I just heard on the news that a dentist was arrested for being a dentist without a license. So let me get this straight. A guy, who was helping out people with their problems, was arrested because he did not have a magical piece of paper that gave him permission to help other people?
I do not understand people who support this license law (which is like 98% of all the population). Conservatives, well, those people are one big confusion and self-contradictory all over the place, so they can excused. Liberals, the very same people, who make the argument in favor of gay marriage by saying "we have no business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes", these very same people, who make this argument, turn out to be against two consenting adults to agree to: one to fix teeth and other to pay. The inconsistency is astounding to me, what an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
On top of that this law is beyond stupid. It is not against the law to help your friend and fix his teeth, right? I do not think so. You can use dentist supplies on your friends to help them with their teeth without having any kind of license. That is okay. So what is it not okay to sell this service? It makes no sense. It is considered legal, probably but almost all people, to help another person as a act of kindness, but not okay to help those people for a price? I do not understand. This makes no sense at all. I cannot imagine how this makes sense to people, who are these people who see the world this way?
This law is almost as stupid as the law against prostitution. It is okay for a girl just to have sex with any guy, at any time. But not okay if she sells that service. How? Why is it illegal to do something which is perfectly fine to give? Same with non-licensed dentists. These dentists can give their services without any problem for free, but they cannot charge for that. Did I say that this makes no sense at all?
But I want you to keep this in mind. This accused dentist was not caught for being a bad dentist. But simply because one of his patients tried to find him online and could not. He got concerned and then told the cops.
Why is it illegal to help people? This guy was helping people with his services. He was making their lives better at a cheaper price. Why is that illegal? Why should that be so wrong? How does this not violate the "consenting adult" argument that liberals are so happy to make with regard to gay marriage but foolishly ignore when it comes to a problem like this?
I have been to several illegal dentists in my life. And I have been to legal dentists. Do you know what the big difference is? About 200 dollars. That is all. The service is exactly the same. Feels no different. Just that the illegal ones are cheaper. Since when is bringing something to market at a cheaper price illegal?
Can someone explain this to me because I just cannot make any sense of this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ummmm - I'm trying to understand how you can't see the difference. It is so obvious. The dentist is basically lying, cause your average unsuspecting user will expect that he has been fully educated and has his diploma, without which chances are VERY good that many, if not most, users wouldn't use him. Call it false advertising.
ReplyDeleteImagine the call girl who claims on her ad to be "fully clean of all STDs" but the end-user finds out after utilizing her services that she is not so?
"It is so obvious. The dentist is basically lying, cause your average unsuspecting user will expect that he has been fully educated and has his diploma, without which chances are VERY good that many, if not most, users wouldn't use him. Call it false advertising. Imagine the call girl who claims on her ad to be "fully clean of all STDs" but the end-user finds out after utilizing her services that she is not so?":
ReplyDeleteWhy is it lying? He can show where he studied as a dentist. Or he can point to his previous customers who had good experience with him. He can be reviewed by other people who used his services and know he has the skill.
So according to your argument a friend must be thrown into a cage because he helps his fellow fix his teeth simply as a act of kindness (no money) because he "is lying" since he has no license?
So according to you sleeping with a random girl you met overnight should be thrown into a cage because she might have an STD and you do not know, and that she is "lying"?
Whatever happened to the idea of two consenting adults agreeing what to do together. You make no sense at all.
Yes, he CAN show where he learned and his previous customer's positive experiences, but I have no doubt that he would try VERY hard to hide the fact that he doesn't have a license. Why would he do that if he's so very obviously talented?
ReplyDeleteSure, if users would decide to continue using him despite this revelation, then I would agree with you. But this omission is obviously wrong to subject unsuspecting users to.
And what if the said lovely girl HAD an STD that she declined to reveal to her partner, would THAT be acceptable to you?
This is NOT the same as "consenting adults" who are fully aware of what each bring to the table.
"Yes, he CAN show where he learned and his previous customer's positive experiences, but I have no doubt that he would try VERY hard to hide the fact that he doesn't have a license.":
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think he will try to hide that he does not have a license? Because he is afraid of going to jail or whatever. Not because he has no skills. If there was no law mandating him to have a license he would be open about it and wrote his own qualifications or word of mouth for his business. He must hide what he does precisely because of his inhumane law against him.
"Sure, if users would decide to continue using him despite this revelation, then I would agree with you.":
So you do agree with me? Doctors have the right to work as doctors without a license? Getting a state license is optional? Of course, if you have such a policy the state monopoly of licensing will run out of business and be replaced by private licensing companies. The state monopoly does not want this competition so they conventiently make it illegal and say it is "for your safety" and "for the children".
"But this omission is obviously wrong to subject unsuspecting users to.
And what if the said lovely girl HAD an STD that she declined to reveal to her partner, would THAT be acceptable to you?
This is NOT the same as "consenting adults" who are fully aware of what each bring to the table.":
This is an off topic discussion. We are not talking about decietful people. We are talking about unlicensed doctors who would like to work as doctors without the fear of being arrested.
Baruch,
ReplyDeleteThe state issues professional licenses for the same reason it inspects the foods that go to market - to best ensure that the public is put to minimum harm. It's not a perfect system, but its not so hard to review history and see the kinds of quacks that were out there doing real harm to people before medical licensing was made law.
Let me ask you a very basic question. Say that I was an illegal doctor for ten years, I have helped thousands of people who went to me over and over again. Do you think I need to go to jail because I do not have a magical piece of paper that gave me that permission to do so?
ReplyDelete"The state issues professional licenses for the same reason it inspects the foods that go to market - to best ensure that the public is put to minimum harm.":
Let me ask you a very simple question.
Do lawyers care that you are innocent and legally protected? In general, no they do not. They care about making money as lawyers. That is what they do, that is their job. They make money by defending you legally, but they do not care about that. If the next day you got send to jail for a different charge and they made money from you they be happy anyway.
Do farmers care that you are well fed? Not really. They also care about the money. The way they make money is by feeding you, but they are in it for the money (not that there is anything wrong with that). If you died the next day they would not care, they have no idea who you even are.
Now let us get to the state. The state consists of people who work for it. Those people in the state do not care about you. You are not their priority. They are in it for the job. Their incentive is to make money, not to keep you safe. They are in it for the money. They do not do it because they care that you are safe, but it is just another job. I do not deny that inspected products are much safer than non-inspected products, I am rather saying that these people are not selfless servants (as you make them sound) but just another job whose number one priority is for themselves. I know that what I said is an obvious point to make but it is an important point that a lot of people forget.
"but its not so hard to review history and see the kinds of quacks that were out there doing real harm to people before medical licensing was made law.":
ReplyDeleteThis is the fallacy of looking at the seen and over looking the unseen. I will be more specific. You are just mentioning all the bad doctors and bad drugs that were produced. But what about all the good doctors and the good doctors that were produced.
When you put licensing in place you kill off a lot of the bad doctors but you are also killing off a lot of the good doctors too. And you conclude that this is helping the public because you minimize the bad doctors. Okay, but what about limiting the supply of good doctors? That is not not helping the public. In fact, it hurts the public.
Focusing on the seen, in this case the bad doctors, is easy. Anyone can do that. It takes a lot more imagination to realize the unseen, the good doctors. You never hear on the news about all the good doctors, that is the unseen. You only hear about the bad doctors, that is the seen. To give a fair assestment you need to look at both, not one or another. You are only looking at one of them, no wonder you conclude that this is good. If you noticed the unseen you would realize the big opportunity cost for having this licensing requirement.
The same fallacy happens with the FDA by the way. People focus on the seen and overlook the unseen. The seen is the bad drugs they helped protect the public from. The unseen are all the good drugs that would have saved thousands of lives. You can even count the numbers to make a powerful case against FDA control over drug regulation. Look at the cost vs benefits. The cost of having a weak FDA (or no FDA) is that more people die every year. Indeed, whenever there is a news story of an unapproved drug it usually kills very few people. But the benefit is having an easier access to live saving drugs that often do save thousands of lives. In one scenario, with a strong FDA, you are preventing drugs from killing people but also preventing life saving drugs from saving people. In the second scenario, with no FDA (or at least a weak one), you are killing a few people but at the same time saving thousands more by life saving drugs that otherwise would not exist. If this is really true as I say then is it correct to then conclude that the FDA is not protecting the public but rather killing it by a delay time in drug approval?
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"Say that I was an illegal doctor for ten years, I have helped thousands of people who went to me over and over again. Do you think I need to go to jail because I do not have a magical piece of paper that gave me that permission to do so?"
Plausibly not, but we don't make societal rules for particular cases, we make societal rules for general application. In general it would be a bad idea for people to try medical practice on their own recognizance.
"I am rather saying that these people are not selfless servants (as you make them sound) but just another job whose number one priority is for themselves."
I never said anyone was selfless. I'm saying the rule was put in place and remains in place for legitimate societal benefit.
"When you put licensing in place you kill off a lot of the bad doctors but you are also killing off a lot of the good doctors too. And you conclude that this is helping the public because you minimize the bad doctors. Okay, but what about limiting the supply of good doctors? That is not not helping the public. In fact, it hurts the public."
Primum non nocere. I believe that having more bad doctors does a greater harm than does having fewer good doctors. And that is besides the point that a flooding of the medical work force would drive smart people out of medicine as a profession. Taking away medical licensing would overnight bottom out the medical profession in terms of salary and prestige. This alone would without doubt reduce the quality of your average American doctor.
"If this is really true as I say then is it correct to then conclude that the FDA is not protecting the public but rather killing it by a delay time in drug approval?"
Again, the correct general principle is that we first do no harm. We don't need the FDA specifically, but it's reckless to have a free-for-all on untested interventions. Indeed, without a drug certifying body, what incentive does the drug manufacturers have to prove that their drugs are safe or actually work? Good marketing is far easier and much cheaper than doing full scale scientific studies.
"Plausibly not, but we don't make societal rules for particular cases, we make societal rules for general application.":
ReplyDeleteSo you do think I should go to jail? Well, all I can say, there is something seriously wrong with you for thinking that. As I said: illegal to help people.
"I'm saying the rule was put in place and remains in place for legitimate societal benefit.":
This is actually not always true. I do acknowledge that approved drugs are definitely safer than non-approved drugs. However, your view on the origin of law is wrong. You think these laws were put into place because of the idea that they protect people. Well, in some cases, but do you know that a lot of laws were put into place by drug companies (or whatever other business) themselves because they needed a form of protection or a way to eliminate competition? It often happens. What about that side of the story?
"I believe that having more bad doctors does a greater harm than does having fewer good doctors.":
If you look at it from a purely numerical point-of-view this is not true. If you have a few bad doctors then a few people will get bad care. You know how quickly stories like these spread. One bad product and it is a national outbreak on the news. The bad doctors will not be so problematic. But the good doctors would be saving a lot more people. From a purely numerical way of looking at this the good doctors way exceed the bad doctors. If you cut off the good doctors more people will die as they will not have as an easier access to medical care as they would otherwise. Your problem is that you are not seeing the unseen benefits, you only see the seen negatives.
"Taking away medical licensing would overnight bottom out the medical profession in terms of salary and prestige. This alone would without doubt reduce the quality of your average American doctor.":
Nowhere did I say that medical licensing should be taken away. I said that mandatory licensing, especially by a monopolistic entity that can only grant licenses, should be ended. I am all for licensing. But licensing should be done in a competative market. Doctors want to attract customers by approval, hence the market for licensing.
"Again, the correct general principle is that we first do no harm.":
A good rule to have, but the state is a walking self-contradiction to any moral rule that you create. The state does harm. You admitted it above. You said that I should go to jail, even though I have not harmed others. That is, the state violates the very rule that you want to protect.
"We don't need the FDA specifically, but it's reckless to have a free-for-all on untested interventions.":
This is the standard market fallacy of saying that if the state was not doing the testing no one else would be doing the testing. This is just not true. There is market testing in other areas that does not (or has little) state testing.
More testing means higher costs but it means higher safety. Less testing means lower costs but it also means lower satefy. The market correctly allows people to purchase the proper amount of satefy for the product that they buy. With an FDA, which is a monopoly enacted over the approval of drugs, you kill this innovative and competative process that consumers would have otherwise.
"Indeed, without a drug certifying body, what incentive does the drug manufacturers have to prove that their drugs are safe or actually work?":
I agree. And I also agree that without a computer certifying body no compter manufacture would have an incentive for their computers to be of high quality or even work. Oh wait, there is no computer certifying body. I guess I disagree then.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"So you do think I should go to jail? Well, all I can say, there is something seriously wrong with you for thinking that. As I said: illegal to help people."
I said that plausibly you should not be punished in that particular incidence, but that does not represent the general rule.
"ou think these laws were put into place because of the idea that they protect people. Well, in some cases, but do you know that a lot of laws were put into place by drug companies (or whatever other business) themselves because they needed a form of protection or a way to eliminate competition? It often happens. What about that side of the story?"
I'm not naive. I know that there is frequently a slimy side to laws that are passed, but regardless these laws have merits in intent and function.
"If you look at it from a purely numerical point-of-view this is not true. If you have a few bad doctors then a few people will get bad care. You know how quickly stories like these spread. One bad product and it is a national outbreak on the news. The bad doctors will not be so problematic. But the good doctors would be saving a lot more people. From a purely numerical way of looking at this the good doctors way exceed the bad doctors."
I think you have a rosy eyed view of the limited harm that bad doctors can provide. You fail to realize the effect that long term mismanagement or missing diagnoses can have. Patients wouldn't even realize how poorly their health was maintained. Better to have no doctor than a bad one. And I'm confident there would not just be a "few." Plus, having many more doctors offers only marginal returns on a population that has no acute doctor shortage.
"But licensing should be done in a competative market. Doctors want to attract customers by approval, hence the market for licensing."
What does that mean? What is competative licensing? People can buy licensure like a commodity? How does your perspective protect the integrity and dignity of the profession?
"This is the standard market fallacy of saying that if the state was not doing the testing no one else would be doing the testing."
Sure, someone might, but the public largely wouldn't pay attention. They already fall head over heels for all sorts of nonsense that they see on infomercials. There are plenty of herbal and dietary supplements out there that are completely unregulated and do harm to people all the time.
"More testing means higher costs but it means higher safety. Less testing means lower costs but it also means lower satefy. The market correctly allows people to purchase the proper amount of satefy for the product that they buy."
I don't believe market forces alone would support the necessary long term investment to prove safety and efficacy of many types of medications. Your basic consumer doesn't know how to judge medications most of the time and it's much easier to push snake oil than an expensive hit or miss treatment. Think of chemotherapy, for example.
"I agree. And I also agree that without a computer certifying body no compter manufacture would have an incentive for their computers to be of high quality or even work. Oh wait, there is no computer certifying body. I guess I disagree then."
People know when their computers don't work. They have no idea how well their hypertension pill is working. They have no idea how dangerous their asthma medication might be. You need expertise to teach them.
Btw, do you believe in driving licenses?
ReplyDelete"I said that plausibly you should not be punished in that particular incidence, but that does not represent the general rule.":
ReplyDeleteI realize that some questions are not as simple as yes or no, but come on, this is an easy question. How do you think I should be treated? Do you think I should be thrown into a cage for ten or twenty or however many years for doing no harm at all, and on the contrary for helping people treat themselves? In that case whose said would you be on? Would you defend me or would you vilify me?
What general case? You agree that most doctors are good doctors. As a general rule most doctors are good doctors. The bad ones, or the deceptive ones, are in the minority. As a general law this is a very unjust law.
What about all the questions I ask in my main post on top? You did not answer those questions and I would like to see an answer to those questions.
"What does that mean? What is competative licensing? People can buy licensure like a commodity? How does your perspective protect the integrity and dignity of the profession?":
Yes it means people can buy license like any other product. Or not buy it at all and operate without one (which would usually mean a limited number of patients). It works very simple. Suppose a doctor got his training at Harvard medical school. Harvard medical school is among the top most respected of all medical schools. Now Harvard is a very reputable school, anyone who earns his degree their can most certainly be trusted with the highest of skills. Harvard clearly has a huge incentive to maintain its reputation as among the top rated medical schools. So it will give out its licensing under very high standards. Furthermore, because there is no monopoly on licensing, and because there is no lobbying (bribery) here as this is non-state licensing, having unjust licensing requirements to harm competition of doctors (as does happen with state licensing) would be minimal.
"Sure, someone might, but the public largely wouldn't pay attention.":
No, not someone might, someone will.
"They already fall head over heels for all sorts of nonsense that they see on infomercials. There are plenty of herbal and dietary supplements out there that are completely unregulated and do harm to people all the time.":
I am not going to protect people from their own stupidies. If people do stupid things then that is partially their problem too.
Besides do you not think that the implied message is that you can buy anything you would because everything is safe and secure? To a large degree that is true. But when people live in a world were everything is heavily monitored that it is safe to buy then they will buy things without even thinking about them. If people lived in a world were food and drug approval was competative then they will have to take discretion for the kind of products they buy.
I want to mention that the FDA was put into place not because of a percieved necessity, but because of spread propaganda. There was never a time where people were dying left and right on the street from what they bought. Instead fear was spread that this was going on, or that it may happen, that lead to the support of the FDA.
"I don't believe market forces alone would support the necessary long term investment to prove safety and efficacy of many types of medications. Your basic consumer doesn't know how to judge medications most of the time and it's much easier to push snake oil than an expensive hit or miss treatment.":
It depends who is doing the licensing. If it is done by Harvard medical school then people would put trust in them. People do not need to know anything about medicine, Harvard does, and all people need to know is that Harvard is reputible.
"Btw, do you believe in driving licenses?":
ReplyDeleteSame as with medical licenses.
To summarize my position. I do not say that medical licenses should be abolished. I said there should be no monopoly over them, and instead there should be a competative market for them.
This in particular means that a medical businesses and require a certain license for all of its doctors. A business may set that standard and all of their doctors will have to satisfy their licensing standards to work there. However, this such standard is not universally applicable to all businesses (as it is now, as of a monopoloy).
The city hospitals (which are state hospitals) can have their own licenses standards. This would mean that a unlicensed doctored will simply not be accepted into a city hospital or into a private medical business. But he can set up his own medical business on a reputation based system (rather than a license).
Now let us get to driving licenses. I treat them in the same way. The state can have their own requirements for driving on their roads, such as a license from DMV. But people can build their own road systems. And on those roads they can set their own driving standards. Perhaps, they are okay with DMV licenses, but also okay with the driving licenses of Fernando's drunk driving school. Some roads may just allow anyone to drive without a license at all, as long as you got a car they will allow you. There is no universal answer, it really depends on who sets their own driving standards.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"I realize that some questions are not as simple as yes or no, but come on, this is an easy question. How do you think I should be treated?"
I don't believe you should be thrown in jail but neither should you be permitted to continue to practice as you had been. If you have the proper background and education there's no reason why you could not go through the proper channels and demonstrate your competency.
"What general case?"
The general case that its a bad idea for people to go out practicing medicine without a license.
"What about all the questions I ask in my main post on top? You did not answer those questions and I would like to see an answer to those questions."
Are you referring to the "Why is it illegal to help people?" question? I assumed those were rhetorical. It's not illegal to help someone but you have to be competent to do so and society has an interest in ensuring that those who seek medical assistance are getting competent assistance.
"Yes it means people can buy license like any other product. Or not buy it at all and operate without one (which would usually mean a limited number of patients)."
Then that's not really a license you are describing but more like private certifications of quality. We already have those on top of medical licensure. Legally, your internist can perform brain surgery if he's inclined to, but we have numerous specialty boards in this country which confer board certification showing competency of practice within that field. Your internist is going to have a tough time finding a hospital willing to let him operate there.
However, licensure is not about demonstrating high quality but rather about keeping below par quality out of circulation. You prefer to set responsibility on the consumer to determine their doctor's quality, but most people do not have the ability to do that well, and much less so in an emergency situation. You are setting people up to be defrauded and hurt.
Market forces create cheap and terrible quality versions of everything and for the most part we tolerate that as a society because minimal harm comes from a terribly manufactured shirt. However we do not tolerate that for medical care as the harm can be catastrophic.
"I am not going to protect people from their own stupidies. If people do stupid things then that is partially their problem too."
