So if somebody is too stupid to do something, nobody gets to do it. God help us all when even smarter people like you want to drag us down to their level.
I think there are a couple key differences between "before the FDA" and "now". A near century of societal change.
1) The internet, which makes researching and verifying information much easier. Why, there are even people who disagree on things, so you can read several viewpoints of $WHATEVER, without having a central authority tell you exactly what is and is not.
2) Science has come a lot farther now, so that there are actual, valid treatments for many ailments, and thus less people with incurable illnessess hopelessly looking for cures that do not exist. (And can now be verified as quackery via point #1.)
3) Regardless of per-capita levels of sickness, there is a much higher population now. Many more total people, and thus many more sick people. But still only one government. So the equation of people saved from quackery (which happens less now, and not just because of the FDA) versus people hurt by failure to approve treatments (which is always going to be at record highs as long as the population goes up and major ailments are not completely cured).
The same decision based on the same factors 100 years apart results in a completely different impact to human suffering AND freedom.
1) By your logic, because I'm not a trained electrician, I shouldn't be allowed to work on the wiring in my house. Where do you draw the line? "I know it when I see it"?
2) "The difference is that you don't have a licensed expert telling you that you ought to do those things, and when you go to a doctor you do." Does the article state that? Often when you need to get a treatment from the *single* place that can give it to you, you are referred to by *another* doctor. If your whole argument hinges on the concept that this specific doctor "made" the people get the treatment by recommending, then I don't readily accept it. Whether a service should be regulated should not be a function of whether the person providing it recommended it or not. That would also seem to imply that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't recommend it. I mean, it works both ways, right?;)
3) Antibiotic resistance hardly seems a relevant paradigm.
This is joint pain. People in pain. Their lives made worse. Them wanting to do something, and having exhausted so many alternatives that they've now only found one person to help them -- until the government stopped them from doing so by protecting them from their own desires, meanwhile being so slow to approve new therapies, which is great for the insurance companies that do not have to cover such things, who I am sure do not have their fingers involved in this in any way;)
This isn't a doctor saying "you're going to die if you don't do this". And don't use stupid people as an excuse to take away the rights of the non-stupid. That's not how societies should work.
And you arrived at your opinion by doing research on the matter and deciding for yourself that it did not meet your definition of safe. (To an extent, the same thing the FDA did.) How odd it is that today it seems odd to let people have the freedom to make a decision for themselves, but quite fine to justify the government making the same decision for them.
While you may have a point, if I'm allowed to participate in a demolition derby, jump out of an airplane, go skiing down dangerous hills, or drive down gravel roads in a mountain park -- then it seems that morally, I have the right to take risk -- even deadly risk -- of doing something, if I choose to do so. Strange how that right disappears into thin air when expensive medical technology gets involved. The mysticism behind the knowledge of what is safe and isn't safe has been slowly disappearing as more and more information is released publicly, online, where everyone can investigate it themselves. The idea that people are taking risks they aren't aware of becomes more disingenuous with each passing day of the information revolution. But the idea that people are not allowed to take certain risks, unless the government says they can -- is a bit of a joke. This isn't snake oil.
It's not blood or a blood transfusion, and it's only a drug because they said it'a s drug (like how marijuana is legally a "narcotic" even though that's not at all what it actually is). And since Biopharmaceuticals are medical drugs produced using biotechnology, I think I've adequately covered my bases -- though you had me scared there for a minute.
Uh, no. That's not how medicine OR the FDA works. They don't regulate medical procedures throughout the country. They have a specific scope. But i guess you weren't too sure of yourself if you had to post anonymously, were you?
Since when does "added to the system" mean created or destroyed? The earth is not the entire universe. Energy gets added to us from the sun, for example.
You say it wasn't -- yet provide no reason why it isn't.
So if journalists are not allowed to be at events to cover them, but can then write all they want (about what they missed?), then that is full freedom? It seems like that is what you're saying
. Not only are you wrong, but I have to wonder what kind of personal bias you have to even go down that line of logic.
You never specified "what happened to the journalists trying to cover OWS", purposely leaving your own argument vague. Probably because if you look at the details, you'll find they were in public space covering the public doing public things.
And yes, being prevented from doing that IS freedom of press, despite your Orwellianesque attempt to redefine the word.
But it didn't, and things would be much worse if it was purely corporate run. I hope you're not naive enough to think otherwise. There's a bounty of articles on slashdot over the past 15 yrs that I'd recommend in retort, if I cared enough.
p.s. My use of "always" was specific to the topic -- broadband -- which did not exist prior to WW2.
I suppose if you want to define "how things are currently done and always have been" as "dumb and destructive government policies", and pretend that the advantage I stated is purely rhetorical, then, by those 2 huge stretches, your statement is true.
You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.
This is a corporate power bid to get public funds off their wires, so that they can claim the network as their own property, and no longer have to abide by [what is left
of] the constitution. For example, laws governing privacy over publicly funded networks would cease to exist if no tax dollars went into something.
Most politics these days is something bad trying to be passed off as something good. It's important that we keep PUBLIC money invested in our infrastructure, so that nobody can make the claim of "the corporations made this possible, therefore we should let them run roughshod over us". They didn't make it possible. DARPA and our tax dollars made the internet happen when it did.
Slashdot Mirror
So if somebody is too stupid to do something, nobody gets to do it. God help us all when even smarter people like you want to drag us down to their level.
1) The internet, which makes researching and verifying information much easier. Why, there are even people who disagree on things, so you can read several viewpoints of $WHATEVER, without having a central authority tell you exactly what is and is not.
2) Science has come a lot farther now, so that there are actual, valid treatments for many ailments, and thus less people with incurable illnessess hopelessly looking for cures that do not exist. (And can now be verified as quackery via point #1.)
3) Regardless of per-capita levels of sickness, there is a much higher population now. Many more total people, and thus many more sick people. But still only one government. So the equation of people saved from quackery (which happens less now, and not just because of the FDA) versus people hurt by failure to approve treatments (which is always going to be at record highs as long as the population goes up and major ailments are not completely cured).
The same decision based on the same factors 100 years apart results in a completely different impact to human suffering AND freedom.
2) "The difference is that you don't have a licensed expert telling you that you ought to do those things, and when you go to a doctor you do." Does the article state that? Often when you need to get a treatment from the *single* place that can give it to you, you are referred to by *another* doctor. If your whole argument hinges on the concept that this specific doctor "made" the people get the treatment by recommending, then I don't readily accept it. Whether a service should be regulated should not be a function of whether the person providing it recommended it or not. That would also seem to imply that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't recommend it. I mean, it works both ways, right? ;)
3) Antibiotic resistance hardly seems a relevant paradigm.
This is joint pain. People in pain. Their lives made worse. Them wanting to do something, and having exhausted so many alternatives that they've now only found one person to help them -- until the government stopped them from doing so by protecting them from their own desires, meanwhile being so slow to approve new therapies, which is great for the insurance companies that do not have to cover such things, who I am sure do not have their fingers involved in this in any way ;)
This isn't a doctor saying "you're going to die if you don't do this". And don't use stupid people as an excuse to take away the rights of the non-stupid. That's not how societies should work.
While you may have a point, if I'm allowed to participate in a demolition derby, jump out of an airplane, go skiing down dangerous hills, or drive down gravel roads in a mountain park -- then it seems that morally, I have the right to take risk -- even deadly risk -- of doing something, if I choose to do so. Strange how that right disappears into thin air when expensive medical technology gets involved. The mysticism behind the knowledge of what is safe and isn't safe has been slowly disappearing as more and more information is released publicly, online, where everyone can investigate it themselves. The idea that people are taking risks they aren't aware of becomes more disingenuous with each passing day of the information revolution. But the idea that people are not allowed to take certain risks, unless the government says they can -- is a bit of a joke. This isn't snake oil.
Why thank you! They say it's not the size of your diction, but how you use it.
It's not blood or a blood transfusion, and it's only a drug because they said it'a s drug (like how marijuana is legally a "narcotic" even though that's not at all what it actually is). And since Biopharmaceuticals are medical drugs produced using biotechnology, I think I've adequately covered my bases -- though you had me scared there for a minute.
A modicum of facts
I'm having a bad day, apparently. All I can think of when reading your comment is the Autobot named Blaster.
Since when does "added to the system" mean created or destroyed? The earth is not the entire universe. Energy gets added to us from the sun, for example.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you responding to someone, or just ranting into the ether?
By your definition, Costa Rica isn't a nation.
Sounds like you need to do more reading.
Uh huhhhhhhh
Yes, they do.
I believe internet usage statistics make your assessment incorrect.
So if journalists are not allowed to be at events to cover them, but can then write all they want (about what they missed?), then that is full freedom? It seems like that is what you're saying
. Not only are you wrong, but I have to wonder what kind of personal bias you have to even go down that line of logic.
You never specified "what happened to the journalists trying to cover OWS", purposely leaving your own argument vague. Probably because if you look at the details, you'll find they were in public space covering the public doing public things.
And yes, being prevented from doing that IS freedom of press, despite your Orwellianesque attempt to redefine the word.
And which {out of "government" and "corporations"} is supposed to {have the power}, again?
p.s. My use of "always" was specific to the topic -- broadband -- which did not exist prior to WW2.
I suppose if you want to define "how things are currently done and always have been" as "dumb and destructive government policies", and pretend that the advantage I stated is purely rhetorical, then, by those 2 huge stretches, your statement is true.
You wouldn't need to, since TFA said they have it to download for free. The only way you could pirate it would be to buy a paperback and manufacture conterfeit paperback copies.
You are correct. When weighing corporations vs the public interest, governments always rule in favor of public interest.
can != will
Most politics these days is something bad trying to be passed off as something good. It's important that we keep PUBLIC money invested in our infrastructure, so that nobody can make the claim of "the corporations made this possible, therefore we should let them run roughshod over us". They didn't make it possible. DARPA and our tax dollars made the internet happen when it did.
So where do we get it?
I'd rather be tried in absentia than extradited...