if not the goverments job then who's job is it? surely not the insurance companies since they already deny health insurance to millions of people based on various pre-existing health problems that exist though no fault of their own.
Hehe...it's your job. Your questions aren't even questions -- they are political statements that assume that government has the mandate, the ability, and the will to impose healthcare systems upon all Americans. Libertarians would not agree with that. They believe that government has already made healthcare worse by excessive regulation, inflation and taxation. They want government, particularly at the Federal level, out of the health care market entirely.
Any good Libertarian, anarachist, or objectivist will tell you that "silent consent" is a contradiction. The "social contract", absent individual agreement, is an anti-concept. One might as well equate rape with making love.
I don't see it as a contradiction. When you go to a restaurant and get served food & drinks, there is no contract signed before hand saying that you agree to pay for the services. I challenge you to just walk out stating that you didn't agree to pay for the services before hand. There is an understood 'silent' contract between you & the restaurant that you will pay for services after the fact. You agree to pay taxes by your residency here. You can end the contract anytime by denouncing your citizenship. No one is forcing to you remain here. I know you hate to hear this, but if you think you can't end your contract by leaving, then you are enslaving yourself. I know you aren't 'down' with being a slave.
I have a busy day today, so I won't be around until tonight. I appreciate you, mammasan, and others indulging my questions. I look forward to catching up later.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't see it as a contradiction. When you go to a restaurant and get served food & drinks, there is no contract signed before hand saying that you agree to pay for the services.
Hehe...nor is there a contract signed before hand saying that you agree to pay for everyone else's meal.
Look, exchange is founded on the concept of a contract. We certainly wrap customs around that wherein you might not actually sign a piece of paper. But when you go into a restaurant, order food, receive it, and pay for it, that assumes a standard pattern of behavior agreeable to both you and the restauranteur. In the event that you go into a restaurant, order food, receive it, and then are billed for all the food served to all customers in a day, I'm quite sure you would not simply pay that.
I challenge you to just walk out stating that you didn't agree to pay for the services before hand. There is an understood 'silent' contract between you & the restaurant that you will pay for services after the fact. You agree to pay taxes by your residency here. You can end the contract anytime by denouncing your citizenship. No one is forcing to you remain here. I know you hate to hear this, but if you think you can't end your contract by leaving, then you are enslaving yourself. I know you aren't 'down' with being a slave.
I have a busy day today, so I won't be around until tonight. I appreciate you, mammasan, and others indulging my questions. I look forward to catching up later.
You've made a logical leap here that makes no sense. Residency doesn't equate to any actual or custom-based "agreement". If your local restaurant delivers food to your house that you didn't ask for and then tells you that you owe them for it because you're within their delivery range, is that a "contract"??? That's mafia logic.
The act of going into a store and purchasing something and paying for it is, again, consistent with individual will. The store exists to sell you something. You are in the store to buy something.
I live on land not in order to receive or provide governmental services. I live on land for the purposes of survival and comfort, something the government threatens more often than it provides. So I do not consent. So I do not sign your contract. Which means you must force me. Again, rape and making love are not the same thing. The latter requires the will of both parties.
Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone. There are people who believe that the federal government should provide as much as possible for it's citizens and that is fine. What I find ridiculous is when these same people complain about the same government interfering in their daily affairs.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone. There are people who believe that the federal government should provide as much as possible for it's citizens and that is fine. What I find ridiculous is when these same people complain about the same government interfering in their daily affairs.
There's nothing ridiculous about wanting, say, a government provided police force that actively investigates and arrests criminals - but then get pissed off at said police force when they start beating confessions out of otherwise innocent individuals.
It's also O.K. to expect gasoline to fuel your car, only to get pissed off if some malfunction causes all that gasoline to explode.
There's nothing ridiculous about wanting, say, a government provided police force that actively investigates and arrests criminals - but then get pissed off at said police force when they start beating confessions out of otherwise innocent individuals.
