|
bitterandtwisted posted:My first thought was "what makes these guys less corrupt than the FDA," then I thought about how they might be funded and now I can't see how they could be anything but corrupt. The money comes from the companies whose drugs they are testing. This does not create a perverse incentive, because the Market.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:Jrod, do you understand what the FDA does and what clinical trials are for? Your posts only make sense if you think the scientific method is bunk, clinical trials are not for observing the effects of a drug but to pointlessly restrict its availability, the FDA has the authority to ban drugs for no reason other than "WE WANT TO HAHAHAH!!!", and there are no mechanisms in place to deal with bribery/corruption. Not everyone can summon the critical thinking required to understand the statistical methods necessary for drug testing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? Don't you have any concern for the millions of people who have died from diseases because the FDA wouldn't allow them to access medical treatments that are widely available in other countries? There is merit in potentially allowing people with terminal diseases try out cutting edge treatments from reputable sources. If the FDA is really getting in the way of that then it should loosen up those regulations, but it definitely shouldn't loosen up on the other bullshit that people pretending to sell medicine have tried in the past and continue to push now. Here's a relatively benign example: The FDA regulations on supplements are very limited. When the FDA did a study of supplements sold at major retailers, they found that a massive portion of them didn't even contain the ingredients they claimed to, and in a few cases they had powdered legumes with no labeling (which is pretty loving bad news for anyone with severe allergies to those). This has apparently gone on for years, has come from companies that otherwise have decent enough reputations, and largely flew under the radar until the FDA took a closer look. Herbal supplements vary quite a bit in terms of their effectiveness and side-effects, but they're a lot less effective when they actually consist of powdered soybeans and sand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Also, lol the FDA doesn't "threaten people with violence if they choose to" buy snake oil, they threaten people with violence if they try to sell snake oil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
jrod aside from the bit where using a sue for damages model instead of preventing bad drugs from making it to market in the first place somehow won't lead to tons more people dying, i don't recall how, say, two separate dros are supposed to handle a rules conflict. if the dro of the guy i bought my wonder drug that happened to have mercury in it and killed my sick child turns out to think that as long as there is an easily missed 1 point font disclaimer on the bottle stating that it is not guaranteed to have non-negative effects that it doesn't actually violate the NAP, but i look and mine explicitly doesn't, how do they handle this? assume for the sake of argument that you got everything you say you want and there is no state-mandated neutral ground to work with or for that matter a state-mandated neutral governing body overseeing the trial. i mean, it would probably actually go to arbitration first and then violence
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Jrod you know so little about how medicine works and the risks of bad/fake medicine hitting the markets that you only prove the need for a central authority to regulate and approve drugs so that people illiterate in science/medicine like yourself don't kill yourselves with fake drugs. It's okay Jrod, we don't mind that burden, we'd rather have you alive and angry than dead from lead fillings 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is how civilized people interact with their fellow man. They don't use aggression against people freely engaging in commerce. You support lynch mob justice, don't you loving talk about being civilized.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Jrod, you are a disappointment to every teacher you ever had in school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
You know, there are times - like when it comes to the ongoing health of the population - where a purely reactive system of fixing problems is a loving terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The best part was that when confronted with the posts from the conservative forum Jrod's response was something along the lines of "Well obviously I was lying to the conservatives because I'm for really-real a True LiberalTM!" which was as transparent as it was pathetic. Jrod has no thoughts of his own, and everything he posts shows it. I mean, his latest shitpost-and-runs involved an exhaustive list of people he has to think for him. He was saying "Respect these people, and by extension respect me" because he's built his entire personality and sense of self around other people. I'm willing to bet that even his post about "Support the FDA, do you? Well I bet you also support the War on Drugs too! This is an argument that is particularly insulting. I've been persuaded over the years of the correctness of the libertarian position and this fact means that all I do is "intellectually steal and copy from other people"? Everything I've ever written here