I'm not sure what Badnarik's argument against the FDA is. Mine would be that their trials are aimed at appeasing bureaucrats instead of customers, and the cost of getting a new medicine to be FDA-approved (a legal requirement to sell), is rather high; I have heard numbers as high as $1 billion. This artificially and unnecessarily raises the cost of medicines and keeps them from being sold. This is particularly horrible in the case of people for whom a potential medicine is their only chance - people who are going to die absent it.
I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal - would you buy a product whose seller hasn't convinced you of its worthiness? Do you think the seller and government are the only two entities who can test products?
When I built my current computer, I purchased components based on several factors, including recommendations from friends who are know more about such things, the reputation of companies selling products, and a magazine that specializes in writing on such topics.
I don't think you need a seperate law (much less agency) for it in the specific case of medicines.
You said: There's probably lots of reasonable grounds on which to object to the FDA. That isn't one of them.
If Badnarik's argument is as you said, it is certainly ill-formed. Do you have a link?
You list some further examples of "regulations": 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)?
I can't imagine that someone would build without safety codes, even absent a law to force him or her to do so. Do you think that those asking for a building to be built wouldn't have a clause in the contract requiring it to be inspected by an agreed-upon third party of their choice? Do you really want to set it up so that the only third-party that can inspect it is a monopoly?
The ones that prevent grocers from using false scales to rip off consumers (fraud, and one of the oldest market regulations in history)?
I suspect this would work much like above - why couldn't companies sell the service, to grocers, of certifying that their scales are accurate? They'd probably sell their approval, contingent that a) the scales are accurate, which they would inspect in the same fashion that insurance companies do, and b) they are permitted to do surprise inspections of it. Provided the grocer met their approval, they'd be permitted to display "certified by X" on the scales (note that saying "certified by X" when X did not, in fact, certify it, is covered by fraud absent this grocer regulation).
Alternately, a small neighborhood grocer might be trusted by his neighbors, and have no use for such an agency - if I ask my roommate to bring me a pound of apples from the grocery store, and I pay him for them, I don't need him to weigh the apples in front of me to demonstrate that they are, in fact, a pound.
In either case, why would you want the use of this regulatory agency to be required by law? If you don't trust a grocer on his word, don't shop there until someone can vouch for him. O suspect most of the world doesn't trust strangers off the bat, and most stores would probably opt for hiring one of the companies to inspect. Do you really trust a monopolist, unchecked by competition, vouching for them?
The ones that prevent electric companies from billing twice for the same electrons (fraud)?
Do we need a law to make sure that I'm not charged twice for the same candy bar at the supermarket? If they charge you twice, it's fraud - we don't need a seperate agency for them. If they charge for undelivered electricity, they haven't fulfilled their end of the contract, and you already aren't obligated to pay.
I think the problem is too much regulation by a monopolist unchecked by competition, and not enough of the trustworthy regulation we get from a free market.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-07-26 07:03 pm (UTC)I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal - would you buy a product whose seller hasn't convinced you of its worthiness? Do you think the seller and government are the only two entities who can test products?
When I built my current computer, I purchased components based on several factors, including recommendations from friends who are know more about such things, the reputation of companies selling products, and a magazine that specializes in writing on such topics.
I don't think you need a seperate law (much less agency) for it in the specific case of medicines.
You said:
There's probably lots of reasonable grounds on which to object to the FDA. That isn't one of them.
If Badnarik's argument is as you said, it is certainly ill-formed. Do you have a link?
You list some further examples of "regulations":
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)?
I can't imagine that someone would build without safety codes, even absent a law to force him or her to do so. Do you think that those asking for a building to be built wouldn't have a clause in the contract requiring it to be inspected by an agreed-upon third party of their choice? Do you really want to set it up so that the only third-party that can inspect it is a monopoly?
The ones that prevent grocers from using false scales to rip off consumers (fraud, and one of the oldest market regulations in history)?
I suspect this would work much like above - why couldn't companies sell the service, to grocers, of certifying that their scales are accurate? They'd probably sell their approval, contingent that a) the scales are accurate, which they would inspect in the same fashion that insurance companies do, and b) they are permitted to do surprise inspections of it. Provided the grocer met their approval, they'd be permitted to display "certified by X" on the scales (note that saying "certified by X" when X did not, in fact, certify it, is covered by fraud absent this grocer regulation).
Alternately, a small neighborhood grocer might be trusted by his neighbors, and have no use for such an agency - if I ask my roommate to bring me a pound of apples from the grocery store, and I pay him for them, I don't need him to weigh the apples in front of me to demonstrate that they are, in fact, a pound.
In either case, why would you want the use of this regulatory agency to be required by law? If you don't trust a grocer on his word, don't shop there until someone can vouch for him. O suspect most of the world doesn't trust strangers off the bat, and most stores would probably opt for hiring one of the companies to inspect. Do you really trust a monopolist, unchecked by competition, vouching for them?
The ones that prevent electric companies from billing twice for the same electrons (fraud)?
Do we need a law to make sure that I'm not charged twice for the same candy bar at the supermarket? If they charge you twice, it's fraud - we don't need a seperate agency for them. If they charge for undelivered electricity, they haven't fulfilled their end of the contract, and you already aren't obligated to pay.
I think the problem is too much regulation by a monopolist unchecked by competition, and not enough of the trustworthy regulation we get from a free market.
More in response to your next post.