From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.society.development
Subject: Re: Suppressing innovations (was Mander and Television)
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:55:43 GMT
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton


In comp.society.futures article <1992Apr7.211401.21952@leland.Stanford.EDU> you wrote:
> In article <1992Apr04.013822.23814@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
> >In comp.society.futures article <1992Apr2.054515.20041@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
> >William Shepherd (whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

> >as is always the case, the immoral is the impractical, given a valid moral
> >theory.

> (Not really important, but you lost me on this one.  How do you define a
> _valid_ moral theory?)

Moral theories are like any other kind of theory.  They are valid if they correspond
to reality.  Many people have very fuzzy notions of what makes an act morally good 
or not (thanks to the influences of religious morality more than anything else).
Think of it this way (Aristotle's).  What is the difference between a good knife 
and a bad knife?  One cuts better than the other.  What's the difference between
a good house and a bad one?  One keeps the rain out better than the other (etc.).
In both cases, the goodness is based on how well it achieves the purpose to which
it is being put.  So what is the purpose of your life?  Ultimately it is to live
(which entails doing all of the things necessary for that).  To say that the purpose
of your life is to do something other than live would be a contradiction.  Of course
people can choose to act in whats that diminish the quality of their lives by doing
things like eating poison, failing to become educated, becoming a thief or a murderer,
or a lot of other things.  Such people are "bad people" because they are not good at 
living.  (It should be obvious that the preceeding is a vast condensation of much more elaborate moral system, but I just wanted to give you an idea of where I am coming 
from rather than write a book on meta-ethics.)

Now, to address the specific question, we have defined what a moral theory is ("A theory that tells one what one ought to do.") and we have defined what unists, and the followers of Jim Jones were dismal in this
respect.  A valid theory of morality can be checked out by looking at the real world
consequences of various choices and reasoning about them.  It's not just a matter of
subjective choice where Jim Jones' choice to drink poison KoolAid is no better or 
worse than Edison's choice to invent the light bulb.

In short, some invalid moral systems are so because they choose an irrational standard 
of value (one other than life) and others are invalid because they make 
recommendations of action which do not in fact lead to life.

> >> They, as much as we, are free agents in a market, deciding what to consume. 

> >Free?  How?  I am not free to tell the IRS that I don't want to play it's 
> >little wealth redistribution game.  I'd go to jail if I did.  There's nothing
> >"free" about it.  The fact that "the people" supposedly asked for these taxes
> >to be collected and redistributed is irrelevant to this.  Whether the choice
> >to take my money is made by one man (such as a thief, king or dictator) or a 
> >million in a "democratic" vote, the moral situation is still the same.

> My point wasn't on the issue of how the NIH collects its funds.  This is an
> entirely separate issue, and I agree with you that it is not an area
> where we are "free."  

At least we agree on that much.  Why do you sweep this fact away and give it no
further consideration?  Isn't that a bit like:

Q: Sir is your wife pregnant?

A: No, of course not.  Well, maybe a little bit.  Well, if you leave the baby in her
   womb aside, no she's not.  Well, she only is pregnant in the area of her abdomen.

> However, given the government system of taxation, the
> NIH is then just another player in our economy, deciding how to spend its
> funds according to its own priorities.
 
Sure, and given the system of organized crime, the mafia is "just another player in 
the economy deciding how to spend its funds according to its own priorities.".  The
fact is that it is not spending "it's" own money.  It is spending MY money and yours 
too. 

> >> Dead bodies?  I've got two words for you:  DDT and thalidomide.  

> >OK, thalidomide did cause a number of birth defects, but as far as I am aware,
> >there was no indication that one could expect this.  Compare those birth
> >defects to the enormous numbers of people who die and suffer because of
> >strict FDA rules.
> >It's no contest, we'd be FAR better without the FDA restrictions.

> >As for DDT, I don't know of a single case of DDT killing ANYONE.  On the
> >other hand, since it has been banned, the number of deaths from malaria
> >have exploded from a few thousand when DDT was widely used to (if memory
> >serves) about a million per year (almost as high asblem that comes 
> >along.  That it is more often than not "something bad" doesn't seem to 
> >concern either the politicians or the pundits much.

