What FDA Bullies Cost Us

Fewer medical options are the price of bureaucratic "caution."

(Page 2 of 2)

But now our government goes way beyond that. It employs 22 million people. Not all have the power to impose force on the rest of us, but millions do.  Some use it to bully us in big and petty ways.

Twenty-two million government workers delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline, raid poker games, force us to put ethanol in cars, prohibit drugs and medical devices that might make our lives better, take about half our money, and jail more citizens than even China and Russia do.

Like frightened kids in elementary school, we learn to accept this, to think it's natural. But it's not right that government forbids people in pain to make their own choices about what might help them.

Voluntary is better than force. Free is better than coerced. We're better off when government is small and people are left to do as they please, unbullied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    We need some government force.

    But, but, but Tony said that if you object to any use of government force, then you want no government at all! There is no such thing as limited government! Total state or Somalia! Those are your choices! Tony said so so it must be true!

  • Libertymike||

    Actually, there are many here who say the same thing, including, to some extent, Stossel.

  • sarcasmic||

    The guy who wrote a book called "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed" says government should be unlimited?

    Really?

  • Libertymike||

    I wrote, "to some extent" with respect to Mr. "I have no problem with the NSA being able to conduct surveillance" Stossel. Do you remember the exchange he had with Judge Napolitano? The Judge just absolutely eviscerated Stossel.

    Stossel likes big military and big police. He thinks that its good that we have "police who keep the peace" and a military that protects us from "foreign attack".

    Yes, he is not Tony and he is not Al Gore or the dear leader; nevertheless, he is not exactly Murray Rothbard. At bottom, he is a statist. Any person who supports the national security / national surveillance state and who loves the popo is, by definition, a statist.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're taking things out of context. He listed a hundred things that he thought were worse than NSA surveillance. He didn't say he supported it.

    Military and police are legitimate functions of government, unless you're an anarchist.

    Seems you're arguing against a straw man that is saying "If you want government to do something, you want government to do everything!"

    Whatever.

  • Libertymike||

    In another thread, today, did you not express the view that everything government does is predicated upon the actual use or threatened use of violence?

    If one does not support the NAP, one is not a libertarian. Period, no exceptions, Stossel or otherwise.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, government is force. The idea behind an ideal libertarian government is that it only uses force in response to the initiation of force.

    If you can't understand how that would not violate the NAP, then you're as mentally defective as Tony.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If one does not support the NAP, one is not a libertarian. Period, no exceptions, Stossel or otherwise.

    How does maintaining a defense and police force NOT in support of the NAP?

  • sarcasmic||

    How does maintaining a defense and police force NOT in support of the NAP?

    I'm starting to think Lm doesn't understand the difference between initiate and respond.

  • Libertymike||

    Sarc, come on.

    What do the cops do upon a daily basis, a thousand times over, to the mundanes in this country? It ain't serving and protecting.

  • sarcasmic||

    Cops do immoral things because the laws they enforce are immoral.

    If criminal law was limited to acts that harm the life, liberty and property of others (as opposed to the myriad of victimless crimes against the state), then cops likely would do more serving and protecting.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Military and police are legitimate functions of government, unless you're an anarchist.

    And you've hit upon the crux of LM's issue. He is, in fact, an anarchist.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, I am. Libertarianism, properly understood, is also anarchism. The NAP makes no exceptions for government.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, I am. Libertarianism, properly understood, is also anarchism.

    False.

    The NAP makes no exceptions for government.

    Yep. You don't understand the difference between initiate and respond.

  • IceTrey||

    @sarc
    It's "initiate" and "retaliate".

  • See.More||

    Yes, I am. Libertarianism, properly understood, is also anarchism.
    False.

    The NAP makes no exceptions for government.
    Yep. You don't understand the difference between initiate and respond.

    The Ehtics of Liberty, Chapter 22: The Nature of the State by Murray Rothbard

    . . . The State may therefore be defined as that organization which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area. Both of these essential activities of the State necessarily constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects (including self-ownership). . .
  • IceTrey||

    The NAP is really a flawed concept because aggression can apply to self defense. It should be NIFP, Non Initiatory Force Principle.

  • IceTrey||

    Libertarian Bill of Rights

    Article 1
    No person may initiate force, threats of force, or fraud against any other person's self or property.

    Article 2
    Force may be used against those who violate Article 1.

    Article 3
    No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Article 4
    The one exception: abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It should be NIFP, Non Initiatory Force Principle.

    Aggression implies initiation.

    Agressor...

    ag·gres·sion noun \ə-ˈgre-shən\
    : angry or violent behavior or feelings

    : hostile action against another country, government, etc.