are my own words and I have actually quoted other articles and linked to other articles rather infrequently. If your criticism of me is that many of my arguments sound like arguments other libertarians have made, then that is surely correct but also ludicrous as a criticism. Just as easily you could criticize Marxists for "intellectually stealing" from Karl Marx and for having "no thoughts of their own". Or I could criticize nearly any modern Progressive for "intellectually stealing" from Bernie Sanders and Rachel Maddow. How many times on this post have I heard variations of the "social contract" argument that has been parroted by leftists for decades? You didn't come up with that yourself, you read it somewhere or heard someone else say it. I can criticize the argument, but for me to criticize you for "stealing" the argument from someone else would be stupid. When we learn, we take arguments, ideas and concepts explained by others and repeat them if we find them persuasive and valuable. We might build upon them or even come up with a few entirely new ideas but such advances are always incremental. And I will touch upon this idea that I'm trying to make a living selling movies that I've "stolen" since it keeps coming up. In the first place, I think it is very tacky to scour the internet for any other unrelated activity I might have been engaged in and bring it back here given that it is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. I haven't done that to any of you and I never would since that is a line I wouldn't cross. I don't making any money selling movies I've "stolen". I have, however, created a small number of fan-made Blu-ray discs as a hobby. This isn't my job. I've given these away and posted them for free on a few websites. People will email me at times asking that I send them a copy because they don't have the bandwidth to download the film, or they don't have a Blu-ray burner or whatever. So, in that case, they can Paypal me money to cover the expense of the BD-R disc, cover art and case and I'll send them a copy. I don't make any profits in doing this and it's done by special request only. After getting pestered over and over, I posted some of these on Ebid and simply directed people there instead of flooding my email inbox with requests. The listings have since expired and I don't know if I'll repost them. Again, just a hobby. I distribute these discs FOR FREE online and I have encouraged people to re-post them and share them with their friends. This is not my job and I haven't seen a cent in profit from doing this. I reiterate that it is frankly disrespectful to bring this irrelevant stuff into this forum. Maybe with my explanation available you all can stop bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:11
|
|
" is simply paraphrased from an article written by one of the many bigots on his list of heroes. Think back on it, it's not at all surprising that someone who does nothing but intellectually steal and copy from other people is trying to make a living selling movies he's stolen too.
|
Ratoslov posted:Jrod, you are a disappointment to every teacher you ever had in school. He knows, it's part of why he's so against public education.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
I'm on my lunchbreak so I'm going to keep this brief.jrodefeld posted:"The people as a whole" don't act, though. Only individuals act. People can agree to act in a similar manner but their collective actions are only moral if they each individually have the right to act in that manner. You are presuming that agents of the State are permitted to act in aggressive ways that other individuals aren't simply because they operate under the guise of "democratic consensus". Even if I were to concede that State action has a majority opinion behind the individual actions of its agents (I don't) this still violates Universalizability. If this were a valid moral principle, then democratic consensus should be sufficient to justify aggression outside of politics. The racist Klansmen would be justified in their lynching of a black man if they had majority support for such heinous acts in their communities. Similarly, the less fortunate ought to have the moral right to break into Bill Gates home, find his wallet and remove the desired money against his will. Alright, a couple of things right off: - Taxation isn't theft because property is a social agreement between people. The only reason you own something is that everyone agrees that you own it, and if they are capable of doing that then they are equally capable of saying that part of your annual income goes into a communal fund. loving grade school children understand this. - Morality is subjective. To look at your Klansmen example, I'd like to point out that in the south at the time the Klan was in full swing the majority (or a near majority)DID actually think that lynchings were justified. This is why lynchings happened. Before the civil war the south thought that slavery was morally okay, and so slavery was part of everyday life. The morality of things is subject to the viewpoint of the individual or society. With those out of the way, I'm going to ask a simple question of you: Is posession and distribution of child pornography illegal in your libertopia? Your argument here is that we are not allowed to do communally anything we aren't allowed to do personally. I've heard this argument before (I'm guessing you actually got it from the socratic youtube bullshit videos) and it really fails to hold water on even the most basic level. In this case we are using child pornography and policing as our example. In libertopia no one can arrest someone else unless they are personally being aggressed upon or they are someone who has had the right delegated to them. My bodyguard can shitkick you for aggressing against me, or I can do it myself because you are a wimp. This is all fine and good for crimes like assault or 'being black in the wrong neighborhood' but it utterly collapses when it comes to a topic like child pornography. As a society we find child porn to be abhorrent. Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that child rape is still illegal in libertopia (god I hope so). If you abuse a child you can be arrested, but what if you merely sell or consume images of child abuse. We know that consumption of child pornography leads to child abuse, as people will pay frankly disgusting sums of money for new videos and pictures, but where is the crime there? Is there a right in libertarian society not to be photographed or filmed without your permission (and if so where does it come from). And don't think it is just child porn. A drunk driver can't be arrested in libertopia until he injures or kills someone because the 'police' do not have the authority to arrest someone until he has done harm. A guy standing on a sidewalk exposing himself to children doesn't seem to be aggressing against anyone by any definition I can think of so the 'police' have no right to kidnap him. Basically anything we think of as a crime that isn't direct violence or fraud cannot be prosecuted in a libertarian society, which is loving absurd. quote:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? Don't you have any concern for the millions of people who have died from diseases because the FDA wouldn't allow them to access medical treatments that are widely available in other countries? [Citation Needed] Jrodefeld, do you know how many countries there are in the world? Are you really making the argument that every single version of the FDA the world over is bought and paid for by 'Big Pharma' which is the only thing keeping us from thousands of miracle cures? Keep in mind that the people developing these miracle cures would have every goddamn incentive to climb to the rooftops and scream out that they cured 'X' disease and have the research to prove it but the FDA is halting it for no reason. Seriously Jrodefeld, poo poo or get off the pot. Provide some evidence that the FDA is delaying the introduction of safe and effective treatments. I really challenge you to do that because I don't believe you can because the FDA is not literal cackling boogeymen. In addition I want to ask, are you aware of the failures of the ratings agencies in the 2008 financial crash? Moody's, Fitch and S&P? Does their real world example give you even the slightest pause in considering the practical implications of 'just let the market work it out?' In case you are not aware, the problem with the 'Big Three' was that they were giving out AAA ratings to financial products that they knew were flawed. They did this because to quote one S&P staffer "If we didn't they'd just to our competitor." Your solution to avoiding corruption of a regulatory agency by private interests is to switch to a ratings system that will almost certainly be instantly corrupted by the industries they are rating. It is impractical and idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
I think it's been around a lot longer than that, actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:Morality is subjective. To look at your Klansmen example, I'd like to point out that in the south at the time the Klan was in full swing the majority (or a near majority)DID actually think that lynchings were justified. This is why lynchings happened. Before the civil war the south thought that slavery was morally okay, and so slavery was part of everyday life. The morality of things is subject to the viewpoint of the individual or society. Nah, lynching and slavery have always been morally wrong, it's just that people (incorrectly) thought they were fine at the time. Don't get all moral relativist on us, man. That road leads to being okay with libertarianism if a majority is okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Everything I've ever written here are my own words and I have actually quoted other articles and linked to other articles rather infrequently. You were literally caught plagiarizing more than once, and every single time you return from hiding with your tail between your legs your new pile of poo poo you herald your returns with contains anywhere from one to half a loving dozen of more links to mises.org or excerpts from whatever idiot hack's book you read most recently. We remember this stuff, Jrod, and the posts are all still there. You can't just make a bald-faced lie like this and expect us to swallow it. If your words are really your own I defy you to keep it that way. Make only your own arguments and stop linking to articles to make your arguments for you. But somehow I think an intellectual lightweight like you won't be able to go more than ten posts without needing to steal from your supposed "intellectual forebearers". Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is an argument that is particularly insulting. I've been persuaded over the years of the correctness of the libertarian position and this fact means that all I do is "intellectually steal and copy from other people"? Fixed that for you. In addition people don't make fun of you for stealing your ideas, it is the blatant and ridiculous way you do so. I'm not even kidding when I say that I can generally tell what particular book or article you recently read when you come in to proselytize. For example a few months ago you were talking about 'Forced Integration' and I could tell that you'd just read some Hans Hermann hope and in addition to basically just vomiting up his book as a word salad it was painfully obvious because that is a phrase pretty much unique to him. The issue is that you aren't doing any critical thinking about the ideas you are discussing. You are doing the intellectual equivalent of copying out a famous essay and shaking up the word order. Caros fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Everything I've ever written here are my own words and I have actually quoted other articles and linked to other articles rather infrequently. except for all the bullshit you text dump and the time we caught you plagiarizing, you piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Also, lol the FDA doesn't "threaten people with violence if they choose to" buy snake oil, they threaten people with violence if they try to sell snake oil. Also the FDA is fine with you selling whatever as long as it isn't actively poisonous and you don't claim that it cures cancer or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Also the FDA is fine with you selling whatever as long as it isn't actively poisonous and you don't claim that it cures cancer or whatever. That's only sort of true; you need to have some sort of basis to it but even that can be a bit nebulous. That's also coming under fire thanks to the actions of Pom. All you need is for "an expert" to say a food is healthy and you can market it as health food. They also massively overstate the effects of some studies, hence saying that pomegranate juice is some mystical elixir that will fix all your problems. Drugs are more heavily regulated than foods but they eventually told Pom that they were marketing the juice like it was a drug because of the claims they were making. There's an absolute poo poo load of money to be made selling snake oil and miracle cures which is why you get stupid poo poo like anything made with oats saying "this might reduce your risk of heart disease so eat ALL OF THE OATS!!!" somewhere on the box.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Caros posted:hahahahahaha... Hahahahahaha hahahahahaha...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're reading what you want into what I said. I'll admit I didn't phrase that the way I ought to have. Yes, of course we have clinical trials and the medical community can with a fairly good degree of accuracy, ascertain the effectiveness of certain drugs. But why would we need the State and it's FDA to accomplish this? You think all clinical trials would cease without the State? You think that we cannot, as a community, determine which supplements, drugs and medical treatments are effective without daddy government holding our hand? My point, had you been actually listening, was that the FDA is not above corruption and political pressure. Differences of opinion within the medical field regarding the effectiveness of different treatment protocols for different ailments, however slight they might be, run into problems when you have a monopoly agency tasked with either approving or banning treatments from the marketplace. Preference will be given to one treatment over the other and you can be sure that more than simply dispassionate scientific study factors into the decisions. Let me say a few things about me having my fillings replaced since you like to use that as a cheap shot against me. This was done a number of years ago because I had been struggling with a chronic Lyme disease infection. If you know anything about Lyme disease, you know that it is not something to play around with. I finally found a doctor who helped me kill off the infection once and for all but it was a tough couple of years. I would have done anything to beat that particular disease given what it had done to my quality of life. Mercury toxicity has been heavily implicated in the development of Lyme disease. Having my amalgam fillings replaced was part of a very complicated and broad strategy of treating the Lyme disease infection. I well knew that most people never have any problems with those fillings but my thought was that if they could have contributed in any small way to my condition, it was worth covering all bases. Given the very real risk factors I had for mercury toxicity in my body, I felt it prudent to follow the entire protocol to be as thorough as possible. You paint a picture as if I was completely fine and simply decided one day to have my fillings drilled out for no loving reason. I cannot say what, if any, role replacing my fillings had in my ultimate recovery from Lyme disease but simply because the medical community deems something generally "safe" does not mean that a small number of people won't develop problems, whether due to an allergy or other risk factors. Again, I had a serious illness that is heavily correlated with mercury toxicity and heavy metal poisoning! By the way, there is a very particular way that the fillings are removed such that the risk of excessive exposure to the mercury during the procedure is