> >Now, there IS a legitimate role for government to play in attacking fraud
> >in the drug industry (and any other case where it crops up), but that's
> >not what the government is up to.  It's trying to run the companies that
> >it's worried about, not trying to prosecute fraudulent companies.

> I strongly disagree with your assesment of the need for the FDA.  What
> conditions are necessary for efficient market transactions?  

Freedom from coercion and fraud.  That's it.

> Free trade
> between _fully informed, rational_ decision makers, with the parties to
> the transaction bearing the _full costs_ of the transaction.  

How did you conclude this?  First, you seem to think that only omniscient people 
(who know everything about the products) ought to be allowed to trade, and then
you add that someone has to somehow determine all of the financial implications of
any trade.  You cannot define an economic system which is supposed to work if it's
first axiom is that only gods are allowed to participate.

Tell me.  Who is better informed about what products and services will make your 
life better, you or some government official?  Who is "more informed"?  Whose 
choice should it be, your or some government official's?  Whose life is it anyway?
I want to rely on MY OWN judgement to determine whether I am paying too much or 
asking too little in my trades.  In cases where I am not sure what to do, I can
hire an informed person to give me advice (doctors, lawyers, etc.).

> I view the
> governments major role in this situation to be correcting the inefficiencies
> of the market. 

What inefficiencies are those?  When I look at the effects of government intervention
in the economy, I see enormous inefficiencies everywhere.  If people want advice on 
what they should buy, they should pay for it (by buying Consumer Reports magazine,
hiring consultants, contributing to watchdog groups, etc.).  I don't want anyone 
forcing me to pay for such advice, and I CERTAINLY don't want anyone forcing me to
take such "advice".  When you have no choice about taking advice, it is the same thing 
as taking orders.

Anyway, can ontention, based on the above premise, is that your
> average consumer does not have the necessary information to make proper
> judgements about the drug market.  (i.e. doesn't have access to labs to
> conduct his own test and doesn't have access to information regarding any
> tests.)  

Of course he doesn't (that's the *average* consumer, what about the above consumer?
Do you not worry about whether his rights are violated?), but if he realizes this,
he can hire someone who DOES understand drugs like a pharmacist or a doctor.

> Second, I argue that consumers are very rarely completely rational
> in this area (witness the incredible success of all sorts of quack cures
> whenever not stamped on by the government).

The quacks are engaged in fraud and ought to be tossed into jail.  Protection from 
fraud is NOT what the FDA is primarily involved in. (If it were, you'd see a lot fewer
"homeopathic drug" shops around.).  It requires that aing a business what it can sell or what a
customer can buy.

> Finally, in many situations
> (and this is why I brought up DDT), the parties to the transaction do not
> bear the full costs of the transaction (i.e. there are externalities).
eggshell thinning.  The upshot of it was that this widespread 
belief about DDT is based on almost no empirical evidence (just a correlation...birds 
were found to have DDT and many birds had thin shelled eggs, no connection was
observed).  In this more recent study, it was determined that there was in fact not even a correlation between DDT and shell thinning (which occurs for a number of 
reasons including diet, disease, and such).

> In terms of drug regulation, there are two other kinds of externalities.  One,
> given the fact that most (and it should be more...) Americans have health
> insurance, they rarely bear the full costs of treatment.  

Of course they bear the costs.  Most people just choose to spread out the costs
and share the risks with others, just like in any other kind of insurance.

> Secondly, in terms
> of the long range detrimental health effects of some drugs, without regulation,
> many marginal companies would not be around to bear the costs of their earlier
> sales.

I don't follow you here.  Could you explain what you mean?  Do you mean marginal drug 
companies?

> 2 questions to consider:
> (1)  There are countries without the equivalent of an FDA.  If we would be
> _so_ much better off without one, why don't we see more cross border traffic
> looking for "forbidden" treatments?  

