Ron Paul on "Free Speech" and FDA Regulation
Recently The Smoking Gun revealed the identities of the formerly anonymous social engineers behind PrankNet. Members called strangers via Skype and convinced them to smash their windows by claiming that there was a gas leak, or urinate on each other by claiming that it was the only antidote to chemical burns from fire suppresant chemicals. They managed to convince a hotel worker to drink a customer's urine by posing as medical personnel telling the customer that the hotel needed a urine sample to test for a hepatitis C outbreak and posing as Martinelli's salesmen telling the hotel that they needed to see whether the apple juice they'd delivered was still fresh.
PrankNet's founder Tariq Malik defended his actions by saying that prank targets were responsible for their own actions, that they deserved to suffer the consequences of their stupidity, and that he was providing a public service "in a sense" by proving how easily people could be led. I disagree. I think that when you use lies to convince strangers to harm themselves and damage property - even if they do so willingly - you're committing a crime. You have the right to free speech, but free speech can be used as a weapon in the commission of a crime.
I would love to know why Ron Paul, a 1961 graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, does not recognize that the same is true of quack medicine. You have the right to free speech. But if you use your free speech to make false claims, convincing someone to harm themselves by replacing a treatment that's been proven safe and effective with a treatment that's either less effective, ineffective, or harmful - even if they do so willingly - you're committing a crime. I don't see much of a difference between using misleading claims to convince someone to drink another person's urine which is (best case) at least sterile and relatively harmless and using misleading claims to convince someone to try fake cancer cures which are (best case) sterile and relatively harmless.
Except it's even more clear-cut than the PrankNet case. Ron Paul says that the right to sell fake medicine is a free speech issue, but free commercial speech which is only protected when it's neither false nor misleading. Claims of medical efficacy are an even more restricted form of commercial speech since sellers are required to demonstrate the truth, efficacy, and safety of their claims.
And even if that *wasn't* true I don't understand why this isn't a complete violation of Libertarian ethics. A commercial transaction is a contract, and one of the central purposes of a libertarian government is to enforce contracts. If I tell you I'm going to sell you a car that runs fine, I take your money, and I give you a picture of a car or a car that doesn't run it's the government's job to step in and enforce laws against fraud. And if I tell you that I can cure your cancer with cherries, I take your money, and I give you a bunch of cherries that don't cure your cancer then that's also fraud. That's exactly the time when I'd think any libertarian worth his underground cache of iodine-free salt would call for the government's jackbooted thugs to start kicking in doors and hauling away crooks.
PrankNet's founder Tariq Malik defended his actions by saying that prank targets were responsible for their own actions, that they deserved to suffer the consequences of their stupidity, and that he was providing a public service "in a sense" by proving how easily people could be led. I disagree. I think that when you use lies to convince strangers to harm themselves and damage property - even if they do so willingly - you're committing a crime. You have the right to free speech, but free speech can be used as a weapon in the commission of a crime.
I would love to know why Ron Paul, a 1961 graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, does not recognize that the same is true of quack medicine. You have the right to free speech. But if you use your free speech to make false claims, convincing someone to harm themselves by replacing a treatment that's been proven safe and effective with a treatment that's either less effective, ineffective, or harmful - even if they do so willingly - you're committing a crime. I don't see much of a difference between using misleading claims to convince someone to drink another person's urine which is (best case) at least sterile and relatively harmless and using misleading claims to convince someone to try fake cancer cures which are (best case) sterile and relatively harmless.
Except it's even more clear-cut than the PrankNet case. Ron Paul says that the right to sell fake medicine is a free speech issue, but free commercial speech which is only protected when it's neither false nor misleading. Claims of medical efficacy are an even more restricted form of commercial speech since sellers are required to demonstrate the truth, efficacy, and safety of their claims.
And even if that *wasn't* true I don't understand why this isn't a complete violation of Libertarian ethics. A commercial transaction is a contract, and one of the central purposes of a libertarian government is to enforce contracts. If I tell you I'm going to sell you a car that runs fine, I take your money, and I give you a picture of a car or a car that doesn't run it's the government's job to step in and enforce laws against fraud. And if I tell you that I can cure your cancer with cherries, I take your money, and I give you a bunch of cherries that don't cure your cancer then that's also fraud. That's exactly the time when I'd think any libertarian worth his underground cache of iodine-free salt would call for the government's jackbooted thugs to start kicking in doors and hauling away crooks.