It's also O.K. to expect gasoline to fuel your car, only to get pissed off if some malfunction causes all that gasoline to explode.
It's never ok to want objective reality to emerge from subjective definition.
There's nothing ridiculous about wanting, say, a government provided police force that actively investigates and arrests criminals - but then get pissed off at said police force when they start beating confessions out of otherwise innocent individuals.
It's also O.K. to expect gasoline to fuel your car, only to get pissed off if some malfunction causes all that gasoline to explode.
You are right, but we know what our government is capable of. We know how inept it is at the management of social programs, or any program. Why would we want to put something as emmense as healthcare in their hands. That would be like me giving my life savings to a compulsive gambler or hiring an alcoholic to be my driver and then complaining when my life savings went down the drain at the horse track or my driver totalled my car when he/she was drunk.
People, and I'm not directing this at you, sit here and complain about how much money our government spends and how much it has increased in size and scope. then in the next breath they want the government to provide healthcare coverage. Maybe it's just me but that makes no sense at all.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You are right, but we know what our government is capable of. We know how inept it is at the management of social programs, or any program. Why would we want to put something as emmense as healthcare in their hands. That would be like me giving my life savings to a compulsive gambler or hiring an alcoholic to be my driver and then complaining when my life savings went down the drain at the horse track or my driver totalled my car when he/she was drunk.
People, and I'm not directing this at you, sit here and complain about how much money our government spends and how much it has increased in size and scope. then in the next breath they want the government to provide healthcare coverage. Maybe it's just me but that makes no sense at all.
Well, I can only answer for me, and that answer is I'm not so much pissed at the amount the government spends, but what it spends it on. I want the government to increase in size in some areas and decrease in size in others. I don't see how that doesn't make sense.
As for the government screwing up programs, it usually depends on who's in charge at any given time as to how, if at all, these programs are screwed up. Perhaps it sounds trite and naive, but I do have faith in our "vote the bastards out" system. While we don't often vote them out, the threat of it is usually enough to get them to do what we want them to do, given enough time.
Well, I can only answer for me, and that answer is I'm not so much pissed at the amount the government spends, but what it spends it on. I want the government to increase in size in some areas and decrease in size in others. I don't see how that doesn't make sense.
As for the government screwing up programs, it usually depends on who's in charge at any given time as to how, if at all, these programs are screwed up. Perhaps it sounds trite and naive, but I do have faith in our "vote the bastards out" system. While we don't often vote them out, the threat of it is usually enough to get them to do what we want them to do, given enough time.
Well we will have to just agree to disagree. We clearly see the role and responsiblities of our federal government differently.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
This is an excellent example in Libertarian thinking that was recently posted by a member of the Libertarian leadership to an e-mail thread I subscribe to:
+
+
Typical government response to government failure ...... more government, of course!
There's nothing not-bad in this pile of crap, which is no doubt why it passed so overwhelmingly in the Senate:
WASHINGTON - The Senate today approved wide-ranging legislation to strengthen the government's drug safety oversight.
Adopted by a 93-1 vote, the Senate bill would expand the Food and Drug Administration's ability to monitor drugs for side effects, and to take quicker action to better protect the public if problems arise.
I wonder who the holdout was, but I don't really care enough to check - probably some loser who thought it wasn't socialist enough.
``This is breakthrough legislation,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's sponsor. ``This legislation is going to make prescription drugs that our families take safer.''
'Cause, you know, legislation IS what makes the sun come up in the morning. Idiot!!
The bill, which still must be approved by the House, follows a series of high profile cases in the past several years involving FDA-approved painkillers, antibiotics and antidepressants that turned out to have unexpected and in some instances deadly side effects.
How to succeed in Government in one short lesson:
FAIL.
because, you know, if you actually succeed your budget (and power) won't increase. Absent the evil profit motive, there is NO REWARD for succeeding - but money and power galore for failing.
But let us move on:
A key provision of the bill would require the FDA to review the safety of some potentially risky medications at 18 months and at three years after approval, and to conduct active, routine surveillance of large public and private medical databases to better track possible harmful patient side effects of medications.