    Full Definition of AGGRESSION

    1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

    2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another

    3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration
  • IceTrey||

    Implication is not execution. Example: Zimmerman aggressively defended himself against Martin.

    I see your point and NAP sounds better than NIFP, but NAP does have an ambiguity NIFP doesn't.

  • See.More||

    . . . because aggression can apply to self defense. . .

    The concept is not flawed; one's understanding of the concept is flawed.

    Properly understood, the NAP differentiates between aggressive (initiated / started it) action (force, violence, fraud, etc.) and defensive (responding to) action.

  • LynchPin1477||

    How can you say "all or nothing" to only some extent?

  • Tim||

    Under Obamacare, new procedures will not be approved because they are "new".

  • sarcasmic||

    Seriously though, the FDA has now moved to put small cattle farms out of business.

    Many small farms depend on breweries to provide them with low cost, or sometimes free, feed in the form of spent grain. No more, says the FDA.

    Instead of just dumping the wet grain onto a truck so the farmer can give it to the cattle, breweries will now be regulated as animal feed manufacturers if they want to put their grain someplace other than a landfill.

    Because the cost of regulatory compliance far exceeds any return for the spent grain, to the landfill it will go.

    What happens to the small farmers who depend on that cheap or free grain?

    Fuck you, that's what.

    http://www.craftbrewingbusines.....imal-feed/

  • Rasilio||

    The farmer converts a portion of one of his fields to a landfill.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Those cows should have been free grazing on organic grass harvested from the plains of Africa, anyway.

  • Robert||

    This calls for vertical integration. The brewer & farmer should merge so the feed stays in the biz, never gets sold.

  • Brandon||

  • Libertymike||

    Stossel continues to exhibit his ersatz libertarianism with gems like the following:

    1. "Its good America has rule of law."

    2. "police that keep the peace"

    3. "courts that ensure that contracts are honored"

  • sarcasmic||

    He's a libertarian, not an anarchist.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    He's a libertarian, not an anarchist.


    Those are not mutually-exclusive terms.

  • Rasilio||

    I fail to see how any of those are anti libertarian?

    Even anarchists agree those 3 things are required, they just think they are better provided for by competing private agencies rather than governments

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    don't pick on LM. He's special.

  • Sevo||

    An 'Olympian', right?

  • Libertymike||

    There can be no rule of law if the state is the sole arbiter of the same.

    The rule of law presupposes that the state can not change the rules or that the adjudication of its disputes be handled by its paid hacks.

    At any rate, the three statements I referenced should be criticized as one would have to be a moron to think that the police actually keep the peace and that courts actually ensure that contracts are honored and that the rule of law prevails in the US.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There can be no rule of law if the state is the sole arbiter of the same.

    Uh, why?

    The rule of law presupposes that the state can not change the rules or that the adjudication of its disputes be handled by its paid hacks.

    Again, why? Rules can never be changed? And I don't understand why it's bad that people get paid to do something.

    At any rate, the three statements I referenced should be criticized as one would have to be a moron to think that the police actually keep the peace and that courts actually ensure that contracts are honored and that the rule of law prevails in the US.

    No one cares about your hyperbolic tirades.

  • Libertymike||

    Upon what logical, principled basis can you argue that the rule of law is compatible with the state being the only actor which can make / change the law?

    Stop already with your apologies for the state.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    you made the assertion. If you can't defend it that's your problem.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    Uh, why [can be no rule of law if the state is the sole arbiter of the same]?


    Because rule of law does not mean rule by force. If the State becomes the sole arbiter, the sole provider, then the State a) will not allow other institutions to compete with the state, be it churches, mutual-assistance organizations, private arbiters, private tribunals, the family, etc; and b) will tend to offer decreasingly less protection while increasing its expenditures (i.e. taxation) as the state is a self-interested party with no competition. The first part thus ensures that the rule of law becomes exclusively the rule of the government, and the second ensures that the supply of protection is reduced to the point of becoming almost irrelevant.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    you're both just speaking gibberish. you have not demonstrated that having a sole arbiter is incompatible with Rule of Law by necessity. If you want to say that having one arbiter tends to undermine Rule of law, that's fine, but that doesn't make it so by necessity, which is what LM said.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    you're both just speaking gibberish. you have not demonstrated that having a sole arbiter is incompatible with Rule of Law by necessity.


