Or any agency. A mother state isn't wrong. It doesn't do things without some merit for some people. It's just that the hand holding is frustrating to the more independent of us (including me) who would rather take risks and be freer.
Finally, some honestly; yes it's frustrating, but given that the vast majority of the population aren't like you, it makes sense that they set up a society to cater to their needs, and it's pretty clear most prefer a paternalistic government simply to remove the need to think about so much stuff. Most people don't want a world where a bad decision about something they don't have the knowledge to even make correctly can kill them.
That said, I do have a problem with it's conclusion.
We gave up the monarchy system (to a degree in Western Politics) because a privileged class can never truly choose the correct course of action for subclasses.
We replaced this with a pseudo monarchistic, pseudo technocratic, representative democracy, yet all our problems with War, Poverty, Oppression, and Moral Decay continue unabated.
We're at a pivotal point in our history, where we're coming to the realization that democracy doesn't work, and that we're either going to have to commit to some consistent narrative, or perish while we convulse with confusion over the increasing chaos.
If you ask me I wasn't saying this system was by any means proficient in it's duties to any degree. I was just pointing out that some/many people simply don't care, in other words, they are apathetic. And why not? Individuals can't communicate at the communal level like they used too, and we have no power against bureaucracy.
That said, we only live once. It's no use trying to make the world a better place for the next generation, the one after that, or the one after that. Humans will go extinct in the future. Nothing will remember us on this mortal plane after 1 million years. The things we bicker about are profoundly insignificant to the universe. IMO, we don't merit existence outside of this planet if we can't feed the people we have on this one. Let's not spread suffering amongst the stars with us.
War, Poverty, and Oppression are better today than they have ever been at any point in history. Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated.
> Moral Decay is far too vague and subjective to be usefully compared, but since it is often used as an excuse for Oppression, I feel confident in saying that it's an excellent thing if it is continuing unabated.
I meant the decay of the family during child rearing. The skyrocketing divorce rates since the 2nd world war. The increasingly consumerist yet more alienated individual. Our society that tells our children that women are sex objects, and that ALL men are perverts or rapists. A society that cares more about celebdom than the starvation and suffering within it's borders. A society that disdains racism/intolerance, yet still disenfranchises millions of Native Americans and black African Americans.
I'm not trying to say you subscribe to those things. Just clarifying my point that our competitive/psychopathic society has consequences. As someone who cares about morals (not an American republican, but rather a Canadian Leftist) I think this will only carry our system forward.
Trust me I don't really care if we're lead as a society by authoritarianism, it's just that I'd rather we utilise that system of government's speciality (efficiency) and attempt to use the current resources we have to develop space technology that can mine efficiently. If not, then let's just live freer happier lives while we can?
I'm not disagreeing with governance, just federalism/nationalism/globalism. Let's just run cities? More of a say, more of an impact, and no one else to blame but your own community. Besides, I know that where I live, towns nearby won't raid us. In fact, we'd probably form some confederacy, and share some- dammit! I created a federal government again...
I don't have the answers. But there's plenty of problems (the first step is admitting it!). If you can't see a bleaker future than our grandparents did, than you're not seeing what I see in the next 40 years.
How are things improving? I'm guessing you live in some bubble land where everyone has a great life. San Francisco?
War, Poverty, Oppression, and Moral Decay are more of a problem than ever. Don't mix up my points with social progress, which is an awesome achievement of our society. My moral decay lies more in trust in general and in the institutions we have to trust to function effectively.
War is continuous, with constant tension to this day. Iran and US peace deal for 6 months? Well, looks like Saudia Arabia and Isreal have teamed up to change that? Eastern European Rocket Grid for Rogue States in the area, justification Iran not needed says "Putin"? Fuck you says US/American Narrative of not liking Russians. Chinese and Japanese conflict over islands? Better not attack Japan China, The US has a defensive treaty with them. That would not be a good thing for anyone.
Poverty is continuous. Personally, I find it despicable that some people can live as billionaires with some thousands of children dying needlessly from diarrhea and malnutrition. Sure donating helps, but surely a system that allows such disparity surely something like this isn't shocking... Not to mention the increasing amount of individuals in the US who rely on food assistance (which may be cut by this improving system)...
Oppression need not even be mentioned. Surveillance, Propaganda, the Prison Industrial Complex... You may have heard about the innocent man being forcefully given cavity searches / colonoscopy surgery / etc without probably cause in the US this past month? If not, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWg_JyJJqaU. System is definitely improving. Who needs the 4th amendment...
And lastly, again, moral decay. I'll modify my point to be less nonsensical for you. The fact that this all happens, and people like you say things are improving, given what we see as innovation everyday? That sounds like a decent amount of cognitive dissonance to me! The first step to a non philosophical based moral ground, that can justify/defend a horrifically immoral system, because fuck everyone else, it's comfortable here where I live. To bring up a popular meme, you should check your privilege.
You're romanticizing the past, we're not on a downward decline, things are improving constantly. Poverty, war, oppression, these things aren't new, and they weren't somehow better in the past unless you were white and the loss of that white privilege somehow feels like things got worse.