Your initial argument earlier was that licensing restricts more people from acting as doctors and therefore is bad because it worsens people's collective health. Now you say that you don't care about protecting people's health.
"If people lived in a world were food and drug approval was competative then they will have to take discretion for the kind of products they buy."
Do you think this would be good or bad for the economy?
"I want to mention that the FDA was put into place not because of a percieved necessity, but because of spread propaganda. There was never a time where people were dying left and right on the street from what they bought."
Elixir Sulfanilamide, 1937. Look it up. It was the actual incident that gave the FDA the essential powers it has today.
How many sick people do you think died because they bought quack cures instead of seeking legitimate medical help?
"It depends who is doing the licensing. If it is done by Harvard medical school then people would put trust in them. People do not need to know anything about medicine, Harvard does, and all people need to know is that Harvard is reputible."
Sure, reputable organizations put their good names on good drugs and the like before the FDA, but that doesn't stop disreputable drugs and physicians from making it out to market where they would do great harm. People know Harvard is great but they don't know that Harvard alum, Dr. William J. A. Bailey's "Radithor" (look it up) wasn't.
"I don't believe you should be thrown in jail but neither should you be permitted to continue to practice as you had been.":
ReplyDeleteAnd what happens if I do continue?
"The general case that its a bad idea for people to go out practicing medicine without a license.":
It is in general a bad thing for random people to practice medicine. But what if people gain their licenses or reputations from their work. Why is it a bad idea then? These are not longer randomlized people performing medicine.
"It's not illegal to help someone but you have to be competent to do so":
Cognitive dissonance? First you say it is not illegal then you say it is in the very same sentence when you say "but". It would be a lot more accurate to say it is only legal to help people provided you meet the list of requirements. Otherwise it is illegal.
My question was very simple? Do you believe to consenting adults can come together and agree to do what they want to do together?
"and society has an interest in ensuring that those who seek medical assistance are getting competent assistance.":
Stop using the word 'society', stop it with euphemistic language. Society is a reference to the state here. No, the state does not have interest in the population. I think we established that above were you agreed that they are not selfless people that put the interests of people before their own selfish interests.
"You prefer to set responsibility on the consumer to determine their doctor's quality, but most people do not have the ability to do that well, and much less so in an emergency situation.":
I really do not see what is so scary about what I am proposing. Most people get their care in private or state run hospitals. Can we agree that those will probably have good standards for doctors? I am sure you would agree. Now, a private individual doctor running his own medical business is different, the level of confidence is not as secure. However, any standard hospital a person would attend would be as secure.
"Market forces create cheap and terrible quality versions of everything.":
Like computers. Those terrible inventions of terrible quality. Or cars. Or airplanes. Or televisions. Science damn the market! If it was not for the market we would have computers of quantity a hundred times more advanced and better.
.
"Your initial argument earlier was that licensing restricts more people from acting as doctors and therefore is bad because it worsens people's collective health.":
ReplyDeleteThat was part of my argument. I still stand by that. Let me return back to the FDA. My position is that the FDA kills more people than it saves by holding off drugs too long from the market. But most people do not realize this as they only focus on the seen and entirely ignore the unseen costs behind long delays.
"Now you say that you don't care about protecting people's health.":
No, I do not care about people's health. If I cared about people's health I would support seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. If I cared about people's health I would support bans on smoking. If I cared about people's health I would support heavy control of fast food. If I cared about people's health I would ban dangerous sports such as skydiving. I rather think that people need to care about their own lives. And if they want to live more dangerously then it is up to them.
"Do you think this would be good or bad for the economy?":
Definitely good for the economy. Having FDA interfering with the sale of food on the market drives up food prices since their approvals are just another imposed cost. Furthermore, it limits the supply of the quantity of food.
"Elixir Sulfanilamide, 1937. Look it up. It was the actual incident that gave the FDA the essential powers it has today.":
The initial formation of the FDA was inspired by propaganda. People like Upton Sinclair created distortion of what was really going. You do know that the Jungle was not an actual scientific publication? It was a novel, and not even about the percieved horrors of food, that was an off topic story in his book that ended up getting the most attention.
Now you mention Elixir sulfanilamide. According to Wikipedia it caused the death of about 100 people. I have a different example. Consider Beta Blockers. It was an innovation that was help off the market for many years by the FDA. The estimated death its delay caused is about 20,000. If they were avaliable otherwise those people would be able to take them.
Besides do you not think it is unfair to bring up one story (or a few) of the evils of the market? There are drugs that did end up causing harm even under the FDA. What would your response be? You would say "it is not a perfect system, bad things still happen". Okay, nor am I claiming what I support to be a perfect system. Bad things happen. Of course, you would counter me saying that what I suggest cause more bad things to happen, however this is a different conversation that cannot be settled by bringing up few examples alone.
"People know Harvard is great but they don't know that Harvard alum, Dr. William J. A. Bailey's "Radithor" (look it up) wasn't.":
I do not understand what this argument is trying to say. I thought about it for a while but I cannot figure it out. Are you suggesting that because bad people can exist in places like Harvard it means the FDA is better? Because, in case you do not know, bad people can exist in the FDA also. Humans are in both institutions. I do not see how the FDA has magical powers to prevent this from happening
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"And what happens if I do continue?"
You may be fined, you may end up in prison. You cannot flout the law. Do you believe in law?
"It is in general a bad thing for random people to practice medicine. But what if people gain their licenses or reputations from their work. Why is it a bad idea then? These are not longer randomlized people performing medicine."
If that's the system then that's fine, but you are not offering a method to prevent incompetent people from practicing medicine.
"It would be a lot more accurate to say it is only legal to help people provided you meet the list of requirements. Otherwise it is illegal."
It is illegal to provide certain services for people if you have not demonstrated a minimum competency for them.
"My question was very simple? Do you believe to consenting adults can come together and agree to do what they want to do together?"
In general yes, but there are exceptions.
"Stop using the word 'society', stop it with euphemistic language. Society is a reference to the state here. No, the state does not have interest in the population."
Society means the general population, not the state. The general population can use the machinery of the state for their common interest.
"I really do not see what is so scary about what I am proposing. Most people get their care in private or state run hospitals. Can we agree that those will probably have good standards for doctors? I am sure you would agree. Now, a private individual doctor running his own medical business is different, the level of confidence is not as secure. However, any standard hospital a person would attend would be as secure."
Actually I would be confident that some pretty awful hospitals would pop up. But besides that, most physicians work out of an office and not a hospital.
"Like computers. Those terrible inventions of terrible quality. Or cars. Or airplanes. Or televisions. Science damn the market! If it was not for the market we would have computers of quantity a hundred times more advanced and better."
You're not understanding. The market will fill all demands if it can. It will make excellent products but it also makes products that trade in quality for cost. This is simple economics.
"That was part of my argument. I still stand by that."
Ok, but you don't really care about it. It's a facade.
"Definitely good for the economy. Having FDA interfering with the sale of food on the market drives up food prices since their approvals are just another imposed cost. Furthermore, it limits the supply of the quantity of food."
LOL! Yeah, we have a real shortage of food in this country. How much are people going to buy new products if they are so on edge about the unknown dangers? You don't think private quality control organizations would cost?
"The initial formation of the FDA was inspired by propaganda."
But it got its teeth after Elixir Sulfanilamide.
"Consider Beta Blockers. It was an innovation that was help off the market for many years by the FDA. The estimated death its delay caused is about 20,000. If they were avaliable otherwise those people would be able to take them."
Ok, so we need to make the FDA better. No argument.
"Besides do you not think it is unfair to bring up one story (or a few) of the evils of the market?"
You were asking me to. 'There was never a time where people were dying left and right on the street from what they bought.'
"I do not understand what this argument is trying to say. I thought about it for a while but I cannot figure it out. Are you suggesting that because bad people can exist in places like Harvard it means the FDA is better?"
I told you to look it up. Bailey was a Harvard drop out and a self-styled doctor who sold deadly snake oil. Your "reputational" system offers absolutely no way to stop people like him.
"You may be fined, you may end up in prison. You cannot flout the law.":
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you do think I should go to jail if I practive medicine without a magical piece of paper? Even though I do no harm? If so then you contradict your own rule of first do no harm.
"Do you believe in law?":
Let me answer your question with another. Do you believe in Jewish law of mutilating the genitals of babies? If you lived in a Jewish state that enforced that law would you uphold it regardless? Do you know what Hitler did in Germany was legal, it was part of the law? Would you uphold the law then? I hope not. Just because something is the law does not immediately grant it virtue, it must prove itself to be virtous. I do not care what the law is, I care for what is virtuous.
And yes I do believe in law (not in the state though). But I have very unique concepts of law that I do not want to get into. I think that the only function of law is to define private property rights. I was meaning to make a post on this sometime in the future explaining what I mean by that and why, but for now I need to be a little ambiguous. I think that law is extremely important and necessary when it defines property. Otherwise it is mostly useless.
"If that's the system then that's fine, but you are not offering a method to prevent incompetent people from practicing medicine.":
And why is this a problem? I am offering a method for people to be secure and know they are in the hands of highly trained professions.
But what about the random doctors who claim they know medicine? Well, I am fine with that, they can earn their reputation. And what about the unfortunate cases of people who get hurt? That is a mutual agreement between consenting adults. Do you believe I have the right to commit suicide? If so, then kal vachimor I have the right to give that right to someone else to kill me. And if so, then kal vachimor upon a kal vachimor I have the right to designate a doctor for myself.
"It is illegal to provide certain services for people if you have not demonstrated a minimum competency for them.":
Why is it illegal? Can you explain that part? Why should it be illegal? What about the mutual consent of two adults. I agree to suck on your penis and you agree to give me a hundred. Do you believe in that, regardless that I do not have a dick sucking license?
"Actually I would be confident that some pretty awful hospitals would pop up.":
Maybe that is true. But the hospitals now are not something to be proud of anyway. So your point is entirely irrelevant anyway.
"You're not understanding. The market will fill all demands if it can. It will make excellent products but it also makes products that trade in quality for cost. This is simple economics.":
And why is it a bad thing to make low quality for cheap cost? People have different preferences. Some people want cheap products but then have to accept low quality. Some people want high quality and so they accept high costs. I cannot see what complaint you can have against people simply choosing the quality that they want. I used to get myself a call girl for 200, and she was decent. But then I starting getting a higher quality one for 400 and she was awesome. I accepted higher quality for higher cost. What exactly is so bad about this?
"Ok, but you don't really care about it. It's a facade.":
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge, as I said, that I do not care about people dying by their actions. As I said I believe people have the right to commit suicide. If so then it follows they have a right to eat fast food whole day long. The fact that they ended up getting a heart attack and dying does not bother me.
I used a different argument however with regard to the FDA because I figured you would find that more appealing. And you have to agree that was a good argument.
"LOL! Yeah, we have a real shortage of food in this country. How much are people going to buy new products if they are so on edge about the unknown dangers?":
I agree there is no shortage of good in this country, that was stupid of me to bring up. There is so much food that even our pets are fat.
Ignore food. My argument is applicable to drugs. There is a shortage of drugs. And slow approval of drugs is a good way to maintain this shortage for an even longer time.
"But it got its teeth after Elixir Sulfanilamide.":
Okay, but at least you seem to acknowledge that the origin of the FDA was based on fear and propaganda that was being spread around. Most laws that I know of are in place not because of rationality but because of fear and irrationality. There is social hysteria that scares everyone.
"Ok, so we need to make the FDA better. No argument.":
What an empty statement of insult to the intellect. That is such a pure politician answer. Nice and sweet sounding - but no actual intelligent content at all.
Who is "we"? And how are "we" going to make it better? You do not explain how it is going to be made better you simply say it should be made better. You do not even try to find the reasons to what causes the problems within the FDA now. I have been hearing this about programs for a long time, how they "need to be made better". None of them ever get made better, but I hear it all the time. It is a purely politician answer which sounds great and appealing but it has no content to it at all. Compare that to my idea. I have explained exactly where the problem with the FDA lies. It lies in slow approval times. These slow approval times end up killing people indirectly.
I hope that you at least concede that the number of people killed from bad drugs does not come anywhere close to the number of people that were killed (actually, not really "killed", but indirectly died off) as a result of slow approval FDA times.
You could have at least said that FDA approval times need to be reduced back. Back in early 1900's when it first was put into place a drug could have been approved in about 70 pages. That is not an unreasonable delay. Today there are tens of thousands of pages. In this sense, you could have said how "we can make it better", while at the same time partially defending the FDA; but instead you choose a purely feel good and nice sounding politician answer.
You can watch this video on the FDA, it has some good points: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA ).
"You were asking me to. 'There was never a time where people were dying left and right on the street from what they bought.'":
ReplyDeleteAnd this is not an example of that. Come on. Seriously, 100 people in many million is not "left and right". You know what left and right means? It means you are going to work one day and you see a dead guy on the street as a result of a drug. A few weeks later you are returning back from work and you come across another guy lying dead in the street from another drug. That is "dying left and right". That is a like a plague. But what you brought up, which may be the worst drug accident in US history, does not come anywhere close to what I was asking.
"I told you to look it up. Bailey was a Harvard drop out and a self-styled doctor who sold deadly snake oil. Your 'reputational' system offers absolutely no way to stop people like him.":
I still do not understand what the problem is. You want me to confess that a person of reputation can take advantage of other people? Of course that can happen, and that does happen. But I can play the same game. There are doctors right now that are approved and licensed and they do terrible things, or steal, or take advantage of people. Your license system offers no way to stop people like them. When you answer this question then you will be able to answer the one your phrased to me.
"Society means the general population, not the state. The general population can use the machinery of the state for their common interest.":
This is just silliness. You acknowledged that the state does not put the interests of the people before its own interests. And somehow you still believe in gods on the earth that really truly care about your life and safefy. There is no such thing as "public interest", only private. People are mostly selfish, so they will act for their own gains before others. Saying that the state care about the "public interest" is the same as saying that a tobbaco company cares about its custumers (that it is slowly killing) because it supplies them with cigarrettes. A tobbaco company only cares for itself, it just acts for "the public" as a means to satisfy their own gains.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"Just because something is the law does not immediately grant it virtue, it must prove itself to be virtous. I do not care what the law is, I care for what is virtuous."
That's not the point I was making. The point is that I don't believe that practicing without a license ought to land you with prison time but still if you flout the law after you have been reprimanded then you will face steeper penalties for the flouting. So I asked you if you believe in law and if so how you would tolerate people flouting even small infractions. Could stealing a piece of gum land you in prison?
You are doing harm by flouting the law so you must treated accordingly.
"But what about the random doctors who claim they know medicine? Well, I am fine with that, they can earn their reputation. And what about the unfortunate cases of people who get hurt? That is a mutual agreement between consenting adults."
Well I'm not fine with that. You are setting people up to be scammed and seriously hurt. How is that virtuous?
"Why is it illegal? Can you explain that part? Why should it be illegal? What about the mutual consent of two adults."
Because people would not fully understand what they were agreeing to and would be harmed by it. I understand the libertarian perspective but I believe that we must compromise on our liberty some to prevent egregious predictable harm.
"And why is it a bad thing to make low quality for cheap cost?"
Because low quality doctors on the cheap would kill people. That's bad.
"I used a different argument however with regard to the FDA because I figured you would find that more appealing. And you have to agree that was a good argument."
Sure, there are flaws in the FDA. But that doesn't justify its dissolution, merely its improvement.
"You do not explain how it is going to be made better you simply say it should be made better."
I'm not sure about all the inner workings of the FDA or why they are so slow. It would require some detailed investigation and analysis. The most extreme change I would be willing to make in this state of infrastructural ignorance would be to scale back the FDA from no longer needing to certify that drugs are efficacious but merely that they are safe. Safety trials are much simpler and easy to perform than ones that attempt to prove that a drug works.
"There are doctors right now that are approved and licensed and they do terrible things, or steal, or take advantage of people. Your license system offers no way to stop people like them. When you answer this question then you will be able to answer the one your phrased to me."
Of course it does. Their license can be revoked. Simple.
"There is no such thing as "public interest", only private. People are mostly selfish, so they will act for their own gains before others. Saying that the state care about the "public interest" is the same as saying that a tobbaco company cares about its custumers (that it is slowly killing) because it supplies them with cigarrettes."
That's awfully cynical. Although I do acknowledge plenty of corruption and backroom dealings in government I do still recognize legitimate acts done by the state for the public interest. Can you really not find one thing done by the state that helps the public?
"That's not the point I was making. The point is that I don't believe that practicing without a license ought to land you with prison time but still if you flout the law after you have been reprimanded then you will face steeper penalties for the flouting. So I asked you if you believe in law and if so how you would tolerate people flouting even small infractions. Could stealing a piece of gum land you in prison?":
ReplyDeleteWhenever something is made illegal the implication is what violence is going to be used against the person. Sometimes not immediately, but ultimately. The question is whether violence is a means to deal with a problem or not. I think we can agree that violence can be used against theft, ultimately. If somebody steals from our store something trivial we would ban him from the store and he continues to come then we will have to physically throw him out, and hence we involve violence. But in that case that is justified.
I do not see how the use of violence is justified against me. I am providing a service for people. I am helping them. I am making their lives better. I might be even saving their lives. And I do so for a lower fee (otherwise they would go to a professional place). I do no harm whatsoever to anyone at all, and in fact, I save them.
So my question is, and as a politician you continue to dodge, do you think I need to be thrown into a cage for doing what I do without a magic piece of paper? Answer this basic question. Do you think that I should be throw into a cage, regardless that I make other people better, in the case where I had full knowledge of the law and continued to ignore it? Just answer the question.
"You are doing harm by flouting the law so you must treated accordingly.":
This is a terrible argument. I must accept your premise first that ignoring the law is harm. A premise which was never demonstrated to me. Why is ignorance of the law harmful? Who does it harm? It depends. Consider my example of genital mutilation. Jewish law requires it, and if I lived in a tyrannical nightmare Jewish state I would be required to mutilate the genitals of baby boys. Now, would you say I am harmful for ignoring such a law?
The entire discussion comes down to the law itself in every specific case. Not a generality that all law ignorance is harmful. Some ignorance is harmful and some ignorance is not harmful. It depends on the situation.
"Well I'm not fine with that.":
Of course you are not fine with it. Because people like you believe you can run people's lives better than they can run it themselves. I know how you people think.
"You are setting people up to be scammed and seriously hurt. How is that virtuous?":
I am not setting up anything. All I am saying is that people have control over their own lives and should make their own decisions without other people, like yourself, telling them what they can or cannot do. If a person wants to hang himself, well, that is his problem, and his own life to do that.
"Because people would not fully understand what they were agreeing to and would be harmed by it. I understand the libertarian perspective but I believe that we must compromise on our liberty some to prevent egregious predictable harm.":
ReplyDeleteFreedom does mean the freedom to fail also. But besides I do not buy your conclusion that with unlicensed doctors the medical world would be in chaos. People will generally be careful with whom they go to and whose services they choose to accept. Will there be a few cases of people who are foolish? Of course, but that not justify stealing the competent people of their freedom of choices just because of some ignorant people. There is also a good side to dumb people dying out. I like to think of it as passive eugenics.
"Because low quality doctors on the cheap would kill people.":
This is a rather silly point, all you had to do is consider other low quality products on the market. There are expensive cups, medium priced cups, and cheap plastic/paper cups. All of these are cups. And they are all different qualities, and hence difference costs. But all of them preform the function of being a cup. Some do it better than others by lasting longer but in the end the function of a cup is still retained. Likewise there are many different priced computers and cars on the market. They also preform the function of being a car or a computer, it is just that it may be lower quality. The same will be true with lower quality doctors. They will too perform the function of being a doctor. They may have long wait times in a massive office. Or they may have slightly old technology. But they are still doctors. They still perform the service of a doctor. Not as good as a fancy private one-on-one doctor with the latest technology. But they still perform their service, and help people, at a lower cost. And people should have the freedom to choose the kind of price for the kind of service they want without being told what they can and cannot choose.
"Sure, there are flaws in the FDA. But that doesn't justify its dissolution, merely its improvement.":
Yes, the FDA is sure going to improve. Just like all other government programs that have improved. Think about it. The FDA is like 100 years old, and there are a ton of very old government programs also. Over all those years people were talking about how the FDA and all other government programs "should be improved". And it hardly ever happens - still waiting when public schools are going to be improved. By what possible madness can you stare at this long slow history and think it will somehow improve. In this case the only thing you can do to really bring serious change is to abolish it all and start all over. Otherwise, you are playing a politician's game of saying how it should be improved without any action happening for 30 years.