    Ok, now you're being intellectually dishonest. I presented a clear case that proves the presence of a monopoly of force tends to degrade the rule of law because of a lack of competition. I also presented a clear and cogent case that a monopoly of force will impose its own rules over those of other institutions. By necessity, this will happen and happens all the time. This is not gibberish

    If you don't believe me, then explain to me exactly how OSHA rules are supposed to be better than the normal safety policies and procedures of a manufacturing facility, and why do you think OSHA always finds ways to issue citations for completely trivial things that have nothing to do with safety. How is that conducive to a true rule of law?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    no, that is not a case by necessity. Sorry. pointing out places where the State and Rule of Law are incompatible does not mean that they are incompatible by necessity.

    If you don't believe me, then explain to me exactly how OSHA rules are supposed to be better than the normal safety policies and procedures of a manufacturing facility, and why do you think OSHA always finds ways to issue citations for completely trivial things that have nothing to do with safety. How is that conducive to a true rule of law?

    Do you have some private definition of Rule of Law? Because it is not synonymous with "good" or "yields results OM likes". It's synonymous with "equal protection" and "equal application'

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I also don't see how the State *can* ever be the sole arbiter. It's logistically impossible.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    I also don't see how the State *can* ever be the sole arbiter. It's logistically impossible.


    Depends on the size of the State, but the tendency will always be towards complete subjugation. There's no doubt that the state is the sole arbiter in that prison-nation we call North Korea.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I doubt that. Do you think that the North Korean government settles a dispute between a parent and a child about bed time? no.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    I doubt that. Do you think that the North Korean government settles a dispute between a parent and a child about bed time?


    No, but think how much the parent-child structure of rules is distorted by a state that intrudes in almost every aspect of their lives.

    While you may have a point that there cannot be an absolute and complete subordination of society to the State, that does not mean that the rule of law is still present when the state only intrudes as far as it physically can. The argument is that the State itself deprives society of true rule of law by imposing its on set of rules and laws that have a tenuous relationship with how people live their lives.

  • IceTrey||

    The state isn't the sole arbiter. There is always the People. Just ask King George.

  • Acosmist||

    Rule of law isn't good?

  • Pro Libertate||

    He's a minarchist. As are a number of people here who call themselves libertarian, including me.

    I don't object to anarchy per se and certainly share the anarchists' contempt and deep distrust of government, but I'm not sure how you get there from here. To be sure, I'm not sure how we get to truly limited government from here, either. We need a cultural shift of the highest order before that can happen.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Any private organization worth its salt is going to have policies and procedures that are followed each time you do "something". That's one of the main benefits of the "rule of law" - like cases are treated a like, and that's true whether you're talking the law or how to handle a disciplinary issue at Apple.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    Any private organization worth its salt is going to have policies and procedures that are followed each time you do "something".


    That much is true. You can also extend that same principle to all other organizations from church to mutual-assistance organizations to the family itself. Rule of law means living by rules everybody knows.

    That's one of the main benefits of the "rule of law" - like cases are treated a like, and that's true whether you're talking the law or how to handle a disciplinary issue at Apple.


    Indeed but you're ignoring a key part of the conversation, and that is the way the State subverts the principles and rules by which people live and supplants them with rules and regulations of its own creation, which may or may not apply to everyone in the same manner. The State will also tend to overwhelm the population with rules to the point where there is no more rule of law, as everybody is guaranteed to become a criminal.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I'm not ignoring it at all. It's not relevant to what I am saying. LM is saying the fact that rules can be changed means there is no Rule of Law. that's poppycock.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    LM is saying the fact that rules can be changed means there is no Rule of Law. that's poppycock.


    No, NK, it is you who is wrong. Here's why:

    What is better for a society from the standpoint of long-term plans, savings, agreements, institutions and projects: rules that never change, or ever-changing rules?

    When every individual knows the rules which do not change at someone's whim, then the society of individuals can feel confident they can plan for the future, can save their under-consumed wealth for their children and themselves.

    Instead, changing rules bring uncertainty and chaos; plans switch from being long-term to be short-term; time preference shoots UP, not down, which means people will prefer to live for the moment and consume their wealth now, rather than later. This brings economic stagnation.

    In other words, the fact of rules that change all the time is not conducive to true Rule of Law.

  • Robert||

    While constancy in rules is valuable, one should never presume an improvement to them is impossible. The value of the improvement needs to be weighed vs. the value of reliance on the existing rule.

  • Libertymike||

    True, but the point you make is not really at issue.

    The issue is who gets to change the rules and under what circumstances and conditions.

    Thus, should governments and government employees enjoy immunity from liability? There is nothing in the federal constitution or the constitutions of the original 13 colonies which conferred immunity from liability upon government actors and government agencies. Who changed that? Government.

    How about the right to travel. There is not a word said about requiring folks to carry identification in order to travel in our founding documents. Who changed that. Government.

