6
7

Why do libertarians want to abolish the FDA? (self.Libertarian)

SilhouetteMan が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 12ポイント13ポイント  (56子コメント)

China doesn't have a lack of regulation, its markets are hardly free. Libertarians want the fda to be abolished and have a free market. Competition would 'regulate' food as customers won't buy poisoned food

[–]MrDysdiadochokinesia 11ポイント12ポイント  (31子コメント)

How would customers know if food is poisoned? They would first have to get sick and risk death to find out if it is poisoned or not.

[–]tensorstrength 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's already so many private food testing labs, it's ridiculous to think that only a government agency can be trusted to give us reliable quality control.

Without the costs of bureaucracy that every federal agency has, the money we pay would take us farther in the private sector. The demand will be for reliable quality control, and there will be a supply.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 2ポイント3ポイント  (22子コメント)

Well, that's kinda how it works in any situation. If someone gets sick or dies, then the people then have knowledge of what that restaurant caused. Food critic companies would probably fill such a role in food poisoning prevention and such by putting out reviews and the like

[–]MrDysdiadochokinesia 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

I see. What about health inspections? Does the libertarian ideology believe in getting rid of city health inspectors?

[–]Blix- 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm willing to compromise on health inspection. The government could be allowed to inspect food, but only to provide a report. The government shouldn't have the power to shut down restaurants at all.

[–]cacatl 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Should restaurants be required to display such a report publicly in their establishment, as well as grocery items on their labels?

[–]bpg609 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Good question. The answer is no, because that's coercion. If consumers care about seeing such reports, producers will cater those demands and advertise them on their own. Producers who fail to advertise truthfully will lose business. Over time, people will learn through Bayesian update to "always look for the official badge" or they won't buy. Some people will still buy, but that's their choice and should be respected in free and civilized society.

[–]ZestyMicrowave 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Should restaurants have points counted off if an employee doesn't wash his or her hands after using the restroom? I barely even touch my dick when I pee and I use my foot to flush, so isn't it a waste of water to wash my hands?

I'm trying to watch my carbon footprint so I used to just dry my hands through my hair instead of using the paper towels.

What did John Locke say about that? I mean, it's just not fair that I got fired for that shit.

[–]jeremiahs_bullfrog 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, it's just not fair that I got fired for that shit.

You got fired because you broke company policy. The government has no authority to fire you, so this is completely orthogonal to regulation and completely in line with the free market.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Depends on your libertarian, me being an anarchist (incoming flak) I do not approve and I believe that the market could handle such roles itself. Likely with entities like the food critic companies I mentioned. Companies could have approval certificates and the like to say 'this place is clean'

[–]jeremiahs_bullfrog 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends on your libertarian, me being an anarchist

Uh, libertarianism != anachy. Libertarianism supports a limited government that seeks to prevent encroachments on liberty, whereas anachists believe that society can fill that role without a designated government. They're fundamentally different.

I believe that the market could handle such roles itself

That's potentially true. We can definitely agree that it shouldn't be the federal government's role.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

If someone gets sick or dies, then the people then have knowledge of what that restaurant caused.

I feel like there's a step in the middle. I am not, personally, aware of every person that dies nor of the cause. Typically, when a death is noteworthy, I'm informed via some kind of media venue. If a death goes unreported, it's very difficult for me to notice unless the death is in my immediate proximity.

Part of the role of the CDC is to monitor for disease and illness outbreaks. When an illness is food-borne, this information is passed on to the FDA for further investigation. After FDA agents confirm the cause of illness is traced back to particular food producer or distributor, that's when media figures take notice and report on the deaths as all related to a single food producer.

Absent any kind of investigation, dozens of people dying throughout town represent so much white noise, particularly when these people are elderly.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

absent any kind of investigation

Private companies can do such investigation to see what the disease is caused by. Mostly id imagine it'd be food critics and food critic-like entities.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

Private companies can certainly do investigations. But there's no profit motive in letting your customer base know that you fucked up, particularly if you catch it early and/or you can't be directly implicated.

Blue Bell was perfectly happy to keep selling listeria-laced ice cream long after their executives were aware of the fuck up.

[–]TheBraveTrollConsequentialist Anarcho-Capitalist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

But there's no profit motive in letting your customer base know that you fucked up

There's a profit motive for everyone else.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

However, there is a motive in proving that you haven't fucked up. I'd imagine that such companies would run around like said health inspectors proving to people that company X isn't selling lice infested wigs

[–]SentrySappinMahSpy 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

"It wasn't us. Here's a report proving so authored by an investigative service we paid for. You can trust them, they're privately owned."

Is that how it would work?

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Then in this hypothetical the person says "which investigative service" "jimmy lehdle's food approval company" says the store owner. "Jimmy lehdle's is known to be a bunch of sellouts (or not depending on the company), no I aint buying"

[–]flipmode_squad 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Customers need help knowing which food to trust but will magically know which industry-funded "oversight" company to trust.

