Shocking! Ron Paul garnered 24% of the vote in Idaho. Not so many moons ago, most Republicans couldn’t make the mental shift to Rep. Paul’s views on Iraq. Perhaps Idaho is merely a protest vote against McCain? I’m not so sure. I found the following on the Borg Blog which I think nicely encapsulates nicely why the ideas of Ron Paul seem to have had a bit of resurgence in the Republican Party.
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/24hr-euro-small.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
[...] The Economics Blog wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Shocking! Ron Paul garnered 24% of the vote in Idaho. Not so many moons ago, most Republicans couldn’t make the mental shift to Rep. Paul’s views on Iraq. Perhaps Idaho is merely a protest vote against McCain? I’m not so sure. I found the following on the Borg Blog which I think nicely encapsulates nicely why the ideas of Ron Paul seem to have had a bit of resurgence in the Republican Party. They’re not his ideas after all? It will truly be an interesting race now won’t it? Hillary voters a [...]
Nice to see votes go to someone other than McCain, but Paul is a nutcase. Sure, he’s against the Iraq war and the patriot act, but he’s also in favor of removing the FDA completely, withdrawing from the UN and NATO, and a whole bunch of other crazy things.
Probabilityzero,
Removing the FDA or withdrawing from the UN aren’t necessarily nutty ideas. After all, those organizations haven’t been around too long.
For starters, the FDA has denied terminal patients the right to use experimental drugs that might save their life. Take a look at this suit: http://www.abigail-alliance.org/WLF_FDA_Lawsuit.pdf
You need to give trial lawyers a little more credit. They adequately correct the big drug companies. They’re more worried about lawyers than the FDA. The FDA is a bloated cow.
In terms of the UN, it is a worthless organization that sucks millions of dollars from us while voting against us 80% of the time. What has the UN given us? Less peace. I have an LL.M in International Law from Georgetown University. I have studied the U.N. in depth and know it well. It is an utter and complete waste, as well as a dangerous proposition to U.S. sovereignty.
So I’m not so sure how that classifies him as a nutcase. I looked at the other parts of the post you cite and while I don’t agree with all of them, they’re not crazy ideas. They stem from a desire to free the individual to maximize her potential.
Ron Paul’s problem is that he personally comes across as quixotic. His ideas are genuinely freedom loving intended to promote individual freedom. However, his electability factor because of his personality.
Back in the 1930s, it was discovered that Sulfonamide cured people of diseases broguht on by Streptococci bacteria. This led to the sale of thousands of Elixirs of Sulfanilamide, which were sold by unregulated businessmen (entrepreneurs!) as having near-magical healing powers. Can you guess what solvent those magical properties were dissolved in? Anti-freeze! A bunch of people died… good thing the FDA wasn’t around to prevent that!
Seriously though, I agree that the FDA is screwed up right now, but things were a lot worse before it came around, and they’d get a lot worse if it went away.
As it is, unfortunately, corruption in the FDA allows pharma corporations to slip dangerous drugs in to the market by faking or otherwise being dishonest with testing and such. How exactly would removing regulations that would make it completely legal for pharma companies to sell pretty much whatever they want with no required testing and no warnings about side effects or addictiveness improve the situation? Seems to me that it would only make it worse. Much worse.
If you can explain to me why removing the FDA is a good idea, go for it. I really don’t understand your side of the argument. I’ve asked plenty of conservatives and libertarians, but I’ve yet to actually understand it. If you read the comments from the post I linked, you’ll see quite a few entertaining ones, my favorites being the people who think there’s a conspiracy to repress the “real” cancer cure, or the guy who wrote off the FDA because he saw an FDA inspector on TV. There were plenty of intelligent responses as well, but they all are in line with “costs too much” and “regulation of the free market.” I guess I just think sometimes we need regulation.
PZero,
Sorry for the delay. Work got to me. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your post and I apologize for those who would reduce arguments to simply “Free Market”. Folks have lost confidence in the free market because of what the “new” Republicans have done to the free market brand. So it is that unless one understands why the free market is the best system, one is inclined to lean against that system. I don’t blame you. So I’ll attempt to explain that.
