Sure; I was just pointing out that he's textbook Libertarian. Whether a particular Libertarian calls for a graduate or immediate change to the Libertarian ideal is a separate issue. :-)
As are you, apparently. I, of course, differ. (Go fig!) I'm hard-pressed to name a program since FDR that was cut and privatized that now costs us less. Or, for that matter, one that is more effective than it was under government control. Really, I can't think of *one*.
Moreover, a number of government agencies and programs *are* effective, and *don't* cost much. I hear lots of criticism about the FDA, but never from the point of view of cost. Do we honestly believe that leaving this to the free market makes it more efficient? I've never understood the argument that a free market can make *anything* more efficient. There's no economic incentive to efficiency. Health care is the gold standard for that argument -- our current privatized system has us paying 40% more per person than the #2 most per-capita expensive program in the First World. And, may I note, numbers 2 through 6 all provide universal health insurance. And, if I may note again, Americans do get very advanced treatment for that 40% more, but are in *worse* health than 4 of the next 5 countries. Why? Gotta love the free market! Brand-new, cutting-edge operations and drugs that are still under patent have prices arbitrarily set -- they're cash cows for companies. Preventative medicine is simple, effective, and not nearly as profitable, which is why we don't see any pushes for it from health care companies despite a huge demand for it in the public. Even when they do prevention, it's by way of expensive designer drugs. I'm going to have to look up the exact quote, to recall who said that "if aspirin was ten times less effective, and fifty to a hundred times more expensive, all of America would be on it."
The bottom line, not just with health care but with everything, is that the company structure exists for the primary purpose of making money. That is companies' one raison d'etre. They exist so that shareholders profit. Everything else is secondary. And that's great -- it allows people to profit from innovation. But there are some things that are so fundamentally important to the well-being and function of society that making them inaccessible due to the added overhead from corporate profit is damaging to everyone. The post office is a commonly cited example. The FDA, ironically, is another one -- they have at times been ineffective, often following a strong private-interest lobbying effort which administrations like this one don't give federal agencies any cover for, and the rest of the time they are examples of efficient, effective agencies. The FDA, whatever you may say, is the international gold standard for protecting us from food or approving drugs. The world followed the FDA on bovine spongiform. The FDA just recently blocked approval of a diet drug approved in the EU, and the EU as well as a number of non-EU countries are pulling it to reevaluate its safety. They don't have to do that -- it's not like they're going to benefit from fewer sales of the drug, and God knows, it's a diet drug, it's not like consumers aren't clamoring for it. The only reason they have to pull it is because there could be something wrong with it, and because of the FDA's credibility, they're second-guessing their analysis.
OK, this is really long, and though it is the comments section, it is your LJ. I'll just leave it at that, and say that I disagree, and that I think "big" government can and should provide big solutions to big problems, and can do it better than individuals (which can't do "big", which is why we pay the government to build roads and schools) or corporations (which look always to make a buck). And if it's bureaucracy that makes folks bristle, well, yes, government is bureaucracy -- and so is the corporation. Both are large hierarchical structures with individuals that will at times consider their own benefit over that of those receiving the end product. The only difference? We have no say over who runs companies. We can vote government officials out of office. I know which I prefer.
And while I would gladly turn everything over to the government if it would be better, it hasn't been. Who cares about the cost when we are talking about safe food? I want safe food. I don't care how cost effective the FDA is if they can't deliver safe food and prohibit effective drugs from hitting the market place (while letting all kinds of things in).
I would happily see us as a prosperous socialist state, but we've proved that the American mindset will not allow us to grow even 268 honest people that we can trust with that level of power. The best state for all the people may well be a benevolent and absolute monarchy, but those are also really hard to ensure.
So, as is, we aren't getting a government that is cheap OR effective, and as effective seems farther out of reach, I'll settle for cheap at this point.
You show me a democratic candidate I can trust to bring effective oversight to these programs; one who isn't afraid to upset that status quo if that's what it takes to make things work, and I'll be glad to throw my support behind him. As is, I'm leaning towards the one man I think I can trust. I may not like everything he intends to do, but I think it is better than what I think anyone else will do, and I trust that he'll work on the goals he's telling me he will.
Right now, I'm just happy to see someone with a little integrity in the race, and that's as much my purpose in writing this as to trumpet any of his proposed reforms.
Long short: we're getting effective. Remarkably effective, and that's the FDA.
Problem here is, you're blaming the wrong target. Blaming the FDA for not delivering safe food is like blaming the doctor when you contract tetanus from a rusty nail. Unsafe food is a problem caused by providers, not oversight bodies. Providers -- corporations, based on profit motive, prone to save a buck to better the bottom line because they're shareholder driven, see above -- will inevitably practice less safe methods of food production to save some money. This will lead to, for example, cross-contamination of their product, like it did with the spinach problem. Underfunded federal programs spot-check where they can, but not every harmful shortcut can be caught before it's done -- nevertheless, it's the fault of those taking the shortcut. Once detected, the FDA and CDC determined the cause of an unrelated disease in a different location in, what, just over a day? And then shut down all sales of the product. Without those agencies -- or with them less funded, or what have you -- there would have been numerous more deaths before the problem could've been identified and stopped.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that we have the safest pork products in the world, the safest eggs, and for both that thanks to FDA policy food-safety precautions still mandate their cook temperature and the like. I've heard plenty of arguments in favor of the FDA being *too* strict, but never that they're not strict *enough*. Again, they're the world's gold standard. Whatever you may think, the world seems to concur that no one does it better. And this is coming from me -- I'm definitely no US apologist. You really think that it's better to have no regulation at all than the FDA? After all, no regulatory body means no regulation, and though I suppose "free-market regulation" might work once enough deaths from a product are publicized, I think making guinea pigs out of Americans is a remarkably poor idea. (And perish the thought of a drug causing deaths being a long-term financial deterrent for a pharmaceutical company, as history proves that it's never been a deterrent, ethical, financial or otherwise, before.)
Not that "free-market regulation" would ever happen, as the idea of a "free market" without government oversight is a myth. Minimalist government regulation and oversight gives a force-majeure system; those with power (usually meaning those with money) get to decide how the market runs. We know this because it's American history. Along with the idea of a self-correcting market, numbering in the many mistakes people make when referencing Adam Smith without reading him is the idea that a "free market" means "free from government intervention." It does require freedom from directing forces -- an individual needs to be free to choose the industry he desires out of self-interest, and must also be free to compete in the market he chooses -- but a corporation, or more commonly, a group of corporations acting together out of enlightened self-interest, can be just as much a negative directing force as a government. The government can, however, prohibit these collusions that limit market freedom -- the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts enabled these, and the Federal Trade Commission enforces them -- yet another agency that your candidate would be more than happy to get rid of. (It being within his list of removal -- which he has succinctly defined as, "all of them.")
I'll give him this -- I like Ron Paul. Not in an "I want him to be President" sort of way, by any stretch, but in an "I'd love to have him for dinner" sort of way. He's one of the most remarkably consistent candidates I've seen in a Republican field. (There's always plenty of those consistent types in the Democratic field, but that's only because they seem to draw the starry-eyed idealists that can never actually get anything implemented. I love them too. In fact, one person in the office seriously thought I'd vote for Kucinich in the primary from how I talked about him. No chance -- but no one can say he doesn't have a remarkably consistent message.)
Then again, I have always said that you were just a closet Republican waiting for the right candidate. ;-)
As are you, apparently. I, of course, differ. (Go fig!) I'm hard-pressed to name a program since FDR that was cut and privatized that now costs us less. Or, for that matter, one that is more effective than it was under government control. Really, I can't think of *one*.
Moreover, a number of government agencies and programs *are* effective, and *don't* cost much. I hear lots of criticism about the FDA, but never from the point of view of cost. Do we honestly believe that leaving this to the free market makes it more efficient? I've never understood the argument that a free market can make *anything* more efficient. There's no economic incentive to efficiency. Health care is the gold standard for that argument -- our current privatized system has us paying 40% more per person than the #2 most per-capita expensive program in the First World. And, may I note, numbers 2 through 6 all provide universal health insurance. And, if I may note again, Americans do get very advanced treatment for that 40% more, but are in *worse* health than 4 of the next 5 countries. Why? Gotta love the free market! Brand-new, cutting-edge operations and drugs that are still under patent have prices arbitrarily set -- they're cash cows for companies. Preventative medicine is simple, effective, and not nearly as profitable, which is why we don't see any pushes for it from health care companies despite a huge demand for it in the public. Even when they do prevention, it's by way of expensive designer drugs. I'm going to have to look up the exact quote, to recall who said that "if aspirin was ten times less effective, and fifty to a hundred times more expensive, all of America would be on it."
The bottom line, not just with health care but with everything, is that the company structure exists for the primary purpose of making money. That is companies' one raison d'etre. They exist so that shareholders profit. Everything else is secondary. And that's great -- it allows people to profit from innovation. But there are some things that are so fundamentally important to the well-being and function of society that making them inaccessible due to the added overhead from corporate profit is damaging to everyone. The post office is a commonly cited example. The FDA, ironically, is another one -- they have at times been ineffective, often following a strong private-interest lobbying effort which administrations like this one don't give federal agencies any cover for, and the rest of the time they are examples of efficient, effective agencies. The FDA, whatever you may say, is the international gold standard for protecting us from food or approving drugs. The world followed the FDA on bovine spongiform. The FDA just recently blocked approval of a diet drug approved in the EU, and the EU as well as a number of non-EU countries are pulling it to reevaluate its safety. They don't have to do that -- it's not like they're going to benefit from fewer sales of the drug, and God knows, it's a diet drug, it's not like consumers aren't clamoring for it. The only reason they have to pull it is because there could be something wrong with it, and because of the FDA's credibility, they're second-guessing their analysis.
