Antibiotic Use vs Libertarianism

[CannyDan]

@David42

Letting only those aggreived pursue remedies is still a restriction.

In what way is a person or business more motivated to do right?

a) “Gosh, if we do this, we’ll have to pay a million dollar fine to X agency for violating a regulation.”

b) “Gosh, if we do this, we’ll have to pay a million dollar judgment to someone we may have hurt for commiting a civil tort.”

Now why is one more effective than the other in preventing a bad result?<snip>

Despite your attempt to frame these as equivalencies, they are not.

Your first assumption is that both scenarios will be reviewed by the entity (“person or business”) only in economic terms, and that those making the decisions have neither personal nor professional moral scruples about taking/avoiding some action that will cause harm to someone/something else. So even the possibility of outrage on the part of society in general or consumers in particular will be analyzed entirely from a profit and loss perspective. I am willing to accept that this is possible, but frankly I see it more as a feature of Libertaria than our present system. Libertarianism not only allows but by this philosophy actually encourages entities (me on my personal property or a multinational corporation with world-wide impact) to do whatever they want to generate an immediate profit, and dare anyone who might be harmed to “sue me!” I suspect this very feature is what so many of us non-Libertarians object to so strongly.

But even if everybody really is motivated strictly by selfish interests, the practicality of the two scenarios is quite different.

I (a company I once ran) have been subject to lawsuit, and to government regulation including an IRS audit. Given my druthers, I’ll take the lawsuit any day. I can stall, I can delay, I can enlist “experts”, I can commission studies, I can subpoena the opposition, and pull every possible legal trick to avoid or at least postpone that “million dollar judgment”. If my budget is large enough, and given the stakes in your hypothetical I think it would be, I can outspend and outlast pretty much any plaintiff, especially one who is suffering harm. And even if I lose, the actual amount of the award can be further litigated. The plaintiff is quite likely to be long dead and buried before finality is reached in the lawsuit. And meantime I’m still making money, if not off of that plaintiff then off all the others being harmed who haven’t become plaintiffs yet. After all, even a million dollar judgment in favor of poor Charlie doesn’t prevent me from continuing the same course of action, making the same profit, while harming Dave, Ed, Faith, Greg, Henry, Isabel, Jon…..

As for the regulating agency, not so much. I can use all the same techniques, and incur all the same costs of so doing. But while I am fighting this protracted fight the regulator will be tying my operations up with endless strands of red tape, affecting not just the specific product or department accused of transgression but every other department and every other profit center in my business. The bureaucrats will want my records, my hard drives, my microfiche, my employees for interviews, and then they’ll lose the results and want the same all over again. They may even seek (an action I’ll have to defend against separately at additional expense) to block me from continuing the subject profitable activity while the matter is pending, and if successful, I may continue the fight but without an offsetting income stream. Once started, such a “regulatory action” doesn’t get tired, doesn’t get bored, doesn’t think in terms of profit or loss, and can drag on, continually interfering with my business, to the point that I will be more than happy to cease and desist, and pay the damn fine, just to get the investigators out of my offices so I can do some other work.

As a business person (once upon a time) I would go to pretty much any length, take or not take pretty much any action even at the cost of short term profits, even (shudder, cringe) deal with the regulator’s requirement for forms and reports, to avoid entanglement with their enforcement branch. This is why regulation (reasonable, well thought out regulation) is superior in positive societal effect to Libertarian “so let ‘em sue me!” philosophy.

ETA - Fear Itself said much the same thing, but more succinctly.

[David42]

@CannyDan

Despite your attempt to frame these as equivalencies, they are not.

Your first assumption is that both scenarios will be reviewed by the entity (“person or business”) only in economic terms, and that those making the decisions have neither personal nor professional moral scruples about taking/avoiding some action that will cause harm to someone/something else.

if we’re going to rely on moral scruples there is no point in either.

@CannyDan

I (a company I once ran) have been subject to lawsuit, and to government regulation including an IRS audit. Given my druthers, I’ll take the lawsuit any day. I can stall, I can delay, I can enlist “experts”, I can commission studies, I can subpoena the opposition, and pull every possible legal trick to avoid or at least postpone that “million dollar judgment”. If my budget is large enough, and given the stakes in your hypothetical I think it would be, I can outspend and outlast pretty much any plaintiff, especially one who is suffering harm. And even if I lose, the actual amount of the award can be further litigated. The plaintiff is quite likely to be long dead and buried before finality is reached in the lawsuit. And meantime I’m still making money, if not off of that plaintiff then off all the others being harmed who haven’t become plaintiffs yet. After all, even a million dollar judgment in favor of poor Charlie doesn’t prevent me from continuing the same course of action, making the same profit, while harming Dave, Ed, Faith, Greg, Henry, Isabel, Jon…..

