I dont know. I think that the distribution of libertarian or anarchistic vs social/liberal is a quite flat function of intelligence. You will find smart people and idiots subscribing to both.
I never said that I wanted to refute a stupid person to buy a stupid product, only that the seller should be refuted to lie about its performance. Therefore, I am not talking about protecting anyone against themselves, but protecting them against bad people.
Do you think that it is ok to allow anyone to practice medicine, regardless of their education or track-record? Should anyone be allowed to drive a car or own a weapon? Or can rules make society "better"?By "peer-review", I was talking about scientific people with a good standing in the respective field. Peer-review is not a flawless mechanism, but I think that it is one of the better alternatives.
a. I agree. And it also touches on what I've already said to Slob that how much we want government to be involved in our lives is a fundamental question we must all ask ourselves. Or should. Far too many are too lazy to think about it.
b. Well, since the "bad people"
aren't forcing anyone to buy their products it is indeed protecting them from themselves. Call it what you will, but I have faith that the individual (if not careless or negligent)
has more than enough intelligence to decide if most products are right for them despite any advertising claims. And you do know actual written claims (even used in advertising)
are covered under contractual law? They must meet specific criteria like any legal claim, but the courts are already full of such claims because there's a mechanism in place for false/wrong claims. I don't see any claims other than "creating a feeling"
being made with the advertisement in question.
It's funny, I haven't heard one person in this thread step up and say "Ya, I bought ten bottles of that stuff for my wife and she still looks like a frog and I wish someone had prevented me from wasting my money."
In fact, every person in this thread easily sees what's happening at face value without any rules or regulations or scientific reviews. So where are these people who need protecting?
c. Well yes, people do practice medicine with a variety of educational and vocational backgrounds. I'm not sure I see how your question applies.
Kinda on topic, do you think these regulations/requirements and the political influence exercised by the AMA has anything to do with the USA's skyrocketing medical costs? Something we might want to think about before asking for "protections"
we should be able to provide for ourselves.
I've spent most of my adult life in Asia and I've been exposed to "alternative"
medicines and different levels of government regulation. For instance, in most of South East Asia you can walk into a pharmacy and purchase what would be prescription medicines in our own countries, over the country with/without the assistance of a trained pharmacists (who are trained to a much higher level than our own pharmacists)
. This is seen as an area where individual responsibility is used to keep costs in check. And it works. For example, a months supply of blood pressure medication can be had for a buck. In some SEA countries (Thailand for instance)
drugs which can be abused must be prescribed by a doctor, while in others (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar)
you can buy opiates over the counter. Sure, people end up hurting/killing themselves, but surprisingly few.
Overall, their medical costs are extremely low compared to ours, and virtually everyone has access to basic medical care. But no, they're not nearly as competent or well equipped as we'd find in John Hopkins.. But not everyone has the same access or the same low costs. So in many cases, that fundamental question of government involvement directly affects not only what a product costs, but in many cases if we get it at all. Sometimes we can't afford the level of government involvement we desire, as witnessed by the global economic issues we're currently facing.
This really brings home the fact that we have a responsibility as citizens to only ask for what we can afford, and to not be frivolous in our demands. When we take the big picture into account, now how much do we really need/want govt involved in a dispute over how well a makeup foundation works? It's a classic case of being careful what you wish for.
d. Rules 'can'
make society better, they can also make it worse. It's a fallacy to suggest that because one rule (for example what I think you tried to say by showing that medical licenses are regulated)
is good for us, all rules will be good for us. It's not logical and an obvious fallacy.
e. Not all products have "scientific people"
involved.. And I still think it wouldn't be an accurate or fair system because of lobbyists and special interests (hired by competitors)
. I see it being more of a political cluster*uck and more power grabbing. All in the name of protecting the individual. And it would severely mess with the free market system unnecessarily raising prices past the point of feasibility. You are familiar with the adage "the cure is often worse than the disease?"
Interesting thread, and great exchange!