    How about the right to travel overseas? There is not one word set forth in the federal constitution about requiring folks to carry a passport in order to effect passage from America to France. Who changed that? Government.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Robert,

    While constancy in rules is valuable, one should never presume an improvement to them is impossible.


    No, of course not. As with everything, the rules by which we conduct our daily lives are the result of a process of discovery, of deductive reasoning. If people

    However, it is one thing to have a rule that is the result of such an intellectual process, quite another to have a body of notables impose one on all of us. If a group of notables is not clever enough to manage even a small economy, what would make them clever enough to come up with rules everybody can live by?

  • OldMexican||

    I pressed the button too soon.... "If people discover a new rule for a new situation, then the people will adopt that rule and live by it as well."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I didn't say "all the time", OM. That's your problem. LM said:

    The rule of law presupposes that the state can not change the rules or that the adjudication

    in other words, he said the fact that Rules CAN BE CHANGED means Rule of Law is a fantasy. He didn't say anything about "all the time" or "ever-changing", he said CAN BE, which means "at all" or "ever", not "all the time".

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    I think you are wrong here. LM said that even one change nullified the rule of law. I take his statements to be "If any rule is changed, then the rule of law is nullified" To support that you would have to change every rule, then show how RoL was nullified or make some sort of mathematical proof that showed for any random change, RoL is nullified. The fact that changes degrade/diminishe RoL is not the counter factual point you are looking for.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    In fact, the counter example would be to change one rule, then show that RoL was either not changed or possibly enhanced. Then his theory is kaput.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Eggs Benedict Cumberbund,

    I think you are wrong here. LM said that even one change nullified the rule of law.


    That's because he's not making an argument of degree but of principle: If the state changes a common rule so to suit its purpose, even if the rule seems a minor one, then you ipso facto stop having the rule of law.

    For instance, some people believe that bankruptcy laws exist to help debtors in times of hardship. In reality, bankruptcy laws are an imposition by the state on society, thereby nullifying two principles: the sanctity of contracts and private property rights. The debtor can free himself from the civil and moral responsibility of repaying his debts while at the same time enjoying the wealth that was given to him in good faith. Society itself suffers because of the moral hazard now encouraged by the state's actions. This is a clear example of how the Rule of Law is nullified by a rule that is contrary to what is considered moral and ethical, which is to honor your agreements and repay your debts.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    But THE Rule of Law is not nullified, just that particular one. I maybe splitting hairs to finely.

  • MarkinLA||

    Now you are in la-la land. Any organization is only as good as the people. There are a lot of people who understand that by the time the shit hits the fan they are long gone.

    CEOs who goose the stock up with financial gimmickry to cash out their options. Middle level managers who cut corners to boost output to get a promotion that they promptly use to get a better job elsewhere. None of these people are ever going to be held personally responsible in a publicly traded company as long as they don't admit to fraud or other illegal activity.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    After we've won the war against fascists, socialists, communists, collectivists, progressives, Democrats and Republicans (I'm sure I've missed a few), the minarchists can go to war with the anarchists.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Indeed. I'd be thrilled if that were where the lines were drawn.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Libertymike,

    Stossel continues to exhibit his ersatz libertarianism with gems like [We need some government force]


    Stossel like many libertarian-lite thinkers want to present a facade of moderation because of the fear of being labeled "radical". This explains his lack of principled stances on such things as freedom and the rule of law, thinking that only a government secures one and provides the other.

  • David Wall||

    Nope.

    A principled and moral government protects people rights. America's founders had it right. Government's purpose is to abolish force by using force against those who initiate force and the government must have a monopoly in doing this--their purpose is recognized as legitimate by all of its citizens it protects. Morally the government has a right to exist, then, as long as it is limited to protecting individual's rights.

    It's not really that hard to understand. It is the only logical way to eliminate force from society. Anarchy will release forces upon everyone--truly dog-eat-dog--the biggest force or most brutal force wins. A central protector of rights whose whole purpose is to eliminate force imposed upon individuals by other entities is a requirement.

  • igotnuthin||

    I have been in the medical device industry for 20 years. The change in tone from the FDA and DOJ has been palpable. We now have regulations/laws/rules around how much you can spend on dinner with a doctor, what you can say, what procedures you can attend. If you have a product that can help a patient but it's considered "off label" (used outside of what the FDA approved it for) you can literally go to jail or fined if you promoted that product for "off label" use. Emails, Texts, and Voice mails are being subpoenaed by the DOJ all the time to comb through them looking for off label promotion. Reps and Marketing people are being fired constantly for minor offenses where they are just trying to educate a physician.

    Meanwhile in Europe, these same devices are typically CE marked years earlier, with less restrictions, with much less fear of lawyers suing people for bad outcomes.