"I'm not sure about all the inner workings of the FDA or why they are so slow. It would require some detailed investigation and analysis.":
They have tens of thousands of pages of regulations to go through. Do you get some idea why they are so slow. Besides they are the government, everything the government will be inefficient. So no surprise there.
"The most extreme change I would be willing to make in this state of infrastructural ignorance would be to scale back the FDA from no longer needing to certify that drugs are efficacious but merely that they are safe.":
ReplyDeleteWow, I am surprised, you actually agreed with that point - I guess you watched the video I sent you. Well that is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, you will soon realize that even that is not necessary.
Just to give you more of a compelling reason not have an FDA in the first place, consider UL (underwriter's labratories) and OU (orthodox union).
I am not sure if you know UL, but it is a private certification agency for electronical products. If you pick up a hair dryer, for instance, they are certified by a private company that tests for product satefy. They go back a long long time into history.
I am sure you know OU really well as you were once a Juden-schwein yourself as I was. But OU is a private Jewish certification agency for the approval of kosher products in food. It is not done with any government. There is no reason to assume why something similar will not exist in absense of the state system of food and drug approval.
"Of course it does. Their license can be revoked. Simple.":
That does not answer my question that I asked you. I said that there are doctors with a license who do terrible things regardless. Can you prevent that from happening? The answer is no. These bad things will always happen. That is the point. With a reputation based system (which is just one of many possible methods for doctors) you will have bad doctors. But you will have bad doctors regardless with a state license. A state license does not magically stop that from happening. Now if a doctor does do something bad he loses his state license and his job as a doctor. But the same happens with reputation. If a doctor messes people over his reputation is finished and he is going to be eradicated out of the market. In either cases those doctors will be removed. So I see nothing special about a state license.
"That's awfully cynical. Although I do acknowledge plenty of corruption and backroom dealings in government I do still recognize legitimate acts done by the state for the public interest. Can you really not find one thing done by the state that helps the public?":
Let me review what I said. I said there is no public interest. Think back to a tobbaco company example I gave you. The tobbaco company does not care about your own interests, it cares only about its own gains. It will satisfy your interests but only because it will gain on doing so. But in the end it could not care less about your life. The same thing with a lawyer too. There are instances when a lawyer does something beneficial for you, but he does not care for you, but for himself. You say that the state has done beneficial things. Well so does the mafia. But that is not some justification for the mafia, nor does it mean the mafia cares for you. I do acknowledge there are good things that the state has done. But as I do not believe in gods I do not accept that they do that as they care about you for that would imply selfless servants. Compared to all the bad things the state (for every one good thing there are twenty bad things) has done for me the case is clear as that the state drives chaos.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"So my question is, and as a politician you continue to dodge, do you think I need to be thrown into a cage for doing what I do without a magic piece of paper? Answer this basic question."
I already answered this question. Ultimately, yes.
"This is a terrible argument. I must accept your premise first that ignoring the law is harm. A premise which was never demonstrated to me."
You already understand the principle of the law even if you may disagree with it, and the function is to keep unqualified people from practicing medicine. We must apply the law equally.
"I am not setting up anything. All I am saying is that people have control over their own lives and should make their own decisions without other people, like yourself, telling them what they can or cannot do."
You're setting up a world of quacks and charlatans who will line their pockets with the cash of the desperate and harm them with incorrect and ineffective treatments. You do this in the name of liberty but its effect is simply placing stumbling blocks before the blind; giving them the "freedom" to be fleeced and to get bad medical care.
"Of course, but that not justify stealing the competent people of their freedom of choices just because of some ignorant people. There is also a good side to dumb people dying out. I like to think of it as passive eugenics."
Heh, I'd like to see you make that argument when you happen to be delirious with some fever. I'm sure you'd do a full background check on the doctor they take you to after EMS pulls you out of a car wreck.
"This is a rather silly point, all you had to do is consider other low quality products on the market."
You are naive. Bad doctors would kill people. Don't make the analogy to plastic cups; make the analogy to cars. Except people don't get so desperate for cars as they would for medical care.
"In this case the only thing you can do to really bring serious change is to abolish it all and start all over."
Heh, and you think I'm playing the politician? Nothing is as good politics as is making big claims that you know will never pan out.
"Wow, I am surprised, you actually agreed with that point - I guess you watched the video I sent you."
I have to confess that I didn't. I'm just familiar with the arguments. Doctors decide how to use drugs based on the literature (and experience) and often use FDA approved drugs for off label purposes. If we're trusted to determine other efficacious uses on our own why do we need a government body telling us it works for one particular purpose?
"There is no reason to assume why something similar will not exist in absense of the state system of food and drug approval."
No doubt, but most people don't care about UL or the OU. Be honest, have you ever checked for the UL label before buying a piece of electronics? Without real teeth behind quality control a lot of terrible stuff would get to market.
"That does not answer my question that I asked you. I said that there are doctors with a license who do terrible things regardless. Can you prevent that from happening?"
Not 100%, but licensing puts up enough hoops that charlatans are far less likely to jump through them all. Further, we can stop licensed charlatans from continuing by stripping them of licensure.
"But the same happens with reputation. If a doctor messes people over his reputation is finished and he is going to be eradicated out of the market. In either cases those doctors will be removed. So I see nothing special about a state license."
Heh. How hard is it to move to another city? How hard is it to change your name? How hard is it to malign your detractors? There are lots of sneaky moves to recover a solid reputation.
"I said there is no public interest."
OK, so you can think of no act done by anyone that would be done for the common good and not for purely self-interest?
"I already answered this question. Ultimately, yes.":
ReplyDeleteThen there is something seriously wrong with you. You are taking me, who has done no harm whatsoever to anyone, and who on the contrary helped a lot of people - and throwing me into jail for 10 or 20 years all because you do not agree with me practice. You are contradicting your do no harm principle. I would rather live among religious Jews who are capable of leaving me alone than among non-religious tyrants like you.
"You already understand the principle of the law even if you may disagree with it, and the function is to keep unqualified people from practicing medicine.":
And its function is also to keep qualified people from practicing medicine. You know I have been to several unlicensed dentists in my life. They have done good jobs at a much cheaper price. These are the kind of people you want to put into prisons.
"We must apply the law equally.":
Everyone must be treated before the law in the same way, however, the application of the decision within the law must depend on specific case to case. If you have one law that you apply all over the map to everyone then you have a corrupted law system. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking this law, "no unlicensed doctors", and applying to every case possible without even paying any attention to the specific details of the case. That is a messed up legal system that you are defending. Just like Jewish people are apologists for the evil laws of the Torah, you are an apologist for the evil laws of the state - even though you can see the serious problems with those laws themselves.
"You're setting up a world of quacks and charlatans who will line their pockets with the cash of the desperate and harm them with incorrect and ineffective treatments.":
Your impression of my idea is that if the world was as I say it should be there will be pandemonium, doctors will be killing patients, it would be chaos in the medical world, people will die all over the place.
But let us consider where licensing came from. Licensing for doctors came from the AMA. The AMA was a means to limit doctors from competition by restricting their supply. The AMA is like a guild system. They are a monopoly that controls licesning, indeed, they were even sued for anti-trust violations.
Now let us put all of this into perspective. We have the FDA that was put into place as a result of fear and propaganda. And then we have the AMA that was put into place as a result to establish a guild system.
So your presentation of the medical chaos in my position is just not consistent with the history of both the FDA and the AMA. And your claim that the medical world will be filled with fakers is therefore probably way blown out of proportion. There are jobs today that do not require any kind of a license and you do not see this kind of a chaos in there. Why should I accept your claim the medicine is different? And why should I accept your claim if the goal of the AMA is to protect doctors (from competition) not patients?
"You do this in the name of liberty but its effect is simply placing stumbling blocks before the blind; giving them the 'freedom' to be fleeced and to get bad medical care.":
ReplyDeleteWhy do you put the world freedom in quotation makes? Peaceful assemblies and association is part of freedom. You might not agree with what they do but it is freedom.
As I said bad things will happen. But bad things happen in many other places that you probably do not object to. Consider the internet. How many fakers are there on the internet that try to steal your money? And there are people who fall into those traps who get really financially hurt. Do you now propose to require everyone to have a license to open up a website because that would limit the financial fraud from happening?
There are people who do stupid things, or irreponsible things, but you do not take away from the freedom of everyone else just because there are those who are not responsible enough.
"Heh, I'd like to see you make that argument when you happen to be delirious with some fever. I'm sure you'd do a full background check on the doctor they take you to after EMS pulls you out of a car wreck.":
If I quickly needed medical attention I would call up the hostpital. Finished. Was that so hard?
"You are naive.":
Let us see. At first I am 'awfully cynical' and now I am 'naive'. Will you make up your mind already?
Remember that you are the one who believes that there are strangers you never met in your entire life that care for your safety.
"Heh, and you think I'm playing the politician? Nothing is as good politics as is making big claims that you know will never pan out.":
I am saying saying which would insult like 98% of the American population.
"Bad doctors would kill people.":
What incentive does a doctor have to kill someone? You do realize that any doctor that would kill someone else will appear in a lawsuit? Possibly put into jail for murder?
By what madness would a faker pretend he is a doctor, kill people, and hope not to be arrested for murder? It makes no sense at all, I cannot believe you are actually proposing you. Did you even think this through?
The worst case you can have are false doctors that do nothing to treat the illness. Like all of these alternative medicine doctors. None of them physically harm you, or kill you. Their problem is that they make you think you are getting better and so you avoid going to a real doctor. I would love to see this gone, but I am not going to ban them, as I would not ban religion.
"Be honest, have you ever checked for the UL label before buying a piece of electronics? Without real teeth behind quality control a lot of terrible stuff would get to market.":
ReplyDeleteNo, because I know it is safe. I buy stuff from stores that I know I can trust. I buy stuff from Amazon that I know I can trust. In absense of a state there is no reason to assume this would not happen. There will be places like Amazon that insure product honesty and safety and they will act as a agency that I can trust with my purchases. If I walked into a random store in a middle of nowhere, then I would be skeptical. But Amazon is god among men, it can be trusted.
"Not 100%, but licensing puts up enough hoops that charlatans are far less likely to jump through them all. Further, we can stop licensed charlatans from continuing by stripping them of licensure.":
First of all, this does not stop them. They can still create false licenses and trick people regardless. Second of all, why can what you just said not be applied to certifications? Cerficiation agencies can take away the license from any fraud and he will lose his certificate.
"Heh. How hard is it to move to another city? How hard is it to change your name? How hard is it to malign your detractors? There are lots of sneaky moves to recover a solid reputation.":
Let us examine the implication of what you are saying. First, a guy has no certification. So he needs to build up reputation so that people trust him for medical practice. Now he has regular patients that go to him. So then one day he decides, for some reason, he decides to scam them all. Now his reputation is lost, why he would do something like that I have no idea, but he just decided to do it. Then somehow he is not brought to trail and sued for this fraud by his patients. Then he moves to a new city and makes a new name. But nobody knows him. So has to develop reputation in that city as a good doctor to have patients. Now he has a business but he decides to sacrifice it so that he can scam a few more people. That makes perfect sense.
"Ok, so you can think of no act done by anyone that would be done for the common good and not for purely self-interest?"
There are a number of problems here. What is the "common good" and who decides that common good? The state. Well, consider, for instance, that they say it is for the common good to collectivize the farms. As a result 30 million people die. Was that the "common good"? No. Basically common good is a loaded term that the state can use to decide what is good and what is not. It just like "national security", an empty meaningless term.
But an individidual can do a selfless act, though that is very rare. Even relationships between boyfriends and girlfriends are the result of selfish interests, not altruistic love (just goes to show how much self-interest plays a role in life). However, for the state to do something that is selfless you would probably need a dictator or a tyrant who makes the choices all himself. He alone can trully be honest. But when you have a big giant behemoth of an institution with thousands of differing people to set out a goal then you can be assured there is no selfless acts going on there at all. It is all a job for them.
Can the mafia act for truly your own interests? Would you buy that? No, I doubt it. It is just another business.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"Then there is something seriously wrong with you. You are taking me, who has done no harm whatsoever to anyone, and who on the contrary helped a lot of people - and throwing me into jail for 10 or 20 years all because you do not agree with me practice. You are contradicting your do no harm principle."
You ignore the fact that individuals cannot be exempted from the law. It must be applied equally. If I believe the law is good and you do harm to its application by flouting it then you must not be permitted to do so. You are doing harm indirectly.
"And its function is also to keep qualified people from practicing medicine. You know I have been to several unlicensed dentists in my life. They have done good jobs at a much cheaper price. These are the kind of people you want to put into prisons."
If they were qualified then they ought to be able to get licensed. I don't want them in prison, I want them licensed.
"Everyone must be treated before the law in the same way, however, the application of the decision within the law must depend on specific case to case. If you have one law that you apply all over the map to everyone then you have a corrupted law system. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking this law, "no unlicensed doctors", and applying to every case possible without even paying any attention to the specific details of the case."
How am I applying anything "all over the map"? I am saying that you may not practice medicine without license. I would start with modest penalties which would escalate if flouted and which could culminate in jail.
"So your presentation of the medical chaos in my position is just not consistent with the history of both the FDA and the AMA. And your claim that the medical world will be filled with fakers is therefore probably way blown out of proportion."
On the contrary, I think your representation of the FDA and AMA is essentially propaganda itself. History bears out what I say as it was the situation before these quality control organizations existed.
"There are jobs today that do not require any kind of a license and you do not see this kind of a chaos in there. Why should I accept your claim the medicine is different?"
Because people are most desperate when it comes to medical care. How come there are no "quack" plumbers in history?
"Why do you put the world freedom in quotation makes? Peaceful assemblies and association is part of freedom. You might not agree with what they do but it is freedom."
Because it's akin to taking away the safety bar at the edge of a road on a cliff. Yes, you have the freedom to fall over the edge now. But it's not a freedom any rational person would want.
"Do you now propose to require everyone to have a license to open up a website because that would limit the financial fraud from happening?"
What they do is criminal and should be stopped and they should be punished. But it doesn't cause the extreme and irreversible harm - such as death, dismemberment, etc. that bad medicine can cause. Bad medicine needs to be prevented and nipped in the bud.
"If I quickly needed medical attention I would call up the hostpital. Finished. Was that so hard?"
Sure, and they'll send out their very best vet because they want to save some cash. Why are you trusting the hospital?
"What incentive does a doctor have to kill someone? You do realize that any doctor that would kill someone else will appear in a lawsuit? Possibly put into jail for murder?"
ReplyDeleteThey don't kill intentionally. They would kill out of error. And no crime would have been committed and no lawsuit would be won because they were just two people in a consensual arrangement.
"First of all, this does not stop them. They can still create false licenses and trick people regardless."
Except that they would then be liable criminally.
"Second of all, why can what you just said not be applied to certifications? Cerficiation agencies can take away the license from any fraud and he will lose his certificate."
Because he can still practice all he wants as long as people still come to him. The law is on his side.
"Let us examine the implication of what you are saying. First, a guy has no certification. So he needs to build up reputation so that people trust him for medical practice. Now he has regular patients that go to him. So then one day he decides, for some reason, he decides to scam them all."
That's dumb. A smart quack skims a little here, scams a bit more there for years all the while growing in his patient's estimation. If he ever gets found out he can move and start over. Have you never heard of con-artists? You want to legalize them.
"What is the "common good" and who decides that common good? The state."
The common good is what is generally best for everyone. As far as our expertise indicates, it's for the common good, for example, that we attempt to eradicate infectious diseases. That's why vaccines are strongly encouraged in this country and the state helps support the vaccination program financially. Just because the state can make mistakes doesn't mean the common good doesn't exist or is meaningless.
"You ignore the fact that individuals cannot be exempted from the law. It must be applied equally. If I believe the law is good and you do harm to its application by flouting it then you must not be permitted to do so. You are doing harm indirectly.":
ReplyDeleteHow do I do harm? Do you acknowledge that my practice makes the lives of other people better off? Yes. Do you acknowledge that my practice is cheaper than the more professional ones? Yes. So am I not contributing positively to the people who seek my services? Yes. I do no harm to any person at all, and in fact I bring them benefit.
If the law is now going against me for doing that then the law is messed up. And you are a defender of an unjust system of law that does harm against those who do not harm others.
"If they were qualified then they ought to be able to get licensed. I don't want them in prison, I want them licensed.":
You remind me of those conservatives that say to the poor, 'just go get a job'. It is not so simple as, 'just get a license'. You know how many immigrants have the skills to be a doctor from another country but are unable to because they cannot pass English tests? Or what about all the money that needs to be put into obtaining a license. And what about all the time? It is not so simple 'let them just get a license'. Think about it. If a person can easily get a license, then why would he go through illegal practices instead and risk being thrown into jail by tyrants like you? It must be because it is too hard for me to do otherwise. And I know what you are going to say, you are going to give the standard politician answer, 'the system needs to be fixed'. It was not fixed for past decades no reason to expect any changes - these kinds of restrictions are precisely what emerge out of a monopoly on licensing.
"How am I applying anything 'all over the map'? I am saying that you may not practice medicine without license. I would start with modest penalties which would escalate if flouted and which could culminate in jail."
Because you are putting a bad doctor into the same category as a good one. Your argument in favor of imprisonment of unlicensed good doctors is that you want to prevent medical errors. Then you are treating them as if it is assumed that they are bad to begin with. The law needs to judge them for their actual practices. If they are legit then they need to be left alone. But you are not doing that. You have a law, "no unlicensed doctors" and you apply it to all people regardless whether they are legit or not - without examing the individual trails of the people.
"On the contrary, I think your representation of the FDA and AMA is essentially propaganda itself.":
Let us consider my position of the FDA and AMA. The FDA is a monopolistic entity that has control of the approval of drugs. They were initially formed as a reaction to fear of unfounded and exagerrated claims of their advocates. The AMA is a monopolistic entity that has control of approval of doctors. They act as a guild system to restrict competition into the market. Now what is anything inaccurate about what I said? Historically, going back to the early 1900's this is how the FDA got started. And historically, the AMA did restrict competition which is why they were accused of anti-trust violations. So how am what describing is inaccurate? All I am doing is shattering the statist myths of the over-benevolent selfless service to the common good that a lot of people seem to believe in. If I said the FDA cannot be trusted as it poisons all the food and drugs, then that would clearly be propaganda. I never said that and even mentioned that anything tested by the FDA is of high degree of safety.
"History bears out what I say as it was the situation before these quality control organizations existed.":
No it does not. Historically my views of the FDA and the AMA are way more accurate than your view that they are 'just for the best of us'.
"Because people are most desperate when it comes to medical care. How come there are no "quack" plumbers in history?":
ReplyDeleteThere are bad plumbers too. You just do not hear about them as much as doctors because doctors get more attention.
But as a said more plumbers and doctors are good. You are focusing on the minority of bad instances which are not as common as the good instances.
"Because it's akin to taking away the safety bar at the edge of a road on a cliff. Yes, you have the freedom to fall over the edge now. But it's not a freedom any rational person would want.":
How are peaceful associations and assemblies of people equivalent to standing on an edge of a cliff? Connect the dots for me. And yes there are plenty of rational people who want that. Like myself. There are a lot of people out there who really care for freedom and peaceful assemblies of people is fundamental to us. We acknowledge that when people enter into a agreement with others sometimes bad things my happen, but that is not an argument to destroy the freedom of assembly of people. My entire defense, for me, of unlicensed doctors comes down to the freedom of human association. You are saying no person would want unlicensed doctors because no person wants to have a bad doctor. But that is a bad argument. Because none of us want a bad doctor, but in the same time we want the freedom of association between one another.
"What they do is criminal and should be stopped and they should be punished. But it doesn't cause the extreme and irreversible harm - such as death, dismemberment, etc. that bad medicine can cause.":
I do not understand this argument. You are saying that because financial crime is not as bad as medical crime it means that financial crime can go unlicensed? Are they not both bad? Should both not be eliminated? What about the bad people that messed over? Do you not agree that if people needed to get approval to run financial websites that the amount of financial crime would be greatly reduced back? You want to legalize financial crime by saying it is okay for theives to operate websites without any license whatsoever.
