Togo Kicks U.S. Butt in Reasoning

[Savonarola]

[snip stats]

Where are the stats for lives likely saved by prevention of dangerous medicines being administered?

[Dardedar]

there is no reason that food/drug quality requires State aggression.

DAR
Perhaps an example of a country successfully trusting a private sector agency to be the final arbitor on food/drug quality can be provided to back up your mere assertion? Perhaps this is the way they do it in Somalia? (Witchdoctor Guild)

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

We don't say to government "limit yourself" any more than we should be saying to mega corporations "limit yourself" (unfortunately we ARE doing the latter). Keeping a rein on government is what elections are about - and why we need accurate vote counts and the Fairness Doctrine with the MSM in general and the broadcast media in particular.

And, as mentioned before, the flaws of the FDA are very fixable - accepting peer-reviewed and accepted international research would shorten the time authentic "cures" reached the market and reduce the number of "thought it would, hoped it would, wished it would - but it doesn't" things out there. The problem with the NGO idea is that fixes are not so easy to put in. The corporate dollar vote outweighs everything else.

[Hogeye]

Of course, I don't buy for an instant that elections "rein in" the State. I consider them to be dog-and-pony shows promoting subservience to and irrational belief in the State. Did elections prevent the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, or the highest incarceration rate on earth, or destruction of civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act? Of course not. The masses are easily manipulated by the ruling elite. The booboisee are given false forced choices, as between unilateral and multilateral intervention, or between national security and humanitarian intervention. In either case, they get interventionism. The booboisee are given a choice between the Rep Welfare-Warfare faction and the Dem Welfare-Warfare faction - in either case they get massive robbery and redistribution and more war.

In short, Barbara, we differ on our model of political power. You take that pluralist position, believing that the "grass roots" has significant decision-making power and influence on the State. I take the elitist position, that most political decision-making power is in the hands of the elite, and that the grass-roots are mainly patsies to be manipulated. I submit that the elitist theory is better at predicting events and modeling political decision-making. The pluralist view is a self-serving myth promoted by the elites, in order to dupe the naive masses and keep them docile. So long as people think "we are the rulers" then they are unlikely to rebel against the State or its injustices.


I saw in the paper a few days ago an article about how the FDA is harassing minorities in New York City by arresting sellers of ethnic foods. Their actions are clearly based on xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. They don't even pretend to claim that most of the foods in question are unsafe - people weren't suddenly getting sick or anything. The food nazis simply cite them as not being licensed by govt goons, not being produced in govt-approved sites, etc. A good example of "protection" - hassling politically powerless minorities. (A similar thing happened when I was in San Francisco - do-gooders using state aggression in trying to shut down live food markets in Chinatown, ostensibly for cruelty to animals.)

[Dardedar]

Of course, I don't buy for an instant that elections "rein in" the State.... Did elections prevent the invasion of Afghanistan....

DAR
That had about 85%-90% approval of the American populace, so an election wouldn't "rein in" that popular decision, it would support it.

or Iraq,

DAR
That also had a strong majority support, until later. Currently an election is in the process of reining that one in, as best as can be expected with all of the patriotism and egos involved.

or the highest incarceration rate on earth,

DAR
This doesn't rate on any list of voter concerns, unfortunately, so the people won't be reining that one in any time soon.

or destruction of civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act?

DAR
This did concern a lot of people and a later version did get some tweaks. No doubt more adjustments will be made in the future as the government responds to the will of the people.

Course, you would rather have a king. Those guys never go for Patriot Acts of any kind (they don't need them).

in either case they get massive robbery and redistribution...

DAR
Of course here you speak of taxes and your concern with the horrible way that the wealthy are unfairly burdened. I just heard these stats on the radio yesterday. This is worldwide:

--Top 2% own 1/2 the worlds wealth

--Bottom half own less than 2% of the worlds wealth

--If you have a net worth of $6,100 your are in the top 10%

When you hear such things your heart just goes out to all of those wealthy that suffer so with our terribly unfair income redistribution system. Clearly something must be done so that the wealthy can have more of the pie.

I saw in the paper a few days ago an article about how the FDA is... arresting sellers of ethnic foods. ...simply cite them as not being licensed...

DAR
Good. Get licensed or get shut down. The people have spoken.

D.

[Hogeye]

Well, Darrel agrees with me that in all four cases, elections failed to rein in State power. He even adds that these power grabs were quite popular. I agree.

Darrel seems to think that only rich people pay taxes. Hmmm. And he comes out in favor of govt harassment of ethnic minorities, too.

[Dardedar]

Well, Darrel agrees with me that in all four cases, elections failed to rein in State power.

DAR
If it going to be opposite day around here I would appreciate being notified in advance via an announcement. Otherwise it just looks like Hogeye posts are nonsense to me. Once I realize he is simply stating the opposite of what is true, it all makes perfect sense.

He even adds that these power grabs were quite popular. I agree.

DAR
It's called representative government in action. And you love it, otherwise I assume you would move to a thriving anarchy... somewhere.

And he comes out in favor of govt harassment of ethnic minorities, too.

DAR
Even ethnic minorities have to follow the law. It's the Will of the People enforced by their state representatives. Better keep your nose clean, or they'll get ya.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Thanks, Darrel. I didn't think you said what Hogeye said you said. Opposite Day explains it.

Elections CAN rein in government. If the voters don't have enough facts (Fairness Doctrine, we need you), and sometimes even if they do, the elections MAY NOT rein in government. Sort of along the line of "I CAN refrain from eating arsenic-laced cookies if I know they're arsenic laced, but I may eat them anyway."

