Togo Kicks U.S. Butt in Reasoning

[Doug]

DOUG
Looks like little old Togo is way ahead of the U.S. in the rationality department. At least, their government is!


Togo, population: 5,000,000

Below, from here.
===========
Togo's authorities say they will enforce a ban on advertisements for traditional medicines and pastors who claim to have healing powers.
Private radio and TV stations have been angered by the move as they say much of their revenue comes from such adverts.

After ignoring the order last month, stations have been given until 18 December to comply or face sanctions.

Traditional healers are also upset at allegations that their medicines are dangerous and do not cure people.

Herbal cures are very popular in Togo where the cost of medical treatment is high.

Gullible

Many of Togo's 60 private radio stations say their very survival is at stake as they earn more than 60% of their advertising revenue from traditional medicine slots.

But the president of Togo's High Audio Visual and Communication Authority, Phillipe Evegnon, has refused to back down.

...He cited instances of people suffering from hepatitis and diabetes who died some 48 hours after taking advertised remedies.

[Hogeye]

Is it rational to give government the power to stifle claims of fact? Could not a government with the power to outlaw advertising herbal remedies have to power to outlaw advertising condoms, or sex education, or controversial but beneficial medicines? Could not a goverment with enough power to stop someone from advertising acupuncture, have the power to stop someone from advertising atheism?

IMO, it is irrational to give the State that much power. It is also irrational to believe that state rulers will always be wise and just. For proof, just look at the idiot ruling the US today!

Doug, I suggest that you separate the question of whether such-and-such a medicine is good or bad from the question of whether the State should be powerful enough to dictate what can and can't be said on the radio or written in a newspaper. My position is that the cure for stupid speech is more free speech. I submit that you don't have to be an anarchist to figure that one out.

[Doug]

Doug, I suggest that you separate the question of whether such-and-such a medicine is good or bad from the question of whether the State should be powerful enough to dictate what can and can't be said on the radio or written in a newspaper.

DOUG
How about:
The state can step in and prevent people from selling a product if (a) they make false claims about it such that it does NOT do what they claim, AND (b) the product can be lethal or dangerous to its users.

[Savonarola]

My position is that the cure for stupid speech is more free speech.

Yet that didn't work. There were no bans being enforced before. Media were free to air PSAs or counteradvertisements. People still believe in quackery, and they die from it.
Such is an excellent counterexample to your idea of perfect anarchist, self-policing industry. Given the freedom to run whatever commercials they like, the media ran commercials for quackery. The people bought into it, and those people died. Rather than everybody quickly seeing that the quackery really was quackery, people continued to make the irrational decisions. More people died. Now, someone who rants all the time about wrongful death and abetting murderers is saying that the media has every right to contribute to the deaths of people, and that the evil government has no right to try to save lives. How dare they?!

Your delusions of anarchy grandeur have only a snowball's chance in hell of working even in a perfect world. This isn't a perfect world, and not even your beloved anarchy will change that.

[Hogeye]

Hmmm. Suppression of free speech is the answer, you say. Well, I'm glad you don't rule me or others!

I'm saying that the danger from loss of freedom of speech overrides the deaths of a few ignorant/stupid people. The problem is self-correcting - the gullible people die. I'm not willing to give up my freedom to save them, and I am not sorry about that in the least. Besides, "evil government" kills more people than quacks ever could.

I can't believe a freethinker would favor the suppression of free speech! Never mind, yes I can. Ingersoll is rolling over in his grave.

[Savonarola]

How convenient for you to ignore the clear message that this situation demonstrates, too. You said the solution was free speech. Free speech failed, and miserably, so they're doing something else. The world is not perfect, so your anarchist utopia cannot exist.

I'm saying that the danger from loss of freedom of speech overrides the deaths of a few ignorant/stupid people. The problem is self-correcting - the gullible people die. I'm not willing to give up my freedom to save them, and I am not sorry about that in the least.

You're welcome to your views, but you can't expect not to be called a hypocrite when you consider joining the military reprehensible for abetting murders yet admit having no problem whatsoever with advocating abetting the murder of the uneducated for profit.

Besides, "evil government" kills more people than quacks ever could.

And it saves more people than quacks ever could, even if it weren't preventing such quackery. But then, you clearly don't care the slightest bit about the uneducated, so we can see why this means nothing to you.

I can't believe a freethinker would favor the suppression of free speech! Never mind, yes I can. Ingersoll is rolling over in his grave.

Yes, Ingersoll cares all about little ol' me, just as much as he cares about your indifference to murder-for-profit.

[Hogeye]

Free speech failed, and miserably, so they're doing something else.

Government aggression fails miserably. At least when freedom "fails," it is not prevented from succeeding later. It is notoriously hard to overcome government tyranny once it has taken hold.

You can't expect not to be called a hypocrite when you consider joining the military reprehensible for abetting murders yet admit having no problem whatsoever with advocating abetting the murder of the uneducated for profit.

Actually, I do so expect, generally, perhaps from hanging out with ACLU types. I expect people to see the difference between advocacy and accessory to crime. I even have a name for the fallacy of not seeing the difference: "the ACLU fallacy." The classic example is someone thinking that the civil rights lawyer is defending Nazism, when he's really defending the free speech of the Nazi. There is a difference between advocating murdering Iraqi people, and actually going out and joining a murder gang to do it. I defend the right to advocate, but not to aid and abet murder.

And it [government] saves more people than quacks ever could.

Certainly not in net - government is the most prolific mass-murderer there is! Its killings outnumber all private crime, fraud, quackery, and accidents by several orders of magnitude. 170 million of its own citizens in the 20th century alone, and that is only non-combatants. When you add in the milfare cannon-fodder, it comes to a lot more.

[Savonarola]

It is notoriously hard to overcome government tyranny once it has taken hold.

You call this tyranny?:

DOUG
How about:
The state can step in and prevent people from selling a product if (a) they make false claims about it such that it does NOT do what they claim, AND (b) the product can be lethal or dangerous to its users.

Oh, right, you do.

There is a difference between advocating murdering Iraqi people, and actually going out and joining a murder gang to do it.

Yet the Iraqis know that they're in a dangerous location where they may be killed; why don't they leave? It must be because they're "ignorant/stupid," right? In that case, you apparently think their deaths serve a greater good: to "correct" the problem. So why is killing them bad?

As ridiculous as this is, I have a point: Let's not stray so far from the topic at hand that the alleged parallels no longer apply, and let's not pretend that this isn't a severe blow to your ideology. Your argumentation is based on your demonstrably flawed belief that self-regulation of industry is inevitable. The media carry these ads -- which, by definition, are specifically designed to be effective -- that they clearly know are effective. If the ads weren't effective, then the quacks wouldn't keep advertising, and the media wouldn't be so upset about the law. If self-regulation worked, this wouldn't be the case. If you want a bad parallel, let's try this: It's like saying that a Commander-in-Chief's order to murder a prisoner of war is okay, perhaps even good, because he didn't commit the murder himself, and because that POW must have been stupid to have been caught in the first place.
It comes down to what Doug said and you ignored. It's not tyranny. You support murder-for-profit under the guise of some unfathomable definition of "freedom," and you know it so well that your argument is that murder of the uneducated for a profit should be permissible.

And it [government] saves more people than quacks ever could.

Certainly not in net - government is the most prolific mass-murderer there is!

You have estimates of number of lives saved by government programs and agencies or their assistance in the same time span? Do you have evidence that the lack of government would not have led to as many or more deaths?

[Hogeye]

Sav, I have no idea how your comment about Iraqis relates to advocacy vs. action, or why you think I worship the "greater good," but someone told me to stay on topic anyway. Please explain it in one of the anarchism threads.

How about: The state can step in and prevent people from selling a product if (a) they make false claims about it such that it does NOT do what they claim, AND (b) the product can be lethal or dangerous to its users.

How about an enterprising person start a firm or mutual aid society or association or club that certifies products which (a) are truthful about claims, and (b) are not unduely hazardous?

Re separating the question: I meant separating the question of who should do it (the certification/licensing) from what considerations should apply in promoting quality/veracity. But you knew that, Doug - you're just jiving me. As for question 1 about who - I favor voluntary certification by voluntary associations, and not compulsory licensing by the State.

As for question 2, your (a) and (b) are pretty good. I rephrased them positively (an inconsequential change). But I did tweak your (b) because I would allow dangerous drugs to those with serious or potentially terminal problems. E.g. My certification company would certify chemotherapy drugs/procedures, even though it is dangerous putting highly toxic substances into people, since the targeted cancer may be lethal. Your (b) doesn't seem to allow that. I would be uncomfortable telling a person with a potentially lethal disease like AIDS or cancer that something is too dangerous. That's his decision. I would be satisfied to have the dangers identified with full disclosure.

[Savonarola]

Sav, I have no idea how your comment about Iraqis relates to advocacy vs. action, but someone told me to stay on topic anyway. Please explain it in one of the anarchism threads.

No thanks. If you're having this much trouble understanding, I'll explain for everyone else and leave you in the dark. I didn't tell you to stay on topic, I told you to quit using comparisons from concepts so radically different that the parallels were faulty. But sure, anytime you want to not turn a thread into some big anarchist rant, you go right ahead.

I'll finish up here with the obvious, then I'm done with you.

How about an enterprising person start a firm or mutual aid society or association or club that certifies products which (a) are truthful about claims, and (b) are not unduely hazardous?

The point you repeatedly ignore: despite opportunity to do so, nobody created such an association, or at the very least nobody created an effective one as measured by Hogeye's Self-Regulatory Standards™. In other words, non-interventionism failed. It shows that a major argument of your anarchy position is flawed at best.

[Dardedar]

It comes down to what Doug said and you ignored. It's not tyranny. You support murder-for-profit under the guise of some unfathomable definition of "freedom," and you know it so well that your argument is that murder of the uneducated for a profit should be permissible.

DAR
But Sav, as Hogeye explained: "The problem is self-correcting - the gullible people die."

That makes for a lot of dead folks. Hogeye would have the whole world look like Somalia on a good day but, no bigga deal, the gullible people die.

HOGEYE
Certainly not in net - government is the most prolific mass-murderer there is!

SAV asks:
You have estimates of number of lives saved by government programs and agencies or their assistance in the same time span?

DAR
Just a reminder of how ridiculous Hogeye's 170 million number is, (never mind the unsupported notion that gun control was a big player in this number), I checked to see if the JPFO (JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP) included Rwanda in their examples of Government's murdering their citizens. Of course they did. Wiki has this, bold mine:

"The Rwandan Genocide (French: Génocide au Rwanda) was the massacre of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda, mostly carried out by two extremist Hutu militia groups, the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi, during a period of about 100 days from April 6th through mid-July 1994."

But back to governments enforcing a little sanity on the airwaves. I know of a local experience of a person dying because of buying into the quackery Hogeye supports people having the freedom to peddle on the airwaves. In the early 90's Scot Sinclair, editor/owner of the newspaper The Grapevine had an accident on his bicycle and got a good scrape on his leg. Doctors cleaned the wound and sent him home with antibiotics. He took extra vitamin C instead. Then he waited too long to go back after it became infected. The gangrene spread quickly once it entered his lymph. I guess society "self-corrected" him. This is not to say he wasn't responsible for the health decisions he made. Afterall, he lives in a country that has an FDA which does not allow the media run ads saying vitamin C fights infection or is a good replacement for antibiotics. And for that we can be thankful.

D.

[Dardedar]

I'll finish up here with the obvious, then I'm done with you.

DAR
Such wisdom.

[Hogeye]

At a certain place and time in Togo, no one had a creditation firm. Does that prove its not possible? No. In fact we know such things are quite possible and feasible, with wonderful examples like Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping, Consumers Union, etc. Does lack of voluntary provision of a service prove that the service should be provided by State? No.

If theres no grocery store somewhere at a given time, is the solution to set up a government commissary? No. If there's no certification firm, is the solution to set up a govt agency? No. But somehow Sav thinks that lack of private provision of a service implies that the State must do it. He has repeated said, "despite opportunity to do so, nobody created such an association," as if that somehow implied that the State should do it. He has given no justification for this knee-jerk statism.

As I've written several times already in this thread, a better solution is to depend on volutary society to provide it - which it will as soon as its in sufficient demand. It is not up to Sav or the State to plunder people and provide a service they are clearly unwilling to fund voluntarily. Setting up a govt agency retards or prevents the formation of voluntary provision of a service. Who wants to compete with a govt subsidized outfit? In short, it does not follow that, simply because a service is not provided by society voluntarily, that provision funded by taxation and run by the State, or authoritarian abrogation of free speech, or massive regulation of advertising, is a good thing.

[Dardedar]

or massive regulation of advertising

DAR
Which reminds me, although a little hesistant about it, I think it is time to have a good look at the "fairness doctrine". This is the idea that it is not a good idea to have a bunch of rightwingers, for instance, dominate 95% of talk radio because of media ownership. Perhaps just the fact that Demo's in congress are talking about it might scare them into not continuing as is. Dittoheads need to hear the otherside once in a while. That is to say, the government should make Rush take turns at the microphone with someone reasonable.

D.

[Savonarola]

Well, I can't let this rubbish stand unanswered.

Does that prove its not possible? No.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious. Too bad that wasn't my argument, nor is it a necessary argument for countering your point. The fact remains that your "inevitable" self-regulation hasn't come to pass, and -- ironically -- the government (yes, that evil, evil government) is doing something to save lives. Damn them!

But somehow Sav thinks that lack of private provision of a service implies that the State must do it.

Does this mean that the state must? Of course not. I never said such. I never even implied such, contrary to Hogeye's pathetic attempt at misrepresentation. Enough strawmen. Does it mean that the state should? Considering no one else did, one can make a pretty good argument, assuming one has a problem with murder (or at least negligent homicide). No wonder Hogeye disagrees with me.

As I've written several times already in this thread, a better solution is to depend on volutary society to provide it - which it will as soon as its in sufficient demand.

... which Hogeye essentially defines as, "as soon as enough 'stupid' people die deaths (that could otherwise have been prevented)." And, unlike Hogeye's spin, I'm not making up what the other person means.

[Hogeye]

Sav objects to my using "must" instead of "should" in my expression of his claim. Very well; his claim is:

Lack of private provision of a service implies that the State should do it.

He believes that the short-term saving of a few lives is worth the long-term loss of liberty and long-term growth of government power. I don't. That's it in a nutshell.


"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." - attributed to Ben Franklin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants and gullible people who listen to quacks." - Thomas Jefferson
Okay, I added the 'gullible people' part.

[Savonarola]

Sav objects to my using "must" instead of "should" in my expression of his claim.

Damn right I do.

his claim is:

Lack of private provision of a service implies that the State should do it.

Again with the blanket proclamations. If the private sector is lacking a suicide booth machine making company, does that mean the state should fill this niche?

He believes that the short-term saving of a few lives is worth the long-term loss of liberty and long-term growth of government power. I don't. That's it in a nutshell.

Again with the ignoring of context. Hogeye thinks that Doug's suggestions are reasonable, yet he seems to regard them as a "loss of liberty." The restrictions affect only quacks and unsafe drug makers and certainly don't affect Hogeye's ability to rant and rave about evil government. But that's not good enough; because rather than prevent these hacks from killing people, Hogeye thinks we should let the stupid people die.
I don't... What a monster I am.

[Dardedar]

HOG
wonderful examples like Underwriters Laboratories

DAR
You like to talk about this one a lot. It's nice when the private sector can be trusted to do something right. Not a lot of controversy regarding making a lamp that doesn't catch on fire when it shorts out. So we can trust them with things like that. Not so with other things like FDA, FCC, FTC etc. And remember, should these private sector folks mess it up, drop the ball so to speak, "We the People" will have our government representatives shut them down and put up an agency in their place. It's important to keep you safe.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I'm absolutely with Doug preventing people from making false claims. The vitamin C illustration is good, because no reputable nutritionist would advise taking vitamin C instead of, rather than in addition to, antibiotics for a dangerous wound. I do take Hogeye's point about control, in that anyone who has the power to prevent people from making false claims also has the power to prevent people from making true ones that those in power don't like. (W's administration forbidding publication of global warming data, for example.) But, like the illegality of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, there are times when the "good of the many outweighs the good of the one". Keep an eye on the government (and hold valid elections) to keep them from exceeding the protective boundaries, but protect the innocent is my vote.

As to the "lethal or dangerous to its users" - that's were I prefer labeling to prohibition. Serious labeling that indicates both the benefits and the negatives of the product, with prohibition only to minors.

As to the need for government intervention - if there is a need that is not (not cannot be, but is not being) met by an NGO of some sort, then the government has the duty ("promote the general welfare) to protect the citizenry.

[Hogeye]

The restrictions affect only quacks and unsafe drug makers...

No, such restrictions also prevents/delays some beneficial drugs and foods from becoming available.

• "The FDA found the [thrombolytic] therapy reduced heart attack fatalities by 18%, but it took two years to approve the new drug application. The result was as many as 22,000 deaths." (Noel Campbell, Dept. of Econ., Gordon College)
• In the tree years between propranolol's introduction in the UK and the US, approx. 30,000 Americans died prematurely because they couldn't get the lifesaving drug.
• In the 12 years it took for the FDA to approve of the AIDS drug ribavarin, 430,000 people died needlessly and/or prematurely.
• During the 5 year FDA delay of the AIDS home test, an estimated 10,000 American were infected.
• According to a 30 year analysis, for every American saved by the "drug lag" (delay in approval), another 64-364 were killed by it. IOW between 1950 and 1980 the drug lag saved about 33 American lives per year, while 2100-12000 died needlessly. (D.H. Gieringer, "The Safely and Efficacy of New Drug Approval")

We have some redundancy here; I already gave these examples in the Legalization of Drugs thread. Govt regulation has a bias for type II error, resulting in needless deaths.

Darrel, the only reason drug and food quality is more controversial than electronics quality is that the State's FDA is so much more incompetent than the private UL. Both could be done by voluntary means, and there is no reason that food/drug quality requires State aggression.

Barbara and I recognize the downside of giving the State the power to regulate, so we are closer on this issue than e.g. Sav and I. Where Barbara and I differ is about the likelihood of "chaining" the State. She believes that a State can be effectively limited, whereas I don't. The history of the US, which went from a loose confederation to world empire, I would think would be convincing to a history buff like Barbara! My position is summed up by a Rothbard quote: "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." Or as Jefferson put it more mildly, "The natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."