@CannyDan

As for the regulating agency, not so much…The bureaucrats will want my records, my hard drives, my microfiche, my employees for interviews, and then they’ll lose the results and want the same all over again.

If your business records, hard drives etc. are relevant, they will be asked for in a lawsuit as well.

@CannyDan

They may even seek (an action I’ll have to defend against separately at additional expense) to block me from continuing the subject profitable activity while the matter is pending, and if successful, I may continue the fight but without an offsetting income stream.

And I could also file another suit against you seeking injunction and do the same thing.

@CannyDan

As a business person (once upon a time) I would go to pretty much any length, take or not take pretty much any action even at the cost of short term profits, even (shudder, cringe) deal with the regulator’s requirement for forms and reports, to avoid entanglement with their enforcement branch. This is why regulation (reasonable, well thought out regulation) is superior in positive societal effect to Libertarian “so let ‘em sue me!” philosophy.

ETA - Fear Itself said much the same thing, but more succinctly.

We do not envision the same “so sue me,” it is obvious. Under your reasoning, because we have currently given regulatory agencies massive budgets, and failed to make reforms in the court system, regulation is superior.

How we currently approach regulation and lawsuits have no bearing on a question of which is better. As I have pointed out earlier, we could just as easily spend improving access to courts.

And we’re still neglecting enforcement of the criminal law, where you don’t have the argument that massive resources cannot be brought to bear against a company.

[Ruken]

@David42

You’re missing my point, very clearly. To address it you should be showing how regulation helps any better than other punishments for disobedience, in what way does it solve problems before they start, that the criminal and civil penalties do not?

But instead of addressing the issue, you want to insult my level of education and understanding of biology. Shall I insult your understanding of law in response? Because you seem unable to address whether proactivity is superior and why, if you can show proactivity to be anything different than reactivity to begin with. It’s like claiming that there will be fewer murders if you give a beaurocrat a job of having us all fill out a form that we will not murder anyone, and somehow imagining that stops people from murdering.

Go ahead and insult my understanding of the law. I know bugger all about it; that’s why I’m asking questions.

Regulation has halted most uses of fluoroquinolones in poultry farming. They were widely used up until the point when it became illegal. Now they aren’t used, and a major source of selective pressure for AB resistance has been eliminated. There has been ample opportunity for lawsuits to put a halt to this harmful practice. I am unaware of any lawsuits. I am also unaware of any mechanism for collecting damages against US poultry farmers for infection by fq-resistant bacteria, especially since there are other minor sources of fq resistance. It doesn’t look like that’s been an effective way to eliminate a source of resistance.

There are new quinolone ABs in the drug pipeline (like RX-3341). Due to existing regulations, these cannot be used as older quinolones were in poultry farms, thus eliminating a problem before it even exists.

I’m still a bit confused about all this talk about paperwork. How much does it cost to ban an antibiotic? None of the poultry farmers I know have to fill out any forms. The drugs simply aren’t approved anymore.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Ruken

There has been ample opportunity for lawsuits to put a halt to this harmful practice. I am unaware of any lawsuits. I am also unaware of any mechanism for collecting damages against US poultry farmers for infection by fq-resistant bacteria, especially since there are other minor sources of fq resistance. It doesn’t look like that’s been an effective way to eliminate a source of resistance.

Good points.

We already have a system in place whereby someone can sue if they are harmed. It’s not like a move to a Libertarian system would invent this. We have regulations that act pro-actively to greatly reduce or eliminate harmful activities. We also have a legal/tort system that people can use retroactively if they feel they have been harmed. I don’t see how removing the first one of these is going to improve things.

Your example points to some major flaws in the “so sue me” method of stopping bad practices, namely who gets to sue, and how does that person prove that the specific practice of company “A” caused their specific damages? This is particularly troublesome in cases where there is environmental damage or public health damage where it is very difficult to pinpoint a specific, identifiable cause of damage. (eg "it’s not my sulfur dioxide that’s polluting that lake hundreds of miles away - it’s someone else’s! You can’t prove that it ALL comes from MY factory)

[David42]

@Ruken

There are new quinolone ABs in the drug pipeline (like RX-3341). Due to existing regulations, these cannot be used as older quinolones were in poultry farms, thus eliminating a problem before it even exists.