    Europe has cheaper healthcare and devices BECAUSE the CE system is more reasonable.

  • Robert||

    Can you help me get a job? I used to do R&D in medical devices, and would like to do so again. TIA

  • MarkinLA||

    We now have regulations/laws/rules around how much you can spend on dinner with a doctor, what you can say, what procedures you can attend.

    Yeah, what a bitch it is that you just can't pay a doctor 500 dollars to implant your pacemaker like they did 20 years ago. How horrible that you can't give a doctor an all expense paid week in Aspen if attends a 2 hour seminar because he is one of your major implanters.

    Yeah, about those e-mails, we now know the companies never hide adverse side effects discovered during the trials like when the Cox-2 Inhibitors were approved and then had to be recalled.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    That sound you hear - is the point going over your head.

    IE - Thinking regulations on mundane items imposes a cost which might be higher than its benefit != love corruption and want to live in a world where doctors routinely implant non-effective devices only due to monetary incentives.

    On a separate note - is your idea to let politicians make moral decisions? As I've known quite a few doctors in my life (long story), and a few politicians (though their number is much smaller than doctors I know) and without question I trust every doctor over every politician I've ever met.

    So even in a world where device manufacturer's can spend as much as they want on a doc's dinner - I would still prefer the doc to make the decision as to my care versus the politician.

    Additionally note - if I do trust the wrong doctor and die - word gets around. That doc usually doesn't keep doing that for long.

    Politicians however, with minor corruption, can force an entire country for decades into substandard care.

    Sorry - corruption and immoral doctors suck, but the solution will never be brought on by the most immoral citizens on the planet.

  • MarkinLA||

    AS opposed to you completely distorting what I said and trying to put words in my mouth. The pacemaker company is not paying people to put ineffective devices in but to put one of a number of flavors of devices that all do basically the same thing in order to boost sales.

    Since they are all basically the same how do you know the doctor is not being influenced by monetary gain - you know like all those surgeons who routinely get caught in stings advising unneeded surgeries.

  • Rasilio||

    OT: UFO's at sea

    http://www.seacoastonline.com/.....-108210339
    Worlds first supercavitating watercraft starts trials. Even better, while it's target market is government it has been completely paid for with private dollars to this point.

  • Tim||

    This would have been awesome in 1942. Not sure what good it is in 2014. Not like we need to sink the Japanese fleet.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Oh I can think of plenty of uses for this thing. Plant SOF units, sweep an area of surface vessels, then get the hell out of dodge.

    On another subject, some smaller weapons are being developed on IRAD funds these days then sold back up the chain.

  • OneOut||

    "This would have been awesome in 1942. Not sure what good it is in 2014. Not like we need to sink the Japanese fleet."

    Exactly. Because naval warfare is so 19th century and this is the 21st century and no country would even think of invading Ukraine.

  • Protagoronus||

    Not really the first if you count the Shkval Torpedo.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I was just on vacation in Aruba (suck it). My wife saw a medication that she needs a Rx for in the U.S., and which costs $50 out of pocket (so not including what her insurance picks up), for only $15, over the counter.

    Our friend's family also owns a skin care product line there. We toured their facility, and in the intro video they brag about how they even were able to get FDA approval for their products in the U.S., because it is so difficult to do.

    So yeah, thanks FDA.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was in Cabo at a store that had what we'd call "prescription drugs" on the shelves. That was a while back, but they clearly had a different view of OTC there.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    that's still the case as of December 2012, because I saw the same thing there.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fun place to visit, for the record.

  • Tim||

    Aruba's full of dead people due to their lax laws.

  • LynchPin1477||

    As a tourist I liked their 1.5% sales tax. A lot better than the 15% I pay in Quebec. But yeah, apparently the import duty on cars is 50%. And there are 10 people on the whole island legally allowed to own a gun. Nice place to vacation, though.

  • Tim||

    Anecdotal, but lot's of guns find their way to otherwise law abiding islanders from the arsenal of freedom by private boat.

  • Rich||

    Until that bullshit "These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease" disclaimer goes away, I find it difficult to take the FDA seriously.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    CA trying to beat IL in the 'Politicos in Jail' event.
    "State Sen. Leland Yee was arrested on public corruption charges Wednesday morning"
    http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar.....350602.php

  • Rich||

    Lee was pulled over twice by San Francisco police officer who suspected him of cruising the Mission District in search of prostitutes. Yee, who championed putting a lid on massage parlors around the city, confirmed the stops, but said that in both cases he was the victim of mistaken identity.

    All those prostitutes look alike.