Have you actually looked up the historical level of death due to war and historical rates of poverty? Both have been going steadily down for a long, long time.
But you would think it's more important that we have a lower per 1000 rate would you? Personally, every death to me is a shame, and 40,000,000 in WW2 alone, and us having continual war since 2001 creates an outlook of more war in the future. Don't fool yourself into thinking we couldn't beat that record...
You reject relative measures and only measure death in absolute terms? You find a world with a trillion people in which a billion are killed in war to be worse than a world with a billion people in which 90% of them are killed in war? Like I said, impervious to facts.
Modern war is more destructive than previous ones. Even fifty years ago genocide was a laborious task, now it is done with a press of button. There is nothing more deadly than total war.
Then setup a ratings agency to make decisions for those people who want to outsource their judgement to a bureaucracy. Don't prevent those of us who want to make our own decisions (which may at times simply be to defer to some other knowledgable 3rd party besides the FDA whom we trust more. Point is, #choices)
Your mistake in your argument is in assuming that making the choice to abdicate making decisions to lessen risk actually lessens the risk.
There is also the very solid argument to be made that by choosing to lessen risk, you stifle innovation and produce an overall much worse system in terms of beneficial outcomes.
The mistake in your argument is assuming people are good; they aren't, without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load. The FDA exists to protect unwitting consumers from bad people, not to spur innovation. For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save. Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people.
Are regulators not people? Are they infallible? Are there no obvious market mechanisms that will punish con men peddling their inferior products?
Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation
I don't think this unqualified statement makes sense.
Shouldn't the opportunity cost of the benefits of innovations not produced, weighed against the risks present in allowing a market to produce them, play a factor? And this would no doubt be different for each and every possible innovation.
No. They are robots. Robots that know better. How dare you ask such good questions! You now owe us 40$ for violating my authority citizen!
> Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation
Again, would the OP rather live in a world with 100% risk, 100% innovation, or 0% risk, 0% innovation. I know what I'd choose. There's a pretty common theme in some sci-fis that living without risk isn't even life. Something to think about...
> without oversight innovation isn't the result, scams are, by the truck load.
I'd take thousands of small, grassroot scams, that can be corrected through communal means (boycotting and community awareness) than by one huge one. If the Fed sanctions a pharmaceutical drug that kills thousands, is that worse than a few peddlers selling whatever drugs they want like what currently exists under the nose of the Fed? If you ask me, some illegal drugs are less harmful than legal ones! And that's pure free market with a dash of mafiosa government resistance (guns, extortion, other things to become powerful to fight the powerful).
> For every innovator freed by lack of regulation thousands of con men exist that'll flood the market with crap that hurts people, far more than any possible innovation is likely to save.
And yet, while the FDA didn't exist in the centuries preceding 1906, the formation of the FDA, we see innovations saving lives, and more and more people living meaningful existences. I doubt any community of people would be stupid enough to continue to consume harmful chemicals to degree that harms more than of it harms us now. These organizations exist, yet childhood obesity is the highest it's ever been. Americans consume alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and drugs live they always have. These things haven't be struck a blow one bit by regulation. They've simply become more expensive, and the big man in town takes their cut.
> Lessening risk is far more important than not stifling innovation because the simple indisputable fact is that bad people vastly outnumber innovative people.
Big red flag that we're not arguing with someone logical. "Bad people"... Like who? The Nazis? Or maybe the Jews? You can use this hatred/disgust/mistrust/contempt/negative energy for so much evil/bad/badder/worse!
Why is lessening risk more important that innovation? We've reduced a tremendous amount of risk in the last 100 years. From labour laws to life expectancy to homicide. Can we please stop feeling like we need bureaucrats to run our lives? I'd love to ask gnaritas whether they would prefer a society with no risk and innovation, or a society with massive risk and massive innovation. Arguing even for the status quo puts you in the more favourable side IMO at the get go.
I also love how they class people as either bad, or innovative, as I'm sure they dream of some sort of utopia where you either create something of worth before the age of 12, in which you would become a part of the ruling, innovative class, or not, in which case you are controlled by that class.
But yes gnaritas you're right. Please pass more laws, more regulations, and create more prisons and fines so we can deal with all of these bad people! In fact, I think I just violated regulation g.r.a. 101 - You cannot challenge the authority of someone who knows whats best for you!
I'm just saying that powerful roles with attract power hungry people. Most regulation positions in banking and telecommunications are generally seated by previous company execs... So what's the difference in this particular regulatory body? I would definitely not make the blanket statement that MD's are always good people. I'm sure some can be pretty devious or ignorant to their (powerful) decisions.
Powerful roles do attract power hungry people. You know who else they attract? People who have some skills and want to put them to use for the betterment of society.
Not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are stooges, not all regulators are conmen. Quite often they are people who know how the system works and feel that they can bring their knowledge to bear to make it work better and ensure that things are done right.
I'm just critical of power and it's obligations. At many points in history, with enough power people can be made unaccountable. With less power, comes more accountability.
This is why personally I think it would be better if we released medicines and simply had "FDA approved" status post release/post approved by the institution, which would give people the choice to only use FDA approved products, but also give me the choice of utilizing other drugs I can research and make decisions about on my own.
