn how to hold an adult conversation. You sound like a child. |
I don't sound like a child. I sound like someone who is kicking your butt in this debate  But I understand why you'd want to trot out that epithet to try and save face (it won't work). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| At the end of the day, you call a spade a spade: if a business is behaving tyrannically, then it should be resisted the same as tyrannical government. However, I reject the notion that the free market causes business to become corrupt, anymore than a peaceful, law abiding society causes some people to resort to theft or murder. It simply does not follow. |
visitorq,
I applaud your response. You didn't go the ad hominem route you typically follow, so I'll bite.
Government is necessary for civilization. You have to have law and someone to enforce it. You like free markets? I like anarchy in the Chomsky vein. People could live well under such anarchy IF you had a way to only allow those in who follow the rules. That's where things collapse. Communism, in and of itself, is not a bad idea. It just doesn't work out pragmatically. Power inevitably centralizes, and power inevitably corrupts. This is the whole history of humanity.
One positive aspect of humanity is how much we have improved government from the days might equals right: from despotism and monarchy to representative government. Under a pharoah, there was still economic regulation in that you obeyed whatever his edicts were. Taxation is an improvement upon that and, in and of itself, creates a fairer, more transparent and decentralized way to provide for law and law enforcement. You can call it coercive, but have you seen Apocalypto? Or played civilization? Without government, you can just wake up one day to find someone with more muscle robbing/enslaving you at their will. I, for one, am happy to live in times where I can trundle about the world without fear of such things happening. Without law and law enforcement, that really wouldn't be possible. Someone has to maintain that structure while I go about making long posts on eslcafe, and someone has to pay them to do it. Call yourself coerced, but I'm NOT. I'm just as coerced to pay taxes as I am to pay for things I buy at a store. And don't give me the "you don't have to buy things at the store" bit, I have to buy them from somewhere. AND I have to pay taxes to someone. I'm not boycotting America, but I don't pay much tax there. And hey...people could boycott America by all of them not living there.
As we already know, you don't think collusion is a problem, yet collusion was what brought government into modern business under T. Roosevelt. It's not magically not a problem, and that's only the beginning of the trouble. You address unionization with the simple insinuation that strikers are violent first. Is that true of what happened at Matewan? No, it isn't.
And that's where we begin with the prospect of free market morality. Supposedly, boycotts and such lead consumers to the best companies. But who controls coffee? Fair trade or Maxwell House? How do GM foods compete with organic? Morality can be marketed, but it doesn't fair well, does it?
This brings us back to who can compete in the market, and it's a canard to say anybody. Anybody can go into business but it isn't anybody who survives. To be more precise, few have the potential to compete against a multi-national conglomerate. Ergo, a "free market" will be controlled by muti-national conglomerates. "Buy low, sell high" is amoral and, in practice, immoral. BUT you say people will gravitate to the corporations who do good and eschew the bad, evil ones, no? We're already playing that game in government, and it doesn't play out. So why on earth would it play out if we cut the fetters on the already largely unfettered 900-pound gorillas that run the world from corporate offices? Historically, there's no reason to trust them, and you have to pay to play the game of life. That means you're going to be coerced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Government is necessary for civilization. You have to have law and someone to enforce it. You like free markets? I like anarchy in the Chomsky vein. People could live well under such anarchy IF you had a way to only allow those in who follow the rules. That's where things collapse. Communism, in and of itself, is not a bad idea. It just doesn't work out pragmatically. Power inevitably centralizes, and power inevitably corrupts. This is the whole history of humanity. |
Well, if you look at real world results, then communism was a total failure. Free market enterprise, on the other hand, has improved the lives of even more people around the world than communism and other authoritarian systems destroyed. I think the record is pretty much crystal clear on that.