If you have a problem with the law, seek to change it. You may or may not gamble on not getting caught committing the infraction while you seek to change it. Your bet. You get caught, you lose.

[Hogeye]

Darrel, you explicitly agreed that elections did not rein in State power:

That had about 85%-90% approval of the American populace, so an election wouldn't "rein in" that popular decision...
That also had a strong majority support...
This doesn't rate on any list of voter concerns, unfortunately, so the people won't be reining that one in any time soon. ...

That's three times you clearly agreed; on the fourth point you kinda shuffled with a yeah, but "this doesn't rate on any list of voter concerns..."

And in your later post, you verify our agreement that those power grabs were quite popular. "It's called representative government in action," you write. I agree.

[Dardedar]

Darrel, you explicitly agreed that elections did not rein in State power:

DAR
I don't think you understand the meaning of the words you use. Lets stay with your horsey metaphor "rein." What it means:

rein
Often, reins. a leather strap, fastened to each end of the bit of a bridle, by which the rider or driver controls a horse or other animal by pulling so as to exert pressure on the bit.

So basically, to steer. Good.

What you said:

"Did elections prevent the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, or the highest incarceration rate on earth, or destruction of civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act?"

Why would you say something so silly? Elections caused these things, as I explained, in that the elected representatives did what they were supposed to do, dutifully control the "reins" of government and follow the wishes of We the People. And this they did. People "steer" their government. They "rein" it. Sometimes they steer it this way. Sometimes they steer it that way.

They only unfortunate part is that the country has a few too many knuckleheads.

D.

[Hogeye]

"Rein in" means to slow down or stop. The dumb masses ("knuckleheads" as you put it) did not slow or stop these invasions and violations of liberty; they cheered them on. It sounds like we agree on this.

(We almost certainly don't agree on whether the dumb masses have any real decision-making power to control the State. I take the elitist position, that the few, the political elite, make the decisions, and that the sentiment of the dumb masses are effectively controlled and manipulated by the elite. But that's another thread.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The masses have the possibility of "reining in" the government. The fact that they frequently don't (and sometimes spur it on) doesn't mean they can't. The masses are relatively effectively controlled by slanted information from the MSM. The last election shows they aren't completely controlled by misinformation coming out of the corporate-controlled MSM - they do have other sources of information, especially about the economy. ("Dow Jones" may be skyrocketing, but "Doug Jones" is only making it month to month with the help of credit cards.) And Americans have never liked long wars, especially ones we aren't "winning" - still, the MSM and computer voting machines kept the election from being the landslide that could actually have brought the troops home (or allowed the accomplishment of a whole lot of stuff the president is going to veto when they try).

[Doug]

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")

So some people couldn't get their drugs fast enough. I can cite you tons of examples before the FDA policed drugs where people died BECAUSE they got drugs that were worthless or harmful.

The free market kills. And where drugs and health are concerned, the deaths of other users does NOT prevent people from buying the product.

[Dardedar]

DAR
That's why he ran from this question on 12/5 above:

"Perhaps an example of a country successfully trusting a private sector agency to be the final arbitor on food/drug quality can be provided to back up your mere assertion?"

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I have a 1930s upper elementary health text book (research a joint effort between UW-Madison and a local health clinic) that discusses ways of trying to make sure your food is safe, but calling for more government inspectors to cover things we can't do ourselves. (What's actually IN that box, anyway? Is the milk safe? (they didn't have anything against raw milk, as long as it was certified) How about the meat? Is it what the label says it is? Did it come from a "downer"? Etc.) Until the Libertarians got into the act (no government is good government), all the anti-inspection people were the agribiz producers who didn't want to clean up their act. No comment on what that says about Libertarians.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Also, it's easy to sit back and cherry pick AFTER THE FACT and say now that we know X drug is safe, the FDA have approved it sooner. Or, when a drug is found to have problems down that road, they should have waited a little longer. Obviously, not knowing the future, medical professionals have to make the best judgement based upon the evidence at hand. They are going to miss the mark, guaranteed. Hopefully they will learn and improve. The idea that this means we should leave such decisions of drug safety to the Enron's of the world seems a very bad idea and this is no doubt why no examples of a country relying upon the freemarket for drug safety can be provided.

AND consider this. There is an excellent article in my latest Skeptical Inquirer. It's entitled "Science for Sale." It deals with this directly. Here is the first paragraph:

***
The integrity of medical sceince is seriously threatened by economic interests of the drug industry, warn editors of several leading medical journals. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, writes: "Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and produsing useful new drugs" (Angell 2005). She continues: "Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself." Her British collegues are no less harsh in their criticism, Richard Horton of the Lancet self-critcally notes that "journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry" (Horton 2004), and according to Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal and now a board member of the Public Library of Science, "medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies" (Smith 2005).
***

And we would better to leave drug safety completely to the free market? What a joke.

And this just in:

***
Dean Baker | The Drug Scandals Keep Flowing: Time for New Thinking

"Stories of abuses related to the pharmaceutical industry fill the
newspapers on a regular basis. The latest involved Zyprexa, a drug used to treat schizophrenia. It turns out that the drug has harmful side
effects, such as contributing to diabetes," Dean Baker writes. "This was
information that the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, knew but chose not to share
with doctors, because it might discourage usage. It turns out that Eli
Lilly was also promoting the drug for off-label uses - uses for which it
has not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration."

LINK

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The patent scam is even more involved - about the time a patent is running out, most drug companies both lobby congress to renew/extent the patent and start marketing a "new improved" version of the old drug (with a new patent). (And sometimes change the name of the older drug and sell it to vetenarians, telling human doctors the older product is no longer available. A friend of mine used to work for Anaquest and that was their MO.)