OK, this is really long, and though it is the comments section, it is your LJ. I'll just leave it at that, and say that I disagree, and that I think "big" government can and should provide big solutions to big problems, and can do it better than individuals (which can't do "big", which is why we pay the government to build roads and schools) or corporations (which look always to make a buck). And if it's bureaucracy that makes folks bristle, well, yes, government is bureaucracy -- and so is the corporation. Both are large hierarchical structures with individuals that will at times consider their own benefit over that of those receiving the end product. The only difference? We have no say over who runs companies. We can vote government officials out of office. I know which I prefer.
Reply
I would happily see us as a prosperous socialist state, but we've proved that the American mindset will not allow us to grow even 268 honest people that we can trust with that level of power. The best state for all the people may well be a benevolent and absolute monarchy, but those are also really hard to ensure.
So, as is, we aren't getting a government that is cheap OR effective, and as effective seems farther out of reach, I'll settle for cheap at this point.
You show me a democratic candidate I can trust to bring effective oversight to these programs; one who isn't afraid to upset that status quo if that's what it takes to make things work, and I'll be glad to throw my support behind him. As is, I'm leaning towards the one man I think I can trust. I may not like everything he intends to do, but I think it is better than what I think anyone else will do, and I trust that he'll work on the goals he's telling me he will.
Right now, I'm just happy to see someone with a little integrity in the race, and that's as much my purpose in writing this as to trumpet any of his proposed reforms.
Reply
Problem here is, you're blaming the wrong target. Blaming the FDA for not delivering safe food is like blaming the doctor when you contract tetanus from a rusty nail. Unsafe food is a problem caused by providers, not oversight bodies. Providers -- corporations, based on profit motive, prone to save a buck to better the bottom line because they're shareholder driven, see above -- will inevitably practice less safe methods of food production to save some money. This will lead to, for example, cross-contamination of their product, like it did with the spinach problem. Underfunded federal programs spot-check where they can, but not every harmful shortcut can be caught before it's done -- nevertheless, it's the fault of those taking the shortcut. Once detected, the FDA and CDC determined the cause of an unrelated disease in a different location in, what, just over a day? And then shut down all sales of the product. Without those agencies -- or with them less funded, or what have you -- there would have been numerous more deaths before the problem could've been identified and stopped.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that we have the safest pork products in the world, the safest eggs, and for both that thanks to FDA policy food-safety precautions still mandate their cook temperature and the like. I've heard plenty of arguments in favor of the FDA being *too* strict, but never that they're not strict *enough*. Again, they're the world's gold standard. Whatever you may think, the world seems to concur that no one does it better. And this is coming from me -- I'm definitely no US apologist. You really think that it's better to have no regulation at all than the FDA? After all, no regulatory body means no regulation, and though I suppose "free-market regulation" might work once enough deaths from a product are publicized, I think making guinea pigs out of Americans is a remarkably poor idea. (And perish the thought of a drug causing deaths being a long-term financial deterrent for a pharmaceutical company, as history proves that it's never been a deterrent, ethical, financial or otherwise, before.)
Not that "free-market regulation" would ever happen, as the idea of a "free market" without government oversight is a myth. Minimalist government regulation and oversight gives a force-majeure system; those with power (usually meaning those with money) get to decide how the market runs. We know this because it's American history. Along with the idea of a self-correcting market, numbering in the many mistakes people make when referencing Adam Smith without reading him is the idea that a "free market" means "free from government intervention." It does require freedom from directing forces -- an individual needs to be free to choose the industry he desires out of self-interest, and must also be free to compete in the market he chooses -- but a corporation, or more commonly, a group of corporations acting together out of enlightened self-interest, can be just as much a negative directing force as a government. The government can, however, prohibit these collusions that limit market freedom -- the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts enabled these, and the Federal Trade Commission enforces them -- yet another agency that your candidate would be more than happy to get rid of. (It being within his list of removal -- which he has succinctly defined as, "all of them.")
I'll give him this -- I like Ron Paul. Not in an "I want him to be President" sort of way, by any stretch, but in an "I'd love to have him for dinner" sort of way. He's one of the most remarkably consistent candidates I've seen in a Republican field. (There's always plenty of those consistent types in the Democratic field, but that's only because they seem to draw the starry-eyed idealists that can never actually get anything implemented. I love them too. In fact, one person in the office seriously thought I'd vote for Kucinich in the primary from how I talked about him. No chance -- but no one can say he doesn't have a remarkably consistent message.)
Then again, I have always said that you were just a closet Republican waiting for the right candidate. ;-)
Reply
Leave a comment