So to watch as our own country becomes more authoritarian and more centralized, with increasingly unchecked government power -- at the same time as our economy gets worse and worse -- and call it a mere coincidence doesn't wash with me. I'm not basing my assertions on ideology, I look at history and real results.
| Quote: |
| One positive aspect of humanity is how much we have improved government from the days might equals right: from despotism and monarchy to representative government. Under a pharoah, there was still economic regulation in that you obeyed whatever his edicts were. Taxation is an improvement upon that and, in and of itself, creates a fairer, more transparent and decentralized way to provide for law and law enforcement. You can call it coercive, but have you seen Apocalypto? Or played civilization? Without government, you can just wake up one day to find someone with more muscle robbing/enslaving you at their will. I, for one, am happy to live in times where I can trundle about the world without fear of such things happening. Without law and law enforcement, that really wouldn't be possible. Someone has to maintain that structure while I go about making long posts on eslcafe, and someone has to pay them to do it. |
I agree that government is required for a rule of law. But I keep it at a bare minimum. Giving government unlimited power (or more and more over time, incrementally) to "protect" us is a recipe for disaster. As I mentioned earlier, democide (death by government) was the leading cause of all non-natural death last century. Our own government has killed millions of people around the world, so it would be naive to believe they care about us 'little people'. Granted, things in the US are not as bad domestically yet as they were in the USSR under Stalin (purging and starving tens of millions of people), but I think it would be supremely foolish to believe it couldn't happen someday if we acquiesce to it. I am much more worried about the federal government than I am of some boogeyman hiding in my closet that I'm supposed to give up my liberties to be protected from.
| Quote: |
| Call yourself coerced, but I'm NOT. I'm just as coerced to pay taxes as I am to pay for things I buy at a store. And don't give me the "you don't have to buy things at the store" bit, I have to buy them from somewhere. AND I have to pay taxes to someone. I'm not boycotting America, but I don't pay much tax there. And hey...people could boycott America by all of them not living there. |
I can't agree with this bit. I think there is a clear difference between being forced to pay taxes and from buying something. We come back to the idea of a monopoly again. Unless a company has an absolute monopoly on something, you are not forced to buy anything from it. Ex. most people bought petroleum products from Standard Oil because they were cheaper and good quality, but even at its height there were still other companies to choose from. But when the government takes my money, I have no choice.
I think this is such an important point, because voting with one's wallet is one of the best ways to exercise direct democracy. In fact, I would say it's one of the most democratic things there is.
| Quote: |
| As we already know, you don't think collusion is a problem, yet collusion was what brought government into modern business under T. Roosevelt. It's not magically not a problem, and that's only the beginning of the trouble. You address unionization with the simple insinuation that strikers are violent first. Is that true of what happened at Matewan? No, it isn't. |
Collusion didn't work. Because in a free market system, whenever a group of firms would try to get together to form a cartel, one of them would succumb to the temptation to lower prices in some way to gain a market advantage. The end of the 20th century (which we now think of as the era of the robber barons) was actually marked by decades of stable or deflationary prices (as well as being the time of greatest growth in history). Collusion simply was not a problem. In fact government was often brought in to enforce regulation that would keep cartels from competing amongst themselves. We saw this especially under Woodrow Wilson (who signed the Federal Reserve Act, forming a banking cartel). Railroads had the ICC. Farmers had the Agriculture Department. Collusion enforced by government.
As for unionization, I have no problem whatsoever with collective bargaining. As long as it is done voluntarily and non-violently. But I would condemn unions that try to coerce people (and some of them were violent) just as I would condemn any company that tried to bring in pinkerton guards to shoot people just engaging in non-violent protests or strikes. Case by case.
| Quote: |
| This brings us back to who can compete in the market, and it's a canard to say anybody. Anybody can go into business but it isn't anybody who survives. To be more precise, few have the potential to compete against a multi-national conglomerate. |
Agreed, but then look at all the unfair trade advantages those conglomerates enjoy. They are funded by mega-banks that can create limitless money out of thin air via central banking, receive contracts and subsidies by government that smaller firms have no access to (governments sometimes even grant outright monopolies), and even get bailed out when their irresponsible business practices threaten them with collapse. Small businesses do not enjoy these advantages, and indeed are often hampered by regulation.
| Quote: |
| Ergo, a "free market" will be controlled by muti-national conglomerates. "Buy low, sell high" is amoral and, in practice, immoral. BUT you say people will gravitate to the corporations who do good and eschew the bad, evil ones, no? We're already playing that game in government, and it doesn't play out. So why on earth would it play out if we cut the fetters on the already largely unfettered 900-pound gorillas that run the world from corporate offices? Historically, there's no reason to trust them, and you have to pay to play the game of life. That means you're going to be coerced. |
Well, the 900 pound gorilla would have fallen and broken his own back a few years back, but instead the 10-ton leviathan that is government came and threw us underneath to cushion the fall... Most of the banks were insolvent (and still are), companies like GM and GE on the verge of collapse, and the government came in and propped them up. So how exactly can this be blamed on the free market?
In a free market system, ineffectual businesses go bust (and their assets are sold off and put to productive use by entrepreneurs). In a corporatist system, ineffectual businesses thrive at the expense of the rest of us.
Last edited by visitorq on Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
Big business created regulation as a response to its own misbehavior, just as it created unionization. What exactly is the difference between free markets and free government? If they control the government, what's the difference between big business and big government? The modern libertarian dialogue essentially boils down to the tragically naive notion that government oppresses but business doesn't. |
No. It doesn't boil down to the notion that government oppresses but business doesn't. I just said that I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business. The proper and natural inference is that I distrust BOTH federal government and big business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
Big business created regulation as a response to its own misbehavior, just as it created unionization. What exactly is the difference between free markets and free government? If they control the government, what's the difference between big business and big government? |
Corporatism is defined as the merger between state and corporate power. Without the state (the real muscle in the arrangement) big business cannot hold power over the rest of society. If people get fed up up with a certain business, they are free to boycott it or start a new business to outcompete it in the market.
|
You know what mercenaries are, right? Soldiers for hire? How about the media? Big business has PLENTY of ways they can hold power.
| visitorq wrote: |
When government steps in, however, peoples' money is taken from them by force (taxes) and redistributed how the government sees fit. People are forced to use a single currency printed by a central bank (backed by government), which gives the banks an unlimited amount of money they can create out of thin air to invest in big businesses they control. Unfair trade advantages and regulation that favors big business can be imposed on everyone. Monopolies can be granted. Like-minded people from the public and private sector get together like a big mafia and use their power to take from the public.
|
So then the problem isn't the existence of government, but the lack of accountability and transparency in it. A central bank does not give "unlimited money"; there is no such thing. The more they print, the less valuable it becomes. No one's arguing with you that the system needs changing, but getting rid of it is an over-the-top response.
| visitorq wrote: |
Without government, there is little big business can do to coerce anyone. In some instances big companies might actually try to resort to hiring thugs to intimidate striking coalminers etc., but those workers were rarely non-violent themselves (often damaging property or preventing outside workers from exercising their freedom to cross picket lines etc.); and regardless, the point is that such use of force (while usually unjustified) pales in comparison to the force of the state. The state can literally dominate an entire society by force. A free market enterprise simply does not have the power to do that (and please don't bring up the East India company or something that was about as "free market" as the imperialist monarchy that granted it a trade monopoly).
|
Big business can coerce people to consume only their products, and then make products that are not safe (Monsanto). That's the kind of thing that would happen whether or not a government is there, but if there is a government agency tasked with stopping it (FDA), we can prevent many things from getting through. If that regulatory body has a high degree of transparency and accountability, it will be more motivated to do its job instead or cater to special interests.
| visitorq wrote: |
At the end of the day, you call a spade a spade: if a business is behaving tyrannically, then it should be resisted the same as tyrannical government. However, I reject the notion that the free market causes business to become corrupt, anymore than a peaceful, law abiding society causes some people to resort to theft or murder. It simply does not follow. |
Human nature causes things to be come corrupt, whether it be corporations or government. Neither one is very good at handling morality, but the government does it better simply because that's what it's here to do (big business will not stop criminals etc). The answer is not to remove the rules, but to make those who break the rules face severe penalties. Transparency and accountability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| This is where we disagree visitorq, the government CAN protect us from an incredible amount of things, from obvious things like murder and rape, to more covert dangers like dangerous chemicals in food and water. It blows my mind that you can insist that the FDA causes more harm than good; I would (and technically do) bet my life on the fact that the FDA protects way more people than it harms. For every chemical that gets through, many get banned. Things like food labeling allow people to make their own choices about what to consume. It is possible to REMOVE a freedom (like a company's freedom to label the way they want) with a net result of freedom being ADDED (customer's freedom to make informed choices). Regulation can allow for people to be "the most free". |
Criticisms of the FDA:
Overregulation
-Alleged problems in the drug approval process
-Allegations that FDA regulation causes higher drug prices
-Allegations of censorship in food and drug labeling
Bias
-Allegations of undue pharmaceutical industry influence
-Allegations regarding management and FDA scientists
I'm actually most concerned with the false imprimitur of safety and reliability regulatory agencies provide to corporations. People calmly assume that if its FDA-approved, its safe. And in some cases, regulatory compliance becomes a safe harbor from tortious liability, a favorite lawmaking tactic of the Bush administration. Regulatory agencies also provide covert protectionism by favoring US products over foreign products. In the case of medicine, this practice can actually imperil lives.
| Quote: |
Allegations of undue pharmaceutical industry influence
Critics have disputed the claim that the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment has improved the speed of drug approvals.[43] The advocacy group Consumer Union has claimed that the primary effect of this program has been to increase the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on FDA policy,[44] similar to the effect meat industry user fees have had on the USDA.[45]
The journal Nature reported in 2005 that 70% of FDA panels writing clinical guidelines on prescription drug usage contained at least one member with financial links to drug companies whose products were covered by those guidelines. In the most egregious instance, every member of a panel which recommended the use of epoeitin alfa in HIV patients had received money from a manufacturer of that drug.[46] On March 21, 2007 the FDA announced new guidelines disqualifying experts from serving on advisory committees if they had received financial compensation from a drug company potentially affected by the committee's recommendations.[47]
The FDA has been criticized regarding delayed approval of foreign drugs to protect the US pharmaceutical companies from foreign competition. Eli Lilly and Company's drug fluoxetine (Prozac) was the first serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor to be approved by the FDA. Kali-Duphar, the Dutch manufacturer of another antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox), had first attempted to apply for FDA review in the early 1980s (much earlier than Eli Lilly) but fluvoxamine was not approved until the rights were bought by the US pharmaceutical company Reid Rowell. Critics have suggested that the FDA was attempting to protect Eli Lilly's fluoxetine so it could gain a foothold in the US market before approving fluvoxamine.[48] Similarly, some critics argue that the FDA delayed the approval of Meroxyl (terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid), the most effective UV protectant (particularly against UV A) in clinical use to allow for US companies to develop competing products. Meroxyl has been available in Europe since 1991 but it only was approved in 2006 by the FDA and this delay allowed for Neutrogena to release helioplex which is a competitor for meroxyl. Helioplex differs from meroxyl in that it prevents the breakdown of avobenzone enhancing its UV protection. |
I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
I've been admitting since I brought it up that the FDA has problems. That doesn't mean it's worse than no regulation and should be removed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
Big business created regulation as a response to its own misbehavior, just as it created unionization. What exactly is the difference between free markets and free government? If they control the government, what's the difference between big business and big government? The modern libertarian dialogue essentially boils down to the tragically naive notion that government oppresses but business doesn't. |
No. It doesn't boil down to the notion that government oppresses but business doesn't. I just said that I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business. The proper and natural inference is that I distrust BOTH federal government and big business. |
Its fair to not trust both. But the government (in this case the FDA) was set up to protect us and has people working for it that are committed to doing just that. When they fail, elected representatives take heat for it, so there IS motivation for them to protect us (unlike companies). The more transparency and accountability that exist in government, the more I trust it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't see any reason to trust federal government more than big business, particularly when big business exerts so much control over the federal government. |
Big business created regulation as a response to its own misbehavior, just as it created unionization. What exactly is the difference between free markets and free government? If they control the government, what's the difference between big business and big government? |
Corporatism is defined as the merger between state and corporate power. Without the state (the real muscle in the arrangement) big business cannot hold power over the rest of society. If people get fed up up with a certain business, they are free to boycott it or start a new business to outcompete it in the market.
|
You know what mercenaries are, right? Soldiers for hire? How about the media? Big business has PLENTY of ways they can hold power. |
What exactly do mercenaries have to do with this discussion? Mercenaries nearly always work for governments. Aside from the odd case of a business hiring pinkertons or other goons to crack down on unions, I can't think of any free market businesses hiring mercenaries (and certainly never using them to exercise political power).
