[Martin Lewitt 2010.04.29.1552 MDT]
[Martin Taylor 2010.04.29.08.18]
[Martin
Lewitt
2010.04.27.0918 MDT]
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.27.1050 EDT)]
[Martin Taylor 2010.04.26.17.56]
I rather think your freedom would be likely to be much
less
assured in such a society than it is now. But that’s just my opinion,
as the opposite is your opinion. There’s very little evidence to
support either opinion. The best analogy I can produce off the top of
my head is the ease with which you can travel a kilometer on a network
of two-lane roads on which drivers keep to the right, as opposed to
travelling to the same destinations a kilometer across a huge parking
lot on which cars are going every which way as the drivers please. I
think your freedom to travel any path you wish between your start and
your destination would be greater if instead of a network of roads
there was just a big parking pad, but your freedom to get where you
want easily and quickly would be greater on the network of roads. It’s
the same with good laws and regulations. They inhibit some possible
actions, but generally help you control most perceptions more readily
than you could in the absence of the rules and regulations.
Martin T worries about losing money via a scam, is irrelevant because
scams would still be fraud.
Obviously so. But in a libertarian society without coercion, how do you
persuade people not to commit fraud? What is to discourage the scammer
from scamming if that’s what he wants to do? Do you
send in your friends to make the scammer an offer he can’t refuse? What
if it is you who wants to be the scammer? Beyond your natural goodwill
toward your
fellow man, why would you not go ahead? What discourages fraud in a
Libertarian society?
You are assuming I’m an anarcho-capitalist, libertarianism covers a far
broader range than that. Most would settle now for a return to a
strict constitutionalist government where the commerce clause is back
under control and the income tax is repealed or reformed. Personally,
I want to go in the direction of a more limited government. I don’t
recognize any collective ownership of my life.
Martin T can “think” I would be less free in such a society, but I know
I would not.
I guess you are talking about a temperamental difference between us.
Given a similar quality of evidence, my tendency is to say that it
looks to me as though X might be true, whereas it seems you say you
know Y to be
true. In the case in point, I could equally well say that I
know you would be less free, because all the analysis points that way.
Actually, I do not say “I know” because in my own mind I don’t think
the analysis
of such complex systems is up to the task of allowing me to “know”. You
“know” because you can point to a specific instance of something you
want to do that you are unable to do because of regulations. We all can
do that, and it can be frustrating. But it does not come close to an
argument that takes into account all the interlocking feedback effects
of being able to do that one thing, let alone considering the more
general ramifications of the Libertarian ideal.
Let’s think about the implications of your example of having to go to
physicians to be tested to see if you were a good candidate for a
particular drug (your writing suggests that the first two doctors did
not think you were). That you have to do this is your example of how
your
freedom is restricted by unnecessary regulation.
My GP was unfamiliar with the drug, so referred me to a specialist.
The 1st specialist ran a bunch of tests to possible protect himself in
case of malpractice and still didn’t feel comfortable prescribing off
label, even though the neuroprotective use was supported by the peer
review literature. He recommended a 2nd specialist who worked in the
sub-speciality. He prescribed the drug.
Suppose that particular regulation were to be
repealed, leaving the rest of our rules and regulations unchanged, and
let’s suppose that you had the knowledge to perform the required tests
on yourself to see whether you would be likely to benefit from that
drug. How many other “drugs” (made perhaps from baking soda and flour)
might there be that you might have been led to believe would help you?
Would
you have been able to distinguish the particular drug you believed you
needed from all the frauds? Would it even have been manufactured and
tested,
or perhaps would it have been manufactured and less rigoruously tested
than the FDA demands? For an answer to that, you have only to look at
the examples of countries where the testing requirements are less
rigorous.
I didn’t need the tests, they only told me what I had already expected,
and I was willing to try the drug empirically to save the expense
assuming any “risk” myself, of course, one of the reaons I wanted the
drug was because of the evidence that the risk was lower… Allowing
me to prescribe for myself, does not remove the manufacturing and
testing regulations. I KNOW I would be more free if I could prescribe
for myself, I’m surprised you don’t. You would still have the option
of going to a doctor of course.
You can always find lots of examples of things you would like
to be able to do, but when you look more closely at them, you often
find
that to be able to do them, you would require the rest of the social
structures to remain as they are, or to require that the freedom
applies
to you and not to your neighbour.
Would there be something immoral about being a free rider? We could
eliminate the FDA, and just voluntarily choose purchase from
manufacturers that conform to European standards, etc. Personally,
truth in labeling is about all the regulation I need. But there are
intermediate proposals that save lives. If the FDA allowed drugs onto
the market sooner, say after stage II trials, and then engaged in
aftermarket monitoring, analysis by the CATO institute argues that far
fewer lives would be lost due to delays in access to life saving drugs,
than would be lost due to problems only found once the drugs are being
marketed. 10s of thousands of lives were lost due to delays in
approval of beta blockers and clot busters.
No, I don’t “know” you
would be less free in a Libertarian society, but if the experiment were
possible, I’d be prepared to put a pretty hefty bet on that side of the
wager.
I suspect we agree that a lot of laws are unnecessarily restrictive,
when it comes to the substance of them. For example, I disapprove of
the Nixon-initiated “War on Drugs”, and I suspect you do, too, but I
suspect our disapproval would be based on different grounds. Mine is
based on the money and power it gives to the drug suppliers, and on the
trials and tribulations visited on the many people that the dealers
have to get addicted if they are to
support their own addiction, as well as on the vested interest the
police forces have on keeping the drug trade healthy so as to increase
police employment and funding. In other words, my disapproval is based
on the damaging effects I see the “War of drugs” having on society as a
whole, whereas I suspect your disapproval might be more locally and
personally based on the government’s having no right to stop you
putting whatever you want into your own body. I have some sympathy with
that view as well, but it is tempered.
The cocaine receptor has been studied for appetite suppression, but
other compounds seem to have the same side effect that the FDA finds
unacceptable. People like it. Hundreds of thousands of deaths each
year are attributed to the complications of obesity, far more than from
the lack of health insurance. I oppose the War on Drugs and the FDA
because they are mass murder. it is tough to temper such views, when
you are responsible for having voted for politicians who supported such
programs. It is humbling to recognize what one has done.
regards,
Martin L
···
On 4/29/2010 3:38 PM, Martin Taylor wrote:
Martin
