# Antibiotic Use vs Libertarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119 "2011-10-28T20:54:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/101 "2011-11-17T01:23:37Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I think that the overall methods and levels of regulation implemented by FDA certainly are worthy of critical discussion. I don’t think many folks are totally against federal regulation of food and drugs, but there are better and worse ways to maximize both safety and availability (there are trade-offs between the two), and I’m not convinced we’re there yet. > > ETA There are many examples, but the 13 year delay in approving Ecamsule for sunscreen comes to mind. I’d have a lot less to say about a greatly reformed regulatoy system. Nevertheless, I’d still complain of its redundancy with civil and criminal law regardless. We can’t do away with civil or criminal law, but we could do away with regulatory agencies and still function about the same. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/102 "2011-11-17T01:30:12Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > How would a Libertarian handle Typhoid Mary today? Charge her with assault with a deadly weapon and manslaughter, at least for incidents that occurred after she learned that she was an asymptomatic carrier. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/103 "2011-11-17T01:50:14Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Is that what you were going for? Somewhat. Theres no argument that they can be overzealous, but going the opposite way and scrapping it all is just a foolish notion. Those bodies are specialized at dealing with highly technical matters that the normal criminal/civil justice systems are completely incapable of dealing with. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/104 "2011-11-17T01:58:14Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > Somewhat. Theres no argument that they can be overzealous, but going the opposite way and scrapping it all is just a foolish notion. Those bodies are specialized at dealing with highly technical matters that the normal criminal/civil justice systems are completely incapable of dealing with. Actually most regulators ARE NOT highly trained in the area they regulate. they tell us that is an important reason for regulation over other forms of discouraging bad behavior, but the percentage of experts working in regulatory agencies is actually very small. Bureaucratic skill is what is prevelant. Phillip K. Howard explained this thoroughly in his book **The Death of Common Sense.** [http://www.philipkhoward.com/books/the\_death\_of\_common\_sense](http://www.philipkhoward.com/books/the_death_of_common_sense) ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/105 "2011-11-17T03:27:18Z")
Would you like to lift nuclear waste/material regulations? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/106 "2011-11-17T04:26:25Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Would you like to lift nuclear waste/material regulations? Silly Homers. Of course you have to have _them_ fill out forms. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/107 "2011-11-17T04:48:36Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Silly Homers. Of course you have to have _them_ fill out forms. This isn’t Springfield. Care not to really answer the question? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/108 "2011-11-17T05:48:40Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > This isn’t Springfield. Care not to really answer the question? If you can figure out that it’s not Springfield, then you can figure out my answer. Or would you like a donut while you fill out your forms? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/109 "2011-11-17T14:47:10Z")
> [@David42](#): > > If you can figure out that it’s not Springfield, then you can figure out my answer. > > Or would you like a donut while you fill out your forms? This leads me to believe that you are no longer interested in discussing the topic or defending your position. If you can frame a reasonable reply, then do so. If you cannot frame a reasonable reply, then admit it or simply don’t post. Your “proactive” argument seems to be a bit of a straw man, but other posters are willing to engage you on it, however, calling others “Homers” and asking them if they want doughnuts is not appropriatye behavior. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/110 "2011-11-17T15:24:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This leads me to believe that you are no longer interested in discussing the topic or defending your position. If you can frame a reasonable reply, then do so. If you cannot frame a reasonable reply, then admit it or simply don’t post. > > Your “proactive” argument seems to be a bit of a straw man, but other posters are willing to engage you on it, however, calling others “Homers” and asking them if they want doughnuts is not appropriatye behavior. > > Knock it off. > > [/Moderating] I didn’t care to repeat myself once again that I am not in favor of regulation as it currently operates. This should be apparent from previous posts. Point taken, though, thanks for the direction. I didn’'t figure I was violating the rules as I have seen a lot of similar comments here, but I realize mods don’t catch everything. I’d like for you to explain the difference between proactive and reactive as they work in reality. At least you mentioned it. Everyone else keeps ignoring that challenge and continues to make the statement “regulation is good because it’s proactive.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/111 "2011-11-17T15:36:58Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I’d like for you to explain the difference between proactive and reactive as they work in reality. At least you mentioned it. Everyone else keeps ignoring that challenge and continues to make the statement “regulation is good because it’s proactive.” I am not that excited about this debate and, if I had chosen to participate, I’d have taken a different view on both sides. The only reason that I mentioned the whole “proactive” thing is that you continue to go back to it and your opponents seem to accept your claim, but I am not aware of any evidence that the argument for regulation is explicitly that it is “proactive.” You introduced to the thread the idea that being “proactive” was a serious argument for regulation, but I have seen no one else even bring up the topic and the inly two replies to your claims have pretty much bypassed the matter. The original exchange was in regard to whether or not libertarianism was solely reactive, not that being proactive was an actual goal of regulation. If your claim that being “proactive” is such a substantial part of the discussion, I would like to have seen some evidence that anyone besides you is even aware of that. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/112 "2011-11-17T18:08:43Z")