"Sure, and they'll send out their very best vet because they want to save some cash. Why are you trusting the hospital?":
Why do your trust the hospital? Once you answer that question you can answer mine.
"And no crime would have been committed and no lawsuit would be won because they were just two people in a consensual arrangement.":
It depends on the practice. If the doctor murders another person then he can be trailed for murder. But that is the worst case. If the doctor harms the patient then the doctor can be sued damages. If the doctor does no harm at all and just prevents to treat the illness then he can be sued for fraud. It depends on the specifics of the case.
"Except that they would then be liable criminally.":
And the exact same situation would happen with false certifications. Your point?
"Because he can still practice all he wants as long as people still come to him. The law is on his side.":
ReplyDeleteIf he loses his certification, and assuming he is not in jail, he can restart his service as his own private business. Though his reputation will be finished. I would expect someone like him to probably get out of business.
"Have you never heard of con-artists? You want to legalize them.":
To a certain degree I do.
Let me give you an example. Consider religion. Religion is the oldest con-profession in the entire world. Indoctrinates children, it preys on the weak, on the poor, on the ones in lamentations, a truly wicked practice that extracts money from these people.
I consider religion to be one of the greatest evils against mankind, and the greatest destruction of human reason and potential. I am its enemy and I would love to see the destruction to all religion in the world. Religion is responsible for so much more evil than any other kind of fraud. However, at the same time I will not ban it. Because I believe that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe in. Including wrong things. Which would mean they would go to these churches and give their money to these liars. I will fight to the death to bring the end of religion, but I will also fight to the death to defend their right to exist. They are my enemy but they have just as much of a right to exist in this world. So instead I will oppose them. I will speak out against them, until it is crushed and defeated.
There are other kinds of fraud out there. There are financial fraud on the internet I but I am going to end the freedom of the internet just because it happened to some people. And there is mystical medicine. In where people believe they can be cured by hypnosis, or acupuncture, or chiropractors, or homeopathy, whatever. These exist. And they are evil. I oppose them and speak out against them. But I will not silence them, as other people have the righ to believe in them. Foolish, yes, but it is a belief nonetheless.
"That's why vaccines are strongly encouraged in this country and the state helps support the vaccination program financially.":
Vaccines were developed before the state supported them. And a lot of terrible diseases were eradicated without much state help. The state is not the only one capable of doing so. The common good in this case was achieved by other means.
"Just because the state can make mistakes doesn't mean the common good doesn't exist or is meaningless.":
Read my argument again. I said that the state does not act for your interests, it has its own private self-interests that it satisfies, just like another businessmen. That is exactly what I said.
I nowhere said that the common good did not exist. There are common goods. For example, promotion in skeptical thinking is a common good. If the world was able to learn to think skeptically we would be a step forward. That is a common good.
So yes the common good exists. But it is a meaningless for the state to assign the value of what the common good is. Most of what states have referred to as common goods were not common goods at all. So that is why listening to the state deciding what the common good is, is meaningless. Besides there are different means to accomplish a common good. Having an armed monopoly of exortion of money and power being able to act for the good sounds a bit silly.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"How do I do harm? Do you acknowledge that my practice makes the lives of other people better off? Yes. Do you acknowledge that my practice is cheaper than the more professional ones? Yes. So am I not contributing positively to the people who seek my services? Yes. I do no harm to any person at all, and in fact I bring them benefit.
If the law is now going against me for doing that then the law is messed up. And you are a defender of an unjust system of law that does harm against those who do not harm others."
It's exactly the same as an ostensibly safe driver who has no driver's license. I want him off the road until he gets one. I don't actually know if this guy is a safe doctor and I'm not going to make it the state's business to investigate after the fact. If the state had to do that then licensure would be meaningless. Effectively you would permit anyone at all to practice and making it the state's business to prove that they are not safe. That's ass backwards.
"Then you are treating them as if it is assumed that they are bad to begin with. The law needs to judge them for their actual practices. If they are legit then they need to be left alone. But you are not doing that. You have a law, "no unlicensed doctors" and you apply it to all people regardless whether they are legit or not - without examing the individual trails of the people."
As above, that would be an ass-backwards way to ensure quality control.
"Let us consider my position of the FDA and AMA. The FDA is a monopolistic entity that has control of the approval of drugs. They were initially formed as a reaction to fear of unfounded and exagerrated claims of their advocates. The AMA is a monopolistic entity that has control of approval of doctors. They act as a guild system to restrict competition into the market. Now what is anything inaccurate about what I said?"
Whatever the FDA's origins, it got its powers for well founded and legitimate public concerns. The AMA, FYI, is a private organization and rather than keeping the number of doctors low, the AMA has been pushing for an increase in active physicians and the size of medical school classes.
"No it does not. Historically my views of the FDA and the AMA are way more accurate than your view that they are 'just for the best of us'."
You are commenting tangentially to my statement. I was talking about the state of american medical care before these organizations existed and it was patently poor, full of grift and mistreatment.
"There are bad plumbers too. You just do not hear about them as much as doctors because doctors get more attention."
I didn't say "bad," I said "quack." There are no quack plumbers.
"You are saying no person would want unlicensed doctors because no person wants to have a bad doctor. But that is a bad argument. Because none of us want a bad doctor, but in the same time we want the freedom of association between one another."
Ok, so you want the freedom to go to a bad doctor?
"I do not understand this argument. You are saying that because financial crime is not as bad as medical crime it means that financial crime can go unlicensed?"
Financial crime can be completely made right after the fact as the victim can recoup his losses. There's no way to make whole a person who suffers irreversible health defects or death, so they must be prevented beforehand.
"You want to legalize financial crime by saying it is okay for theives to operate websites without any license whatsoever."
Hardly. They ought to be caught and punished severely.
"Why do your trust the hospital? Once you answer that question you can answer mine."
Because I know that at a minimum the doctors there went to medical school, passed their exams and know a thing or two about correct practice since they could not be working there without a license. And you?
"It depends on the practice. If the doctor murders another person then he can be trailed for murder. But that is the worst case. If the doctor harms the patient then the doctor can be sued damages. If the doctor does no harm at all and just prevents to treat the illness then he can be sued for fraud. It depends on the specifics of the case."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. The patient signed a consent form saying that death could be a complication of surgery and his next door neighbor Mr. Computer Programmer decided he would help out his friend with his nasty appendix problem. What murder? Totally consensual.
"And the exact same situation would happen with false certifications. Your point?"
How would Mr. Computer Programmer be criminally liable? What crime did he commit?
"If he loses his certification, and assuming he is not in jail, he can restart his service as his own private business. Though his reputation will be finished. I would expect someone like him to probably get out of business."
So he can change his name, move to another city, etc. We've been over this. He'll be in business until he retires at a ripe old age.
"Vaccines were developed before the state supported them. And a lot of terrible diseases were eradicated without much state help. The state is not the only one capable of doing so. The common good in this case was achieved by other means."
Ok, so the common good exists and sometimes the state is right in its use of power to arrange for the common good.
"Besides there are different means to accomplish a common good. Having an armed monopoly of exortion of money and power being able to act for the good sounds a bit silly."
Maybe, but you'd likely feel differently if private donations for vaccinations falls short. Many many parents would opt out if they didn't need to get their kids vaccinated for school and had to pay for it out of pocket.
"It's exactly the same as an ostensibly safe driver who has no driver's license. I want him off the road until he gets one. I don't actually know if this guy is a safe doctor and I'm not going to make it the state's business to investigate after the fact. If the state had to do that then licensure would be meaningless.":
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not the same thing. I will tell you exactly what the difference is. You certainly can drive on a road where everyone has a license approved by the DMV. Because it makes you feel safer, as it would make a lot of people feel safer (myself included, if I drove, but I do not drive). And yes you would be correct to then conclude that a non-licesned driver has no right to drive on the road, as he is making you feel less safe. You want to be in an environment were you are sure that drivers can demonstrate a minimal level of road safety and laws. So that when someone does not have such a license you view this person as a potential harm, and this is okay. I have no objection to that.
But things are more complicated. Consider for example, a road system that was called 'Redneck's Drunken Rampage Road'. On RDRR the law is that everyone must drive without a seatbelt, drive at 90 mph, drive drunk, and drive with a shotgun pointing out of your car. Your chances of survival on this road is about 10%. But you do not have to drive on RDRR. You can drive on a regular highway where you are sure that the drivers have proven themselves to understand basic traffic laws and basic safety, in order so that you can have a safe and pleasant trip. But in RDRR it does not concern you, if that is how these people want to live, then that is the way they want to live. Just because their chances for death are higher does not mean you (who is a third party) can intervene and say they cannot do it. If it concerned you, as with normal roads, then you would be right, but it does not concern you.
This silly analogy of mine is applicable to the discussion of hospitals and doctors. A hospital, such as a city hospital, can certainly set their own standards for doctors. And they can require each of their doctors to pass certain licenses or certifications for their approval. You as a patient want to go to such a hospital because you feel much safer there. So if a doctor, without a license or acceptable certification, shows up in such a hospital, then it would be wrong for him to do, as he is making you feel less safe with his presence. And that is okay, I would agree with you in such a context.
But again what about 'Redneck's Drunken Rodeo Hospital' where all doctors are drunken cowboys without a slightest bit of knowledge of medicine? If those rednecks wish to be treated with those people then so be it. It does not concern you at all.
"Whatever the FDA's origins, it got its powers for well founded and legitimate public concerns.":
ReplyDeleteNot historically. The idea that food and drugs should be safe for the public is a well-founded concern. However, the original message of the FDA was propaganda driven and social-hysteria. It was a fear-mongering game. It is still possible that the FDA is a good institution (though I doubt it as I explained), however, its original construction was not based on rationality but on the passions of people.
"The AMA, FYI, is a private organization.":
The AMA is a private organization just as much as the Federal Reserve is a private bank. It does not matter. 'Private' or 'public', are misinterpreted here. It is a 'private' organization that has the power to have a legal monopoly over all licenses, how is that really any different from being a state? It is also funny how you talk about how they are pushing for more doctors - because if that was the case why would they be accused of anti trust practices?
"You are commenting tangentially to my statement. I was talking about the state of american medical care before these organizations existed and it was patently poor, full of grift and mistreatment.":
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? It is true that back in 1900 medical care was nowhere as good as it is today. However, do you think it was mainly because technology and medical science expanded, rather than state control over medical care? Do this thought experiment for me. Would you rather get treated in 2011 with the highest quality and most advanced medical care but with no state control over licensing; or would you rather get treated in 1900 with its old technology but with strong state control over licensing? The main reason why medical care is so much superior to what it was is because of innovation and improvement.
Historically it is not true that people were dying left and right. It is not true with lack of regulation on drugs. And it was not true with doctors. You may argue that with an FDA and AMA drugs and doctors are better - but this is separate argument, I am saying there never was a crysis like you imagine it to be.
Do you know why the AMA was put into place? It was not put into place, as you claim, to protect the patients from doctors. It was put into place, partially, as a response to protect doctors from competition. On this blog I gave a link to a good essay I read on this topic, you can go here and read it ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/04/american-healthcare-hundred-years-ago.html ). A lot of doctors in this time period were saying it is wrong for doctors, who save lives, to be paid so cheap, and so they pushed for AMA control to limit the amount of doctors. As you can see the AMA was a reaction so that doctors can earn more for their services, what is was, basically, was a cartel for doctors. And when you look at the AMA that way it is no longer as virtous and selfless as you make it sound. It reveals once again that one of the primary driving motivations for people is purely their own self-interest.
"I didn't say 'bad', I said 'quack'. There are no quack plumbers.":
ReplyDeleteWhatever it is just a play on words. When I said 'bad' I meant bad as in immoral charachter, that is, a plumber who lies for his services. And yes, as I said, those do exist. But you do not hear about them on the news because it is not as evil as bad doctors.
"Ok, so you want the freedom to go to a bad doctor?":
Yes. Is that so hard to understand? Maybe he is bad for you, but not bad for me. Maybe I am perfectly comfortable with a drunken cowbay redneck examining me anally.
"Financial crime can be completely made right after the fact as the victim can recoup his losses.":
You ignored my question for my second time. Let me ask it again. I am not asking you what do you think needs to be done with financial crime over the internet. I am asking you why do you not want to a license system for the internet? It is a completely different question. You are telling me financial crime is usually not as evil as medical crime, I agree, but that is not what I am asking. I am asking you why not have a license system? Do you not agree with me that if there was a license system with standards for the internet then it would mean that people who use the internet will be much safer as a result? Can we agree with this point? If so, why not have a license system if it makes people safer?
"Because I know that at a minimum the doctors there went to medical school, passed their exams and know a thing or two about correct practice since they could not be working there without a license. And you?":
Exactly the same reason. Look how easy that was, you can answer your own questions.
"Nonsense. The patient signed a consent form saying that death could be a complication of surgery and his next door neighbor Mr. Computer Programmer decided he would help out his friend with his nasty appendix problem. What murder? Totally consensual.":
In that case you are right, it was totally consentual and nothing can be done. Let me expound on your example. Suppose that a patient signs a contract with a doctor. The contract says that if the doctor harms the patient in any way then the doctor is not liable at all. And if the doctor kills the patient, in any way, the doctor is not liable at all.
Seriously, will people sign something like that? Well, if they do, and they get killed, all I get to say, good, I am happy those people are dead. The gene pool can now be refreshed. What retard will sign a contract with a complete stranger that removes the stranger from all liability? If it does happen by some strange case, then fine, as I said, people have the right to commit suicide. But you examples are, you have to admit, kinda ridiculous, as my RDRR example, only for illustration, not really found in the world.
"How would Mr. Computer Programmer be criminally liable? What crime did he commit?":
Fraud and deciet. Exactly as he would with a standard license. If his certification from Harvard Medical school gets suspended and he still uses it then he is commit fraud and deciet in his negotation with other people. He can be trailed for that. So with certifications it is exactly the same situation as with regular licenses.
I noticed that the word 'state' works almost by magic. If I say a doctor is certified with a private agency for medical certification then, 'oh my science, they are evil, they cannot be trusted, run'. But you use the word 'state' as in the 'state will license doctors' then that is perfectly acceptable, even though both agencies are doing the exact same procedure in certifiying doctors. What makes the state so magical?
"So he can change his name, move to another city, etc. We've been over this. He'll be in business until he retires at a ripe old age.":
ReplyDeleteThat can happen, sure. But it also happens currently. I do not see why the entire medical profession needs to be centrally approved just because of these sad cases.
"Ok, so the common good exists.":
First of all there is no the common good. There is a common good. There are many common goods. As I said, skepticism is a common good.
"and sometimes the state is right in its use of power to arrange for the common good.":
How do you derive this from the fact that a common good exist? From whence does this derivation come from? And who decides what a common good is? The state? But the state is mostly wrong about everything it called the common good. It has a terrible tract record. I can stand behind people who agree with what a common good is and pursue that goal. But the state is different. It decides that the common good is, then proceeds to act in it. And many of its policies turn out doing exactly opposite of what it was intented, hence, the entire notion of the common good, as decided by the state, is meaningless. That is what is meaningless. In the name of pursuing the 'common good' in the past century alone, states have been accountable for over a 200 million deaths.
"Maybe, but you'd likely feel differently if private donations for vaccinations falls short. Many many parents would opt out if they didn't need to get their kids vaccinated for school and had to pay for it out of pocket.":
I see no reason to accept this conclusion. There were diseases that have been eradicted with little state interference. Why should not I imagine the same would not happen otherwise? Keep in mind that a major reason for the astronomical price for drugs is the FDA and central approval over them.
Consider DDT. This is a life saving substance. It got rid of malaria in advanced civilizations of the world. But many states have decided that it is the common good to ban DDT. And as a result you had millions of dead Afrikans from malaria that could have been saved otherwise.
There is a very big difference between people pursuing a common good and the state. People do so in the name of approval of other people. The state does so by universal mandate. And so if the state fucks over, as it repeadetly does over and over again in history, many millions of people can die. That is why I do not buy into the common good argument for statism.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"But again what about 'Redneck's Drunken Rodeo Hospital' where all doctors are drunken cowboys without a slightest bit of knowledge of medicine? If those rednecks wish to be treated with those people then so be it. It does not concern you at all."
Unless I get into an accident and am unconscious, at which point EMS takes me to crazy hospital because they have no preference. Hmm.
"It is a 'private' organization that has the power to have a legal monopoly over all licenses, how is that really any different from being a state?"
The AMA doesn't license doctors.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc? It is true that back in 1900 medical care was nowhere as good as it is today."
Not my point. My point was that even with accounting for technical progress in the profession the character of practice has substantially improved.
"Whatever it is just a play on words. When I said 'bad' I meant bad as in immoral charachter, that is, a plumber who lies for his services. And yes, as I said, those do exist. But you do not hear about them on the news because it is not as evil as bad doctors."
It's not a play on words I was making a specific point. A quack is an intentional or unintentional con-artist. There's a fundamental reason why these types are drawn towards medicine but are hardly seen in the guise of plumbers.
"Yes. Is that so hard to understand? Maybe he is bad for you, but not bad for me. Maybe I am perfectly comfortable with a drunken cowbay redneck examining me anally."
And maybe you want to fall off a cliff. This is a ridiculous argument.
"Do you not agree with me that if there was a license system with standards for the internet then it would mean that people who use the internet will be much safer as a result? Can we agree with this point? If so, why not have a license system if it makes people safer?"
For several self-evident reasons. It would stifle everything that's great about the internet. We value liberty and have to balance it appropriately.
"Exactly the same reason. Look how easy that was, you can answer your own questions."
So you're confident in the doctors because they have a license? Because that's what I said.
"But you examples are, you have to admit, kinda ridiculous, as my RDRR example, only for illustration, not really found in the world."
Except that medicine is complicated and plenty of people would get hurt through the accidents of unfit physicians.
"Fraud and deciet. Exactly as he would with a standard license. If his certification from Harvard Medical school gets suspended and he still uses it then he is commit fraud and deciet in his negotation with other people. He can be trailed for that. So with certifications it is exactly the same situation as with regular licenses."
Mr. Computer Programmer next went to Harvard and never claimed to. He is legally free to do whatever he wants.
"I noticed that the word 'state' works almost by magic. If I say a doctor is certified with a private agency for medical certification then, 'oh my science, they are evil, they cannot be trusted, run'. But you use the word 'state' as in the 'state will license doctors' then that is perfectly acceptable, even though both agencies are doing the exact same procedure in certifiying doctors. What makes the state so magical?"
ReplyDeleteThe state can punish those who are unfit and practice. Private certifications have no such power.
"That can happen, sure. But it also happens currently. I do not see why the entire medical profession needs to be centrally approved just because of these sad cases."
Because it is the state that makes such activities illegal and action can then be made against him.
"How do you derive this from the fact that a common good exist? From whence does this derivation come from?"
A state can act correctly towards the common good like anyone else. Why would that need to be derived?
"I see no reason to accept this conclusion."
Do you believe that without state involvement vaccination rates would remain unchanged?
"Keep in mind that a major reason for the astronomical price for drugs is the FDA and central approval over them."
Vaccines are frequently old drugs that are not very expensive, especially considering how few times you take them.
"Consider DDT."
Consider CFCs, a great success in government intervention. The state is neither all good nor all bad but is merely a tool.
Your responses are getting weaker, they are turning into an insult to Reason. Let me address them again.
ReplyDelete"Unless I get into an accident and am unconscious, at which point EMS takes me to crazy hospital because they have no preference. Hmm.":
Which is fear mongering. I have heard people, like yourself, tell me that if the state was not in place people would die because hospitals would not take them - or some nonsense like that. There never was a time in history that this happened, never close to it. Never been a time where people were lying dead in the street and nobody attended them. Never been a time where people were send into a hospital where the doctors have not known what they have been doing. Your example is pure fear mongering. There is no reason to believe in that at all.
You can argue that the state makes medical care safer and more efficient (and that is a rational argument with no fear mongering attached to it). You can argue that this is preferrable to a state-free system which is proclaimed by retards like myself. But you just cannot create doomsday scenarios about how if there was no state in medical care then there will be rape and pandimonium in the streets, babies would be raped and then sold off to cannibals.