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, since he's been trying to shut down the massage parlors, he has to cruise.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Just like we have bullies at school and at work, we do have bullies in the police department and in other authoritative agencies.

    Just as we can't get rid of the government and the police, I hope the libertarian are not looking to get rid of the FDA.

    Libertarians are like all other political parties. They don't like the laws that they don't like. However, I'm sure they'll want someone to enforce the laws they do like.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not a matter of like. It's a matter of principle.

  • Robert||

    It's the principle you like.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie|3.26.14 @ 12:39PM|#
    ..."Libertarians are like all other political parties. They don't like the laws that they don't like. However, I'm sure they'll want someone to enforce the laws they do like."

    No, Alice, preferences aren't at issue, but I'm not surprised you are confused.
    One more brain-dead lefty totally ignorant as to what libert'ns believe.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Related: You don't get any more conservative than Malkin. If she gets it then....

    http://m.townhall.com/columnis...../page/full

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  • OneOut||

    Have you ever not mentioned you like Stossel ? lol

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    Just like we have bullies at school and at work, we do have bullies in the police department and in other authoritative agencies.


    Prevalence or ubiquity does not excuse evil acts.

    Just as we can't get rid of the government and the police, I hope the libertarian are not looking to get rid of the FDA.


    I don't understand your logic. Leaving aside your unsubstantiated assertion that "we cannot get rid of government or the police", if government or the police are perennial, immobile and immutable, then what exactly are you fearing when hoping that libertarians do not look to get rid of the FDA?

  • Alice Bowie||

    Vato,

    You can call it the police, the military, your friends, the Man.

    Unless libertarians plan to impose the "Final Solution" on all othose Americans that are not down with libertarian policies, you'll need a bunch of people with guns to stop those people from running you out.

  • Virginian||

    Unless libertarians plan to impose the "Final Solution" on all othose Americans that are not down with libertarian policies, you'll need a bunch of people with guns to stop those people from running you out.

    God I wonder what it would be like having a gang armed men stealing my money on a regular basis. I cannot even conceive of such a thing.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Exactly, only these want less government and more personal responsibility.

  • Virginian||

    lol that was the point flying over your head.

    Hint: it isn't me and mine that's imposing our will on people. In a libertarian nation, you would be free to set up socialism with anyone who wished to join you. You would not be free to force other people into your stupidity.

    Do you see the difference? Of course not, you're an idiot.

  • Alice Bowie||

    You can call me and other spectics that think you'll be able to change the world and have people relinquish power idiots all you want.

    I, too, would love to have my pony.

    It's just that the history of the world has been such that some one (or people) get an idea of how to manage and operate the world better and it's never done with White Papers, debates, and democracy.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    t's just that the history of the world has been such that some one (or people) get an idea of how to manage and operate the world better and it's never done with White Papers, debates, and democracy.


    What makes you think that history demonstrates that we live in a deterministic world, were inevitably humans will always find themselves trapped forever in institutionalized chattel?

    I don't buy it at all. I believe you don't know history and that you are letting your cynicism override your intellect.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Vato, I think you are a bigger troll than me.

  • OldMexican||

    And I laughed... and laughed.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    You can call it the police, the military, your friends, the Man.


    And I can call my sister who lives in Chicago. So?

    Unless libertarians plan to impose the "Final Solution" on all othose Americans


    This is a ridiculous conditional.

    you'll need a bunch of people with guns to stop those people from running you out.


    Why would that be? What makes you think that the point of equilibrium for a stateless society is rampage and murder? Where's your evidence?

    If you're talking about protection from marauders and pirates, so far the reason pirates are able to capture ships in the modern seas is because of governments imposing a prohibition on armed vessels. Governments thus create chaos.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Can't wait to see you implement your dream in America Vato.

    I'm sure everyone will go along with the idea. Especially those reasonable fellas with the guns, money, property, and power today

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    I'm sure everyone will go along with the idea. Especially those reasonable fellas with the guns, money, property, and power today


    So far the ONLY ones with the guns, money, property and power to wield against innocent people, without rein or moral restrain, is the government itself. Your contention that without the existence of such destructive body the rest of us would turn into mindless killers is absurd, unsubstantiated and illogical.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Really?

    It must be the history of the world as potrayed to me by a bunch of liberal teacher appointed by the government.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    Really?


    Yes, really.

    It must be the history of the world as po[r]trayed to me by a bunch of liberal teacher appointed by the government.


    Maybe, I don't know. I can only point out to you that your belief which is that private businesses and rich people will suddenly become criminal mobs once the government stops caring or something. The history of the world says otherwise.