Regulation takes on one or more ways to thwart against and course correct over clear and present dangers. To give merely one example of proactive vs. reactive when it comes to regulations: Security is one of them in the case of nuclear materials. That’s proactive. It’s also common sense. These materials simply cannot be available to the average Joe. If we took on a strictly reactionary system, there would be no security; only to litigate once the damage has been done, assuming everyone involved isn’t dying of radiation poisoning. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/113 "2011-11-17T18:51:16Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Regulation takes on one or more ways to thwart against and course correct over clear and present dangers. > > To give merely one example of proactive vs. reactive when it comes to regulations: > > Security is one of them in the case of nuclear materials. That’s proactive. It’s also common sense. These materials simply cannot be available to the average Joe. > > If we took on a strictly reactionary system, there would be no security; only to litigate once the damage has been done, assuming everyone involved isn’t dying of radiation poisoning. And the means of that security? Did we write a law that says average joe can’t have these materials and those who can have them can’t give them to average joe? And let us suppose someone does in fact give them to average joe. He gets prosecuted right? So once again it is fear of consequence y that prevents action x, exactly the same as the criminal civil law. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/114 "2011-11-17T19:23:58Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Personal anecdote: my wife currently works for a medical device company regulated by the FDA. Her company’s products have caused a lot of deaths. And as a result the FDA has significantly tightened regulations on her company. > > Like I said before, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of regulations. Poor old grandpa died because his thing-y-ma-jig crapped out, and now we need to make sure no one else’s grandpa has the same fate. We need to lower the body count. > > Well, turns out the company, in response, has drastically scaled back product development. Cancelled several projects, and slowed down the release of several others. One of the biggest issues they’ve been hit with is off-label use, essentially using a device for something it wasn’t intended for. Turns out, a lot of their products work really well in areas they didn’t intend, but if someone dies in the process they’re held accountable. > > In the long run, this means the company will produce fewer life saving devices, meaning people will die. The goal to reduce body count will result in a higher body count. > > The real kicker is that the company has laid off thousands, which means more unemployment, and fewer people without health insurance. Is that what you were going for? [http://www.vaccinetruth.org/thalidomide.htm](http://www.vaccinetruth.org/thalidomide.htm) I suppose Thalidomide was before your time. But saying people are after killing jobs is ridiculous. We just want the FDA to do their job and protect the people. People do not have the training to decide what drugs are good or bad. We have to rely on the government to do it, but as usual the regulators get bought off. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/115 "2011-11-17T19:51:37Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.vaccinetruth.org/thalidomide.htm](http://www.vaccinetruth.org/thalidomide.htm) I suppose Thalidomide was before your time. But saying people are after killing jobs is ridiculous. We just want the FDA to do their job and protect the people. People do not have the training to decide what drugs are good or bad. We have to rely on the government to do it, but as usual the regulators get bought off. Given the FDA’s track record, I am not very confident. How can you trust a man who works one year for the FDA, one year for big pharma, then once again for the FDA, and then again for big pharma. The people who approve medicines should not be allowed to do this. I’m not even sure what the point is, since many “approved” drugs wind up killing a lot of people who used them as prescribed/approved by the FDA. Life sentences for CEO’s who kill even one person with bogus drugs seems more effective to me. But with the regulatory scheme, everyone involved gets to say, “hey, I didn’t do wrong, see, I filled out all the right forms.” Blame gets shuffled around and the most that happens is a company gets fined millions even though they profited billions. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/116 "2011-11-18T00:50:25Z")
> [@David42](#): > > And the means of that security? Did we write a law that says average joe can’t have these materials and those who can have them can’t give them to average joe? > > And let us suppose someone does in fact give them to average joe. He gets prosecuted right? > > So once again it is fear of consequence y that prevents action x, exactly the same as the criminal civil law. Of course we wrote a law, but what kind of delusion does it take to just rest on that alone? The organization works in tandem with experts, the CIA and the FBI, to put a stop to things like [this:](http://www.nrc.gov/security/domestic/phys-protect/threat.html) > [@U.S.NRC](#): > > **Intelligence Liaison and Threat Assessment Branch** > > **Mission** > NRC staff conduct official liaison with the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Communities on intelligence and threat matters. Staff provide prompt assessment of security threats to licensed nuclear facilities, materials, and activities. Staff lead the Information Assessment Team, and through this produce Threat Advisories. Staff also conduct liaison activities with the Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and other Federal agencies in support of its intelligence and threat mission. Staff also provides other agencies a variety of technical information and support commercial nuclear power plants, research reactors, and industrial and medical