Thus doing the job of the pharmaceutical companies at taxpayer expense.
The legislation also would empower the agency to require pharmaceutical companies to conduct postmarket studies of new medications, and set deadlines for revision of drug warning labels when problems occur.
Here's the sort of 'regulation' that Big Pharma loves: the kind that cripples small, lean, innovative companies while giving their spinoff buddies juicy chunks of new make-work.
In addition, the Senate measure would greatly increase the user fees paid by the pharmaceutical industry for FDA review of new drugs, setting forth performance goals for speedy approval of the medicines. Drugmakers said this was a crucial element of the legislation for them.
Huh? The sane among us might wonder why Big Pharma would consider 'greatly increased user fees' 'crucial'. But see the previous paragraph. They LOVE this sort of thing. Another barrier to market entry! Yee-haa! Less competition!
The bill effectively blocks lower-priced drug imports from abroad - a key victory for drugmakers concerned that such a move could lead to an increase of counterfeit medicines and also undercut their profits.
This is actually funny - except for the fact that it isn't. Oh. They are sooooo concerned about the safety of the sheep-public, and, err, incidentally, the safety of their profits. Please. Why don't you bozos worry about protecting your profits in the old-fashioned way (producing quality at a reasonable price) and let ME worry about 'counterfeit medicines'? Thanks but NO THANKS for that sort of 'protection', you thugs.
It imposes some added oversight on direct-to-consumer drug advertisements, but lawmakers deleted a provision this week that would have given the FDA discretion to ban some ads on potentially risky new drugs for up to two years.
I'll bet. The BP lobbyists probably actually had to threaten to close the re-election purse-strings to get that thrown out (not that I think ads should be banned). How this could be seen as anything but a gang rape by Congress and its frat buddy Big Pharma is beyond me.
Hehe...nor is there a contract signed before hand saying that you agree to pay for everyone else's meal.
Look, exchange is founded on the concept of a contract. We certainly wrap customs around that wherein you might not actually sign a piece of paper. But when you go into a restaurant, order food, receive it, and pay for it, that assumes a standard pattern of behavior agreeable to both you and the restauranteur. In the event that you go into a restaurant, order food, receive it, and then are billed for all the food served to all customers in a day, I'm quite sure you would not simply pay that.
You've made a logical leap here that makes no sense. Residency doesn't equate to any actual or custom-based "agreement". If your local restaurant delivers food to your house that you didn't ask for and then tells you that you owe them for it because you're within their delivery range, is that a "contract"??? That's mafia logic.
The act of going into a store and purchasing something and paying for it is, again, consistent with individual will. The store exists to sell you something. You are in the store to buy something.
I live on land not in order to receive or provide governmental services. I live on land for the purposes of survival and comfort, something the government threatens more often than it provides. So I do not consent. So I do not sign your contract. Which means you must force me. Again, rape and making love are not the same thing. The latter requires the will of both parties.
ffg, I think it is the libertarian logic that is severely flawed. Your social contract with this country began when your parents chose this country for you. You can freely end that contract any time. You consent to this contract by remaining here, period. Through this contract you receive many benefits, such as the roads you use to drive to work, hell, the money you use for your exchange is printed by the gov't. The 'mafia' logic is a silly analogy. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract, unlike the US. The landowner owns the land (in a limited sense), and the US government owns rights to govern its territory. Wouldn't you agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response? If I refuse to pay rent, my landlord has every right to take action against me. I know your biggest issue is that your taxes go to things like welfare and other programs. Well, this aspect is in need of improvement, but the idea itself is not flawed. All it is really is a form of social insurance so folks are protected in times of adversity. Again, this aspect needs much improvement, but the idea is a good one. Most of us are insured in one way or another. Most of us hope never to use it, but it is there in times of trouble. Bottom line, by refusing to pay your taxes, you are nothing more than a squatter. Your argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. You do not own the US as a whole. I mean, what an egotistical premise to think everything you make is by your effort only! We live in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services.