  • Brian||

    I can only point out to you that your belief which is that private businesses and rich people will suddenly become criminal mobs once the government stops caring or something.

    Why would the rich have to become criminal mobs at that point? They're already doing a smashing job with the government as it is.

    Oh, but, with the government, it's legal, so, by definition, it can't be criminal.

    How convenient for them.

    I sure hope, for the Alice Bowie's of the world, that libertarians don't ruin that for them.

  • sarcasmic||

    It takes force to stop those who initiate force from initiating force.

    Thus liberty is tyranny, because it requires force.

    Tony said so, so the logic must be sound.

  • Alice Bowie||

    :

  • Brian||

    Alice Bowen:

    you'll need a bunch of people with guns to stop those people from running you out.

    You're probably right. People who resort to violence to get their own way outside of self-defense have already, through that action, implied that they have no need for arguments or persuasion. It would be like trying to have a debate with a mugger about whether or not they should mug you. Clearly, they don't care, nor do they have any respect for rights.

    Which is why virtuous people will always have to be prepared to engage in self-defense. How else can you deal with people who use violence to achieve any end they feel like?

  • Eric Bana||

    Here's a question. Would the following be better than what we have now, and would it have at least a slight chance of becoming law: pharmaceuticals and medical devices approved by FDA counterparts in two of the following countries (Canada, EU, UK, Japan, Australia) would automatically become approved in the United States.

    I'm assuming that companies could bypass the FDA but still satisfy most people's desire for perceived safety given that products would have gone through processes in two of of these other foreign agencies.

  • Virginian||

    Well it would appeal to the progs fetish for superseding American law with foreign law whenever possible. And we couldn't possibly have less drugs and devices approved.

    I say go for it.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I understand what you are trying to do, but at that point why even have an FDA? Get rid of it and avoid the sovereignty issues that it would inevitably raise.

  • Robert||

    We already have that in effect in the USA, where state pharmacy laws provide that a product may be sold if licensed by the state or federally. The state pharm boards wind up not doing such work at all, because everyone goes thru FDA to save money & time.

  • MarkinLA||

    Most companies do point to their acceptance by TUV (European agency) as proof that their product is safe and effective and so do try to get European approval first. The Japanese are very tough and usually are the last to approve.

  • Byte Me||

    Voluntary is better than force. Free is better than coerced. We're better off when government is small and people are left to do as they please, unbullied.

    Jeez, enough with the libertarian fairytales, Stossel! Next you'll have people thinking that they own their own bodies, should be able to freely defend themselves, enter into contracts, associate freely, and all kinds of NONSENSE.

  • OldMexican||

    +1 on the sarcasm

  • OldMexican||

    We need some government force. The worst places in the world are countries that don't have rule of law.


    I do like Stossel; I appreciate his efforts to educate the public about the excesses of government intervention and the progressive stripping of our rights. However, he does commit many fallacies when presenting his arguments for a smaller state.

    For instance, the above statement - We need some government force - is inconsistent. Who is "we"? What is "some" government force? Compared to what? Why would "some" force be better than much more force, or no force? The second sentence fails to convince: Stossel assumes that government is the sole supplier of rule of law, ergo he suggests those places without rule of law are also bereft of the presence of government. But this is not true in most cases, as one can perfectly point out instances where chaos and unruliness comes directly from government and not because of a lack of government. He thus begs the question when arguing that the lack of government means no rule of law.

  • sarcasmic||

    What is "some" government force?

    Force in response to the initiation of force (and fraud) by someone else, and to enforce contracts and property rights.

    It ain't that difficult of a concept.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    Force in response to the initiation of force (and fraud) by someone else


    That is much more specific than "some force".

    to enforce contracts and property rights.


    Well, here you are begging the question, as you're assuming enforcement of property rights or contracts require state violence, when in fact it doesn't.

    Since you and me have lived in a world where men with guns and badges run around intimidating people into compliance, it is no wonder that you or me find it difficult to think of a situation where property rights or contracts are enforced in a different way, but you don't have to look far to see a different scenario of property rights enforcement at play that is different, just by noticing how people avoid hitting each other in the parking lot of the mall with their cars, to then realize that there are self-evident rules at play.

  • sarcasmic||

    as you're assuming enforcement of property rights or contracts require state violence

    I never said that. I was answering your question about how to define "some."

    Since you and me have lived in a world where men with guns and badges run around intimidating people into compliance

    There will always be a gang of men with the last word in violence. That's part of the human condition.

    If there was no government, then men would organize into groups for the purpose of plunder, since it is easier to plunder than produce. You can't convince me otherwise.

    And since organized violence will always prevail over the individual, the plunder would continue until the victims engaged in organized violence themselves.