Actually, we do.  People often go to Mexico for medical treatments the government 
won't allow.

Second, since the US is the biggest producer of new drugs, most of the more advanced
(and hence unavailable) drugs are not available in the less restrictive countries.

Third, sick people are probably in a situation in which travel is difficult.

Fourth, in many cases doctors don't know about, or don't tell patients about 
drugs or treatments that are not available.

Fifth, if you look at the health systems in various countries and the flow of people 
from one to another.  You see people moving from one country to another for services
(or a place to practice) all over (Swedish doctors moving to the US, US patients
going to Mexico for drugs, and Canadians coming to the US for major surgery to escape 
the socialized system in Canada.  It is not at all uncommon to see people getting medical care in countries less restrictive in some respect than another.  Do you know 
of even a single case of someone getting medical care in another country because 
government restrictions were too weak in his home country?  People LIKE freedom to 
do as they wish.  They don't like being ordered around by the government against their
will.  I don't see why that should be so hard to figure out.

> An the cost of travel doesn't work
> as an excuse.  If it was really a life or death situation, people would
> find a way to get overseas.

Indeed, and they do.  Let's put the shoe on the other foot though.  NOBODY (except
perhaps insane people) would choose to leave a country with a medical system which 
gives him a choice of treatments to adopt a "safer" form of treatment where he isn't
given a choice, while there are some who will travel and undertake great
hardships in order to be free to choose thier treatments.

> (2)  Where does the millions dying of malaria come from?  (Not doubting, 
> just wondering...)  

I have seen it published in a number of places over the years.  I think the most 
"authoritative" place I have seen it was in an encyclopedia (Britanica?).  I believe 
it was mentioned in "Trashing the Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray and in some of Petr 
Beckmann's writings.  Unofrtunately, I don't have the references with me, but I know 
it's a shockingly high number.

> Is that a number for the entire world?

Yes.  The vast majority of them are in the equatorial third world areas.

> I believe DDT is still used in some parts of the world.  

It is LEGAL in some parts of the word and is occasionally still used, but the 
US had been the primary producer and after it was banned, it became unavailable
elsewhere.  DDT is also particularly effective against mosquitoes because of it's
powder form which allows it to kill mosquities resting on walls and ceilings 
for a long time with aerial spraying.

> And should the increase be 
> written off to a decrease in DDT usage, or an increase in mosquitos
> resistence to chemicals?  

Part of it could be, but the increase followed quite immediately with the DDT ban.
It seems highly unlikely to me that this was a coinsidence.

> (Increase in pathogens or insects' resistance
> to drugs/chemicals is another _very_ important case of an externality that
> justifies government intervention.)

How does it justify that?  Isn't it in the best interests of the drug companies 
to get together to extend the lifetimes of their drugs by establishing schemes to
minimize the development of drug-resistant strains?  What makes you think that only 
the government can do such things?  What about the AMA?  What about drug comapnies?  
What about citizen's groups?  Do you trust the government more than them?

> >> Given, bureaucracy often goes too far, but there are many circumstances
> >> where caution is more than justified.  

> >So who should decide how much caution is justified?  If a drug comapny has a
> >new and questionable drug and a patient is considering buying it (knowing full
> >well the risks involved) what business does the government have in jumping in
> >and calling a halt to the transaction?

> My whole point is that there aren't really any patients who know "full well"
> the risks involved in a given drug.

Oh come off it.  Do you think that there are FDA bureaucrats who know "full well"?
What about the doctor the patient hired to advise him.  Might he know "full well"?
You seem to be quite confident that YOU know full well what drugs he should be allowed
to buy, and you know nothing about the case at all, and worse yet, you are willing
to advocate that the government force the poor fellow accept YOUR judgement about
whether he should listen to his doctor or the FDA.  Why can't you just leave him 
alone?  What business is it of yours anyway?

> >Yeah, I know...they are running the lives of others "for their own good".
> >That's  I think you are dead wrong.  This country had something very 
> >much like what I am advocating in the 19th century, and despite the few
> >departures from laissez faire (eg. slavery, and railroad subsidies) we grew
> >from a few colonists huddling in the woods to the biggest industrial power
> >in the world.  Do you deny this is true?  Do you deny that the cause was the
> >kind of economy we had?