[–]lurgi 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

But, they don't. Take a look at the vitamin/supplement industry. It's the wild-wild-west when it comes to regulation (at least, compared to most food and drugs) and the companies selling stuff are fine with that. Hell, Walmart and Target and others were found selling supplements that, in some cases, didn't contain any of the active ingredients listed on the bottle (e.g. St. John's Wort that contained 0% St. John's Wort). "Traditional" medicines have been found to contain dangerous amounts of lead and mercury. The companies themselves did nothing to stop it until they got caught and even then their reaction was damage control rather than, you know, trying to make sure that they sell actual product in the future.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Another problem is that companies aren't as at risk from consumers not buying from them when the feds raise barriers to entry and artificially keep companies afloat

[–]lurgi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is sort of the opposite of what happens in the supplement industry.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Indeed. There's a huge motive in discounting the allegations of others. We saw this game out with the lead-paint and asbestos and cigarette industries. We're still seeing it out of the fossil fuel industries. Millions of dollars are spent, annually, to bolster myths that these products are harmless (even beneficial) to the general public.

It took millions of ruined lives and billions of dollars in damages to prompt regulatory action. But people still bitch at the idea that cigarettes now carry warning labels.

[–]UndoubtedlyOriginal 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just a recent real-world example of this happening:

Despite the FDA and health inspections, Chipotle has had several recent outbreaks of e coli. The media wasted no time in reporting this fact to the world, and I'm sure Chipotle suffered as a result. They even closed all of their stores for 4 hours on 2/8 to provide food safety training to all of their employees.

[–]Nakedcrazyman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

See: Chipotle

[–]bpg609 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most likely third-party intermediaries that are like the FDA would put a badge of approval on food providers. People would be recommended to only buy approved food, but they would not be coerced to do so under threat of violence. This serves as a necessary check on the tyranny of the FDA.

Also, there are always torts. One person dies, and you get sued out the wazoo, and you lose all your customers. Producers have a very strong incentive to not poison people.

[–]terroh8erhe not busy being born is busy dying 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's like saying you have to buy a car to find out if it's reliable. We have other ways of deducing this, even if we don't know the difference between a carburetor and a mud flap.

It's probably safe to say that without the FDA, we'd only buy food inspected by someone we trust. But if that's the case, then what's the problem? Don't buy the food unless it's got Consumer Reports' seal of approval, for example. The difference here is that some accountability is introduced into the system. If people no longer trust Consumer Reports, they go out of business.

For the record, I don't think anyone is proposing getting rid of the FDA. Hypothetically though, this is what one could expect a free market to look like.

[–]Bing_bot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is the whole point. You don't punish good companies who haven't done anything wrong like now, its basically constant punishment for good companies all the time and waivers and protections against those who do bad like say the BP oil spill, which turns out the government is responsible by forcing them to drill in an unsafe position which BP didn't actually want to do, but was forced!

You would punish the bad companies, the bigger the problem the stricter the sentence.

Plus here's a simple picture of who runs the FDA, you decide how much they protect you: http://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/Monsanto-FDA-Michael-Taylor.jpg

[–]nakedtime313 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This scenario happens with or without the FDA every single day.

[–]TheBraveTrollConsequentialist Anarcho-Capitalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Same reason you go to a department store to get quality clothing instead of going straight to where they produce it.

Supermarkets exist to provide assurance to customers about food products.

[–]SilhouetteMan[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (20子コメント)

What if an unknowledgeable customer decided to buy poisoned food? They didn't do the research beforehand so they couldn't have known that the food was poisoned.

[–]tensorstrength 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have to stop thinking at the consumer level. The consumers aren't the only people who "buy food and drugs". There are literally millions of people who make their living being middlemen in this industry.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

Customer tells people via services like yelp and other social mediums and word spreads

[–]SilhouetteMan[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

But that doesn't guarantee protection for everyone. Under that system, there will always be someone who gets poisoned.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 8ポイント9ポイント  (8子コメント)

Under any system there will always be someone getting poisoned. Utopia doesn't exist.

[–]nakedtime313 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Statists will have you believe we are all just one more regulation away from total utopia.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Certain regulatory systems can reduce the frequency at which people are poisoned. What /u/SilhouetteMan isn't bothering to do is crunch the numbers on the implicit costs associated with no FDA (or with some private sector alternative).

I am a little surprised that we haven't seen the old "Private sector can do it better" canard, by now. That's always a fun hypothetical, since it's not technically wrong. You could have a theoretical "private FDA" that employs all the same people at the same relative costs, funded by private citizens in an amount proportional to what they would otherwise pay in taxes. And this identical-except-for-the-hats system would produce identical results. Make some marginal improvement and it would produce superior results. Viola! Privatization works!

[–]TheBraveTrollConsequentialist Anarcho-Capitalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Certain regulatory systems can reduce the frequency at which people are poisoned.

Source?

The FDA at one point basically came out and said 'sorry we potentially killed thousands of people' when they finally pulled back the ban on beta blockers.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

They also said "Sorry, we potentially killed thousands of people" when they instituted the ban on Phen-phen and Vioxx. But understanding the risks carried by beta blockers were instrumental in employing them safely. And the constantly struggle with pharmacy companies to be transparent with their own internal studies leads to insufficient information for decision making by regulators.

More information is better, and one of the fundamental roles of regulation is information transparency. When businesses are required to publicize product manufacturing techniques, functionality, and observed efficiency, they have an incentive to produce better products.

[–]TheBraveTrollConsequentialist Anarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

They also said "Sorry, we potentially killed thousands of people" when they instituted the ban on Phen-phen and Vioxx. But understanding the risks carried by beta blockers were instrumental in employing them safely. And the constantly struggle with pharmacy companies to be transparent with their own internal studies leads to insufficient information for decision making by regulators.

The research on the effectiveness of beta blockers carries on with or without the FDA; still doesn't justify denying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

More information is better

...well yeh.

and one of the fundamental roles of regulation is information transparency.

The incentive of regulators is to limit the amount of drugs on the market, even when the chances of getting a bad drug are low; because if it is a bad drug, they lose their jobs.

When businesses are required to publicize product manufacturing techniques, functionality, and observed efficiency, they have an incentive to produce better products.

You still have provided no argument as to why this wouldn't happen without the FDA.

[–]ZestyMicrowave 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It wouldn't happen without the FDA because the liability of releasing drugs that could do terrible things even within a traditional torts framework could be massive.

Unless we don't have courts. How far down the rabbit hole are we again?

[–]SilhouetteMan[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So you're telling me that there are no solutions?

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

To preventing all accidents and bad decisions? Yes. There are no magical elixirs to cure all problems.

[–]Spooky2000 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/12/a-timeline-of-chipotles-five-outbreaks/#.VseT0vIrLuo

This is our system right now. It has both the FDA and social media and people still get sick. And it's not like Chipotle is some dumpy dive in an alley somewhere.

[–]jeremiahs_bullfrog 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So are you arguing that people are so irresponsible that they can't think/act for themselves?

It's not government's role to hold everyone's hand, it's their role to remind them (forcibly if necessary) to keep their hands to themselves.

The response to this is similar to the reason that removing stop lights may actually reduce intersection accidents (article). Without regulation, people are forced to be more responsible and observant and are therefore better off. I think the same is true for food safety (if you don't want to get sick, do research before trying new or less reputable establishments; this should be true even with regulation).

One reason I don't like regulation is because it's the opposite of "innocent unless proven guilty". Regulation costs companies money and the benefits are dubious at best. If a company causes people to get sick and that has been proved, then they can be prosecuted.

[–]Themeparkmakerancap 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Under any system, there will be poisoning

[–]TheBraveTrollConsequentialist Anarcho-Capitalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

But that doesn't guarantee protection for everyone. Under that system, there will always be someone who gets poisoned.

You're assuming that this will still keep occurring. A bit strange that you think companies are stupid enough to not notice other companies continually losing customers to fucking over their customer base.

[–]mechabio -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

You missed the part where he said "China doesn't have a lack of regulation". Their regulators are apparently just more corrupt than your local ones. first person account

As for the ignorant consumer: What if you walked into a movie that lacked an MPAA rating and were shocked at the bizarre and upsetting pornography on the screen? It would suck, and then you'd look for MPAA ratings (or IMDb "Parents Guide", which does an even better job and is volunteer-driven)

A libertarian response is that dropping the FDA would increase market demand for distribution of reliable food safety information.

There are some precedents.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nintendo released some pretty terrible games.

The original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles leaps to mind, as does Skate or Die. If I remember my video game history correctly, though, Nintendo actually had to bundle it's console with a robot in order to trick retailers into carrying it because consoles - up until that point - had such atrocious reputations.

Consoles are actually the poster children for what you get without regulations, and not in a good way. Nintendo successfully implemented a quality control regime that took the overwhelming torrent of unplayable crap and reduced it to a crap-shoot mix of decent games and garbage.

Then Tiger Electronics came along and opened up the floodgates again, dispelling the myth that the video game industry still totally wasn't ready to sell you a box of rock for $60.

[–]Xaotikdesigns 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That first TMNT was fucking awesome.

Except for that dam level, fucking electric seaweed...

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Raphael was functionally useless, with a hitbox half a millimeter in front of his weapon's attack range and Michelangelo wasn't much better. The jumping mechanics were mushy as hell. The Metal Turtle was nearly impossible, nevermind the giant fucking Mouser in Baxter's lab.

The Dam Level was fine, once you'd played through it for the umpteen millionth time.

[–]SkyFRocks 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

China doesn't have nearly the oversight and infrastructure that we do in the U.S.

US being better than China currently with both having regulations is less of a policy thing and more of a still developing nation thing.

[–]godlameroso 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even with the FDA people still get sick off food. I've worked at restaurants, I see what goes on in the kitchen.

[–]clifmo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dead customers won't buy food