Would you please identify for us the marketplace mechanism by which safe drugs were manufactured and sold prior to the advent of government regulation? What commercial entities sprang up in the 19th century to prevent drug companies from selling opium-laced “teething cures” to parents of fussy babies? And what evidence do you have that “the marketplace” in modern times has publicized and taken action against the sale of ineffective and dangerous drugs and supplements, without being prodded to do it by government regulators?
There was no consumer demand for safe drugs in the 19th century.
Why would a private company do something that the government is already doing? I said in the absence of the FDA.
There has always been consumer demand for safe drugs. If you went back to any point in history and asked someone which they would prefer, safe medicine or medicine that might kill them, people from any time and place would always tell you they’d prefer the safe medicine. If you asked them whether they’d go to the (doctor/healer/witch/shaman) who only gives safe medicine or the one that gives dangerous medicine, they’d tell you that they’d always pick the safe one. The only difference between then and now is that then, there was no way of telling which shaman (if any) was the safe one.
And just how many people have to die in sacrifice to your god of the market?
Why make the FDA disappear? Or reduce it? If the FDA was as inadequate as you’re claiming then the market for private drug rating companies already exists. So they should be springing up and competing against the FDA already.
The fact that no company sees an opportunity in competing with the FDA indicates that the niche has been filled. The FDA is doing the job of monitoring drug safety.
This is where libertarianism parts with reason. I have no problem with shutting down government programs that aren’t working or are overpriced for their value. But libertarians want to dismantle government program on general principle, even those government programs which are working quite well.
Regarding other aspects of Paul’s plan, who could possibly be against eliminating all foreign aid (even to our close allies like European nations and Israel), stopping all of the wars, and getting our troops out of all of the other countries like South Korea?
That’s not true.
A lot of things are possible, but several of us have pointed out serious problems with your proposal: the fact that you’re eliminating an existing system and hoping something as good or better develops from scratch, the fact that a variety of influences on the system could keep prevent the free-market substitute from working as well as the regulatory agency and the large human toll that might result, and the fact that a similar model in the financial sector was a major contributor to the global economic crisis, for example.
And that is what speculation looks like. Yes, if you eliminate the FDA, a need for safe drugs would be created. That’s because the FDA already (imperfectly) fills that need. So why do we eliminate it? To save money? What about the costs of your proposal?
I don’t think this is a good time to start cutting. But when that time does come, I would say start by ending the war on drugs, reducing military spending (which will happen anyway as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wind down), and letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
Ok geez. We can keep the FDA.
Very good. Now, what other stupid Paul proposal do you want us to take apart?
How can one simultaneously argue that the average person now has the means, via the internet, to evaluate the effectiveness versus side effects of emerging medications, and yet be grossly, embarrassingly ignorant about historical facts like “What was the US GDP in the 1930s”?
The ones I mentioned above.
Normal people? Total US foreign economic aid is about $30 billion. It’s chump change to Washington, but it’s subsistence to millions overseas.
I’m against getting our troops out of other countries when they’re there because of stupid things we did. The fallout from containment and the “War on Terror” is mostly our fault. I have no truck at all with the idea of keeping out of future foreign kerfuffles, but we ought to take responsibility for our previous fuckups.
Liberty embraces free enterprise. On your Libertarian Talk shows you’ll get commercials from Gibson-Dunster Drug Ratings, Inc. …
“… and subscribe to our premium service to learn about non-fatal side-effects as well!”
And Madame Lulu’s Horoscopes & Palmistry will offer lower-priced drug ratings for those skeptical about drug-testing science. Why do you hate freedom?
I oppose huge cuts to foreign aid because it’s a fact that more people will starve or die of disease if we simply gut that spending. I am not a huge fan of aid to developed, wealthy nations like Israel – not because of the aid’s implications to Mideast politics, which is certainly a concern, but because I think our foreign aid should be more tightly focused to effective programs that help other countries also have modern economies.
As far as withdrawing our troops from every other country, it would be a mistake. Packing up and fleeing the Asia-Pacific would probably destabilize the region, and make it more likely that a war would occur on the Korean peninsula or in relation to China. Keeping troops posted in those areas helps ease tensions, and is a good idea. The isolationist nonsense spouted by Ron Paul has been proven in the early part of this century to be a useless and dangerous policy with tremendously high costs. To repeat those mistakes for no other reason than to fulfill the mistaken advice in Washington’s Farewell Address is simply foolhardy.
Paul and his supporters simply need to drop this bizarre notion that “everything our government needs to know it learned in the 18th century.” The Founding Fathers were wrong on a lot of issues, and trying to discard all the lessons of the past two and half centuries in a narrow-minded effort to make this country look and act more like those historical figures thought the government should be like in 1789 is to make fallible men into unerring gods.
Thalidomide lollipops?
Good points, but $30b is still $30b, and could do a lot here at home. The government should do what is absolutely necessary, and giving should be cut in any year when we run a deficit or at any time when we have debt.
We’ve got people at some hundreds of bases around the world. We don’t even know how many (http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2011/01/24/military-mystery-how-many-bases-does-the-us-have-anyway/). The cold war is over and we’re broke. Bring them home.
Why do we still need 40,000 troops in Japan? We helped reconstruct their country decades ago, and they have leapt ahead of us in many respects. Isn’t this a waste of money?
We have 28,500 troops in Korea because we tried to fight off China’s communism nearly 60 years ago. What’s worse is that if the North attacked, we wouldn’t stand a chance. Not only was our original presence not “our fault”, but many SK’s don’t want us there, and if anyone should protect them, shouldn’t a country from Asia?
And then - 55k in Germany? Another case where we are not to ‘blame’. There is no more Berlin wall. Marshall Plan ended 60 years ago. They can defend themselves!
See above: charity isn’t appropriate when we have over 300% of our GDP in debt. Further, we have too many people on the planet anyway - we’d be better off promoting contraception and abstinence in poor countries rather than just throwing money at the problem.
And why is this our concern? If NK took over SK (their own people, remember) tomorrow, I’d feel bad and all, but what business is this of ours? If the Mexicans invade Texas, will the SK’s send troops?
I’m not so sure. Can you give me a citing for these proofs? If I recall, our presence in Saudi is what caused 9/11 (words from Osama’s mouth). That has led to a pretty high price tag down the line.
You do realize, do you not, that some of that foreign aid is promoting abstinence and contraception?
And of course, Osama bin Laden is a perfectly reliable source who should always be taken at his word.
Do you have a quote which indicates it is more than a tiny fraction?
Are you disagreeing with me that the greatest single cause behind 9/11 was our continued presence in the middle east, particularly in Saudi?
Did you see that article about the Secret Government Report: What if the U.S. Paid Off All its Debt?
Short answer: it’s not all good:
Debt PER SE isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
Most of that $30 billion is being spent to further our own foreign policy goals, many of which are economic (ie., keeping semi-friendly governments with oil happy). The economic cost of withdrawing it to us is conceivably greater than the cost of continuing to spend it.
Again, some are there to defend friendly governments, but most are there to support our foreign policy goals, which are largely economic.
What effect do you think a Chinese conquest of Japan would have on our economy?
Our original presence was certainly “our fault”. We didn’t try to keep communism from spreading because we were worried about foreigners. We did it to prevent the Soviets from gathering allies.
The 55,000 in Germany have been there since the end of the Marshall Plan to defend West Germany and Western Europe generally from the Soviets. Certainly there’s no reason to keep them there now in terms of defending Europe from the Soviets now, assuming we aren’t going to keep fighting wars in the Middle East.
We do promote contraception and abstinence in poor countries. You realize, of course, that doing so requires money?
It’s not, really, but the reason Korea hasn’t gotten over communism already is because we meddled there in the first place. That aside, the North Koreans are fucking crazy, and we have a moral imperative to protect the South Koreans now.
Our presence in Saudi is what keeps Saudi oil production stable.