avoided. When you live with Lyme disease and see how most conventional doctors fail to effectively treat the illness, then we can talk about whether it is appropriate to criticize someone for doing everything they can to overcome the disease. The issue is not one about the state of medical research, as much as you'd like to make it into that. The issue is whether you believe it is morally appropriate to throw either myself or the dentist who replaced my fillings as a small part of my overall Lyme treatment protocol into a cage for doing an "unapproved" medical treatment. I answer a resounding "No", while you answer an emphatic "Yes". I do hope you are aware that when the FDA, or anyone else for that matter, declares something to be generally "safe" it still doesn't mean that it is safe for every person in every situation. A small number of people still will have problems and complications from even approved and largely "safe" treatments. This is just another reason why such nuance is lacking in a top down State monopolized approach to medical approval or disapproval.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Hmmmm jrode are you trying to signal to us that A. the profit motive is a massive distortion and source of corruption and also that B. profits are actually information being transmitted rather than wealth of some kind which an individual might be intrinsically entitled to, "sweat of the brow" style? Maybe you're kind of coming round the barn to some kind of fancy techno-communism with a market socialist sector for consumer goods, such as pirated HK movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:chronic Lyme disease Oh my god
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Also I think you're going to need to start developing a replacement for the "thrown into a cage" metaphor, because that's just evoking gales of derisive laughter from the unwashed heathens at this point. Maybe you could compare it to concentration camps next? Just trying to help ya out. (If you use this analogy I expect regular royalty payments.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, here's a theoretical situation. You're living the life in libertopia, when suddenly, disaster hits. Fortunately, it won't affect many people. Unfortunately, it'll affect you. This disaster is known as 'MelonAID', an STD that infects people who gently caress watermelons. The AID stands for 'Argh, I'm Dead!' because it's as deadly as a disease can be. There's no cure yet, you don't know if there will ever be (pro watermelon loving research is very niche and not well-funded), and even if there was, the disease kills most people very fast, sometimes before the disease can even be identified in them. Now, you're smart, so you're not just going to gently caress any melon. You do your research, and find that Sloppy Farms has put in big letters 'GUARANTEED NOT TO HAVE MELONAID' on their watermelons. Further inspection shows that they've been tested by Die Jrod Die (they're German), which are further certified by 'Zachary Z. Zion's -Z Best Certs-'. As such, you happily purchase some of the produce for personal use. But uh oh, it turns out, one of those watermelons DID have MelonAID, and now you're infected! So the question is: Who do you sue and who'll enforce this suit against whoever you sue? Trick question, you died in the hospital! And that's if you even had the money to afford the trip after all those recreational watermelons you've been buying!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The consumer is responsible for that profit. Profits and losses on a free market reflect consumer preferences and relay information to entrepreneurs as to where to best allocate scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes. ... Gotcha, you sniveling little lapdog of the petit-bourgeouisie . You finally had to come out and actually stake out a position on something about economics. I want everyone to look really closely at this and spot the flaw in it. Take a good, long look. Bask in it. Drink it in. See what's missing yet? Yeah, that's right. Carl and his employees. Apparently, their efforts to serve customers is entirely superfluous to economic activity. Their labor counts for nothing. And thus the fatal flaw in JRode's view of economics is revealed, and the reason he can claim - with a straight face - that Qatar and the UAE are more 'economically free' than Europe or the US makes sense. Laborers do not matter. The rights of laborers do not matter, nor do their efforts on behalf of themselves or their employers or the consumers. They are resources to be spent, nothing more and nothing less. At best, they are apparently part of "scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes"; something to be considered as an abstract problem, not as actual people. That profit came about by the labor that Carl and his employers put into the business. It came about because they worked to attract customers, to provide them better service and goods than the competition. It came about because of their labor having an effect, not because of some arcane economic formula that mainly exists in your brain, JRode. Labor matters. It is the only thing that matters in a service-profession, whether that is selling clothes, computers, airplanes, cars, dishwashers or anything else. The profit the CCCP is left with at the end of its fiscal year is the direct surplus value created by the effort of its laborers. And you, JRodefeld, completely