From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:47:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.235101.25162@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch) writes:
}Essentially, then, the libertarian position seems to be caveat emptor.
}While this may have been reasonable in the good ol' days of snake oil
}and "patent medicine" it is clearly (to me, at least) inappropriate to
}the current epoch. Today both entrepeneurs and mass marketers are far
}too adept at manipulating the media to create consumer demand for a
}variety of useless (or worse) products.

I've never bought into this elitist view of the masses, myself, or this demon-
theory of entrepreneurs, marketers, and advertizers.  As far as I'm concerned,
it's more prejudiced bigotry.

In the case of medicine, the
}average consumer (even the sophisticated consumer) clearly does not
}have the resources to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
}pharmaceutical health claims.

That little ol' thing called licensure couldn't be a big cause of this in that
it restricts the medical advice market, now could it?

Because toxic adverse effects can occur
}weeks, months or even decades following use of the offending medicine
}(eg.Radium, DES, Thalaldomide) the absence of a regulatory agency to 1)
}evaluate safety & efficacy and 2) track complications over time could
}be disastrous and legal remediation in many instances would be nigh
}impossible.

You've made one of the cliche statist assumptions: since we libertarians
oppose the State doing something, we oppose anyone doing it.  The early 19th-
century libertarian Frederic Bastiat eloquently disposed of this in his work
"The Law."

I see no reason why the power of prior restraint is necessary for safety
and efficacy to be judged or for complications to be tracked over time - nor
why these goods must be paid for with stolen money, a.k.a. taxes.

Complete deregulation of pharmaceuticals would be a bonanza
}for unscrupulous or simply naive entrepeneurs and a nightmare for
}everyone else. As an oncologist, I've already treated too many patients
}who have turned to "alternative medical treatments" to their detriment.

Why only complete deregulation?  Why wouldn't partial regulation be a partial
bonanza for those vermin Jews - oops, wrong kind of statist persecutor - that
is, entrepreneurs?  If it would, then the logical conclusion is for totalitarian
regulation of pharmaceuticals.

}BTW, The Ames test is a wonderful test of mutagenicity but a lousy test
}of carcinogenicity.

Ah.  Thanks for the information.

However, that's simply an argument for  the
}development of better tests not one for scrapping tests altogether.

You seem to have missed my point: we can't know enough about the long-term
effects of anthropogenic chemicals to determine ex ante whether use of prior
restraint would reduce risk or increase it.  Thus, we have to default to ex post
determination and liability lawsuit for maximal legal remedy.

Note that this leaves room for tests which can determine comparative risk
ex ante.  When we can know that banning something will reduce risk, then it
will be justified to do so.

}Similarly, as an oncologist I have my quibbles with the FDA but I would
}argue that trying to improve its efficiency is far better than working
}to curtail its activity.

I've only argued that two of its activities should be curtailed: prior restraint
and receipt of stolen goods.  There's no reason why it should be any more
efficient at either of these than it already is.

}As I understand this, you are saying that no regulatory agency such as
}the EPA is needed.

Yep.

Instead, individuals could file class action suits
}to force polluters (would this be individual car owners or automakers?)
}to curtail their polluting activity. For this to work there need be 1)
}environmental legislation upon which such suits could be based

Or the common law of tresspass, which was what legal remedy for pollution was
gotten under in England prior to legislative intervention that privileged
the locomotive industry at the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

and 2)
}some means of evaluation and enforcement.

Also known as the courts and police.

To adequately draft
}environmental legislation one needs an organization that has the
}ability to sit down with scientists, environmentalists, business and
}public interest gropups and formulate reasonable compromise
}recommendations (hence the EPA).

Nope.  See above.  However, if the EPA worked against pollution as a external
cost in economic terms and a tresspass in legal terms, then this would get
little objection from us libertarians.  If you think that's what it does, then
you're naive; see "Environmental Politics" on this.

To accurately monitor air pollution
}levels throughout the country and trace its sources is, I believe
}beyond the capabilities of even the best tort law firm or public
}watchdog group.

Why?

}So, we're back to my original query. Though I personally subscribe to
}much libertarian doctrine, there really do seem to be things which the
}government is in a postion to do better than the private sector.

This may be, but these things don't seem to qualify.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian