No, it is absolutely not. The argument presented by Fear Itself, cmyk and Czarcasm was that **deregulation **was bad because it would not do a perfect job of keeping us all safe. You seem okay with that line of reasoning.
Uh, okay, so how did we go about “dealing with it?” Have there been any regulatory changes?
So what you’re saying is, and correct me if I’m wrong, that our current system is incapable of actually “dealing with it.” There are regulations that would prevent/control/eliminate superbugs, but we’re not going to implement them. So how is that better/worse than libertarianism?
Do you have any evidence of this? Do you realize that RIGHT NOW there is evidence that the presence of regulations also lead to antibiotic resistance. So obviously what we have RIGHT NOW is as bad as the hypothetical post apocalyptic libertaria.
Well, that middle road allowed for the misuse of antibiotics, leading to the creation of superbugs. So not only isn’t it the best path, it’s one of the worst paths.
If a system that creates superbugs is bad, then any system that creates them is bad. To criticize libertarianism because it MIGHT lead to superbugs requires willful ignorance of the systems that already created superbugs, none of which were libertarian.
I’m fine if you want to use the hypothetical creation of superbugs as an argument against libertarianism, but it means that ANY system that creates superbugs is equally bad.
Did it? Are you saying that antibiotics were NOT overperscribed in the US and Canada? Do you have evidence that requiring a prescription actually did what you suggest it did?
And you are wrong, an incomplete course of antibiotics is a huge problem, one that requiring a prescription does nothing to address. Hence removing that regulation would neither help nor hinder the issue.
The problem of people failing to take the full course of antibiotics is a societal problem we have yet to address. Hence the fear of deregulation is unfounded since we still face the threat.
Wrong. The *potential *for superbugs became your favourite argument against libertarianism. It was so compelling that it is now the ONLY argument Czarcasm needs. obviously it is a VERY important argument in the fight against libertarianism.
Do you have any proof of that statement? Right now we have proof that WITH regulations we get superbugs, lots of them. So what is the point in being terrified of a hypothetical, when you can’t address the CURRENT situation.
This isn’t an indictment against regulations. It’s simply pointing out yet another failed attempt to paint libertarianism as anything different than we have now.
False. I realize my arguments are so devastating to your libertarian fantasy that you would rather argue against something I never said rather than my actual position. But it makes your argument look flimsy and desperate.
So then you agree all current systems, including the status quo, will cause superbugs, not just libertarianism?
Or are you saying that a system that produces lots of strong superbugs is okay, but one that produces slight more that are slightly stronger is bad?
So then your argument against a hypothetical libertarianism system is that it might be slightly worse than what we have now?
Do you have any evidence or any proof that the hypothetical superbugs in libertopia will in fact be worse than the ones we have now in the non-libertopia?
“Because indescriminate use of antibiotics is a threat to everyone. It breeds super bacteria that cannot be treated with antibiotics, then everyone is at risk. Your freedom to use any drug you wish is dangerous. This may well be Libertopia’s Darwinian flaw.”
Do you see the word ‘potential’ in there anywhere? I don’t. Quit twisting everyone’s words to fit your desperate strawman. He is ill-dressed to begin with.
I never said your argument was that regulation was perfect. Your argument, as far as I can tell, was that deregulation would make us less safe because it would lead to superbugs. All I’m doing is pointing out that once again that line of reasoning is pointless because the regulated system ALREADY made us less safe but creating superbugs.
It’s also obvious from Euphonious Polemic’s post that we never really bothered (or were capable) of regulating antibiotic use, hence there is nothing to deregulate in the first place. The two regulations we have in place [licensing doctors, requiring prescriptions] do nothing to stop the misuse, especially considering antibiotics in the veterinary world. That would suggest evidence that the superbugs created in the hypothetical libertopia would be the same as the ones now.
If you feel the need to hide behind a strawman, it’s possible your argument wasn’t as solid as you thought it was. Here is your quote again in case you forgot:
“Because indescriminate use of antibiotics is a threat to everyone. It breeds super bacteria that cannot be treated with antibiotics, then everyone is at risk. Your freedom to use any drug you wish is dangerous. This may well be Libertopia’s Darwinian flaw.”
Obviously it is not Libertopia’s Darwinian flaw when it already presented itself as a flaw in our **current **system.
If you want to know what I said, read the words that I wrote.
If you want to know what I meant, don’t attempt to read my mind-ask me.
I’m not playing the “In Other Words” game with you.
This is the bizarre reasoning behind anti-regulatory philosophy in general. Dangerous and/or ineffective drugs and supplements sometimes make it onto the market now, so the answer is to do away with regulation. Financial institutions find ways around government regulation to abuse the system, so let’s eliminate regulations altogether.
This is like saying that since there is crime and corruption under our current system of law enforcement, we don’t need cops.
Regulation isn’t the answer to everything, but the market sure isn’t either, as we’ve painfully learned throughout history (those of us who haven’t had their heads buried in various Libertopian Bibles, anyway).
The US gov’t has already banned the use of antibiotics in some cases, and there are bills in the system that will extend these bans. Is anyone really going to argue that this is a bad thing?
That appears to be the theme of this thread. The first thing that comes to mind is the banning of fluoroquinolone use in poultry link. Now this took half a dozen years or so due to resistance by the folks who stood to make money off continued use, but it did go through a few years back.
The whole misuse by people thing isn’t all that relevant from a policy standpoint. I mean, it’s bad, but agricultural misuse is more prevalent and easier to fix.
In all this debate for Libertarianism, I don’t see how it’s any better than what we have now. Despite the argument here over antibiotics/superbugs, the Libertarian side is not demonstrating how, in fact, such a real problem might be dealt with under such a government/society (on top of the umpteen other issues that involve regulation and security).
So far, all that’s been shown is to point out some flaws in the current system and say, “See, there! That’s an arbitrary point to set a regulation, why not just push it all the way to policing it, or remove it entirely?!”
Can anyone point me to a country whose government operates the closest to these libertarian ideals?