dismissed their efforts, because to you, people like that? The people who work in stores or fix cars or work in factories? They're not actually people, are they? Not really. They're abstracts, things. You don't care about their well-being, and in the example I created, the one where there were multiple loving ways to get an answer that I couldn't have argued against? You still managed to find the single, absolutely, utterly wrong one. You're not a 'leftist', you're not a 'progressive', you're not an 'anarchist' of any stripe at all. You are a jejune, pusillanimous, stultified and deluded individual, with delusions of adequacy and pretensions to knowledge that is - to be frank - as far above you as the knowledge of the workings of the cosmos are to an average termite. And I still think I may be overestimating your capabilities. Good day, sir. I say, good loving day. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:. Again, I had a serious illness that is heavily correlated with mercury toxicity and heavy metal poisoning! Being a gullible idiot isn't a serious illness, though I can agree that it could have some correlation with mercury toxicity and heavy metal poisoning. Alhazred fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You're reading what you want into what I said. I'll admit I didn't phrase that the way I ought to have. Yes, of course we have clinical trials and the medical community can with a fairly good degree of accuracy, ascertain the effectiveness of certain drugs. But why would we need the State and it's FDA to accomplish this? You think all clinical trials would cease without the State? You think that we cannot, as a community, determine which supplements, drugs and medical treatments are effective without daddy government holding our hand? 1) Yes, you, Jrod, are absolutely too loving stupid to conduct clinical trials on your own. As are all Libertarians. The entire lot of you would die in a matter of days without the state because you are all incredibly gullible children. You, and again I mean you personally do need daddy government holding your hand. 2) Any non-state institution is going to be vastly more susceptible to bribery and corruption than something like the FDA, and is thus inferior to a degree that they might as well be worthless. Again, you want a world where countless people will be poisoned or left to die without effective treatment after being conned out of their money. Are those deaths something we should accept as merely being the cost of the free market? You and the other libertarian barbarians give a resounding "yes; we and all other civilized human beings give a horrified "no". gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Libertarians going on about "civilization" are very interesting to me because talking about who's civilized and who's not in any other setting has been about defining which societies (defined culturally) are superior according to which has effective government (rule of law), and has been used to justify all manner of oppressive paternalistic military actions, similar to the idea of "protecting them from themselves." Discourse on civilization, in other words, is almost always a discourse justifying the superiority of collectives organized by states and their use of mass violence to protect their power. Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
... It occurs to me that I may be treating replies to JRode more as creative writing exercises at this point than anything else. Anyway! Nessus posted:The obvious answer to this question would be "all the employees," possibly in somewhat different degrees but for the purpose of this featureless plain, let's say equally. If Carl is an active participant in the operations of the firm then he is also partially responsible for that profit. This is an entirely valid way of looking at it, and is pretty much in harmony with my own. I would also have accepted that the profit came into being by clever cost-cutting measures in raw-materials or better supply-chains, by finding more efficient ways for the employees ( or Carl himself ) to run the store, produce the goods... There are quite a lot of ways here to make a solid argument for profits arising out of multiple channels. What you definitely cannot say is that the efforts of Carl and his employees are irrelevant or insignificant, which is what Jrode actually managed to do. Also, for the record, as for what to do with the profit? I would have accepted sharing it among the employees as above, and am fine with Carl taking a bigger cut as well. I would also have accepted anything including, but not limited to:
2 Expanding the range of products or suppliers 3 Providing benefits to the employees, Carl included. 4 Investing in better equipment for the store 5 Expanding the store to a new location 6 Running ads for the store 7 Etc. etc. All of which I have no problem with, mainly because it benefits the people working at the CCCP in one way or another. Granted, I would hope that Carl is doing any and all of this in an ethical way... And thankfully, since we're dealing with the friction-less sphere on a plane surrounded by vacuum, we can say for certain that he definitely would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? Absolutely. Because whatever you claim to support your policies will actually lead to a new age on conquistadores slaughtering and enslaving people in order to pillage natural resources. That is the world your ideology leads towards. You ignorant child.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? For a person who believes that society doesn't exist and that only individuals do (or rather, that "society" is merely defined as a set of individuals), you sure do use the word a lot in terms of its common meaning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? The point is that libertarianism is a sham ideology; a thin veneer of anti-interventionism to run interference for capital-accumulating international adventures. Self-identified libertarians overwhelmingly vote Republican. At best, jrod, you're a chump. At worst, complicit in the American plundering of the rest of the world. Sorry to break it to ya bud
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Absolutely. Because whatever you claim to support your policies will actually lead to a new age on conquistadores slaughtering and enslaving people in order to pillage natural resources. That is the world your ideology leads towards. You ignorant child. Or at least it will exacerbate the lingering effects of colonization and leave the poor people to die because they are poor, creating a death spiral. Either way it's not pretty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Why is nobody contesting that jrod, self-avowed consequentialist, is now saying that kantianism has been the sole basis for all ethical thought since its conception? You're rejecting even the existence of subsequent theories. jrod you disingenuous fucker. Furthermore, your kantian judgment of the state is all sorts of hosed up and requires an interpretation of the categorical imperative that precludes most specialized roles that exist in society. Why can only firefighters use fire hydrants? Why can only doctors cut people up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You're reading what you want into what I said. I'll admit I didn't phrase that the way I ought to have. Yes, of course we have clinical trials and the medical community can with a fairly good degree of accuracy, ascertain the effectiveness of certain drugs. But why would we need the State and it's FDA to accomplish this? You think all clinical trials would cease without the State? You think that we cannot, as a community, determine which supplements, drugs and medical treatments are effective without daddy government holding our hand? Because the providers of these treatments have every financial incentive in the world to lie or mislead about what their drugs can and cannot do as well as side effects resulting from the use of said medication. I think many drugs would go to market without proper clinical testing without the State, absolutely, and I also think in many, many cases it would be difficult if not impossible for the layman to trace the origin of their issues to a specific medication. Moreover I think that a proactive approach to medicine, one where the first goal is 'do no harm' is better than a reactive 'we're sorry you died but here is a kickback to your widow' . quote:My point, had you been actually listening, was that the FDA is not above corruption and political pressure. Differences of opinion within the medical field regarding the effectiveness of different treatment protocols for different ailments, however slight they might be, run into problems when you have a monopoly agency tasked with either approving or banning treatments from the marketplace. Preference will be given to one treatment over the other and you can be sure that more than simply dispassionate scientific study factors into the decisions. I was listening. You just loving admitted that you didn't phrase it the way you ought to have so pointing fingers and blubbering because I took you at your word is loving pathetic. As far as the rest of it, prove what you are saying, do not merely assert it. quote:Let me say a few things about me having my fillings replaced since you like to use that as a cheap shot against me. This was done a number of years ago because I had been struggling with a chronic Lyme disease infection. If you know anything about Lyme disease, you know that it is not something to play around with. I finally found a doctor who helped me kill off the infection once and for all but it was a tough couple of years. I would have done anything to beat that particular disease given what it had done to my quality of life. This is still wrong because you are still not listening to what people are saying to you! Even if what you are saying is true, that lyme disease correlates with mercury poisoning as a result of dental amalgam, and let me be clear, it does not, you still would have been loving yourself far more severly by having the fillings removed because the amount of mercury released into your body as a result of their removal is several orders of magnitude higher than simply leaving them in for the rest of your life. You poisoned yourself and paid for the privilege. Is it any wonder why people do not think following your ideas on health care are a good loving idea? quote:You paint a picture as if I was completely fine and simply decided one day to have my fillings drilled out for no loving reason. I cannot say what, if any, role replacing my fillings had in my ultimate recovery from Lyme disease but simply because the medical community deems something generally "safe" does not mean that a small number of people won't develop problems, whether due to an allergy or other risk factors. Again, I had a serious illness that is heavily