"The AMA doesn't license doctors.":
Whatever, the doctors need to be approved by the AMA. The point is that the AMA controls which doctors can practice medicine or not. It does not matter if they are actually writing the licensing, my point still remains. It is just a techinal detail that does not change the validity of anything I have said about them before.
"Not my point. My point was that even with accounting for technical progress in the profession the character of practice has substantially improved.":
And you know this how? Where did you pull this out from?
But my question still remains. Would you rather be treated back in 1900 with the highest regulation standards or in 2011 with little (or none) regulation standards? I think we both know what the answer is (thereby showing that technological innovation and scientific knowledge are the driving mechanism for medical success and safety).
"And maybe you want to fall off a cliff. This is a ridiculous argument.":
My argument is that people have the right to form peaceful assemblies and associations with one another. What is ridiculous about that? And how is that connected to jumping off a cliff.
And yes, let me answer your question, I do want to fall off a cliff if I wanted to committ suicide. Would you stop me from committing suicide, tyrant?
You self contradict yourself here. I will show you exactly how. But before I do so let us recap what my position is. I said that people can go to any person who calls himself a doctor as people have the freedom to enter into agreements with people. You then mischarachterize my position by saying I am saying that people want the freedom to falling off a cliff. I can do the exact same argument on you. You said, admitted even, that internet freedom is important. And you implied that financial crime will happen on the internet without licensing but you said the protection of internet freedom is important. So let me ask you the same question. Does a person want to be cheated on the internet, as they do not want to fall off the cliff? No. Therefore, there should be no internet freedom and instead it should also be centrally approved by licensing to protect people from financial fraud. So you do in the end contradict yourself if you redirect your own argument against what you said in favor of internet freedom.
"For several self-evident reasons. It would stifle everything that's great about the internet.":
ReplyDeleteThe peaceful associations of individuals is a fundamental freedom too. You want to destroy that freedom because you do not like it. Why is the internet okay for you, and people deciding who their doctor is, not okay with you?
Why is it okay for you to put up with temporary evils in the defense of freedom and not okay for me to put up with temporary evils in the defense of freedom? If you do it, that is acceptable, but if I do did then I am an evil person who wants people to die?
"We value liberty and have to balance it appropriately.":
You do not know how much that statement insults people who actually care in defending freedom. You do not value it. You are okay with a simplistic watered-down version of "freedom", which is not even so much freedom as it mostly needs state approval in the first place. Then you come along and use the word 'we', as if you and I are the same. No, we are very different. I will not stop you in any kind of a way, even if I disagree with you, in fact, I will give up my life to defend you to have freedom to do what you wish even if it means being my enemy. But you, however, are willing to imprison me (by your own admission) into an iron cage because you do not agree with my associations with other individuals. You are a tyrant, and I want nothing to do with you. I will rather live in a world of religious fools that leave me alone than live among tyrants like you. Do not put me into the same category with you - we have very little in common. In fact, let us do this thought experiment to demostrate my proposition. Imagine that we lived 20 years in the future where one would probably need a license to operate an internet site. Okay, imagine that world. If we lived in such a world, and I came along preaching my message of freedom, would you oppose me and say that I am preaching the destruction of innocent people as you are doing with respect to doctors? Of course you would. Your entire viewpoints are common standard mainstream positions that I hear over and over again. I have every reason to believe that if we lived in an actual world of state licensing over the internet then you would not side with me and think of people such as me in the way you think of me now.
"So you're confident in the doctors because they have a license? Because that's what I said.":
Yes. Or if they have a certification. Is that really so hard to understand?
"Except that medicine is complicated and plenty of people would get hurt through the accidents of unfit physicians.":
We already been through these arguments before. Re-read the posts. I explained to you that doctor approval can happen through no state, no big deal.
"Mr. Computer Programmer next went to Harvard and never claimed to. He is legally free to do whatever he wants.":
ReplyDeleteWhere do you pull this out from?
He cannot use a certification from Harvard if he never got certified by Harvard. He can be sued by Harvard, or by the patient, or whoever, for fraud. Again, what is the big deal? I am surprised that you cannot think through such simple ideas yourself. It is exactly like a license, except it is none state approved but approved by other bodies. Is that really so hard to understand?
"The state can punish those who are unfit and practice. Private certifications have no such power.":
Neither does the AMA have the power to beat up an unlicensed doctor. That power lies in the authorities of a state that do the beating. But the beating still gets done. How? Because the AMA (or whatever the organization is) gives an order to an authority power to beat up the doctor.
Private certification agencies will not be able to beat up uncertified fraudlent doctors. However, they will be able, just as with a state, give that order to an authority to beat up a doctor. The certification is still enforced, but through a private entity.
"Because it is the state that makes such activities illegal and action can then be made against him.":
Okay, I explained that just above.
"A state can act correctly towards the common good like anyone else. Why would that need to be derived?":
Let me go over my argument again because you mostly everything that I said. I said that the "common good" does not need to be good. What the state, or anyone else, calls "good" does not need to be good. Indeed, in the name of protecting the "common good", states have been responsible for the deaths of over 200 million people in the 20th century alone. (Compare that to Norman Borlaug, an individual, who with the Green revolution has been able to save about 1 billion people from death by starvation). Most of what was called "common good" turned out being a "common bad" when examined retroactively. My point is from what standard are you going to decide what the common good is when the state has such a terrible tract record of doing it? The common good needs to be derived instead of just stated as a "common good", because a simple proclamation of a common good does not make it automatically into a common good.
"Do you believe that without state involvement vaccination rates would remain unchanged?":
ReplyDeleteThey will probably be changed, and probably a little lower. But it does not scare me. Because I think that vaccines can be effectively provided through the market. Think about it, computers, of amazing complexity and percision, are now avaliable within almost every home. Now think about this: what would happen if the state was in charge of handing out computers? Why is it that computers get cheaper and better, but vaccines do not get cheaper (at least not at the same rate)? Because of central control over their supply. If the market was allowed to operate in the vaccine market just like in any market it will over time become affortable to anyone who wanted to get one. Of course, there might be some people who would foolishly not want them. Well those people have a higher risk to die out, thank Science, and hence our gene pool will be saved.
"Consider CFCs, a great success in government intervention. The state is neither all good nor all bad but is merely a tool.":
There is no way that any rational person can compare the ban of CFC to equal in magnitude in goodness as equal in magnitude in evil to the destruction of millions of people through a ban on DDT. You mention CFC's as if they are just as equivalent issues.
Yes the state can do some good stuff. But guess what, so does the mafia. And so does the Catholic Church. Does this vindicate the mafia as a good force? No. Does this vindicate the Church as a good force? No. Instead we need to compare the virtues to the vices of these institutions. In the case of the state if you put all the evil horrendous acts perpetuated against mankind on a scale vs the very few positive things that resulted from them then iw would be clear in that the state has been a force for evil.
At least you seem to have silently agreed that the state is not good. In the beginning you were foolishly talking about how they act in the interests of the public (because we all know that selfless angles exist among men with none of their own selfish interests). Hopefully, you will take the next path down the road and recognize them as an evil institution.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"Which is fear mongering. I have heard people, like yourself, tell me that if the state was not in place people would die because hospitals would not take them - or some nonsense like that. There never was a time in history that this happened, never close to it. Never been a time where people were lying dead in the street and nobody attended them. Never been a time where people were send into a hospital where the doctors have not known what they have been doing. Your example is pure fear mongering. There is no reason to believe in that at all."
You were making an extreme example. I was only playing off of it. The point is that without regulation unfit doctors will practice and unfit hospitals will arise and circumstances would occur where people could be taken to them without express preference leading to poor outcomes.
"Whatever, the doctors need to be approved by the AMA. The point is that the AMA controls which doctors can practice medicine or not."
How do those doctors need to be approved by the AMA before they can practice? I think you are attributing far more power to them than they actually possess.
"And you know this how? Where did you pull this out from?"
Because quacks are in disrepute and medicines actually work now.
"But my question still remains. Would you rather be treated back in 1900 with the highest regulation standards or in 2011 with little (or none) regulation standards?"
Honestly it depends what my medical problem is and under what circumstances I could select my own caregivers.
"My argument is that people have the right to form peaceful assemblies and associations with one another. What is ridiculous about that? And how is that connected to jumping off a cliff."
The kind of freedom of association to be treated by the unfit is similar to the freedom of falling off a cliff. Nobody in their right mind would choose that even if they were free.
"And yes, let me answer your question, I do want to fall off a cliff if I wanted to committ suicide. Would you stop me from committing suicide, tyrant?"
100% Because you're probably emotionally or psychologically unhinged and you'd thank me when you're still breathing next year.
"So let me ask you the same question. Does a person want to be cheated on the internet, as they do not want to fall off the cliff? No. Therefore, there should be no internet freedom and instead it should also be centrally approved by licensing to protect people from financial fraud. So you do in the end contradict yourself if you redirect your own argument against what you said in favor of internet freedom."
Except that it's a false analogy. Falling off a cliff can kill you. Going to an unfit doctor can kill you. Financial victimization won't kill you. Get it?
"Why is it okay for you to put up with temporary evils in the defense of freedom and not okay for me to put up with temporary evils in the defense of freedom?"
ReplyDeleteBecause, simply, the degree of potential harm is extremely different. Being killed or blinded or paralyzed or losing a limb or kindney function is not a temporary evil.
"I have every reason to believe that if we lived in an actual world of state licensing over the internet then you would not side with me and think of people such as me in the way you think of me now."
If you say so. I don't care to debate silly hypotheticals.
"Yes. Or if they have a certification. Is that really so hard to understand?"
Cerified by whom? Joe's Shrimp Shack School of Medicine? There are no necessary standards in your approach.
"He cannot use a certification from Harvard if he never got certified by Harvard. He can be sued by Harvard,"
You're not listening. I said that he NEVER claimed to have gone to Harvard. He can do whatever he wants.
"Private certification agencies will not be able to beat up uncertified fraudlent doctors."
Only if they falsely use a claimed certification. There's no reason why the unfit physicians would need to use those certifications. Any unfit and unqualified person could act like a doctor without interference as long as they didn't defraud in that way.
"The common good needs to be derived instead of just stated as a "common good", because a simple proclamation of a common good does not make it automatically into a common good."
And? I don't disagree with any of that. Who would?
"They will probably be changed, and probably a little lower. But it does not scare me. Because I think that vaccines can be effectively provided through the market. Think about it, computers, of amazing complexity and percision, are now avaliable within almost every home."
You keep coming back to computers and things of that nature in defense of the powers of the market, but what you fail to appreciate is that although the market works great for consumers with simple up front interests it tends to do significantly worse where it comes to insurance-type consumables. Do Americans reliably change their car's oil every 10,000 miles or do they wait for it to start making funny sounds before they bring it to the mechanic? Vaccination rates would likely fall significantly.
"Of course, there might be some people who would foolishly not want them. Well those people have a higher risk to die out, thank Science, and hence our gene pool will be saved."
People generally don't get vaccinations for themselves, they get them for their children. And vaccinations only work well when herd immunity is in place. When that protection falls then it puts the general population at risk from communicable diseases, especially the elderly and the very young.
"You mention CFC's as if they are just as equivalent issues."
CFCs were destroying our ozone and could have led to the suffering of billions if not checked. It was checked early and effectively which is why you don't recognize how great a move it was.
"In the case of the state if you put all the evil horrendous acts perpetuated against mankind on a scale vs the very few positive things that resulted from them then iw would be clear in that the state has been a force for evil."
And the correct response is to make effort for the state to be used for good only, not to do away with the state entirely. You're like a political luddite.
"The point is that without regulation unfit doctors will practice and unfit hospitals will arise and circumstances would occur where people could be taken to them without express preference leading to poor outcomes.":
ReplyDeleteWe already been through this before. I said that certifications can be used to method to gaurentte that doctors have the ability to be doctors. Can you at least acknowledge that this will exist? What you are doing is creating doomsday scenarios about how people are going to be lying dead in the street if it was not for the state - this has never been the case in history. Can you at least acknowledge that most of the doctors and medical practice would be fine? And it is only the few remaining doctors that we need to be concerned about?
I have a friend that when I described my ideas to he told me that I am crazy because in such a world people would be constantly dying from evil doctors. Do you not realize that this is not a rational argument, it is purely motivated by fear?
Let me give you an example of a rational kind of an argument: 'yes, it is true that without the state involved in the medical business there will be good highly trained doctors who will be able to address the needs of their patients, however, without state approval there will also be more evil doctors, and this is an undesireable situation, so it is better to keep the good doctors good and reduce the number of bad doctors through state approvals so that fewer people have to die every year from medical errors'.
Your story about how you will be taken to a drunken hospital in an accident was not a serious argument, it was just fear mongering. What you are doing is what I call the 'what if' game. I can play the 'what if' game with you too. What if the state makes mistakes in approving doctors? What if those doctors go into the world and kill people because of their practice? What if the state holds off too many doctors and people end up dying in the millions because they cannot get any treated? What if the state decides to approval with full knowledge bad doctors simply to make a profit on them? See I am play the same game. Of course, you will respond to me that my questions are not serious, which is exactly my point - fear mongering. So stick to the actual discussion without blowing the dangerous way out of proportion.
"How do those doctors need to be approved by the AMA before they can practice? I think you are attributing far more power to them than they actually possess.":
The AMA acts as a guild system, its claimed purpose is to insure that doctors have proper training before they can sell their practice. As a guild system they can restrict competition by other doctors in the business. Indeed, as I said, the AMA had an anti-trust violation case for these reasons. If the AMA did not have this power, how else would it run such a violation? I think the power that I give to it is a fair description, I do not know much about the AMA (nor do I care as this subject bores me to death) but the description in what they can do I think I got accurate.
"Honestly it depends what my medical problem is and under what circumstances I could select my own caregivers.":
ReplyDeleteSince you do not want to answer the question in a direct manner how about I make it a lot more specific. Would you rather live in a world with the medical knowledge of 1900 and heavy state control, or rather live in a world with medical knowledge of 2011 and little (or no) state control? That can be answered as a yes or no question. The entire point of asking this question is to show that the the main fundamental reason for the advances for medical care was the result of scientific innovation and technology, not state control.
"The kind of freedom of association to be treated by the unfit is similar to the freedom of falling off a cliff. Nobody in their right mind would choose that even if they were free.":
Your argument is a terrible argument, I am surprised you can even make it. I have went to unlicensed dentists in my life. I have known others who have went to unlicensed dentists as well (by the way, the people I would not be able to go if you knew about this as you would want to put them into an iron cage for helping me, by your admission). Why did I go? Why did other people go? We went because we heard good things about those people and we figured they can help us with whatever problems that we had. That is why we went. We went because we believe person can make us better of.
You said that no one in their right mind would do something like that. But we have. So your premise is just not true. Can you explain the error in your reasoning?
I can tell you the mistake in your reasoning. You are talking about something else. You are talking about a case in where a person knows that the doctor is false. That is a different case. Because in my case I have went to the illegal doctor since I believed they were real (and they were). Yes, if I knew they were false, then I would not go to them. And no one in their right mind would go to a false doctor knowning that the doctor is false. But that is a seperate case, that is a case when a person has knowledge of the future. My case is where the person has a belief that the doctor is a real doctor.
I can apply your terrible argument to gambling. No one in their right mind would gamble if they had the knowledge that they will lose all that money. People gamble because they believe (or hope at least) that they have a chance to win. That is an entirely different situtation. Will you now make gambling illegal, because by your 'reasoning' no person would want to bet all that money knowing they will lose it all?
"100% Because you're probably emotionally or psychologically unhinged and you'd thank me when you're still breathing next year.":
ReplyDeleteSo you think I should have no right to commit suicide? Because according to you if I want to commit suicide it must be because of extreme psychological problems?
But what about in the case when I have honestly thought through my decision and I decided to commit suicide? I do not want to be alive, I am lonely, and people hate me for being an outcase, so I rather die. You do not think I should have the right to do that?
Opposition to suicide is the most adominamible form of slavery that there is. You are enslaving a person in this world, and sentencing him to live a life of suffering and depression because you have decided for him that he cannot leave this world. This is the worst kind of slavery that there can be.
Or do you believe that people have the right to commit suicide after all? If so, then I can choose my suicide to be jumping off a cliff (people sometimes do it off a bridge). In that case someone has decided to have the freedom to jump of the cliff. And will you still oppose that?
"Except that it's a false analogy. Falling off a cliff can kill you. Going to an unfit doctor can kill you. Financial victimization won't kill you. Get it?":
No, I do not get it. Explain the different between my case and your case without saying that medical crime is more evil than financial crime.
Let me go over the argument again. You said that people do not want to suffer medical crime. Therefore, there needs to be a state approval license system to prevent people from medical crime.
Then I said that people do not want to suffer financial internet crime. Therefore, there needs to be a state approval license system for internet sites to prevent people from financial crime.
It is the exact same argument. The principles in both of these arguments are exactly the same.
But why it that you accept on argument and not the other? You accept your argument but not mine, even though they are the same exact argument. You are being inconsistent.
Therefore, you cannot use that argument on me. You need to come up with a completely different argument to why licensing doctors is okay, but licensing the internet is not okay.
"Because, simply, the degree of potential harm is extremely different. Being killed or blinded or paralyzed or losing a limb or kindney function is not a temporary evil.":
ReplyDeleteThat is not what I meant by a temporary evil. Whatever, ignore it, I asked what I wanted to ask in my other responses to you.
"If you say so. I don't care to debate silly hypotheticals.":
What I said about you supporting internet licensing is not silly, and I can defend myself for saying that.
The internet is treated differently in Europe as it is treated in the US. In the UK, for example, I have read about how the state can shut off access to certain content it finds objectionable (once Wikipedia got blocked since it had something on kiddie porn there). I have also heard that (this most probably did not pass) the UK wanted to ban porn sites, and adults would have to contact their ISP's to unban the porn sites. And other European countries have something similar. Now we in the US do not have that (at least not yet, it will come around, just wait) because we are much better on free speech issues. If the state was to create a certain blacklist or some control on internet content, there will be a tremendous outrage in the public. As the people in the US see these issues much differently than European do. I have discussed these issues with Europeans, I get a sense they are not so bothered that this is happening with the internet. Because they see this differently.
Now the ideas that you spout are purely mainstream, I see nothing unique to them. And you are someone who probably has a lot more in common with Europeans than Americas. Therefore, it is reasonble to conclude that if you were living in Europe you will have the same general mainstream support for their typical positions. And in Europe you would not be for as much internet freedom.
So my assertion that in a world where internet had to be licensed you would probably stand by that, entirely contrary to what you say now (and use the same arguments against those who oppose internet licensing as you are doing now in support of medical licensing), is well-founded. Of course, all of this does not make you right or wrong about what you said before, it just means your self-claim for internet freedom is a most likely really a function of geography and time.
"Cerified by whom? Joe's Shrimp Shack School of Medicine? There are no necessary standards in your approach.":
Or by Robert's Redneck Radioactive Research Rodeo. Certifications can come from anywhere. But again you are playing the 'what if' game. In all seriousness this is not a problem. Doctors want to have more patients come to them so they want good certifications, and cerfication agencies want to get a good word. Not be facing a massive class-action lawsuit. So what you are saying is another fear-mongering example. I meant mine as a joke (when I used one previously) but you mean it seriously.
"You're not listening. I said that he NEVER claimed to have gone to Harvard. He can do whatever he wants.":
He does not need to be certified to practice. But he will risk much fewer patients, or possibly go out of business.
"There's no reason why the unfit physicians would need to use those certifications.":
There is a reason. The reason is that if we can claim a highly respected certification then he can run a better business, or apply to jobs that would accept that certification. People do have an incentive to have certification from highly respected places. It is not a prerequiste to practice on your own, but it may very often be a prerequiste to practice in other places, or to gain a better job.
"And? I don't disagree with any of that. Who would?":
ReplyDeleteOkay so since you admit to that. Then the more accurate description of what the state does is, 'claiming to act in the name of the public good by their own declaration of what it is'. And when you say it that way it is not longer as romantic as your described it, as you count the number of catasporhes that were claimed to have been done in the name of the public good.