    Before long, you've got a single group employing organized violence that can beat down any competing gang, and that group becomes government.

    A stately society is nothing but a pipe dream.

  • sarcasmic||

    *stateless*

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    I never said that. I was answering your question about how to define "some."


    How else can you reply to a question that refers to state power if you're not doing two things: a) assume the state exists to at least provide minimal or "some" force and b) that such force has to have a meaningful purpose, case in point, enforcement of private property and contracts. Either the answer is: Stossel is wrong and you do NOT need the force of the state in any quantity, or you answer by assuming only the state can enforce contracts and protect private property. Because if you say that you believe in other enforcement mechanisms, then you would be contradicting yourself.

    If there was no government, then men would organize into groups for the purpose of plunder, since it is easier to plunder than produce.


    Which is an interesting proposition considering that government is, in essence, a group of men and women organized for the sole purpose of committing plunder, since plunder is easier than production. In other words, you're relying on a tautology to argue for government. Yours is no better than answering the question of government by saying "better the devil we know..."

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not arguing for government.

    I am accepting reality.

    Reality is that there will always be people who engage in organized violence for the purpose of plunder.

    That is not an argument in favor of government.

    That's just the way it is.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Stossel is like the Alcoholic turned Jehovah Witness.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    The FDA is arguably the most egregious example of Bastiat's "unseen".

  • ||

    I recently went to a Cystic Fibrosis Foundation volunteer seminar to talk with some of the doctor's and lab rats who did the research.
    They discussed the process by which they had to get approval to "fast-track" their breakthrough medication (cure, for a specific variation of the disease)Kalydeco. The foundation was grateful to the FDA for taking only 2-3 years to approve the drug for treatment. Never mind the fact that a few hundred people died an agonizingly slow death through asphyxiation. Their point of view was "Hey, it beats the normal 10-20 year wait".

    The president discussed how Bill Gates helped bankroll the initial development and how they had to hand over research findings to private companies that otherwise wouldn't fucking touch a project for such a small percentage of the population.

    Fuck the FDA. Fuck these assholes that cry "regulation". Let them die an agonizing death for a disease that is insanely preventable and curable.

  • OneOut||

    While some version of the FDA is indeed necessary ( snake oil salesmen, and snakeoil saleswomen to be PC), I see no reason for them to restrict drug trials for terminal patients who understand and agree ( in sound mind) to take these drugs.

    It is simply insane to deny drugs that might help a terminal patient who is definitely going to die anyway.

  • Sorgfelt||

    I don't like the FDA either, but with your statement:
    "Twenty-two million government workers delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline"
    are you implying that we should go ahead with that abomination?

  • . . . but . . .||

    The points in this piece are well taken, but some exaggeration reduces their force. Their are not "Twenty-two million government workers [who] delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline, raid poker games, force us to put ethanol in cars, prohibit drugs and medical devices that might make our lives better, take about half our money, and jail more citizens than even China and Russia do." There are roughly 1.4 million federal workers in the civilian agencies responsible for federal regulation, and most of these are not engaging in these activities. More than 25 percent of all government employees are in the education sector. One can debate their effectiveness, but they are not likely delaying the Keystone pipeline, raiding poker games or doing the other things with which Mr. Stossel is legitimately concerned.

  • MarkinLA||

    This whole article is BS. Stossel thinks we would be better off in the days of snake oil salesman. These delays are good because there are a lot of drugs that don't make it past their trials that would have been put out there because of all the money behind it.

    Did anybody pay any attention to Pfizer's Torcetrapib. It died after phase III trials. The company killed it but without those expanded trials, it would have been released because it was a replacement for Lipitor which was going off patent.

    The cost is that some people who will likely die anyway don't get some new drug or can try a drug not approved for that disease. There are already paths that can be utilized for compassionate use, they need to be made easier in terminal cases.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    False dichotomy

    Thinking some government regulation imposes costs greater than any benefit derived != desire to return to days of snake oil.

  • MarkinLA||

    Yeah, and you know what the exact trade-off point of cost versus benefit is?

  • buybuydandavis||

    The medical industry is one of many that owe their profits to rent seeking made possible by the government. Instead of seeking the lowest cost provider, instead of having information be free, it's literally a case of "your money or your life".

  • stephn289||

    Start earning with Google. Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. Its actually the nicest job Ive had. Linked Here www.CapitalPosts.com

  • Wholesale Stainless Steel||

    Buy sweater chain necklace & wonderful quality low in wejewels.com. Our store offers jewelry necklace, sweater chain jewelry, mix and match jewelry. Fine workmanship and high material. Find the latest fashion wejewels.com, make a unique look.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement