Lots of stuff, usually having to do with eliminating regulatory bodies which exist precisely to protect people from force and fraud.
For a great example, on Badnarik's site, check out his rant against the FDA. Now, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the FDA, but I don't think I've ever seen such specious logic before as in Badnarik's argument that preventing vitamin manufacturers from advertising an unproven benefit was somehow the moral equivalent of the thalidomide disaster. Nothing stopped pregnant women from taking the vitamin suppliment if they wanted to; they were not prevented from finding out that the trials were underway, and the compound was freely available OTC. Heaven knows, my doctors have told me of chemical compounds which were undergoing trials and had not yet been proven to work, with the understanding it was my choice to gamble with my health as I saw fit.
The FDA function of which Badnarik is complaining is nothing other than that the FDA has set standards of truthfulness and anyone who wishes to make claims about their product must meet those standards, because to do advertise unproven claims of product benefits would be fraud. ("Duh!") That is what fraud it.
There's probably lots of reasonable grounds on which to object to the FDA. That isn't one of them.
Similarly, I have oft heard Libertarians complain that there's "too much regulation" and argue "regulation should be reduced". But for some reason (she said with a knowing look) they never actually specify which regulations they mean to abolish.
Now, I know a thing or two about regulations. I temped once in a real honest-to-gosh government regulatory body. Once upon a time, I was a student of Civil Engineering intending to specialize in Building Construction, and as such I had to study building codes (oy.) I've had to learn a bit about OSHA.
If someone wants to propose that a specific regulation, group of regulations, or regulatory body should be abolish, well, then, I can sit down and examine the merits and detriments of that particular entity, and come to a decision about whether or not it would be good for the republic and within the parameters of limiting government to preventing force and fraud.
But so long as it's the vaguely nebulous "regulations"... which regulations to the have in mind? The ones that prevent architects from erecting death traps (fraud, since the client relies upon the architect to do no such thing, and the users of the building likewise)? The ones that prevent grocers from using false scales to rip off consumers (fraud, and one of the oldest market regulations in history)? The ones that prevent electric companies from billing twice for the same electrons (fraud)?
Part 1
Lots of stuff, usually having to do with eliminating regulatory bodies which exist precisely to protect people from force and fraud.
For a great example, on Badnarik's site, check out his rant against the FDA. Now, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the FDA, but I don't think I've ever seen such specious logic before as in Badnarik's argument that preventing vitamin manufacturers from advertising an unproven benefit was somehow the moral equivalent of the thalidomide disaster. Nothing stopped pregnant women from taking the vitamin suppliment if they wanted to; they were not prevented from finding out that the trials were underway, and the compound was freely available OTC. Heaven knows, my doctors have told me of chemical compounds which were undergoing trials and had not yet been proven to work, with the understanding it was my choice to gamble with my health as I saw fit.
The FDA function of which Badnarik is complaining is nothing other than that the FDA has set standards of truthfulness and anyone who wishes to make claims about their product must meet those standards, because to do advertise unproven claims of product benefits would be fraud. ("Duh!") That is what fraud it.
There's probably lots of reasonable grounds on which to object to the FDA. That isn't one of them.
Similarly, I have oft heard Libertarians complain that there's "too much regulation" and argue "regulation should be reduced". But for some reason (she said with a knowing look) they never actually specify which regulations they mean to abolish.
Now, I know a thing or two about regulations. I temped once in a real honest-to-gosh government regulatory body. Once upon a time, I was a student of Civil Engineering intending to specialize in Building Construction, and as such I had to study building codes (oy.) I've had to learn a bit about OSHA.
If someone wants to propose that a specific regulation, group of regulations, or regulatory body should be abolish, well, then, I can sit down and examine the merits and detriments of that particular entity, and come to a decision about whether or not it would be good for the republic and within the parameters of limiting government to preventing force and fraud.
But so long as it's the vaguely nebulous "regulations"... which regulations to the have in mind? The ones that prevent architects from erecting death traps (fraud, since the client relies upon the architect to do no such thing, and the users of the building likewise)? The ones that prevent grocers from using false scales to rip off consumers (fraud, and one of the oldest market regulations in history)? The ones that prevent electric companies from billing twice for the same electrons (fraud)?
[Continued]