@Euphonious_Polemic

Good points.
We have regulations that act pro-actively to greatly reduce or eliminate harmful activities.

We keep seeing this talk of “proactivity” but no explanation of what it is. The chicken farmers do not use the drugs, primarily, because they do not want the penalties for using it.

It’s the same as if there was a criminal law against it–they don’t do it because they don’t want the penalties.

[David42]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Your example points to some major flaws in the “so sue me” method of stopping bad practices, namely who gets to sue, and how does that person prove that the specific practice of company “A” caused their specific damages? This is particularly troublesome in cases where there is environmental damage or public health damage where it is very difficult to pinpoint a specific, identifiable cause of damage. (eg "it’s not my sulfur dioxide that’s polluting that lake hundreds of miles away - it’s someone else’s! You can’t prove that it ALL comes from MY factory)

I have never said to rely on the civil courts alone.

In cases of a factory polluting the environment, criminal remedies are appropriate.

[Ruken]

@David42

It’s the same as if there was a criminal law against it–they don’t do it because they don’t want the penalties.

Is this bad? It seems like a good thing to me.

[David42]

@Ruken

Is this bad? It seems like a good thing to me.

There is nothing wrong with punishments for transgressions.

My whole point about this is that “proactive” is an illusion. Feel-Good rhetoric.

Whether a regulatory, civil, or criminal, it all works the same way: Do activity x and pay consequence y. The idea that regulations are any less reactive than criminal law or civil law is fantasy.

[CannyDan]

@David42

There is nothing wrong with punishments for transgressions.

My whole point about this is that “proactive” is an illusion. Feel-Good rhetoric.

Whether a regulatory, civil, or criminal, it all works the same way: Do activity x and pay consequence y. The idea that regulations are any less reactive than criminal law or civil law is fantasy.

You have failed to convince me. As I offered above, a civil suit by one plaintiff does not prevent an entity from harming additional possible plaintiffs. If I’m dumping raw sewage across my property line onto your farm, and you sue me, even if I lose I may simply move my effluent pipe to another location and dump shit onto a different neighbor. He may not notice, or may not have the wherewithal to sue me.

And as others have stated, it offers zero protection from actions having diffuse effects, like air pollution.

Drawing up a criminal code that would punish every possible such offense, and in the excruciating detail that would be necessary would be a ridiculous undertaking, and would itself be a direct parallel to the “regulations” that you feel are so intrusive and ineffective.

And you ignore the societal pressure to “follow the rules” that influences decision making. There are plenty of people who will follow reasonable regulations without transgressing and without being hit with penalties, some because they want to avoid the hassles and the possible penalties, and others because they believe reasonable regulations are – well, reasonable, and beneficial to the society in which they partake. This prevents many potential transgressions from ever occurring, unlike a system that must wait for harm to be done before punishing the wrong doer.

[David42]

@CannyDan

You have failed to convince me. As I offered above, a civil suit by one plaintiff does not prevent an entity from harming additional possible plaintiffs. If I’m dumping raw sewage across my property line onto your farm, and you sue me, even if I lose I may simply move my effluent pipe to another location and dump shit onto a different neighbor. He may not notice, or may not have the wherewithal to sue me.

And as others have stated, it offers zero protection from actions having diffuse effects, like air pollution.

Drawing up a criminal code that would punish every possible such offense, and in the excruciating detail that would be necessary would be a ridiculous undertaking, and would itself be a direct parallel to the “regulations” that you feel are so intrusive and ineffective.

And you ignore the societal pressure to “follow the rules” that influences decision making. There are plenty of people who will follow reasonable regulations without transgressing and without being hit with penalties, some because they want to avoid the hassles and the possible penalties, and others because they believe reasonable regulations are – well, reasonable, and beneficial to the society in which they partake. This prevents many potential transgressions from ever occurring, unlike a system that must wait for harm to be done before punishing the wrong doer.

When people say that regulations are unnecessary because they parallel the criminal law, those in favor of regulations say, “Oh, no, the difference is regulation is proactive.”

But no-one can explain “proactive” to be anything more than “do x, expect y.”

The best you come to explaining this is that some people want to be good and comply not because they are scared of a penalty, but because it is a reasonable regulation.

