Ron Paul on "Free Speech" and FDA Regulation

[tongodeon]

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

Comments

[mcfnord]

it's political. too much of his base. i do prefer your Ronpaulistan utopia, where claims are subject to liability. presumably the parties involved can seek redress in court without government intervention i guess.

redress in court without government intervention....

[drieuxster]

How does that work again????

Or are we just suppose to clap our hands on that one, and tinker belle will just give it all up...

[zond7]

I don't want to get bogged down in the whole "ah, but what *kind* of libertarian" and/or "ahh, but Ron Paul isn't a *real* libertarian, he's a republican!" canard, except to say that there's plenty of libertarians, big L or little l, who find Dr Paul just a creepy old man

[zond7]

To maintain power, and to ensure that challenges to that power don't exist within a certain geographical territory by enforcing a monopoly of violence.

(You asked)

[schwa242]

I've heard the argument from a couple libertarians that it is there for the military, to keep borders in place so that everyone can have their free markets and rights to property without other countries' interference.

[grouchyoldcoot]

I take your point, but there is an issue of belief on the part of the practitioner. Malik et al. certainly didn't believe that they were helping their victims, but the peach-pits-for-cancer guys may very well believe it. There is an awful lot of stuff out there in the medical world that works but has not been approved by the FDA- I'd cite drugs approved in European countries but not here as possible examples. There is an awfully long lag between finding a drug candidate and finishing a phase 3 clinical trial. The folks who are dying in the mean time can reasonably argue that they don't want to be protected from the drug. How do you propose to draw the line between fraud and desperate but reasoned medical choices?

[mcfnord]

I think they should have almost every right to sign a waiver and try the therapy. But this process should also be subject to FDA particiption. In the end I find something like the FDA to be inevitable and valuable, because claims about efficacy can be proven or disproven, and should be. If a person wished to travel to Europe for treatment, they are free to do so.

Personally I use a lot of herbs and know many of them are powerful, but few of them make claims about specific outcomes. Those that do deserve scrutiny in a methodical way before making the claims. I'm pretty much a stateist for many regulatory functions, because there are times when it is not helpful, appropriate or reasonable to let a lie stand.

[tongodeon]

the peach-pits-for-cancer guys may very well believe it

I think the law already deals with this problem in a "murder vs manslaughter" sort of way. Being an idiot is bad, but not as bad as intentionally giving your patients placebos or poison.

Willful ignorance is a big gray area. Lots of alt-med practitioners refuse to accept what the evidence shows for a variety of frustrating reasons. I'd expect a large number of people sued by the FDA to argue that they had no idea when in reality they were told over and over but just refused to accept the inconvenient truth.

There is an awfully long lag between finding a drug candidate and finishing a phase 3 clinical trial.Here's how I understand the math works out

[occlupanid]

you know that by using this example repeatedly, somebody in 5 years is going to find some random cyanogenic compound in cherry pits that inhibits carcinomas or something equally miraculous! But only when eaten by french-speaking peoples.

would this be a bad time...

[drieuxster]

To remind you that contract law is SOCIALISM when you want to use a government imposed court system.

So you may want to work out how much socialism 'libertarians' were suppose to have believed in, in the first place...

Remember, if you turn to the law enforcement folks, and they are mere SOCIALISTS in some welfare state, then, well, gosh, once again we are looking at the horrors of the Jack Booted Government Excess Regulation of the FeeDome.

So maybe you should start working out what sort of PinkoRedFellowTravellor you is there PinkoRedBoy!

[mcfnord]

You sound passionate about this issue.

in some respects yes...

[drieuxster]

What I am passionate about is my anti-fascism. So I like to make sure that when we are putting forth ideological posturings, that we understand the depth of those posturings.

Hence, why is it that we should allow the state to nationalize warfare, the contract law services, etc. And if we have adopted those strains of socialism, why do we draw which lines where.

In a country where suddenly wearing weapons in public is considered a civic virtue, we may want to start seriously organizing what sort of post civil war state we want to have - that and figuring out who will do the counter sniper fire as we send out the water teams...

Passionate? Maybe. Allergic to small arms fire and shrapnel in the public discourse, yes.

Why I stopped eating at McDonald's

[schwa242]

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 wonder if Tariq Malik would side with David Stewart in this case.