> Please be careful to differentiate between what kind of economy we have,
> and what kind of government.  

The two are closely related.  In a totalitarian country, you cannot have capitalism.
In a capitalistic country, you cannot have totalitarianism.  In a mixed economy it
is possible to have a mix of the good and the bad in both government and economics
(as we have now), but a political system that doesn't interfere in the economy
has almost by definition a capitalist economy.

> A market-driven economy exploited unrivaled
> natural resources was the main reason our economy had such success.  

I have heard that argument before and I think it's so clearly false as to be 
laughable.  If it was just a matter of natural resources, why didn't the 
indians do it?  They had 50,000 years to develop a modern economy.  Why didn't
the europeans do it?  They had 300 years to try.  A political system that 
defends individual rights, including property rights is the foundation upon
which a capitalist economy stands.  Without that, how would the industrialists,
inventors, and bankers keep the government and the mobs from looting them or
"managing" their growth?  Are you saying that there is no connection between the
economy a country has and the kind of government it has?  I agree that they are
not the same thing, but they are closely linked.

A simple test will illustrate my point.  Can you come up with even one example of
a capitalist economy in a totalitarian government? 

> I maintain that our form of government had little to do with it.  Indeed, I
> can make a good case that we would have been better off with more government.

No doubt because politicians are better at managing businesses than their owners
are, right?  Have you ever considered a career in the comedy industry?

Even if that were the case, how can you justify it from a moral point of view?
To you think that it is OK for some people to run other control other people's
affairs so long as they claim "it's for their own good"?  To make it a bit more
personal, if I told you that since I'm a computer expert and I have friends in 
Washington that YOU had to use the kind of computer I think is "better for you"
would you object?  What we held a vote?  Would your rights be violated by being 
pushed around in this way?  I think so.  Or is it only the "less educated" lower
classes who ought to be treated with this kind of disrespect?

> (e.g. stopping the mergers of 1800 manufacturing firms into 157 consolidated
> corporations, over half of whom were effective monopolies, during the decade
> of 1895-1904).  

What kind of monopolies were those?  The kind you get when one market player is
so efficient that his competitors drop off?  Why pay those 1643 excess company
presidents and their 3286 right hand men and their 16,430 executive staffs if
the companies can be operated profitably without them?   One of the things 
that precipitated this change was the ability of businesses to take advantage 
of telecommunication and transportation advances (the railroads and telegraphs)
to create businesses over a wider geographical scale than could be traversed
on horseback.  I don't disagree that there was a tremendous amount of business
consolidation during that period, but what's wrong with business consolidations?
Of course the government-enforced railroad monopolies were a very economically 
destructive feature of that time (as was slavery) but those are cases of problems
caused by YOUR idea of economics, not mine.

> Also note that our economy had huge sucesses in the 1940-1960 period when government 
> was _much_ bigger.
 
First, I think that your analysis is quite wrong that the late 19th century period 
one of less economic development than 1940-1960.  It was during that period that
the telephone, the electric light, sound recording, internal combustion engines,
airplanes, and the like were developed.  This was a quantum leap from the horse and
buggy, candle and outhouse economy of the previous period.  I'm not saying 
that there wasn't economic development in the US from 1940-60, but it was much less
of a change in kind than in the turn of the century period.  I also think that growth
occurred DESPITE government interference rather than because of it.  What evidence 
do you have that the government was at all responsible for that growth?  If you have
been in business yourself, you should know that dealing with the government is a 
constant drag on your time, money, and resources which pays little or nothing in 
return.

--
-- Brian K. Yoder                   -                                        --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group     - Maier's Law:                           --
-- Symantec Corporation             -   If the facts do not fit the theory,  --
-- NeXT Mail Accepted (preferred!)  -   they must be disposed of.            --

-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
-- NeXT Mail Accepted (preferred!)   -                                       --
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,alt.fax