There are also people who do not murder not because they are afraid of the penalty, but because they want to be good. Is the criminal law also proactive, then, if this quality is what makes regulation “proactive.”

There is no difference between “proactive” and “reactive” and no-one here yet has even begun to show there is a difference.

[David42]

@CannyDan

You have failed to convince me. As I offered above, a civil suit by one plaintiff does not prevent an entity from harming additional possible plaintiffs. If I’m dumping raw sewage across my property line onto your farm, and you sue me, even if I lose I may simply move my effluent pipe to another location and dump shit onto a different neighbor. He may not notice, or may not have the wherewithal to sue me.

And as others have stated, it offers zero protection from actions having diffuse effects, like air pollution.

Drawing up a criminal code that would punish every possible such offense, and in the excruciating detail that would be necessary would be a ridiculous undertaking, and would itself be a direct parallel to the “regulations” that you feel are so intrusive and ineffective.

If it is a ridiculous undertaking, how did we manage to identify the problems worthy of regulation?

What it is that I am against is giving a guy a high paying job to file forms about whether anyone did wrong when there is no reason to think they did, letting this guy be responsible for imposing/not imposing fines, and letting him go through a revolving door process with employment in the industry he regulated, back to regulating the industry, and back then to working for it. Might as well legalize bribery. Who’s gonna fine the ex-employer who just gave them a million dollar “bonus” three months before?

Regulation sucks.

Put industry on notice once, and then let a judge (who would be recused if he had worked for the industry) stick it to them when they violate it.

[Fear_Itself]

@David42

Regulation sucks.

Put industry on notice once, and then let a judge (who would be recused if he had worked for the industry) stick it to them when they violate it.

How is that different from ‘regulation’?

[emacknight]

@Fear_Itself

How is that different from ‘regulation’?

It’s not, that’s the point we’ve all been trying to get through to you. The end result is still the same.

[Fear_Itself]

@emacknight

It’s not, that’s the point we’ve all been trying to get through to you. The end result is still the same.

But it’s still the federal government!

[CutterJohn]

@emacknight

It’s not, that’s the point we’ve all been trying to get through to you. The end result is still the same.

Except one method has a higher body count than the other. Regulatory bodies like the FDA exist specifically because industry proved themselves to be unscrupulous with the lives of others in the pursuit of profit by taking advantage of the ignorance of others.

It is literally impossible for anyone to know enough about everything to make rational decisions about the technology they use. We all exist in a state of profound functional ignorance, because there is vastly more information to be known than we could ever hope to actually learn.

[emacknight]

@CutterJohn

Except one method has a higher body count than the other. Regulatory bodies like the FDA exist specifically because industry proved themselves to be unscrupulous with the lives of others in the pursuit of profit by taking advantage of the ignorance of others.

It is literally impossible for anyone to know enough about everything to make rational decisions about the technology they use. We all exist in a state of profound functional ignorance, because there is vastly more information to be known than we could ever hope to actually learn.

Did we really need to cycle back to this tired old statement? "Except one method has a higher body count than the other. " Is your goal to have a lower body count? What happens if it’s the regulatory method that results it more deaths?

"We all exist in a state of profound functional ignorance, "

First off, we shouldn’t. If this is the result of more regulations than regulations are going to end up with a higher body count. Secondly, the people living in this state of profound functional ignorance are both the voters and elected representatives. Who subsequently nominate their buddies to head of various regulatory agencies. How are we supposed to end up with functional and useful regulations if the entire system is build upon profound and functional ignorance?

As a result, I end up labeled anti-regulation, when it reality I’d love regulations that worked. I think it would be great if they did what they were supposed to do. Sadly, that’s not how reality played out.

[CutterJohn]

@emacknight

when it reality I’d love regulations that worked.

So your claim is regulations we have now are ineffective at preventing harm by regulating dangerous practices, substances, and technologies?

[David42]

@Fear_Itself

How is that different from ‘regulation’?

I’m using “regulation” here in its narrow sense, as in a federal agency’s regulation.

I realize that criminal and civil penalties also regulate behavior. I do not mean to say that civil or cirminal law does not regulate behavior in the looser sense of the word.

[emacknight]

@CutterJohn

Regulatory bodies like the FDA exist specifically because industry proved themselves to be unscrupulous with the lives of others in the pursuit of profit by taking advantage of the ignorance of others.

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?

[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.