"You keep coming back to computers and things of that nature in defense of the powers of the market, but what you fail to appreciate is that although the market works great for consumers with simple up front interests it tends to do significantly worse where it comes to insurance-type consumables. Do Americans reliably change their car's oil every 10,000 miles or do they wait for it to start making funny sounds before they bring it to the mechanic?":
The failure of the market is not an argument for state action. This is the common mistake people make. The market can fail but the state can mess up way more. The support for the market economy is not that markets are great, but rather that there is no better alternative to them. Capitalism sucks, but any alternative sucks even more. The statist argument is more like, 'see the market is bad, therefore we need a state' - that is a non-sequitor that needs justification, because maybe the state is even worse.
"CFCs were destroying our ozone and could have led to the suffering of billions if not checked. It was checked early and effectively which is why you don't recognize how great a move it was.":
Which is fear-mongering again. It is just like the global warming people who say that if nothing is done the world will be destroyed. Typical social hysteria and fear. I hear these fear arguments all the time. Anytime I hear people talk about something they need to imagine the worst kind of doomsday scenario which they astronomically blow out of proportion. I do not buy what you said I all.
We do not know what would have happened otherwise. We can reasonably say that the outcome would be something negative and so we need to address it. But to insist that 1/6 of the world is going to be suffering otherwise is blowing it out of proportion. Try to stay reasonable and not be motivated by fear. This is something which is unmeasure, so why guess, especially when you guess the worst possible kind of numbers?
If you wanted to defend the state you could have picked something that had completely measurable outcomes. You should have picked the space program - that is a much better example.
The space program is a good example, and I admit it was great achievement, to finally get to the moon. I have no big objection to that.
But I do not buy with such an argument that the state as good (or at least neutral). Because if you consider all the bad things that happen, all the war, all the imprisonment, all the debt, chaos, and destruction; then it is clear that the state has been a massive force for evil. Which astounds me that people still look up to it.
The last point is that just because the state did something good does not mean it can happen without it. Which is why I do not look up to it at all.
"And the correct response is to make effort for the state to be used for good only, not to do away with the state entirely.":
ReplyDeleteThe state and the church have messed up humanity more than any other institutions in history (which is why it is a good idea to keep them separate, as both of them together is certain death).
I think you will agree with me that the church is evil, and it has been the cause of so much suffering and destruction in the world?
Therefore, the goal is to destroy the church (not physically, of course, by intellectually). Churches must be abolished and ended entirely. You would not be making the argument, 'we just need to find to make the church good'.
No, you cannot do that. You cannot make the church good. Because the principles and the foundation of the church is problematic. The problem is not so much the church itself, but the ideas behind the existence of the church. The teachings of the church are based on: superstituion, irrationality, fear, learning to be disgusted by yourself for your own self-interests (a slavish mentality), and praise to a universal tyrant of all that which they call God.
All of those ideas are problematic. That is where the problem lives with the church. We do not ask how to make it better. But rather that it must end as the ideas that it represents are reprehensible and must be ended.
Then we reach the state. And you say we need to 'make it be used for good only'. Well, sure, if you are a utopian and you believe in selfless angels that act for the 'public good', then that makes sense. But I reject that answer. I do not share this utopian fantasy. For thousands of years the state has been terrorizing and murdering people, and still does so to this very day. Its vices far outweigh any good that it has done. And people, like youself, insist 'we will make it better, we will make it act for good'. You had thousands of years, you had your time, and none of it has been solved. The state has lost all credibility at this point. To believe in it, and to insist it can be used for good, contrary to all past history, is to accept a utoptian notion.
Just like I do not accept that the church can be made for the good as it is founded on incorrect ideas, so too, I do not accept that the state can be made for the good as it itself is founded on incorrect ideas. The foundation of statism is where the problem lies. That is what makes the state be an evil institution. It is the ideas behind statism that are problematic.
Therefore, I stand by my statement that the state needs to be done away with entirely (or at least, reduced to bear minimum). Just like I stand by my statement that the church needs to be done away with entirely as it cannot be made for good. Just like I stand by my statement that the mafia needs to be done away with entirely as it cannot be made for good.
"You're like a political luddite.":
ReplyDeleteI do not know what you mean by that? Do you mean the people who opposed technological innovation? If so, how do you conclude that?
I am a political nihilist, I do not think of myself as belonging to any party. Because I think that ultimately the concept of statism (and the also the stateless society) is to preach a message of hope. That there is a way to escape the savage forces of nature. That is why kings and politicians are so popular, they make these false promises of a greater world that people foolishly buy into.
I do not have that message. I say that world sucks, partly because we suck as species, and mainly because the universe itself sucks, and so we should abandon these hopes, as terrible things will happen in any kind of society. So I do not make any messages of hope. I do however believe that there are certain ideas that are better than others. And those ideas I do express, but not because I claim they are good, rather they are better in comparison to others.
I believe the only way to make the world a better place is through education in philosophy and virtue. There is no other way. It is a slow and painful process. But this is the only method in history that has brought forth a better world. Not by putting false hopes into Santa Clause that promise you they can magically cure the ills of the world by passing a magic wand.
The luddites opposed changed, they wanted to stick to the old world. Well, statism is the old world. That is what you are sticking to. The ideas that I stand behind are very modern. Freedom is a very recent concept. State control is old, that idea has been prevalent since us from our darkest days. You are the one sticking to old ideas.
By the way, I masturbated to gay porn in the middle of typing up these responses to you. I hope you do not mind.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"Your story about how you will be taken to a drunken hospital in an accident was not a serious argument, it was just fear mongering."
As I said previously, I was just playing off your colorful example. The point I was making was valid that without regulation more unfit and quackish doctors will come to practice which will have poor outcomes. Poor outcomes for their particular patients as well as generally for the profession.
"The AMA acts as a guild system, its claimed purpose is to insure that doctors have proper training before they can sell their practice. As a guild system they can restrict competition by other doctors in the business. Indeed, as I said, the AMA had an anti-trust violation case for these reasons. If the AMA did not have this power, how else would it run such a violation?"
The anti-trust case, I believe, was regarding the AMA's effort to stamp out the practice of chiropracters, not against other physicians.
"The entire point of asking this question is to show that the the main fundamental reason for the advances for medical care was the result of scientific innovation and technology, not state control."
Which is a useful point but misses the real effects which regulation has on bettering the medical profession as well.
"You said that no one in their right mind would do something like that. But we have. So your premise is just not true. Can you explain the error in your reasoning?"
My reasoning is not in error, it is your misapplication of my statement that is in error. You went to an unlicensed dentist, not necessarily an unfit one.
"Will you now make gambling illegal, because by your 'reasoning' no person would want to bet all that money knowing they will lose it all?"
Yes - if they were betting their life, which is what you do when you go to unlicensed doctors.
"But what about in the case when I have honestly thought through my decision and I decided to commit suicide? I do not want to be alive, I am lonely, and people hate me for being an outcase, so I rather die. You do not think I should have the right to do that?"
You certainly have the power to do so, but no, I will do what is in my power to stop you. Being lonely is not a permanent problem so why address it with a permanent solution? You have not thought this through. You would not intervene if someone was going to commit suicide in front of you? Under what conditions would you intervene?
"No, I do not get it. Explain the different between my case and your case without saying that medical crime is more evil than financial crime."
What do you mean? That is the difference. We treat cases differently depending on the severity of harm. Trying to prevent all harm is a medicine worse than the disease.
"What I said about you supporting internet licensing is not silly, and I can defend myself for saying that."
It's a silly argument defended with a series of silly hypotheticals. I won't address it.
"He does not need to be certified to practice. But he will risk much fewer patients, or possibly go out of business."
ReplyDeleteExcept he won't because while quacks suck at medicine, at business they are spectacular.
" Then the more accurate description of what the state does is, 'claiming to act in the name of the public good by their own declaration of what it is'."
There is no one state. The state is just made out of the individuals in power and they may or may not care about the public good. If they do care about the public good then they're probably putting more effort into understanding what that is than just declaring something so.
"The failure of the market is not an argument for state action. This is the common mistake people make. The market can fail but the state can mess up way more."
Or the state can improve upon where the market fails. That you cannot visualize this as a possibility is the mistake you make.
"Then we reach the state. And you say we need to 'make it be used for good only'. Well, sure, if you are a utopian and you believe in selfless angels that act for the 'public good', then that makes sense. But I reject that answer. I do not share this utopian fantasy."
It's not utopian to realize that the state has come to advance the interests of its citizens far more in recent history than it has in the past. This trend would justify using the state as a tool for good rather than doing away with it entirely.
"I do not know what you mean by that? Do you mean the people who opposed technological innovation?"
No. Luddites oppose technology because they fear and hate the potential harms it brings. You oppose state politics in general because you fear and hate the potential harm it brings. I say that you, like the Luddites, make some valid points - all human innovation is a double edged sword - but just because a dangerous edge exists doesn't mean we ought to throw away the sword.
"As I said previously, I was just playing off your colorful example. The point I was making was valid that without regulation more unfit and quackish doctors will come to practice which will have poor outcomes.":
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you do acknowledge that the fear-mongering that people say in regard to unlicensed doctors is wrong? The fear-mongering blow out of proportion doomsday scenario that they described (and you did too intentionally) has never been the case, it is just a made up fright world.
Yes, it is true that without licensing it would be easier for bad doctors to get into the market. But it is also true that without licensing it would be easier for good doctors (which far outweight) the good doctors to get into the market. We been through this entire argument before. There is something negative to my license-free alternative, but it has something positive which your position lacks.
"The anti-trust case, I believe, was regarding the AMA's effort to stamp out the practice of chiropracters, not against other physicians.":
That is an anti-trust case, I think there were others earlier than that whose aims were to drive out competition out of the market by making it illegal for them to compete. Actually, the same is true with the case you brought up, AMA tried to get rid of chiropractors as they were not licensed (this is just one half of the story, according to Wikipedia, it was also certain kinds of physicians as well). The main details I do know as I do not exactly find AMA policy history to be really exciting, however, the important point is that they used their powers to drive out certain competitors.
By the way, chiropractors are phonies. They do not do anything for you. Penn and Teller did a Bullshit episode on chiropractors if you are interested to see it, I can find you the link.
"Which is a useful point but misses the real effects which regulation has on bettering the medical profession as well.":
Train your eyes to see for the unforseen consequences, it is not so easy. High degree of regulation has a negative side to it also. It means higher prices for medical care and a restriction on supply. You talk about regulations as if they have no negative side-effects to them which is not true.
"My reasoning is not in error, it is your misapplication of my statement that is in error. You went to an unlicensed dentist, not necessarily an unfit one.":
Your reasoning is messed up. You said: no one wants to jump off a cliff, going to an unlicensed doctor means to endanger yourself, no one wants that freedom, therefore doctors need to be regulated. I am the counter-example to what you said, so you were wrong. Instead, your argument should have been: no one wants to jump off a cliff, going to a fake doctor with full knowledge means to endanger yourself, no one wants that freedom. But if you reasoned that then that is not applicable to what I said. Because unlicensed doctor is not the same as a fake doctor. And so your argument falls apart.
"Yes - if they were betting their life, which is what you do when you go to unlicensed doctors.":
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of problems with what you just said.
You said that you are betting your life when you go to an unlicensed doctor. This is correct. But you are also betting your life when you go to a licensed doctor. But wait, there is more. Some people hold off going to a doctor as they do not want to hear bad news. Are these people betting with their lives? Of course. So do you propose a mandatory law for everyone to regulary go to doctors so they do not bet with their life?
Another problem is that people might be even betting less going to an unlicensed doctor if he was certified by a highly reputible organization.
Why can people not bet with their own life? I do not understand. When people smoke they bet with their life. Do you think smoking needs to be banned? Do you think drinking needs to be banned? What about sky-diving? Do you not agree that sky-diving is more dangerous than going to an unlicensed doctor?
Let me say that your chances or getting a bad doctor as just .1% while a licensed bad doctor is just .01%. These numbers are really low. Why is not allowable and one is not?
What about gambling with money? Do people have the right to do that? Sometimes gambling ruins the lives of people too.
Do you not realize how terrible inconsistent your reasoning is on this subject? The moment you make such a propostion it opens new questions that are problematic.
"You certainly have the power to do so, but no, I will do what is in my power to stop you.":
So let us see. People cannot choose what doctor they want for themselves and if they were to do that the doctor (maybe even the patient - though not sure what your position is on the patient) will be enslaved in a cage, by your admission. By your admission people cannot gamble with their lives, because I guess you own their lives and they have no right to their own life. And now you say that people should not even have the right to commit suicide.
And someone you talk about "we who care for liberty". You caring for liberty is equivalent for Madoff caring about his investors. I can at least respect the honesty of a tyrant, like yourself, who says "I do not believe in freedom". But you do not say that, and still maintain these tyrannical positions.
Preventing suicide from one who wants to commit suicide is the worst form of slavery that can possibly exist. It is tyranny of the mind. The person wants to leave this world. A world that is cruel to him, a world that he does not want to live in any more. And you prevent him from leaving. He must stay in his misery because you figure you are helping him. You are one big tyrant. I stand by my statement that I would rather live with indoctrinated religious Jews who do not tyranize than among tyrants like you.
"Being lonely is not a permanent problem so why address it with a permanent solution? You have not thought this through.":
ReplyDeleteI have thought it through, oh so much, I have thought it through, so much as it is an obsession.
Being lonely, as not finding those in common with your values, can be permanent. The old Spinoza had to be rejected from his Jewish community and live as a lonely philosopher. Nietzche had to struggle with much loneliness throughout his life of not finding those with his values (or lack thereof). Loneliness can be a permanent position.
In fact, I argue that the world consists of nothing but loneliness. We are all miserably lonely inside, that is the natural state of the world, emptiness. Loneliness is the natural state. And it is by being with other people do we make ourselves believe that for a brief moment we are not alone. And this madness perpetuates over and over.
It is not just loneliness it is utter disgust for this pathetic world. And disgust for this pathetic species that had so much potential which was killed through collective thinking.
It is the foolish, it is the unphilosophical, it is the unthinking men who can be happy with this world. Anyone with rationality cannot look at this cold dark unsympathetic universe and be happy with its worthless existence.
You think of the depressed, of the lonely, of the ones in the misery of the mind as the ones that have the problem. No, it is the 'normal' happy people who have the problem. It is the masses who are foolish and cannot see the world. You think of us as weak, but no, we are the strong. We are the ones who can struggle with the world as it is rather than inventing superstitions to comfort us.
And if one has had enough of this why can he not decide to end it and finally attain a moment of peace? You would enslave someone who has these ideas to this world because you do not agree with him? You are the tyrant of all tyrants.
"You would not intervene if someone was going to commit suicide in front of you? Under what conditions would you intervene?":
No, I would not intervene. If a friend of mine was going to commit suicide I will first philophize with him. I shall ask him questions so that he can state his conclusions. Then I will question his conclusions. I will see if his reasoning is just or unjust. If his reasoning is unjust I will attempt to persuade him to change what he is doing as he is doing it in error, but I will not stop him, nor assit him, as he owns his own life. But if his reasoning is just I will assit him even, if he was to ask me to. What kind of friend would I be to walk away from my friend who is in his darkest hour? Why not help him end his misery from beyond the grave? I will assit him for this is the conclusion that he decided upon himself. Ultimately life is meaningless and we create our own values to escape from this abyss, those who cannot create their own values will fall into the abyss and desire suicide. But there is nothing inherently wrong in that - as their life is ultimately meaningless.
"What do you mean? That is the difference. We treat cases differently depending on the severity of harm.":
ReplyDeleteDoctors cannot practice without a license because people do not want to end up going to a bad doctor. Therefore, sites cannot run without a license because people do not want to end up going to a bad site.
"It's a silly argument defended with a series of silly hypotheticals. I won't address it.":
If you want to call something silly or stupid you can go ahead and do that. But then you need to explain why it is stupid. Otherwise, what you wrote is a dangling statement without a basis to it.
I formed my ideas very carefully. I reasoned that if you were to live in Europe you would be just as pro-control as they are. Thus, your current stances are most likely the accident of geography rather your commitment towards internet freedom. I think that is a pretty good guess about you.
Now you do not need to address it. You can just say it is pointless in this discuss. I agree. Even if you are the biggest hypocrite in the world that does not invalidate your other points. So what you would think if you lived in Europe does not change the truth value of what you said before. I just thought it would be interesting to introspect. So just say that you are not interested in addressing it instead of saying it is silly (as that would require a separate argument of explaining why my guesses are wrong).
"Except he won't because while quacks suck at medicine, at business they are spectacular."
I want to remind you that these people already exist in the world. There are chiropractors as we mentioned. There are achupunturists. There are hypnotists. There are those people who sell homeopathetic remedies. Then let us not forget the "all natural" crowd that claim that their herbal bullshit is good for you. There are also tarot card readers. And there faith healers. There are also dwosing rod 'specialists'. Oh and psychics, even psychic detectives. Do not forget the scientology audits.
All of these failed magicians exist in the world and sell their services. But if you believe in free speech and the freedom of religion then you cannot stop these people. It sad that they need to do this. But the world entirely consists of bullshit. Not just from them. But from everyone, including yourself, with your belief in selfless being who care about other stranges they do not even know exist. I am not going to stop any of these people from the beliefs that they do. These beliefs are just as stupid as in religion. But it is up to the people to ultimately believe in this ideas. And the only thing that I can do is speak out against it, as I do.
"There is no one state. The state is just made out of the individuals in power and they may or may not care about the public good.":
The state is not a conscious entity. It cannot care for the people as it does not experience this feeling. An individual in power can. But the state cannot. Now since the state consists of an entire army of individuals who are actually doing the work it is almost improbable that their actions are caring actions. And so the state does not care. This uncaring situation is even more prevalent in democracies as it consist of a myriad of people. At least in despotism the despot can have true caring intentions (however his servants who the work do not). Also think about this way. What is more likely, that working in the state is just another job for yourself (as a lawyer) and hence is in the interests of the agents or the agents being selfless angles that people the public before themselves? I think it is pretty obvious which situation is more likely. Like I said, history of statism just shows how good the 'public good' really was.
"Or the state can improve upon where the market fails. That you cannot visualize this as a possibility is the mistake you make.":
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not the mistake that I make. The mistake that you make is that if there is an undesirable outcome in the market then the state can magically solve this problem with passing a law. I say that market failure cannot be improved upon as there are internal features that make it fail.
I heard your position numerous times already. It is a pure politician feel-good answer that upon inspection is entirely empty. It goes like this, 'I am all for capitalism, it is great, I just think there needs to be this one judge that can set things straight when they get out of order'.
Looks how appealing that sounds! And then realize how empty it sounds as it does not explain how this judge will fix the problems, it just asserts that it will. A pure politician response.
Anyway, let me get back to what I was saying. Say that prices, for some reason, get extremely high. The economic fools will scream, 'those evil capitalists trying to exploit the world, we need the state to save us from their oppression'. I would rather say that these prices are so high now because of a natural disaster that drove them so high. This market failure is a response to a failing in the world itself. In order for the state to solve this problem it would need to restore the same amount of supply as was before the disaster, just saying it will lower prices and magically solve the problem is not a solution at all.
Thus, I reject the idea that the state can improve upon the market. The market is the spontaneous emergent complexity and order of billions of transcations. The state is a clumsy central planner from higher above. For me to accept that the state can improve the market means I must accept the idea that central planning in economic calculation is actually possible, and I reject that idea.
So no, I do not fail to realize anything as I once thought exactly like you did. It is people like you who fail to realize that there are naturalistic phenomenon at work sometimes that just make the market fail and the state is entirely powerless against something like that. Does it feel good to say the state can solve it, sure, politically that is what people want to hear, but we are not talking about how it feels but what the effects are.
"It's not utopian to realize that the state has come to advance the interests of its citizens far more in recent history than it has in the past.":
ReplyDeleteYou did not address the point that I brought up. I said that it is utopian to believe in selfless angles who lack the vices of people that can act for the sake of the people. That is the appeal behind statism, people who support statism have this parodied view of what they hold. This is what makes statism utopian.
Then you say the state has advanced the interests of the citizens. There are a number of problems with that. First, the Church has also advanced the interests of its congregates; as the mafia has advanced the interests of its notsurewhattocallthem. That is not an argument for the Church nor the mafia. And just because their interests have been satisfied does not mean that the Church or mafia actually cared for that.