isotopes. > NRC staff assess numerous intelligence issues. One of their chief responsibilities includes monitoring terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures in the process of conducting the DBT Annual Threat Environment Review. Other issues addressed by staff include terrorism (foreign and domestic) involving nuclear facilities and materials; insider malevolence against nuclear facilities; and nuclear smuggling and illicit sales and scams. Staff also participate in nuclear safeguards policy formulation and review for the NRC, as well as maintain an awareness of proliferation, cyber, and counterintelligence issues. Relevant to the aforementioned activities as NRC’s liaison with the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Communities, staff work closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy (DOE), the national laboratories, and other Federal agencies. > > **Illicit Sale and Smuggling of Nuclear Materials** > In recent years there have been numerous incidents in which individuals have offered to sell nuclear and radioactive material or have claimed to have access to such material. Some of the offers to sell material have occurred in the United States or involved business interests in this country. In such instances, the Intelligence Liaison and Threat Assessment Branch has worked with the FBI and DOE to determine the credibility of the offer and whether or not a blackmarket in these materials is developing. So yeh, we have to enforce the law with guns and shit. Too bad Oppenheimer wasn’t one of the founding fathers. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/117 "2011-11-18T06:24:14Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Of course we wrote a law, but what kind of delusion does it take to just rest on that alone? The organization works in tandem with experts, the CIA and the FBI, to put a stop to things like [this:](http://www.nrc.gov/security/domestic/phys-protect/threat.html) > > So yeh, we have to enforce the law with guns and shit. Too bad Oppenheimer wasn’t one of the founding fathers. Your citation goes to a webpage, the only purpose of which is for public relations of an unneeded agency in the United States. On their page, and you also quoted, we find: “In such instances, the Intelligence Liaison and Threat Assessment Branch has worked with the FBI and DOE to determine the credibility of the offer and whether or not a blackmarket in these materials is developing.” There will be less deadwood in the federal budget if we eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and make the FBI responsible for getting out the guns after the Department of Energy determines there’s a problem. After all the NRC relies on the FBI and the DoE to help make a case anyway. Any of the truly gifted employess of the NRC can go to work for one or the other, and we save money for the same results. The webpage you cited is exactly what we should be eliminating: wasting money convincing people that a regulatory agency has a purpose. I don’t expect any serious argument that the FBI and the Energy Department are too incompetent to give us the same results. If so, what makes the NRC more competent? At least you admit the principle is the same: do act x, expect consequence y. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/118 "2011-11-18T06:43:51Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Life sentences for CEO’s who kill even one person with bogus drugs seems more effective to me. Under what law can a CEO be prosecuted for a death caused by his company? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/119 "2011-11-18T08:33:57Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Your citation goes to a webpage, the only purpose of which is for public relations of an unneeded agency in the United States. On their page, and you also quoted, we find: > > “In such instances, the Intelligence Liaison and Threat Assessment Branch has worked with the FBI and DOE to determine the credibility of the offer and whether or not a blackmarket in these materials is developing.” > > There will be less deadwood in the federal budget if we eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and make the FBI responsible for getting out the guns after the Department of Energy determines there’s a problem. After all the NRC relies on the FBI and the DoE to help make a case anyway. Any of the truly gifted employess of the NRC can go to work for one or the other, and we save money for the same results. > > The webpage you cited is exactly what we should be eliminating: wasting money convincing people that a regulatory agency has a purpose. > > I don’t expect any serious argument that the FBI and the Energy Department are too incompetent to give us the same results. If so, what makes the NRC more competent? False. Something of this importance needs a centralized organization to then use the other federal agencies for cooperation depending on the circumstance. It’s a broad and highly specialized area, in which security and enforcement is the side effect of a powerful technology we, as a civilization utilize. It’s not just for building bombs. There are other uses in research, medicine, power plants, etc, that has no place in other specialized federal organizations. Their responsibilities are so huge, it must be centralized for effective control. When an issue arises, they work with the agency they need when there’s cause to, or vice versa. Just look at the amount of things they have to keep vigilant on. > [@David42](#): > > At least you admit the principle is the same: do act x, expect consequence y. Exactly: deregulate nuclear materials, expect devastating loss of life and land. See, I’m of this crazy inclination that terrorists don’t give a shit if they’re breaking a law, in fact, that’s kinda their MO. Oh, and killing lots of people in the easiest way possible. I don’t think converse logic will work for you on this one. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119/120 "2011-11-18T16:01:18Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > Under what law can a CEO be prosecuted for a death caused by his company? I am not saying we have all the laws in place we would need. In the current scheme of things, we let individuals in corporations pass the buck with the excuse “I filled out all the right forms.” Get rid of that, and if we lack appropriate laws to prosecute under the criminal law, then write them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antibiotic-use-vs-libertarianism/601119.md?page=7)