Impeach the FDA (Page 5)

I look at it like this:

The Soviet military was an army of conscripts. They had to have everything dictated to them; there was no real say when it came to decisions from the rank and file. It was very much top-down, with the top being the highest levels. The reason for this rests on two main points: 1) the overall education and experience of the soldiers was of poor quality; 2) the general view by those in charge were that the soldiers could not be trusted to carry things out on their own.

This same issue can be seen in other institutions. Whenever leadership takes the approach of micromanaging responsibility, the organization stops developing a sense of individual achievement and responsibility. This method does not lead to high performance.

The US military, on the other hand, tends to give its junior leaders and Troops a fair amount of leeway in terms of developing their own ideas and plans. Higher commanders provide the framework, lower levels fill in the operational details. This method requires a force that is intrinsically motivated, and has a sense of personal responsibility. It means that people are given a chance to succeed or fail on their own merits. This leads to higher performance.

Some have the opinion that the average citizen should be told what's right. Others have the opinion that perhaps people should be given more latitude in coming to that decision themselves. Both are valid, depending on the context and framework in place.

This, I get.  And that is WHY I think regulation is needed.  I do not believe I am the smartest or most powerful thing out there.  Given a half chance, I believe that the greed of others, especially others working in concert with one another, will enable them to harm others, including myself.  I believe in responsibility as well, I just don't think that vigilance alone is enough.  Your toothpaste example is a good one - remember the chinese toothpaste scandal - where they were adulterating it with lead?  And prior to my time (and I suspect, yours), our country also did not have strong regulations and oversight.  It was the early 20th century before things got oversight. Pretty much the standards for becoming a doctor (another one of your examples) did not exist - there were people who were trained for 2 years, 4 years, 8 years.  Medicines were a similar joke.  All the things that helped us develop a world leading medical field, for one, grew out of people saying there needed to be standards and regulations.

See we agreed on something

As I mentioned above, there is a place for regulation but it has to be applied only in the case of fraud or force. People, companies, and products cannot misrepresent themselves as a way to sell product or feed their own greed. Making sure meat is not contaminated? Making sure toothpaste isn't contaminated or tainted? Those are both clear cases to me, unless, again, those marketing these products wish to say right on the packaging that it's contaminated. To say you are against one regulation does not mean to say you condone lying or that you are opposed to all regulation.

The doctor one is gray, plenty of crappy doctors out there who took their exams, got into med school, passed residency and headed out into the world and really aren't great or interested in keeping up with the latest in medicine. Receptionists always seem to be a little bit surprised when I call a doctor's office (of any kind) and inquire a little bit about the Doctor's experience, time been practicing, and even qualifications. I want to know, the government regulatory procedure doesn't keep me safe or eliminate my risk. I keep myself safe and mitigate my risk. Heck, I ask at least the same of the guy who works on my car or does work for me as a contractor. Why not Doctors?

But, salt and TV advertising? I would just again stress that there's no force and no fraud. You are free to consume as much or as little as you desire. The power is in your hands.


Edited by merlin2375 2010-04-23 4:04 PM

You don't think advertising has the power to change behaviors? Or that it can be misleading in ways that test the limits of fraud?  Or that you can avoid being exposed to advertising?  There is a whole industry behind the goal of making sure you are advertised to, and that you can't avoid it.  "stealth advertising" is really the holy grail of the industry - to completely get behind your defenses.  Even the little things - such as product placement in the grocery store - is a form of advertising.  Good luck avoiding that consumption!

And I think you seriously underestimated what the issue was in medicine.  Seriously - 100 or more years ago, you could become a doctor with NO college training, just spending a couple of years more or less as an unpaid intern following around a doc, whose training wasn't much better than yours.  If you don't think regulations made a big difference, I wonder why you think your questions are really getting you better information. How can you gauge, for example whether the years in practice have been good; or that the doctor hasn't been making the same mistakes for years, but his/her demeanor is so engaging that patients haven't sued?

The biggest irony here is that you are coming across as at least as skeptical about the motives/intents/skills of others as I am; yet you are not willing to allow that some regulation is in order.  As my SEC thread should indicate, I do not think government is blameless- I like to see an active press digging up this stuff to keep them honest.

I liked your last paragraph. I think we see somewhat eye-to-eye on motives/intents/skills.

The place where I take issue is that you believe that these companies have the motive/intent/skill to trick people into believing whatever they want. Companies are nothing more than other human beings, Human beings in a company have no more motive/intent/skills than the human being consumers in a grocery store. I walk by end caps all the time, sometimes tempted by the cookies or other junk, without buying anything. In other words, these human traits are equal in all humans. Those humans in a company have the motive to sell their product, the intent to do the same, and the skill to try and market it. The humans who are consuming have the motivation to get the best product, the intent to buy whatever makes them happy, and the skill to shop around. Happy/best product (less salt, more salt, somewhere in between different depending on the product, etc) being in the eye of the beholder.


Edited by merlin2375 2010-04-24 11:05 AM

OK - I agree with your take that companies are just made up of people.  As is government.  Both sets of organizations of people have motive and intent (skills being debatable) to manipulate others to do what they want.  Just as you (and others on your end of the political spectrum) distrust the motives of government, I (and those on myend) distrust the motives of the companies.  While you are concerned that the government will take over more of your life, I feel the same about companies which by their nature will want to move to monopolize their share.  But I see governmnet as being answerable to the populace, while the company is only answerable to shareholders, whose interests may not align with the rest of the populace.

I like the idea of checks and balances, as conceived in the constitution.  But I believe the systems are not merely intragovernmental, but also government/business/press.  The founders did not conceive of the sort of monopolizing megacorporations that exist today - they set up a free press to oversee government.  I believe the press's role is expanded to business as well.

I'll echo my above comments, great discourse. Thank you for the discussion.

It's not that I inherently distrust any particular person or group of people. It's just that i recognize that there can really only be one person who will honestly, earnestly, and unwaveringly look out for my best interests and that's me ("me" also including my family in that sense).

These companies can't take anything from you, you have to give it to them. The consumer has a LOT of power. More than many would like to admit. While these companies are beholden to their shareholder, shareholders aren't happy when there are no customers. As such, successful companies produce products that people want. So in terms of development, most people need to look in the mirror in order to figure out why companies make products the way they do. At the end of the day, one always has a choice of what products to buy and what companies to do business with. As such one can basically opt-out if you don't like the product.

Now that's very different from one's relationship with Government. With Government, particularly at the Federal level, there is no such thing as opting out. You have no choice. No matter how big a company gets it will never have a monopoly equal to that of Government. I don't think the founders envisioned the megagovernment we have today where Government is literally involved in every corner of life. In fact, I think the Constitution is the best evidence of this. It is a document that grants specific powers rather than a document creates an all powerful government but excludes or forbids certain powers. As such, the limitation of power is inherently implied. Most State Constitutions are reflective of the same concept. I would argue this country was founded on the basis of the individual being central and very powerful with the power and freedom to make choices and pay the consequences rather than the state being at the center limiting choices and softening consequences.


Edited by merlin2375 2010-04-24 5:46 PM