At the outset, however, and in response to the elixir example, 172 people died. But the numbers of folks who died from the elixir are far less than the 1000s of lives lost because of FDA caused harm. I could enumerate more specific examples but that is a side issue. Loss of lives happen—we are all appointed a day to die. The argument isn’t to knock the FDA per se but to explain why it should be abolished or for that matter, how and FDA-like entity could be useful to your freedom to choose. You have to be free to choose or submit your choice to something else. Government isn’t the answer in this field as history demonstrates.
Let me stop here for a moment and suggest a starting point to any analysis by you, a Paultard, Obama, or anyone. There are always two questions we should be asking when a law is proposed. First, there is the question of right and wrong: Should we have Drug X, Device A, or Procedure 123 because such measures prolong life or are a good thing. The second question is most always overlooked and that is: Who has the power to decide the first question? The answer is that we must resort to the Constitution. To ask is to answer. With respect to the FDA, the federal government does not have such a constitutional power. (Yes I know you don’t want to address this question but I point it out as a reminder that if we are to have regulation we should insure compliance with our own source of authority first. The reason this is important is that we can’t just pick and choose what parts of Supreme Law we want to enforce. If we take an oath to preserve it, then we should be truthful to our word and bond, no? Otherwise, government becomes unjust and dangerous for it is not predictable. A government that ignores its authority ignores you unless you’re part of the majority. See?)
So now to my answer, finally. Assuming arguendo we do away with the “Second” question, I’ll break up the answer into two parts.
I. Abolishing the FDA
If the FDA were abolished, regulation simply devolves to the states where regulations are made more responsive to the public. After all, states individually regulate the practice of medicine. It is much easier to change state law than federal law. And, note that a private entity, the American Medical Association, regulates what medical schools teach. Would you go to a doctor who wasn’t licensed by the state? Probably not. I might but that doctor’s reputation and operation would have to be VERY well established. Why? Because it involves my body. I might not require such strict guidelines for myself if we speak of a painting contractor.
A pure free market theory posits that individual choices will eventually curb, correct, and change business practices. I tend to agree with this. For instance, in the former Soviet Union, I recall reading where a famine in the Ukraine lead to edict that every child was to be supplied with milk. 20 million gallons of milk spoiled and starvation became worse. The “central planners” failed in many respects to handle where the milk should have gone. Conversely, at the same time, no planning was done in New York City where virtually every drop of 20 million gallons in a month somehow made it into every home. Difference? Government regulation vs. individual choice. Yes I know, milk isn’t an elixir but without milk, children die.
Despite the existence of the FDA, people still die from drug reactions. Despite the existence of state regulations, folks still die from malpractice. Human government and justice isn’t exact but the expansion of liberty and individual choice is easier to grasp. That is key to the free market—individual choice. Individual choice and freedom to choose is our nature. It is also key to realize that government regulation limits that choice and freedom. It is also paternalistic in the sense that government is trying to protect us from ourselves as though we are little children. As you note, there are always the conspiracy wingnuts crying out about the “real” cure. Absurd indeed. These are the same folks who would down the elixir despite the FDA!
Don’t mistake my argument. We do need regulation for things that are evil in and of themselves. But we have to give credence to the fact that individuals are by nature free and a corollary of freedom is individual responsibility for one’s own actions. If you smoke coffin nails as cigarettes were coined in the late 18th century, you’re going to get a coffin.
II. FDA-like Entities
For centuries, the private sector came up with its own associations called “guilds” where they would set their own standards. To be a part of a guild, you had to comply and these guilds became reputable. We still have such guilds such as the one I mentioned earlier—the AMA.
It would be wrong to assume that government is good and private enterprise is always evil. For whatever evils we can itemize on the private sector side, if you put all the evils of government on the other, I would suggest that the government side of the scale would crash to the floor.
And don’t negate the existence of trial lawyers who sue under the law of tort. They strike fear into the heart of business far worse than government. I know….*grin*
Another issue with the FDA is that compliance is mandatory. Why could it not be voluntary? Wouldn’t folks be more leary of products that don’t have the FDA seal of approval? Would you? I would certainly take it into account when I purchased items. But that is an individual choice. BTW, nothing stops a particular state from regulating drugs within its borders. It is a power reserved to the states as part of the Health, Safety, and Welfare powers. I condone such regulation and Ron Paul would agree that a state should outlaw things like a shoe x-ray machine that gives 100s of times the dose of radiation that medical x-rays give.
Sorry for taking so long!