07-22-2016 07:59 PM
#151
| |
| |
07-22-2016 08:02 PM
#152
| |
No one can keep score with a thing like this. You eat safeway like you have for every tuesday as long as you care to remember, you get sick, was it safeway or something else? You'll never nail down the cause affirmatively. | |
| |
07-22-2016 08:06 PM
#153
| |
| |
07-22-2016 08:07 PM
#154
| |
Don't companies find ways around the FDA? http://www.itv.com/news/2015-05-29/l...he-new-law-do/ | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 07:27 AM. | |
07-22-2016 08:10 PM
#155
| |
Gay. Slam some piracetam. http://nootropicsdepot.com/piracetam/ | |
| |
07-22-2016 08:14 PM
#156
| |
| |
07-22-2016 08:17 PM
#157
| |
| |
07-22-2016 08:18 PM
#158
| |
| |
07-22-2016 08:20 PM
#159
| |
| |
07-22-2016 08:21 PM
#160
| |
| |
07-22-2016 09:09 PM
#161
| |
|
People evaluate things all the time. |
07-23-2016 01:08 AM
#162
| |
The dietary guidelines were merely a gentle suggestion of what to eat. The DDT ban took a veritable miracle pest control product out of the hands of people desperate to rid themselves from deadly insects. As well, organizations like the EPA make it continually harder for effective alternatives to DDT to be produced. Again, more unquantifiably unseen factors so it's hard to be too angry about them. How much would the malaria epidemic have been alleviated in the absence of these programs? How much cheaper would food be, worldwide? We can never know. | |
07-23-2016 04:39 AM
#163
| |
Where are you getting this from? | |
| |
07-23-2016 04:47 AM
#164
| |
Rich countries used DDT and eliminated mosquitos. Poor countries were too poor to do it effectively. Rich countries, no longer needing DDT use to fight malaria, ban it - poor countries are still too poor to do it effectively. It probably also helped that the rich countries were temperate, since the problem was mosquitos, as there are seasons when mosquitos fuck off south. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 04:53 AM. | |
07-23-2016 04:51 AM
#165
| |
DDT legit sounds like chemo-therapy for an ecosystem. Kill everything slowly to kill the parasitic mosquitoes completely. | |
| |
07-23-2016 05:06 AM
#166
| |
The CDC (Center for Disease Control) used to be the Office of Malaria-Control in War Areas. That's cool | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 05:11 AM. | |
07-23-2016 05:22 AM
#167
| |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...48969705001749 | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 05:35 AM. | |
07-23-2016 05:32 AM
#168
| |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...90623808000361 | |
| |
07-23-2016 05:39 AM
#169
| |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring | |
| |
07-23-2016 05:43 AM
#170
| |
Why isn't Brazil using it to combat Zika? If BP can dump that stuff that hides an oil spill, why can't Brazil spray everything with DDT and claim it's something else? | |
| |
07-23-2016 05:46 AM
#171
| |
| |
07-23-2016 05:51 AM
#172
| |
To summarize what I found | |
| |
07-23-2016 06:00 AM
#173
| |
It's people still working to change the environment to suit them, but the environment working to fit right back into those niches we try to repel them from. | |
| |
07-23-2016 07:07 AM
#174
| |
| |
07-23-2016 08:17 AM
#175
| |
I had two english teachers that taught the same book. One of them said that only this author could have written this book, the other said no, this book would have been written eventually. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 08:35 AM. | |
07-23-2016 08:47 AM
#176
| |
They were using coal in China circa 4000 bc. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 08:49 AM. | |
07-23-2016 08:51 AM
#177
| |
Britain was so small and so filled with resources that it made the entire world small. Hell of a shot, guv | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 09:05 AM. | |
07-23-2016 12:18 PM
#178
| |
| |
07-23-2016 12:22 PM
#179
| |
| |
07-23-2016 01:36 PM
#180
| |
I'll have more time to address your points later, but I just wanted to add that I'm not arguing for a mass DDT spraying or something. I'm making a point that because a fear-mongering environmentalist wrote a popular book about pesticides in 1962, governments made it unduly hard on pesticide manufacturing to this day. In all likelihood, safer alternatives to DDT would have emerged in a free market. It's impossible to know for certain. | |
07-23-2016 06:58 PM
#181
| |
Who was the first manufacturer of DDT? It wasn't the free market. There was no free market demand for DDT. Sick people can't work. People that don't work don't have money. Malaria was a problem for a long time before someone did something incredible about it. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-23-2016 at 07:11 PM. | |
07-23-2016 07:06 PM
#182
| |
| |
07-23-2016 07:08 PM
#183
| |
| |
07-23-2016 08:13 PM
#184
| |
|
I'm not interested in faith. If I had faith in free markets, I wouldn't support them. Free markets are not a unique phenomenon. They are merely attaching to commerce the principles that you and me and everybody else in the West take for granted regarding virtually every aspect of our lives. Every behavior exists in a market, including things like dating or playing games. If the government suddenly started regulating dating, nobody would claim that it is doing anything better than the free market of dating does. |
07-23-2016 08:14 PM
#185
| |
07-23-2016 08:33 PM
#186
| |
|
I often use conversational English. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-23-2016 at 08:35 PM. | |
07-23-2016 09:18 PM
#187
| |
FYP | |
07-23-2016 09:36 PM
#188
| |
|
I use common colloquialisms. Be talking with your friend. He asks you "why did they cancel Firefly?" You say "eh nobody was watching." Clearly people were watching, but they were small enough of a portion that they might as well have not existed. |
07-23-2016 11:31 PM
#189
| |
Please stop doing this in this thread and others where you're not being casual and colloquial, but making a point about a serious subject about which people whom respect you are trying to learn how to understand your point in the context of their lives. | |
07-24-2016 05:18 AM
#190
| |
| |
| |
07-24-2016 05:50 AM
#191
| |
I completely agree with Friedman, that at the minimum regulations that protect 3rd parties are needed, such as regulations on pollution. Where I disagree is that these regulations should also be extended to protect the primary parties on some basic minimum level, where it can be scientifically justified. | |
| |
07-24-2016 03:50 PM
#192
| |
|
IIRC Friedman doesn't discuss abolishing government the way I do. That's not to say that he didn't have ideas on it, but maybe he thought it was not pragmatic to discuss. So, his response in this video includes the premise that governments set law. In this situation, he believes that there is no place from a purely logical point of view for government to get between consensual acts, but when third parties are involved by externality, they're non-consensual and thus the government must be involved. I think it's a mistake to take this to mean that without government, non-consensual third parties would suffer. In a free market of law, third parties would be protected by other law/insurance companies. Instead of government protecting property rights, individuals would protect their own property rights mainly by contracting to a company. |
07-24-2016 04:10 PM
#193
| |
|
Economics looks at the reality that people are by nature selfish; the field tries to understand what that actually means. Adam Smith's chief observation that has stood the test of time is that an economy is made up of a bunch of selfish people, who by nature of competing amongst each other, have to act more or less selflessly to get the selfish awards they set out to. This process is what propels the betterment of goods and services and peoples in a society. |
07-24-2016 04:12 PM
#194
| |
| |
07-24-2016 04:50 PM
#195
| |
|
Most economists don't go the "no government" route. But some do, and I think they do so because the rationale is baked into economic theory. My experience in principles of economics classes is that they teach some eyebrow furrowing contradictions, and it seems to me they do that because the culture of economists is still very pro-government. Here's an example: |
07-24-2016 05:00 PM
#196
| |
|
Such a gangster point in the last 15 seconds. Unintended consequences and incentives are so cool. Apply safety regulations to automobiles that increase inefficiency, and find that this makes for an unintended consequence of greater incentive for consumers to drive older, less safe cars. At least in this particular scenario, it's ironic how safety regulations decrease safety. |
07-25-2016 03:29 AM
#197
| |
I watched a couple lectures by him. He never mentioned abolishing governments once, on the contrary believed they have a distinct role in protecting 3rd parties. He clearly also wasn't anti-regulation, but anti bad regulation. | |
| |
07-25-2016 04:41 AM
#198
| |
Yeah MF was a chicago school economist, definitely nowhere near an anarcho-capitalist. He was your standard "night-watchman state" proponent. | |
07-25-2016 06:15 AM
#199
| |
This is the mega a500lbgorilla response post that I've been promising. I just found myself with a spare 30 minutes. | |
Last edited by Renton; 07-25-2016 at 06:57 AM. | |
07-25-2016 08:28 AM
#200
| |
If I want to buy a home/car/etc., it is a significant investment of my resources which will take me many years to acquire the money to afford. I am not an expert in civil engineering, and I don't have the time or patience to become one. I want to know that the experts who are making me promises about the efficiency and safety of the product have to face consequences if they are lying to me. I want further assurances that if they have been incompetent and sold me something less than they claimed that I am protected from their mistakes. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 07-25-2016 at 08:32 AM. | |
07-25-2016 02:33 PM
#201
| |
|
I completely agree with the sentiment of the importance of psychological security. If a free market of law were to mean that there were no consequences for abusive, fraudulent, or negligent behavior, a free market of law would be a trainwreck. If we take the premise implicit in your statement (government security or no security), then you're right, cost efficiency is irrelevant because, well, let me put it this way: government security will always be more cost efficient than no security. What I argue for is not that we replace law with no law, but that we fund law differently. If law were to exist in a free market, I think it would be more effective at providing the psychological security we all need. |
07-25-2016 11:07 PM
#202
| |
A) I'm not seeing how governments' existence isn't a response to a demand made by a free market. I'm not seeing how law does not exist in a free market. It's not worth hashing out either of these points again, since the evidence shows that was a waste of time to begin with. | |
07-26-2016 01:22 PM
#203
| |
|
I'll try to hit a handful of unique points to keep it smooth. |
07-26-2016 01:37 PM
#204
| |
^^I agree completely. I'd also like to add that the notion that free markets have not been tried anywhere yet, and if we did, they'd solve all problems is bollocks. On the contrary, a free market is the default state until a government starts regulating a certain aspect of that market. At that moment that aspect is no longer in the free market, but all the other aspects of it still are. Right now, a large part of all markets globally (or the global market) are free, every single product or aspect of it's production or sales that isn't regulated, is part of the free market. Free markets have existed since the dawn of time, when the first transaction took place. Market regulations were put in place to fix the holes in free markets. Not perfectly, but out of necessity. | |
Last edited by CoccoBill; 07-26-2016 at 01:41 PM.