The media is a subtle form of control, yes, but it is non-coercive. In a free market system it is not really an issue, since people have access to alternative media. State controlled media is more to be worried about, since propaganda can be used not merely to sell products, but to mobilize the public to support wars or induce the population into a climate of fear (to convince them to give up their liberties in the name of security, among other things).
| Quote: |
| So then the problem isn't the existence of government, but the lack of accountability and transparency in it. A central bank does not give "unlimited money"; there is no such thing. The more they print, the less valuable it becomes. No one's arguing with you that the system needs changing, but getting rid of it is an over-the-top response. |
I don't believe I have ever claimed the problem is the "existence of government". I am not an anarchist.
A central bank does essentially give unlimited money (created out of thin air) - until the system crashes and burns (ie. the currency is debased and hyperinflates). We know for a fact that central banking is not a requirement for our nation to be prosperous, since the periods in which we were most prosperous there was no central bank. Therefore, advocating getting rid of it is not over-the-top as you say, but a rational position (shared by many people).
| Quote: |
| Big business can coerce people to consume only their products, and then make products that are not safe (Monsanto). That's the kind of thing that would happen whether or not a government is there, but if there is a government agency tasked with stopping it (FDA), we can prevent many things from getting through. If that regulatory body has a high degree of transparency and accountability, it will be more motivated to do its job instead or cater to special interests. |
How can big business "coerce people to consume only their products"? When has this ever happened, except when government enforces monopolies in the market? Monsanto is actually a perfect example. You actually think the FDA is there to stop it? The FDA is a revolving door between government and giant firms like Monsanto that depend on subsidies and regulation to prosper.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9RL51J81.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-escobar/hes-back-former-vp-at-mon_b_228792.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Public_officials_formerly_employed_by_Monsanto
| Quote: |
| Human nature causes things to be come corrupt, whether it be corporations or government. |
Yes, which is why we should never allow too much power to be centralized into the hands of a few.
| Quote: |
| Neither one is very good at handling morality, but the government does it better simply because that's what it's here to do (big business will not stop criminals etc). The answer is not to remove the rules, but to make those who break the rules face severe penalties. Transparency and accountability. |
You actually believe our power-grabbing, war-mongering federal government (run by a bunch of terrorists by any proper definition) is here to "handle morality"? Did you not catch the bit about democide being the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century? We're talking hundreds of millions of people brutalized, robbed, and killed by governments. Our own government in the US has killed millions around the world. You can't point to anything even remotely comparable in the private sector. Sure companies like Monsanto will produce Agent Orange to spray all over Vietnam, or weapons contractors will build bombs to drop on Iraq, or Halliburton will lap up gov't no-bid contracts, but without the state it all comes to naught. Big government is the much bigger threat to the public good.
I doubt all the evils committed by all big businesses in history combined would not even stack up to a single leader like Stalin or Mao using state power to systematically murder tens of millions of people (including causing deliberate famines to wipe out whole populations), forcing people into slave labor, eliminating all political and cultural dissent in massive purges, fighting devastating wars, and generally terrorizing people in the most brutal ways imaginable. To think such a thing could never happen in the US if we just roll over let the government do what it wants (and trust that it will all work out because we live under some illusion that we'll always be safe in a "democracy") is very reckless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| Its fair to not trust both. But the government (in this case the FDA) was set up to protect us and has people working for it that are committed to doing just that. When they fail, elected representatives take heat for it, so there IS motivation for them to protect us (unlike companies). The more transparency and accountability that exist in government, the more I trust it. |
Actually, when they fail they go out on a golden parachute and get a job working for the same interests they were favoring, and are replaced by someone else with a clean slate (who can then engage in fresh forms of corruption).
The point is not to leave these positions up to the discretion of honorable people (since dishonorable people will eventually get into place, appoint like minded people, and build their cancerous little empire of corruption in their bureau); it's that such positions of regulatory power should not even exist. In other words, it is not that we need regulators because of corruption; it is that corruption stems from these positions in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