correlated with mercury toxicity and heavy metal poisoning! I paint it that way because that was the information I had to work with. I understand what it is like to search for any relief from pain, but your 'solution' here had nothing to do with your illness as far as all modern medicine would have us believe. You are experiencing the same stupidity that leads to the Vaccination = Autism issue. Correlation is not causation. quote:By the way, there is a very particular way that the fillings are removed such that the risk of excessive exposure to the mercury during the procedure is avoided. I addressed this the last time you brought this up. There is no way to remove amalgam fillings that does not introduce significantly more mercury into your body than if they were simply left in. Even the 'safe' way that your quack dentist talked you into merely moves it from being a few thousand times worse to only a few hundred. quote:The issue is not one about the state of medical research, as much as you'd like to make it into that. The issue is whether you believe it is morally appropriate to throw either myself or the dentist who replaced my fillings as a small part of my overall Lyme treatment protocol into a cage for doing an "unapproved" medical treatment. ... What the gently caress are you talking about. Are you or your dentist in jail? The FDA exists to prevent dangerous or proven ineffective medication or treatment from being offered to John Q. Public. Now I might argue that getting your filling drilled out to try and cure a disease that has nothing to do with mercury poisoning in such a way that you actually poison yourself with more mercury might actually qualify as fraud, but then again your dentist is probably as much of an idiot as you are so I'll ascribe that more to ignorance than malice. No harm was done to you other than relieving you of Nana's money, so live and let live I suppose. Chiropractors are quacks but I don't think they should be in jail either. The fact that you can't see a difference between that and someone selling medication that claims to cure aids is telling. What the FDA does has more to do with medication like Vioxx. Vioxx was an NSAID that was marketed for arthritis and similar conditions. It worked pretty good but as the FDA continued to study it as it worked its way into the general population they noticed that it actually had serious concerns about increased Risks for heart attack and stroke. Merck, the manufacturer, had actually hidden information that indicated that it knew their drug increased the chances of serious complications and they did nothing. Vioxx is actually one of the few main examples of the FDA failure, and a perfect example of what would happen if we just let 'the market' fix itself. That is to say, hundreds of thousands would die of adverse effects they could never have anticipated. quote:I do hope you are aware that when the FDA, or anyone else for that matter, declares something to be generally "safe" it still doesn't mean that it is safe for every person in every situation. A small number of people still will have problems and complications from even approved and largely "safe" treatments. I agree! However you have provided no reason for me to believe that dental amalgam was in any way related to your issue. quote:This is just another reason why such nuance is lacking in a top down State monopolized approach to medical approval or disapproval. You just threw a fit about how the state was locking up your dentist. Don't talk about lacking nuance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? Uh, I got some bad news to you about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Switzerland
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? No, I'm saying it has something to do with capitalism. Read better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:What the FDA does has more to do with medication like Vioxx. Vioxx was an NSAID that was marketed for arthritis and similar conditions. It worked pretty good but as the FDA continued to study it as it worked its way into the general population they noticed that it actually had serious concerns about increased Risks for heart attack and stroke. Merck, the manufacturer, had actually hidden information that indicated that it knew their drug increased the chances of serious complications and they did nothing. Vioxx is actually one of the few main examples of the FDA failure, and a perfect example of what would happen if we just let 'the market' fix itself. Yeah, if the FDA or no such similar body existed this would in fact be one of the things that would happen. The other is sugar pills as far as the eye can see, placebos for all sorts of maladies. People claim sticking rags on their feet purges the body of toxins and bracelets with rocks in them cure ailments by aligning chakras. It's not even about harm. People can trick themselves into thinking the stupidest poo poo works, and there's no reason to sue over that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? Libertarian neutrality and non-interventionism, in those rare instances where its genuine, always comes with a silent "from now on" appended to it. You base, craven toad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
I think the libertarian anti-colonialism, at least jrod's, comes from it being governments that had colonies. If Exxon-Mobil takes over half of Africa then eh whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 20:36
|
|