| |
07-26-2016 04:25 PM
#205
| |
The closest thing to a pure free market was the gilded age, and while things weren't perfect in those days, it was the most dramatic accumulation of wealth, median living standards, and technological advance probably in human history. It's hard to call almost any market in our age completely free because there's always central banking and controlled interest rates at the heart of the system, which affect every facet of everything. | |
07-26-2016 06:37 PM
#206
| |
|
Can a society even have a government that isn't an octopus? Look at the States. Since inception, tax rates have gone up how many hundreds of percent? Regulations have increased by how many thousands (millions?) of percents? |
07-27-2016 08:13 AM
#207
| |
I would support a US constitutional amendment which instills a mandatory sunset clause on all laws. | |
07-27-2016 08:24 AM
#208
| |
What evidence does he put forward to support his assertions, though? | |
07-27-2016 12:47 PM
#209
| |
|
In that video about the car safety issue? None. |
07-27-2016 12:59 PM
#210
| |
(I will watch your video link after work. I haven't clicked it yet. This is in response to your other links.) | |
07-27-2016 01:23 PM
#211
| |
|
That certainly is the case. Just look at an unintended consequence of British tyranny: American independence and its revolutionary democratic and freedom-oriented unalienable rights for individuals constitution. |
07-27-2016 01:29 PM
#212
| |
| |
07-28-2016 12:38 AM
#213
| |
The problem with sunset laws is the same as the benefit. | |
07-28-2016 07:50 AM
#214
| |
In response to the video: | |
07-28-2016 07:54 AM
#215
| |
I disagree. The current problem is that there are so many laws that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to know all of the laws which apply to them. It's not the rate of change, it's the sheer number of laws. | |
07-28-2016 10:06 AM
#216
| |
To be fair... plenty of stuff in that video I wouldn't dispute. The way the narrator says or at least implies that there can be only one outcome in many of his examples is so against anthropological history as to render his conclusions as out of context from humanity. | |
07-28-2016 10:32 AM
#217
| |
| |
07-28-2016 12:37 PM
#218
| |
|
Even though there are multiple law creators, they're still monopolists by way of tax/coercion jurisdictions. Exactly what they would be called -- oligarchies, cartels -- I'm not sure right now. Regardless, a free market of law would be different, as it would be funded through choice instead of through mandatory taxes. When I disagree with the government putting people in prison for smoking weed, I have no choice but to fund it. For us to have a free market of law, it would look something along these lines: I would be able to contract a law company whose policy is that smoking weed is not a crime to be my representative in any disputes, including ones with somebody who pays for a law company whose policy says that smoking weed carries such and such punishment. |
07-28-2016 12:46 PM
#219
| |
|
You may be right. However, I suspect we would find how to make a stable system of sunset laws. The nature of needing stability is that, well, you need stability, and efforts gravitate towards making it happen. An example of how I think a sunset law system would be stable is that the kinds of laws Congress would create would be the kind that disrupt little and are expected to be renewed easily. This could go a long way to keeping Congress out of the business of intruding so deeply into private interactions like it already has. It would force Congress to focus on what Congress should, on what makes the nation a better place instead of carve-outs for special interests. Carve-outs would have a hard ass time getting renewed, which would deter their creation in the first place. |
07-28-2016 12:53 PM
#220
| |
I think you guys are stuck in thinking purely about regulatory laws. I'm speaking of laws as a whole. | |
07-28-2016 12:56 PM
#221
| |
|
Now if only we had the choice to send our money to Portugal instead of Uncle Sam, so that when an agent of Uncle Sam puts handcuffs on one of us for smoking weed on his own back porch, the full force of Portugal comes down on Uncle Sam to protect its insured. Then millions of others who agree with Portugal's policies send their money to Portugal instead of Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam quickly finds that it's losing billions in funds and it has no choice but to stop putting people in prison for smoking weed. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-28-2016 at 01:03 PM. | |
07-28-2016 01:02 PM
#222
| |
|
That is a problem. Sunset doesn't have to be blanket sunset. Certain types of laws could be under periodic mandatory review, for example. It wouldn't be that murder laws would be at risk of being nullified by the clock, but that they would undergo a period of potential change. I don't see how this would be much less stable of a situation than having SCOTUS judicial review, where a big law can change overnight. |
07-28-2016 02:58 PM
#223
| |
This is demonstrably false. You may not think it's cost efficient for you to change other aspects of your life to affect a change on this issue, but you definitely have a whole range of choices on how you respond to this law. | |
07-28-2016 03:01 PM
#224
| |
07-28-2016 03:02 PM
#225
| |