Look, I'm not saying that we are not in need for some serious changes in where are tax dollars are spent. That is the problem, not the taxes alone.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A key provision of the bill would require the FDA to review the safety of some potentially risky medications at 18 months and at three years after approval, and to conduct active, routine surveillance of large public and private medical databases to better track possible harmful patient side effects of medications.
Thus doing the job of the pharmaceutical companies at taxpayer expense.
Question for you: Again, this is an area in need of improvement, but are you looking to dissolve the FDA completely? DO you think the pharmaceutical companies will do a better job reviewing the safety of the drugs they manufacture? The FDA scope is wide and dissolving it involves many implications.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ffg, I think it is the libertarian logic that is severely flawed. Your social contract with this country began when your parents chose this country for you.
Again, this is an anti-concept. No one can "begin" a contract for you. That invalidates the entire idea of "contract".
You can freely end that contract any time. You consent to this contract by remaining here, period.
Period? What else do I "consent to" by remaining here? Death by lynch mob? Rape? Theft? Conscription into clown college? Seriously -- what does "here" have to do with "consent"?
The rest of it follows from the flawed logic you're proposing here.
EDIT, actually, one part of it does not follow:
The landowner owns the land (in a limited sense), and the US government owns rights to govern its territory.
What do you mean by "own" and what do you mean by "rights"?
Question for you: Again, this is an area in need of improvement, but are you looking to dissolve the FDA completely? DO you think the pharmaceutical companies will do a better job reviewing the safety of the drugs they manufacture? The FDA scope is wide and dissolving it involves many implications.
Most Libertarians would like the FDA dissolved, yes. And some pharmeceutical companies would do a much better job, and some would do a much worse job.
Interesting thread, including the hijack. Here in Latin America Libertarianism is a very rare debate topic.
I guess the flaws -if existent- of the Libertarian ideology regarding social issues will vary according one's point of view of social justice. If one person thinks that social justice is only achieved when all individuals are maximizing their own personal utility, according to their personal needs, then that person will consider Libertarianism a fair ideology...
I have one question about the isolasionist (sp?) issue. Is that especifically related to foreign diplomacy or it also includes trade policy? Cause if that's the case I'm wondering how eficiency issues are adressed. If I have understood correctly, Libertarian economic policy would be in the line of Milton Friedman and Von Hayek ideas, hence effiency should be a key aspect of the economy. Then how if you're an isolasionist intend to achieve effiency in areas were the country is not naturally (I can't find a better suited word in english, sorry) endowed or does not have the actual resources to produce a certain good. Trade is left out of the equation?
Interesting thread, including the hijack. Here in Latin America Libertarianism is a very rare debate topic.
I guess the flaws -if existent- of the Libertarian ideology regarding social issues will vary according one's point of view of social justice. If one person thinks that social justice is only achieved when all individuals are maximizing their own personal utility, according to their personal needs, then that person will consider Libertarianism a fair ideology...
I have one question about the isolasionist (sp?) issue. Is that especifically related to foreign diplomacy or it also includes trade policy? Cause if that's the case I'm wondering how eficiency issues are adressed. If I have understood correctly, Libertarian economic policy would be in the line of Milton Friedman and Von Hayek ideas, hence effiency should be a key aspect of the economy. Then how if you're an isolasionist intend to achieve effiency in areas were the country is not naturally (I can't find a better suited word in english, sorry) endowed or does not have the actual resources to produce a certain good. Trade is left out of the equation?
Peace,
Caterina
Caterina,
Libertarian isolationism is typically political and non-economic. Libertarians typically believe that governments have little or no business in regulating international trade, just as they believe that they have little or no business in regulating intranational trade. I say "typical" because there are some economic isolationists in the Libertarian ranks, but they are a minority.
Libertarian isolationism is typically political and non-economic. Libertarians typically believe that governments have little or no business in regulating international trade, just as they believe that they have little or no business in regulating intranational trade. I say "typical" because there are some economic isolationists in the Libertarian ranks, but they are a minority.
Oh I see. So, typically Libertarians are against regulating international trade, but are not against it...
Oh I see. So, typically Libertarians are against regulating international trade, but are not against it...
Thanks Jeff!!!
Caterina,
I'm not sure if we're losing each other in the English or not. Libertarianism, as a modern American political ideal, is against regulating international trade. Some people who call themselves Libertarian, however, do believe that America should regulate international trade. It's a small schism in the movement that really depends on the two primary reasons people are Libertarian in the first place. Most Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary beliefs in individual liberty and human freedom. However, some Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary belief in isolationism. The latter is a rather unique American perspective that has its roots in early American history.
So in other words, the "official" Libertarian position on international trade vis-a-vis government regulation would be very laissez faire. However, some individual Libertarians disagree with that position and would like America to have a regulatory system of economic isolationism via tariffs, duties, etc. Personally, I find the latter view mostly contradictory.
It's important to note here that when I say "international trade", I'm referring to the interrelation between international individuals and corporations, not governments. This is why most Libertarians oppose NAFTA, the WTO and other governmental institutions who profess to "facilitate trade". Libertarians typically believe those institutions do the opposite.
I'm not sure if we're losing each other in the English or not. Libertarianism, as a modern American political ideal, is against regulating international trade. Some people who call themselves Libertarian, however, do believe that America should regulate international trade. It's a small schism in the movement that really depends on the two primary reasons people are Libertarian in the first place. Most Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary beliefs in individual liberty and human freedom. However, some Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primarily belief in isolationism. The latter is a rather unique American perspective that has its roots in early American history.
So in other words, the "official" Libertarian position on international trade vis-a-vis government regulation would be very laissez faire. However, some individual Libertarians disagree with that position and would like America to have a regulatory system of economic isolationism via tariffs, duties, etc. Personally, I find the latter view mostly contradictory.
It's important to note here that when I say "international trade", I'm referring to the interrelation between international individuals and corporations, not governments. This is why most Libertarians oppose NAFTA, the WTO and other governmental institutions who profess to "facilitate trade". Libertarians typically believe those institutions do the opposite.
Best,
-Jeff
Jeff
Thanks a lot, I re-read my last answer and yes it was somewhat confusing (what I tried to convey was that Libertarians are not against trade per se, but against regulations like WTO). This is what happens when you think in spanish and write in english, I guess.
I had in mind exactly what you're telling me, sorry if I made you think your first answer was not clear enough
Thanks a lot, I re-read my last answer and yes it was somewhat confusing (what I tried to convey was that Libertarians are not against trade per se, but against regulations like WTO). This is what happens when you think in spanish and write in english, I guess.
I had in mind exactly what you're telling me, sorry if I made you think your first answer was not clear enough
Peace
No problem! The way you say it above is definitely consistent with what I'm communicating.
Well, I guess I'm pretty late in this thread, and I havent read through it all, so I apologize if the sentiment has been adressed already.
I will say this about libertarianism, it works nicely on the individual level, and I am on the same page when it comes to personal and private issues. My problem stems from it being based on extreme individualism. To the extent that it seems to be denying or ignoring the existence of collective problems and issues transcending the individual person's sphere. Actually, as I see it, it is based on some axioms, or what you wanna call them which to me looks something like this:
1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.
2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.
3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.
Am I way off with this? I dont agree with any of these three axioms at face value. But perhaps you can soften them for me?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Hehe...it's your job. Your questions aren't even questions -- they are political statements that assume that government has the mandate, the ability, and the will to impose healthcare systems upon all Americans. Libertarians would not agree with that. They believe that government has already made healthcare worse by excessive regulation, inflation and taxation. They want government, particularly at the Federal level, out of the health care market entirely.
I don't see it as a contradiction. When you go to a restaurant and get served food & drinks, there is no contract signed before hand saying that you agree to pay for the services. I challenge you to just walk out stating that you didn't agree to pay for the services before hand. There is an understood 'silent' contract between you & the restaurant that you will pay for services after the fact. You agree to pay taxes by your residency here. You can end the contract anytime by denouncing your citizenship. No one is forcing to you remain here. I know you hate to hear this, but if you think you can't end your contract by leaving, then you are enslaving yourself. I know you aren't 'down' with being a slave.
I have a busy day today, so I won't be around until tonight. I appreciate you, mammasan, and others indulging my questions. I look forward to catching up later.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Hehe...nor is there a contract signed before hand saying that you agree to pay for everyone else's meal.
Look, exchange is founded on the concept of a contract. We certainly wrap customs around that wherein you might not actually sign a piece of paper. But when you go into a restaurant, order food, receive it, and pay for it, that assumes a standard pattern of behavior agreeable to both you and the restauranteur. In the event that you go into a restaurant, order food, receive it, and then are billed for all the food served to all customers in a day, I'm quite sure you would not simply pay that.
You've made a logical leap here that makes no sense. Residency doesn't equate to any actual or custom-based "agreement". If your local restaurant delivers food to your house that you didn't ask for and then tells you that you owe them for it because you're within their delivery range, is that a "contract"??? That's mafia logic.
The act of going into a store and purchasing something and paying for it is, again, consistent with individual will. The store exists to sell you something. You are in the store to buy something.
I live on land not in order to receive or provide governmental services. I live on land for the purposes of survival and comfort, something the government threatens more often than it provides. So I do not consent. So I do not sign your contract. Which means you must force me. Again, rape and making love are not the same thing. The latter requires the will of both parties.
I'm sorry to hear that the actions of one person lead you to judge a different one.
Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone. There are people who believe that the federal government should provide as much as possible for it's citizens and that is fine. What I find ridiculous is when these same people complain about the same government interfering in their daily affairs.
What actions?
Your small ideas are simple-minded gibberish.
I've read further into Paul since this debate, and he's no realist.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's also O.K. to expect gasoline to fuel your car, only to get pissed off if some malfunction causes all that gasoline to explode.
Whatever actions of mine that "turned you off" to Ron Paul.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Realism??? I thought you said "there is no right"?
It's never ok to want objective reality to emerge from subjective definition.
You are right, but we know what our government is capable of. We know how inept it is at the management of social programs, or any program. Why would we want to put something as emmense as healthcare in their hands. That would be like me giving my life savings to a compulsive gambler or hiring an alcoholic to be my driver and then complaining when my life savings went down the drain at the horse track or my driver totalled my car when he/she was drunk.
People, and I'm not directing this at you, sit here and complain about how much money our government spends and how much it has increased in size and scope. then in the next breath they want the government to provide healthcare coverage. Maybe it's just me but that makes no sense at all.
As for the government screwing up programs, it usually depends on who's in charge at any given time as to how, if at all, these programs are screwed up. Perhaps it sounds trite and naive, but I do have faith in our "vote the bastards out" system. While we don't often vote them out, the threat of it is usually enough to get them to do what we want them to do, given enough time.
Well we will have to just agree to disagree. We clearly see the role and responsiblities of our federal government differently.
I guess there's no need for a Constitution, huh?
That they do....
+
+
Typical government response to government failure ...... more government, of course!
There's nothing not-bad in this pile of crap, which is no doubt why it passed so overwhelmingly in the Senate:
WASHINGTON - The Senate today approved wide-ranging legislation to strengthen the government's drug safety oversight.
Adopted by a 93-1 vote, the Senate bill would expand the Food and Drug Administration's ability to monitor drugs for side effects, and to take quicker action to better protect the public if problems arise.
I wonder who the holdout was, but I don't really care enough to check - probably some loser who thought it wasn't socialist enough.
``This is breakthrough legislation,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill's sponsor. ``This legislation is going to make prescription drugs that our families take safer.''
'Cause, you know, legislation IS what makes the sun come up in the morning. Idiot!!
The bill, which still must be approved by the House, follows a series of high profile cases in the past several years involving FDA-approved painkillers, antibiotics and antidepressants that turned out to have unexpected and in some instances deadly side effects.
How to succeed in Government in one short lesson:
FAIL.
because, you know, if you actually succeed your budget (and power) won't increase. Absent the evil profit motive, there is NO REWARD for succeeding - but money and power galore for failing.
But let us move on:
A key provision of the bill would require the FDA to review the safety of some potentially risky medications at 18 months and at three years after approval, and to conduct active, routine surveillance of large public and private medical databases to better track possible harmful patient side effects of medications.
Thus doing the job of the pharmaceutical companies at taxpayer expense.
The legislation also would empower the agency to require pharmaceutical companies to conduct postmarket studies of new medications, and set deadlines for revision of drug warning labels when problems occur.
Here's the sort of 'regulation' that Big Pharma loves: the kind that cripples small, lean, innovative companies while giving their spinoff buddies juicy chunks of new make-work.
In addition, the Senate measure would greatly increase the user fees paid by the pharmaceutical industry for FDA review of new drugs, setting forth performance goals for speedy approval of the medicines. Drugmakers said this was a crucial element of the legislation for them.
Huh? The sane among us might wonder why Big Pharma would consider 'greatly increased user fees' 'crucial'. But see the previous paragraph. They LOVE this sort of thing. Another barrier to market entry! Yee-haa! Less competition!
The bill effectively blocks lower-priced drug imports from abroad - a key victory for drugmakers concerned that such a move could lead to an increase of counterfeit medicines and also undercut their profits.
This is actually funny - except for the fact that it isn't. Oh. They are sooooo concerned about the safety of the sheep-public, and, err, incidentally, the safety of their profits. Please. Why don't you bozos worry about protecting your profits in the old-fashioned way (producing quality at a reasonable price) and let ME worry about 'counterfeit medicines'? Thanks but NO THANKS for that sort of 'protection', you thugs.
It imposes some added oversight on direct-to-consumer drug advertisements, but lawmakers deleted a provision this week that would have given the FDA discretion to ban some ads on potentially risky new drugs for up to two years.
I'll bet. The BP lobbyists probably actually had to threaten to close the re-election purse-strings to get that thrown out (not that I think ads should be banned). How this could be seen as anything but a gang rape by Congress and its frat buddy Big Pharma is beyond me.
+
+
ffg, I think it is the libertarian logic that is severely flawed. Your social contract with this country began when your parents chose this country for you. You can freely end that contract any time. You consent to this contract by remaining here, period. Through this contract you receive many benefits, such as the roads you use to drive to work, hell, the money you use for your exchange is printed by the gov't. The 'mafia' logic is a silly analogy. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract, unlike the US. The landowner owns the land (in a limited sense), and the US government owns rights to govern its territory. Wouldn't you agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response? If I refuse to pay rent, my landlord has every right to take action against me. I know your biggest issue is that your taxes go to things like welfare and other programs. Well, this aspect is in need of improvement, but the idea itself is not flawed. All it is really is a form of social insurance so folks are protected in times of adversity. Again, this aspect needs much improvement, but the idea is a good one. Most of us are insured in one way or another. Most of us hope never to use it, but it is there in times of trouble. Bottom line, by refusing to pay your taxes, you are nothing more than a squatter. Your argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. You do not own the US as a whole. I mean, what an egotistical premise to think everything you make is by your effort only! We live in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services.
Look, I'm not saying that we are not in need for some serious changes in where are tax dollars are spent. That is the problem, not the taxes alone.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Question for you: Again, this is an area in need of improvement, but are you looking to dissolve the FDA completely? DO you think the pharmaceutical companies will do a better job reviewing the safety of the drugs they manufacture? The FDA scope is wide and dissolving it involves many implications.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Again, this is an anti-concept. No one can "begin" a contract for you. That invalidates the entire idea of "contract".
Period? What else do I "consent to" by remaining here? Death by lynch mob? Rape? Theft? Conscription into clown college? Seriously -- what does "here" have to do with "consent"?
The rest of it follows from the flawed logic you're proposing here.
EDIT, actually, one part of it does not follow:
What do you mean by "own" and what do you mean by "rights"?
Most Libertarians would like the FDA dissolved, yes. And some pharmeceutical companies would do a much better job, and some would do a much worse job.
I guess the flaws -if existent- of the Libertarian ideology regarding social issues will vary according one's point of view of social justice. If one person thinks that social justice is only achieved when all individuals are maximizing their own personal utility, according to their personal needs, then that person will consider Libertarianism a fair ideology...
I have one question about the isolasionist (sp?) issue. Is that especifically related to foreign diplomacy or it also includes trade policy? Cause if that's the case I'm wondering how eficiency issues are adressed. If I have understood correctly, Libertarian economic policy would be in the line of Milton Friedman and Von Hayek ideas, hence effiency should be a key aspect of the economy. Then how if you're an isolasionist intend to achieve effiency in areas were the country is not naturally (I can't find a better suited word in english, sorry) endowed or does not have the actual resources to produce a certain good. Trade is left out of the equation?
Peace,
Caterina
Caterina,
Libertarian isolationism is typically political and non-economic. Libertarians typically believe that governments have little or no business in regulating international trade, just as they believe that they have little or no business in regulating intranational trade. I say "typical" because there are some economic isolationists in the Libertarian ranks, but they are a minority.
Oh I see. So, typically Libertarians are against regulating international trade, but are not against it...
Thanks Jeff!!!
Caterina,
I'm not sure if we're losing each other in the English or not. Libertarianism, as a modern American political ideal, is against regulating international trade. Some people who call themselves Libertarian, however, do believe that America should regulate international trade. It's a small schism in the movement that really depends on the two primary reasons people are Libertarian in the first place. Most Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary beliefs in individual liberty and human freedom. However, some Libertarians are Libertarian because of their primary belief in isolationism. The latter is a rather unique American perspective that has its roots in early American history.
So in other words, the "official" Libertarian position on international trade vis-a-vis government regulation would be very laissez faire. However, some individual Libertarians disagree with that position and would like America to have a regulatory system of economic isolationism via tariffs, duties, etc. Personally, I find the latter view mostly contradictory.
It's important to note here that when I say "international trade", I'm referring to the interrelation between international individuals and corporations, not governments. This is why most Libertarians oppose NAFTA, the WTO and other governmental institutions who profess to "facilitate trade". Libertarians typically believe those institutions do the opposite.
Best,
-Jeff
Jeff
Thanks a lot, I re-read my last answer and yes it was somewhat confusing (what I tried to convey was that Libertarians are not against trade per se, but against regulations like WTO). This is what happens when you think in spanish and write in english, I guess.
I had in mind exactly what you're telling me, sorry if I made you think your first answer was not clear enough
Peace
No problem! The way you say it above is definitely consistent with what I'm communicating.
Best,
-Jeff
I will say this about libertarianism, it works nicely on the individual level, and I am on the same page when it comes to personal and private issues. My problem stems from it being based on extreme individualism. To the extent that it seems to be denying or ignoring the existence of collective problems and issues transcending the individual person's sphere. Actually, as I see it, it is based on some axioms, or what you wanna call them which to me looks something like this:
1. Individualism. There is in effect nothing beyond the individual that needs consideration. There is no society, and all problems can be put down to individuals' personal flaws and shortcomings.
2. Government is the opposite of liberty. A position where liberty is defined by non-government (or any otherwise intermediate agency) is a narrow and shallow one in my opinion. Too much focus on formalities and money (as if amount of money equals amount of freedom) in my view.
3. Tax is theft. I have gone several rounds with you and others over this, but it seems to be an axiom of the libertarian position.
Am I way off with this? I dont agree with any of these three axioms at face value. But perhaps you can soften them for me?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965