Think about a tobacco company. Does it care about its costumers? Of course not. If it did it would not be potentional killing them with cigarettes. It cares about all of this wonderful profits at stake and acts to maximize the profits. Just because its costumers get their interests satisfied does not mean it cared for them.
The state acts to maximize its power (and profit too, the evil business world drive the state also by the way). Now it much easier for it to maximize its power on the pretenses that it cares for its citizens. If it can make people subjects by providing them stuff then it is not really caring but moving in direction of more power.
Kim Jong Il provides his citizens with certain services. It does not mean he cares for them at all. The relationship between the person and the state is not much different between the slavemaster and the slave.
But there is even more problems with what you said. For every interest that has been answered by the state there were a lot unanswered. That is not really called caring for the people when one out of many ends up getting answered.
And finally do not forget that the past century was the bloodiest one in all of history (caused by statism). I find it funny how you recently states have taken more care for its citizens. Well if they did then what all the blood?
"This trend would justify using the state as a tool for good rather than doing away with it entirely.":
Did you read what I said? I said that the foundations of statism are utopian and problematic. Which is why it needs to be abolished ultimately. That is where the problem lies. The Catholic Church also got better. It stopped killing homos and witches and now just molests boys, and even that is not so bad as it leaves no child's behind alone.
"Luddites oppose technology because they fear and hate the potential harms it brings.":
The Luddites were fools, what they claimed is the old fallacy that technology creates unemployment. This fallacy has been dealt with over and over again. Really stupid for people to say it anymore, in fact, how about we all go back to doing manual human work because these trains and horses are creating unemployment! Can you believe that people blamed the Great Depression on machines?
"all human innovation is a double edged sword - but just because a dangerous edge exists doesn't mean we ought to throw away the sword.":
So this means that we ought to have a Church and ought to have a mafia?
Baruch,
ReplyDeleteI write 2 posts and you write 6 back. Makes me think of Kohelet.
Instead of trying to break down every single point you make let's just bring it down to the essential points at issue and leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I don't find your rhetoric particularly convincing.
With regard to licensing, the reason why we have licensing is to prevent incompetent people from practicing something that can seriously harm others. That is the net positive. We have gone over this ad nauseum. The supposed benefits you mention if we did away with licensing would actually be pretty marginal in my view and would themselves net worse results to the medical profession. You should train your eyes to see the unforeseen consequences of your own policy recommendations. You think smart people are going to invest lots of cash and a decade of their life learning a skill set that will be overrun with mediocre practitioners who will degrade the standing of the profession as well as the expected income?
We have to make choices with regulation. Sometimes regulation is worse the costs as there is net benefit. Sometimes the costs are too high and there would be net societal cost. We must judge which things to regulate and what not based on many different factors.
In this society we generally value human life as well as true freedom. Now you think freedom is improved when we have no safeguards in place to prevent certain dangerous activities. I believe that if we permit certain dangers to persist then there is a whole class of people who will be victimized by such a system. For instance, if we permitted death matches in this country I am certain that the poorest and most unfortunate among us would volunteer to fight to the death for a cash prize. They would be "free" to do so, but that's not freedom.
If we had no quality control for medicine, I am confident that the very worst "doctors" and the worst quacks would situate themselves specifically in the poorest and most uneducated parts of society and they would prosper on the suffering around them. Maybe you would be smart enough to stay clear of them but the weakest among us as a society would be disproportionately hurt by your policies of freedom.
Regarding suicide, I think that virtually all the time there are less extreme options to help with a situation that does not end in death. I would prefer to "torture" someone for awhile if they may in a year or two realize what a big mistake they were close to making. People at the time think they want to die but later on they frequently realize they were wrong. Even people at the "abyss" can take a step back and see color again in the world.
With regard to your silly hypotheticals. You supposed - based on nothing - that my views were the consequence of geography and therefore concluded that my views would be different if I lived elsewhere. Your argument is based on nothing and is silly.
And yes, non-scientific, non-evidence based "healers" exist out there and they are doing well financially, but at least their harm is somewhat limited as they cannot perform dangerous surgeries or prescribe controlled substances.
"Doctors cannot practice without a license because people do not want to end up going to a bad doctor. Therefore, sites cannot run without a license because people do not want to end up going to a bad site."
ReplyDeleteAnd people can't walk on the street without a license because other people do not want to end up looking at ugly people. Just because you can make a simple analogy doesn't make it valid as policy.
With regard to market forces, I don't understand why you think the state is powerless against "naturalistic market forces" when the state has successfully changed real circumstances in real life by adjusting how the market operates.
With regard to the state in general, it is a tool, a human innovation not unlike other human innovations. It can and has been used for good just as it has been used for evil. In democracies the state tends to follow the will of the people and this generally works fairly well for society. On balance it does more good than bad and therefore I see little reason to do away with it.
"I write 2 posts and you write 6 back. Makes me think of Kohelet.":
ReplyDeleteKoheles, learn to speak Hebrew properly. I am not sure what is up with this Hebrew dialect all over the Juden-blog world. But this dialect is repulsive it sounds just like Arabic.
"With regard to licensing, the reason why we have licensing is to prevent incompetent people from practicing something that can seriously harm others.":
Not necessarily true. It is more complicated than that. Licensing can be in place to prevent some people from competing with other people. That does happen, in the business world at least, wheere one competitor sets up barrier entry to its competitors through licensing or regulations. There is a dark side to licensing that people do not talk about.
Of course, I realize that not every single license that exists is because of what I just described. Most licenses do not even form from that reason, but my point is relevant.
Now other licensing is in place not because it is necessary to stop tthe death of innocent people, but rather because of a percieved belief that this is necessary. There is a very big difference. The difference is intentions and effect. The intentions do not imply the effects. Thus, what is way way more likely is that these licensing laws are supported rather because the supporters have a belief that they are necessary, not because they are.
The fact that licensing exists is not proof they are necessary. The most it shows is that people believe it is necessary. And our disagreement was about me trying to convince you that they are not even necessary.
"The supposed benefits you mention if we did away with licensing would actually be pretty marginal in my view and would themselves net worse results to the medical profession.":
Let us consider my FDA example. I said that the FDA kills more people (indirectly of course) by holding off life saving drugs from the market than it does by preventing harmful drugs. If the drug policy was under my view the net positive would actually be higher. Thus, what I am saying is better than what is now. Of course, you will counter that and say that the FDA power should only be reduced for checking for the satefy of drugs, not if they actually work. But by doing so you then admit that my view does contribute positively.
"You should train your eyes to see the unforeseen consequences of your own policy recommendations.":
ReplyDeleteDo you think that one day I woke and say, 'Hallelujah, I do not believe in the FDA anymore!'? My disapproval of the FDA and my other positions took a very long time to develop. I have been all over the map, and I was your typical liberal at one point in my life. So everything that you are saying now I used to believe myself. My eyes are trained, I know the opposing position, I find that position to be weak, but I do know it as I once believed in it myself. I have thought about these sorts of questions more than you have. I constantly have to doubt myself and second-guess myself, furthermore, as I am taking the non-mainstream position it means I must naturally spend more time thinking about it. You seem to think that your points I have never realized before. You have not told me a single thought of your own that I did not think of myself. I had them all. I know what you think. You not making me read anything new, I hear these ideas over and over again.
"We have to make choices with regulation. Sometimes regulation is worse the costs as there is net benefit. Sometimes the costs are too high and there would be net societal cost. We must judge which things to regulate and what not based on many different factors.":
That is funny. Because many of the regulations that are in place now is because of irrationality and fear-mongering. Most laws have a stupid origin to them. Regulations are often put into place because the idea is, 'we are all going to die!'. The typical way this happens is that people are scared to death about something, or some politician talks about 'what about the children?!', and then the regulation gains mass approval. You have this silly view of regulations as if they sit around a table discussing rationally about what is best and now.
"In this society we generally value human life as well as true freedom.":
Not you. You are a tyrant. You would not know what freedom meant if it had anal sex with you.
"For instance, if we permitted death matches in this country I am certain that the poorest and most unfortunate among us would volunteer to fight to the death for a cash prize.":
And what is the problem with doing that? I do not understand. Again, people own their own lives, if they want to kill themselves they can do so. Think about it from this point-of-view. If someone is willing to participate in death matches then it must mean that he values the rewards from death matches more than what his current life is. And so such it means you are making him worse by preventing these people from assemblies that they want to have. As I said, you are a tyrant.
Now here is another big problem with what you said. The belief that if something is illegal it magically goes away. There are illegal activies a little similar to what you describe and they do not go away. Rather they are made more dangerous because it is down illegal. That is exactly why prostitution is more dangerous because it is illegal. But you probably do not believe in prostitution either as we know how tyrannical you are.
"They would be free to do so, but that's not freedom.":
ReplyDeleteSo you do not believe in freedom? Freedom means people are self-autonomous and no tyrant and rule over their lives. If you are telling a person that he cannot engage in dangerous activities then you are being a tyrant and enslaving these people to your will.
"Regarding suicide, I think that virtually all the time there are less extreme options to help with a situation that does not end in death.":
What if a person thought it through a very long time and realized that he has no one, so he has no problem with dying? There is nothing wrong to suicide at all. In fact, it can be good to commit suicide depending on what the case is. You have this terrible view of suicide that it is an absolute evil and there is no excuse for it, and that everyone should be stopped doing it. Where did you get this view from?
"I would prefer to 'torture' someone for awhile if they may in a year or two realize what a big mistake they were close to making.":
I know you would, because you are a tyrant, you think you own some else's body over themselves. And what if they did not realize any mistake? What if these years were terrible pain for them and they still want to commit suicide, even more in fact?
"People at the time think they want to die but later on they frequently realize they were wrong.":
Not all the time, you can find people who are committed to that idea.
""I write 2 posts and you write 6 back. Makes me think of Kohelet.":
Koheles, learn to speak Hebrew properly. I am not sure what is up with this Hebrew dialect all over the Juden-blog world. But this dialect is repulsive it sounds just like Arabic.
"With regard to licensing, the reason why we have licensing is to prevent incompetent people from practicing something that can seriously harm others.":
Not necessarily true. It is more complicated than that. Licensing can be in place to prevent some people from competing with other people. That does happen, in the business world at least, wheere one competitor sets up barrier entry to its competitors through licensing or regulations. There is a dark side to licensing that people do not talk about.
Of course, I realize that not every single license that exists is because of what I just described. Most licenses do not even form from that reason, but my point is relevant.
Now other licensing is in place not because it is necessary to stop tthe death of innocent people, but rather because of a percieved belief that this is necessary. There is a very big difference. The difference is intentions and effect. The intentions do not imply the effects. Thus, what is way way more likely is that these licensing laws are supported rather because the supporters have a belief that they are necessary, not because they are.
The fact that licensing exists is not proof they are necessary. The most it shows is that people believe it is necessary. And our disagreement was about me trying to convince you that they are not even necessary.
"The supposed benefits you mention if we did away with licensing would actually be pretty marginal in my view and would themselves net worse results to the medical profession.":
Let us consider my FDA example. I said that the FDA kills more people (indirectly of course) by holding off life saving drugs from the market than it does by preventing harmful drugs. If the drug policy was under my view the net positive would actually be higher. Thus, what I am saying is better than what is now. Of course, you will counter that and say that the FDA power should only be reduced for checking for the satefy of drugs, not if they actually work. But by doing so you then admit that my view does contribute positively.
"Even people at the 'abyss' can take a step back and see color again in the world.":
ReplyDeleteIn other words dumb themselves down? There is a reason why so many deep introspective people, and philosophers, have been often very depressed. It is hard to realize the contradictions and the problems and still stay happy. Fools are the ones who can live happy.
"With regard to your silly hypotheticals. You supposed - based on nothing - that my views were the consequence of geography and therefore concluded that my views would be different if I lived elsewhere. Your argument is based on nothing and is silly.":
What an amazing refutation to my guess. I am going to use those kinds of rebuttals next time when I am in a debate. You are one awesome master-debator.
You say that my assumptions are based on nothing. This is not true. Read my justification for what I said. I did not just pull it out of my anus I have reasons for thinking that. Even if I am entirely wrong (which I doubt) it is still wrong for you to say that I did not base them on anything. I gave my justifications. I developed my guess.
"And people can't walk on the street without a license because other people do not want to end up looking at ugly people. Just because you can make a simple analogy doesn't make it valid as policy.":
Oh good you finally got my satirical policy. You realized it was non-sense, exactly that is what I was trying to tell you about your defense of licensing.
"With regard to market forces, I don't understand why you think the state is powerless against 'naturalistic market forces' when the state has successfully changed real circumstances in real life by adjusting how the market operates.":
How about I give you a very simple example. Say there is a famine. Naturally food prices will explode astronomically. And this is good, this is what needs to happen. Since food is now being rationed as there is a very limited supply of food.
If this situation was to happen, as it did happen in the world many, the people will look for semi-gods on earth to solve this pricing people. Politician who will make them false promises that they will make food prices 'just' again.
But the state does not actually solve the famine problem. An enormous amount of stupid people will pray to the state for it to save them from the evil capitalists who are charging high prices. The famine problem can only be solved when enough supply is created. As the state cannot magically create this supply this famine problem cannot be solved at all. But people do not realize this. They think that the right just laws can fix this.
This is an example of a market failure that was the result of naturalistic laws that made them fail. But the state cannot override it at all as it is powerful against these very same naturalistic forces.
"With regard to the state in general, it is a tool, a human innovation not unlike other human innovations. It can and has been used for good just as it has been used for evil. In democracies the state tends to follow the will of the people and this generally works fairly well for society.":
ReplyDeleteDid you read anything that I told you before? Of course not, you will keep to yourself the same old utopian view of states and democracies. I gave a very simple example involving business. Just because a business gives its customers something does not mean it cares for them. Did you consider that position? No, you entirely ignore it, do not address it, and repeat the same old line that 'the state cares for us and represents our will'. In the end statism is a utopian declaration because you believe in these angles that are somehow able to think of the people before themselves. And no, the will of the people is not represented.
I find it funny how you think it is 'works fairly well for society' - perhaps you are ignoring the enormous debt, the destruction of currency, the expansion of war and state power, the destruction of freedoms. Is that 'working'? It is a big load of chaos.
"On balance it does more good than bad and therefore I see little reason to do away with it.":
Will you make up your mind already? First you talk about how great the state is in the beginning. Then I manage to convince you just a little that it is not good and you admit it is neutral. And now you say that it is good again. Will you stick to one consistent position?
Consider what I told you before. States have been responsible for the deaths of 200 million people in the past century alone. This is just counting the wars in between them, it gets higher on other measures. You look at this enormous figure and say 'it has done more good than bad'. Are you blind? How foolish can one be to still continue to be a state apologist? At least classical conservatives will tell you that the state is evil. You can at least take that position.
Baruch,
ReplyDeleteRather than a truly reasoned position, your rhetoric makes you sound more like the zealots of the recently converted. It's not as if I haven't read my Ayn Rand, Sartre and Nietzsche too.
I think we've pretty much ground down the licensing argument. Ultimately you believe freedom from external human intervention is more important than freedom from limiting natural circumstance apparently all the time. Whereas I recognize that the circumstantial state of many people can be much more restrictive and limiting than any human powered regulation.
Being poor, hungry and desperate is not freedom. And therefore being forced by circumstance to seek inferior medical care, poor quality food and dangerous work because you don't have the luxury of choice is a kind of "freedom" I don't care to exist in this world. That someone is willing to participate in death matches tells me he is desperate, not that he is reveling in his anarchic freedom.
"But the state does not actually solve the famine problem. An enormous amount of stupid people will pray to the state for it to save them from the evil capitalists who are charging high prices. The famine problem can only be solved when enough supply is created. As the state cannot magically create this supply this famine problem cannot be solved at all. But people do not realize this. They think that the right just laws can fix this."
The state has the power to pay in futures what current funds cannot cover. It can borrow billions of dollars to feed its citizens now, buy food from other countries and sell it to the people at modest cost. Only the state can confidently recoup that loss as it has the power to tax its people as needed and it can spread that cost out over generations if necessary. Famine crisis averted, natural market forces thwarted.
"I gave a very simple example involving business. Just because a business gives its customers something does not mean it cares for them. Did you consider that position? No, you entirely ignore it, do not address it, and repeat the same old line that 'the state cares for us and represents our will'."
I never claimed the state cared for its citizens so your argument against a position I never held is irrelevant. The state however, if working properly, does indeed represent the will of the people.
"I find it funny how you think it is 'works fairly well for society' - perhaps you are ignoring the enormous debt, the destruction of currency, the expansion of war and state power, the destruction of freedoms."
Evidently I take a longer view of history than you do.
"Will you make up your mind already? First you talk about how great the state is in the beginning. Then I manage to convince you just a little that it is not good and you admit it is neutral. And now you say that it is good again. Will you stick to one consistent position?"
I haven't changed my position. The state is just a tool. It can be good or bad depending on how it is applied.
"States have been responsible for the deaths of 200 million people in the past century alone. This is just counting the wars in between them, it gets higher on other measures. You look at this enormous figure and say 'it has done more good than bad'. Are you blind?"
One could make the easy argument that technology was responsible for those deaths. How destructive could WW2 have been without tanks, planes, bombs or guns? They're just tools.
"Rather than a truly reasoned position, your rhetoric makes you sound more like the zealots of the recently converted. It's not as if I haven't read my Ayn Rand, Sartre and Nietzsche too.":
ReplyDeleteThis is silly (and unlike you I will show you how you are wrong).
I never read anything by Ayn Rand. I have just seen some of her interviews, pieces of them, and that is about it. I never read anything by her and am not interested. I am not an objectivist and cannot be one as I am a nihilist. So that is one mistake.
Then you mention Jean Paul Satre. This is just ridiculous. Satre was a Marxist, I am a greedy Jewish capitalist banker. What more needs to be said? So this is the second mistake.
Finally you talk about Freidrich Nietzsche. Yes I read Nieztsche, not the whole thing, nobody read all of Nieztsche, not even Nietzsche. I really like Nietzsche, I have a special feeling towards him, it makes me feel as if I can connect to him and understand some of what he felt. But Nietzsche was not a political philosopher. Nowhere in his work does his work in questions of political philosophy. I know that he made fun of democracy and the state apologists who believe in the social contract. But that is very rare, his attacks on democracy are only sudden paragraphs that are off topic remarks really. So Nietzsche is just not applicable to what I am saying and that is your third mistake.
"Ultimately you believe freedom from external human intervention is more important than freedom from limiting natural circumstance apparently all the time.":
I believe other things too. I believe licensing is not necessary and has some bad consequences to it (then people wonder why medical care is so expensive, it must be that Scienced-damned free market again!). I also believe, unlike the utopians, that the state has no care for people and also no tract record of deciding what the 'common good' is, so I simply do not accept the premise of the state being a social good. And finally, as you said, I do believe in freedom. Which quite simply means people own themselves. Oh my Science, this is so radical! The idea that people own themselves and that we own nobody else is just such a radical idea. Well, I also believe that violence is not a way to deal with social problems. Another crazy idea somehow even though we apply this concept in our personal day to day lives.
"Whereas I recognize that the circumstantial state of many people can be much more restrictive and limiting than any human powered regulation.":
Whereas you believe that you know what is better for people than they know for themselves so you want to prevent them from doing what they decided to do.
"Being poor, hungry and desperate is not freedom. And therefore being forced by circumstance to seek inferior medical care, poor quality food and dangerous work because you don't have the luxury of choice is a kind of 'freedom' I don't care to exist in this world. That someone is willing to participate in death matches tells me he is desperate, not that he is reveling in his anarchic freedom.":
ReplyDeleteYou are doing that old statist trick. Just redefine freedom in such a way to make it convenient for you. All what freedom means is that people are self-autonomous, they have no lords over their lives. This does not mean that people are free to do whatever they want. For example, I am not free to jump off a building and expect to fly. The natural laws prevent me from doing that, not a lord over my life. We are talking about the issue of autonomy. I say that autonomy lies in the people, and that is all freedom means. You have some messed up non-sensical version of freedom. No wonder people are so confused at this point that they spout out non-sense like 'right to healthcare' without even thinking what that means. The same people who believe that rights come from the state rather than realizing that they are inherent, not given by anyone, and can only rather be taken away (as with the state).
You are thinking with your passions not with your intellect. You see a person join a death match so you get repulsed by that and want to intervene. The more intelligent way to looking at that is that people, when presented with a list of choices, will choose whatever they value the most. If they choose death match it must mean they value the potential rewards out of it more so than their current situation. Thus, if the death match did not exist (as outlawed by certain tyrants) then they would be worse off.
It is people like you who hurt poor people in poor countries around the world. Say a US business opens overseas and employs poor people at 4 dollars an hour. Now in comparison with what these poor people have they accept this deal as it is better than any alternative. Along come people who claim they know better what other people want and say 'this is exploitation we must end this evil practice immediately'. So they shut down their business and now the poor people are even poorer. Good going. You might feel better about yourself but the results speak for themselves.
"The state has the power to pay in futures what current funds cannot cover. It can borrow billions of dollars to feed its citizens now, buy food from other countries and sell it to the people at modest cost. Only the state can confidently recoup that loss as it has the power to tax its people as needed and it can spread that cost out over generations if necessary. Famine crisis averted, natural market forces thwarted.":
Okay, so I guess you missed my entire point. Let me make it even easier. Say there is a global famine problem. How can the state solve it? The answer it, it cannot. There is nothing that can be done. The problem is supply. It cannot magically re-create the supply. That means for the time being the world will starve. And this is a very simple example of how the naturalistic forces of nature entirely trumpt anything the state can do.
"I never claimed the state cared for its citizens so your argument against a position I never held is irrelevant.":
ReplyDeleteYou never used those words but your certainly implied it over and over again in your responses to me. You talk about how it acts for the common good. That suggests that not only does it know what the common good is but that it acts for the common good because you think of the state as a machine for virtue and making progress. And to suggest that means that in the end you do have to believe that the state has care for doing what it is good for the public. Now you entirely retracted that implication.
I have heard many things that statists tell me. A constant recurring idea among them is that the state is like an ultimate judge that acts to make what is right and fix the wrong problems in the country. I have heard on so many occasions statists use the phrase, "state caring for its citizens". And of course, if you have this foolish view of the state, in that it is virtuous and cares for people, then it makes a lot of sense why people support the state. Statism in the end is an appealing idea because those who support it believe in that the state is a machine that cares for the citizens, and can be used for progress and virtue. Or as I would say, that is what is utopian about it, and hence appealing. Unlike me who rejects that gods among men from existing in the first place.
You ever watch the elections? You ever pay to that foolish game known as 'politics'. People most certainly do believe that the state cares for them. Listen to what they say and to what they believe. These are the typical statists that I get to hear from, and they do believe in the state caring for the people.
Now you claim that you do not believe the state cares for the people. I find that hard to believe given everything that you said previously about it. And I find it hard to believe by identifying you with the common mainstream statist who probably votes in elections and listens to what the politicians say.
"The state however, if working properly, does indeed represent the will of the people.":
ReplyDeleteWhat is that supposed to mean to 'represent the will of the people'. Explain what that it means, it sounds like another example of political euphemistic language.
Do you mean to say: 'The state listens to what the people want and does what they want'. But if so then does that not imply that it must care? Why would it do something for which it has no interest in doing to begin with?
But there is an obvious problem with that. The state does not represent my will. There are a lot of people whose will is not represented by its actions. Therefore, what you wrote is false.
So what is that supposed to mean then? Whose will are we talking about? The will of the powerful, that does happen. The will of the rich, that does happen.
I will guess you will respond to me and tell me 'will of the people', means 'democracy' and democracy is when 'the people rule'.
What does it mean to say the 'people rule'. Another political euphemistic expression? What I stand for is true democracy, in where people are autonomous and do rule. You do not. What you rather stand for, and what democracy really is, can be more accurately described as, 'a hierarchical power structure where people get to cast votes to select people in power and those people in power make choices for everyone else'. You know when you put it that way it is way more honest but also much less appealing. How exactly is that 'will of the people' then? I do not see it.
And again it is not my will, so we are only taking about a specific will. You will tell me it is the will of the majority. However, that is not even always true. And even if true majority opinion was supported why is that a system to be happy about? Look around you. People, selfish ignorant meatbags. Those are the people you want to get orders from? What kind of a system is this?
One final note about the failure of democracy to be the 'will of the people' as you would claim. Suppose there are three groups of people evenly divided. One do not like alchohol and cigarettes. One do not like alchohol and porn. And one do not like porn and cigarettes. If the majority rule was to perfectly prevail in this society then it would mean that there will neither be alchohol, cigarettes, nor porn legal. And so nobody got represented.
But you can ignore all of that, return back to the textbook teaching of the state. Just keep on participating in elections, listening to the false promises of politicians and further deluding yourself in that the US acts to do what the people want by putting their interests as a priority.
"Evidently I take a longer view of history than you do.":
ReplyDeleteI purposely choose past century because it had among it the disease of democracy (as does this century). The centuries before that were also terrible. You had massive oppresive and constant wars too. Torture and cruel executions all going on in the time period especially if you went to 1500's. The futher back into history you go it is still extremely terrible place to life. There was no time in history where the state was a counterexample to what I said. I choose a short view of history. The long view of history is even worse, I just skipped all of that as I knew you would tell me 'those were not democracies', I knew you would play the democracy excuse on me, so I skipped those past centuries.
By the way, older history busts the statists apologetic myth of the 'social contract'. The myth is that there was an agreement between the people and the state. If you examine old history the case is clear. The state was used as a means to secure power for the powerful (as the king). Then it spread its conquest, with murder and war, to overtake over regions. Those other regions were then put under the rule of the state without any approval of the people there. So much for the social contract myth. Past history makes a case for what I am saying even better than recent history, but I thought recent history was more relevant. Social contract theory was only an ex post facto justification for state apologists to defend statism.
"I haven't changed my position. The state is just a tool. It can be good or bad depending on how it is applied. One could make the easy argument that technology was responsible for those deaths. How destructive could WW2 have been without tanks, planes, bombs or guns? They're just tools.":
Okay, so you want to play word games.
Is the knife that the mo'hel uses to mutilate the genitals of baby Jewish boys evil? I guess you can say that the knife itself is neutral. As the knife is not doing anything. Okay, I can see that.
But is the knife being used for evil? Sure, genital mutilation is a barbaric practice designed to repress sexual pleasure. Nothing great to say about genital mutilation.
So let me then change my question around. In general, is the knife of the mo'hel being used for good or evil? You can find a few cases when it is used for good, say the knife happens to be treif and it turns into just a meat knife. But in most cases the knife of the mo'hel is used for an evil act.
So if you want to play word games let me then rechange what I said about the state. The state is like a machine, it has no status of being good or bad. However, from experiece and past history it has been incredibly descrutive and evil with very little good that came out of it.
But statism, as the belief in using the state to sovle social problems, is itself a descructive idea. Just like circumcision, as the belief in using the mo'hel knife to saw off the genitals of baby boys, is itself an evil idea. So I figure it would be more accurate for me to stick to statism as the problem, not the state itself (which is actually consistent with my blog, as I never really complain about politicians, sure I may say they are being stupid, but I do not put blame on them as they are irrelevant figures, instead I direct my utter disapproval to the ideas that they stand for).
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"I never read anything by Ayn Rand. I have just seen some of her interviews, pieces of them, and that is about it. I never read anything by her and am not interested. I am not an objectivist and cannot be one as I am a nihilist."
Heh, you'd probably like her then. For a nihilist you seem to have strong opinions about right and wrong.
"You are doing that old statist trick. Just redefine freedom in such a way to make it convenient for you. All what freedom means is that people are self-autonomous, they have no lords over their lives."
How is a person more free if they want to buy a sandwich but cannot because they are too poor than when they want to buy a sandwich but are not permitted to do so by an authority? The effect is equivalent. Indeed, desperate people will "freely" enslave themselves for a steady supply of sandwiches.
Freedom is the power to do what you want without restraints. Maximizing one's real freedom requires ceding control of some freedoms to a higher power.
"If they choose death match it must mean they value the potential rewards out of it more so than their current situation. Thus, if the death match did not exist (as outlawed by certain tyrants) then they would be worse off."
So, just to check, you would rather permit death matches than offer food stamps? Do you prefer when powerless people get exploited?
"Okay, so I guess you missed my entire point. Let me make it even easier. Say there is a global famine problem. How can the state solve it? The answer it, it cannot."
LOL, ok. Good point. I agree, the state is not all powerful. However, this has nothing to do with how it can intervene in market failures.
"Now you claim that you do not believe the state cares for the people. I find that hard to believe given everything that you said previously about it."
Individuals in power can care about the people. In general though, since in democracies the power is derived from public approval if the people in power failed to at least show concern about the people they would be voted out of office.
"What is that supposed to mean to 'represent the will of the people'. Explain what that it means, it sounds like another example of political euphemistic language."
Democracy, the will of most of the people most of the time.
"However, that is not even always true. And even if true majority opinion was supported why is that a system to be happy about? Look around you. People, selfish ignorant meatbags. Those are the people you want to get orders from? What kind of a system is this?"
It's the very worst form of government...except for all the others.
"One do not like alchohol and cigarettes. One do not like alchohol and porn. And one do not like porn and cigarettes. If the majority rule was to perfectly prevail in this society then it would mean that there will neither be alchohol, cigarettes, nor porn legal. And so nobody got represented."
Or...everyone was represented. The majority on each specific issue prevailed.
"I purposely choose past century because it had among it the disease of democracy (as does this century). The centuries before that were also terrible."
I would say that, with minor quibbles about modern policies aside, people are more free and better off now than they have ever been.
"The state is like a machine, it has no status of being good or bad. However, from experiece and past history it has been incredibly descrutive and evil with very little good that came out of it."
I disagree. I think it is now more beneficial than not.
"Heh, you'd probably like her then. For a nihilist you seem to have strong opinions about right and wrong.":
ReplyDeleteYou do not know what a nihilist is. There are correct things and wrong things. The universal law of gravitation is correct. Oh my science, I am a nihilist and admitted that! It is impossible to write the square root of two as a ratio of two positive integers. Again something else which I take the stance on being false.
Nihilism means that I reject any inherent meaning to life (and so morality) as well. This does not mean I do not have values, or that I think all values are equal, it just means that objectively they are utterly useless. And so I have no system of morals. But this means that I can take other people's ideas that they take and turn them against themselves to show their own contradictions (as with statism).
I probably will not like her from what I already know about her. Though I am planning on going out with someone to the movies to see Atlas Shrugged. I doubt I will learn any new theme that I already know.
"How is a person more free if they want to buy a sandwich but cannot because they are too poor than when they want to buy a sandwich but are not permitted to do so by an authority?":
This is not the definition of freedom I am using. The definition of freedom you use is the useless concept popular today among those who advocate heavy state action. Nearly all tyrants in history have repeated called themselves for "freedom". They used this non-sensical idea of freedom.
My definition of freedom is better. People are self-autonomous and have no rulers over their own lives other than themselves. The only way to achieve the 'freedom' that you speak about is by destroying self-autonomy. This is an anti-authoratiran statement. That is how I define freedom. I actually prefer the word 'liberty' as it is a more philosophically appropriate, but I synonymously use 'freedom' also. Free from rulers over your life does not mean that you are free from the natural laws. Jumping off a cliff and wanting to fly is not a violation to freedom to how I define it.
"Maximizing one's real freedom requires ceding control of some freedoms to a higher power.":
I repeatedly tell my allies that statism is not a religion. But it is hard for me to keep on saying this when statists think in terms of religious imagery. A 'higher power'? It feels as if I am watching Hasselbeck on the View. I remember there is a sentence from 1984 where the citizens tell themselves that 'freedom is slavery'. Your ideas are remainder of that. That you insist that you represent freedom when you in the very same sentence say freedom must be taken away. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I know that in Judaism there is a scary concept of complete obedience to God as being 'true freedom' (whatever that even means), it is surprising how these people can contradict themselves in the same sentence.
"So, just to check, you would rather permit death matches than offer food stamps? Do you prefer when powerless people get exploited?":
ReplyDeleteWhat I would prefer is for people to have as many choices as possible, and then they make their own choice not be given by tyrants who claim they represent freedom. The more choices a person has the better, as he will pick the one that he thinks is the best for him. The question that you ask should not be if he would rather have food stamps xor have a death match. Rather it should be that the person should be given both possibilities and he alone can decide what he thinks is better.
"LOL, ok. Good point. I agree, the state is not all powerful.":
Oh my science, you actually agree that the state is not an omniscient omnibenovelent higher power.
"However, this has nothing to do with how it can intervene in market failures.":
This has everything to do with market failures. I gave an extremely exagerrated example exactly illustrating how the the natural forces that destroy the markets will destroy the state. Suppose that the state wanted to limit airplane accidents by passing a law against gravity, will it be a failure? Absolutely, as the state is contradicting the natural laws. The operation of the market is very often subject to almost natural laws that in certain instances make the markets fails. But that does not mean that the state has the magical abilitiy to overcome that, as it is very likely that it will incur state failure if it trys to change that. This exactly why prohibition is always a failure. As the forces behind prohibition as almost naturalistic forces that the state cannot overcome, and hence the failure of drug laws and prostition laws.
"Individuals in power can care about the people.":
I already went over this before. I said that tyrants can care for people (unlike democracies, in this way surprisngly tyranny is preferable to democracy). However, they are not doing those actions themselves, they have subjects who do that for them. Those subjects do not care at all. Furthermore, is it not way way more likely that tyrants care for the accumulation of more power than the public?
"In general though, since in democracies the power is derived from public approval.":
This is statist apologetics non-sense. You are against repeating the social contract myth. There never was any kind of contract signed between me and the state. Nor do I know any person in my life that signed a contract with them and gave them any approval. All you have to do is think a little in order to not make such embarrasingly mistakes.
"if the people in power failed to at least show concern about the people they would be voted out of office.":
ReplyDeleteAnd this is a good thing about democracy? This is a nightmare scenario. Imagine having a telephone company lording over your life. And if you did not approval all you have to do is wait some years and pick some other lord over your life. This is a failure, not a success, but you talk about it as if it is some such of accomplishment. Sure, it is ahead of despotism but it is terrible and no apologetics should be offered for it.
Compare this to freedom. Where people, if they disagree with something, can stop their funding for what they disagree with.
And finally if you look at the history of 'voting people out' of office as you say you will notice that this system that you defend is so terrible. You replace garbage with other garbage. That is our system. Garbage out, garbage in. Garbage out, garbage in. Not something to be admire.
How about I apply your pathetic argument to a business. How about we give a business a complete monopoly and then we get to vote for what we want from this business. If they fuck us over, well, we will just vote in a new president. This is ridiculous.
"Democracy, the will of most of the people most of the time.":
So essentially what you are doing is rejecting my objections to democracy, and statism, in general (about how there is no care at all and it is a utopian idea to think that there can be one) and just repeat one liners in favor of democracy? I already refuted those ideas. Democracy is a piece of propaganda that was probably taught to you as a little kid. You learned that the state cares for you and your welfare. You learned that the police officer is your friend and that the soldier is fighting for your freedom. And now you repeat the same propaganda that was taught to you. I heard all this praise for democracy too much in my life. You do not need to repeat it. If you want to go with one liners you should rather quote Benjamin Franklin that democracy is two-wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
"It's the very worst form of government...except for all the others.":
Ah, the classic 'let me repeat Churchhill quotation on democracy because I have nothing else to say strategy'.
I hate it when people repeat quotations from famous people simply because they are famous. There is nothing intelligent in that quotation at all. All you got to do is think a little. If it was true that democracy is as bad as all others then why are you not defending despotism? Why are you not on blogs teaching how we all need a despot because he cares for us and he makes things better? I will answer that question. Because you do not believe in that. Indeed, you consider despotism to be worse. Thus, this pathetically stupid quotation is not true. So stop using it. Actually, make defenses of democracy if you value it so much instead of using this cop-out trick to avoid defending it by alluding to all other failed state systems.
"Or...everyone was represented. The majority on each specific issue prevailed.":
ReplyDeleteAnother word game. You were talking about how the state is 'the will of the people'. And I gave a very simple example of how nobody gets to do what they want to do. No one has the will to do what he wants to do.
But you turn it into a word game by insisting that it is the will. Whatever, the point is that this sucks. It is terrible. There is nothing inherently good about the majority decision. This simply example shows how nobody gets to do what they want to do if you follow the majority.
"I would say that, with minor quibbles about modern policies aside, people are more free and better off now than they have ever been.":
And why is that? You probably think that it is because of statism. But that is because you are foolish. The major changes in human history were result of education in philosophy and virtue, the spread of ideas that influenced the world. The discovery of new science and innovation. That is what made the world better. Not the state. The state is a relic from our tribal ways that will have to be abandoned, like the idea of God, one day.
Indeed, the Enlightenment was the rejection to state rule. If you study the Enlightenment philosophers, who ended up influenced the modern world today, they had a lot of anti-state sentiments to them. They pushed for a direction of less statism. Even today people still repeat their ideas.
"I disagree. I think it is now more beneficial than not.":
I agree, ignoring all the mass murders, the genocides, the enslavement, the debt, the destruction of freedom, wars; things are going great and wonderful, I am going to go turn on the TV and see what Ellen Degeneres has to say.
Baruch,
ReplyDelete"Nihilism means that I reject any inherent meaning to life (and so morality) as well. This does not mean I do not have values, or that I think all values are equal, it just means that objectively they are utterly useless."
Heh, you're so full of it. How many times did you use the term "evil" in our discussion? What does "evil" mean to you? Another word for "I don't like it"?
"My definition of freedom is better."
You definition is simply self-serving to your philosophical leanings. An anarchic free market can make slaves of people too.
"That you insist that you represent freedom when you in the very same sentence say freedom must be taken away. The cognitive dissonance is astounding."
Not at all. If we make a business deal and sign a contract we both bind ourselves to what we signed - limiting freedom - but we ultimately gain from our agreement the ability to do what we could not do before - enlarging freedom.
"The question that you ask should not be if he would rather have food stamps xor have a death match. Rather it should be that the person should be given both possibilities and he alone can decide what he thinks is better."
But how can he have that food stamp option if you forbid governmental intervention?
"Suppose that the state wanted to limit airplane accidents by passing a law against gravity, will it be a failure? Absolutely, as the state is contradicting the natural laws."
Ok. But if the state regulates safety standards on airplanes that reduce the rate of airplane crashes then it has evidently succeeded to interfere with the so-called natural law, hmm?
"This is statist apologetics non-sense. You are against repeating the social contract myth. There never was any kind of contract signed between me and the state."
It's not a literal contract, obviously. It's essentially game theory and formalized cooperation.
"Imagine having a telephone company lording over your life. And if you did not approval all you have to do is wait some years and pick some other lord over your life. This is a failure, not a success, but you talk about it as if it is some such of accomplishment. Sure, it is ahead of despotism but it is terrible and no apologetics should be offered for it."
It actually inherently prevents despotism, which is actually something that your semi-proposed system cannot do.
"Compare this to freedom. Where people, if they disagree with something, can stop their funding for what they disagree with."
ReplyDeleteWhich assumes they have money. Under laissez faire capitalism do you think the distance between rich and poor would get larger or smaller? And if larger (which is the correct answer to the rhetorical question) how much less power would the poor then have if they didn't even have the vote?
"f it was true that democracy is as bad as all others then why are you not defending despotism?"
Heh, for a critic of a quote it would serve you much better if you actually read and understood it first. Churchill actually said the opposite of what you seem to think the quote means.
"Another word game. You were talking about how the state is 'the will of the people'. And I gave a very simple example of how nobody gets to do what they want to do. No one has the will to do what he wants to do."
Two thirds all wanted a specific vice outlawed, they all succeeded. We could just as easily reverse the scenario and have three groups all calling for the permissiveness for two of three actions and them all getting what they want and everyone is happy.
"There is nothing inherently good about the majority decision."
Every version of government has its downsides. This is just the least bad of any of them.
"And why is that? You probably think that it is because of statism."
Not entirely, but yes in part. Its not as if more governing leads to better outcomes, but that maintaining a proper amount of governing leads to good outcomes.