Sarrisan

I've been arguing with a friend about the benefits of free markets. He's an Ayn Rand fan, though not an Objectivist, and so is receptive to the general ideas of free markets. He accepts the moral basis - i.e., that people have a right to their property, etc - but has the common idea that it's simply too inefficient or slow. Specifically, our argument has been about the FDA and the role it plays. He thinks that it, if nothing else, it is crucial, that there is simply no other way to keep bad drugs off the market - that, essentially, if we get rid of the FDA, then the market would be inundated with shoddy products made by corporations who cut corners to save money. I pointed out that no good corporation does such things - that true profit comes from skilled long-range planning, which he eventually agreed to. But he is still convinced that the FDA is a necessary evil, and the only bad things that it has resulted in recently are a product of having insufficient federal funds. I also mentioned that, in general, bad products never stay on the market for long, and that in a market free of regulation such things as an FDA really would not be needed. He rebutted by saying that, even if that were true, it would still be too slow a process to keep thousands of people from potential sickness and death, and he also pointed out that there are a great many BS products out there that people believe in daily (For instance, Homeopathy). It is here that my arguments floundered. So my question is, what would you say are the problems with both mine and my friend's arguments, and what would be a good way to convince him that having the FDA is a bad thing? (It also occurs to me that I probably should not be arguing such things with such limited knowledge... but now that I have started, I feel bad about simply giving up - essentially agreeing that perhaps some regulation is a good thing.)

Wow, thanks for the story Soth. I won't call it 'cool,' because it's a terrible situation you were placed in, but I really appreciate your telling it. That is exactly the sort of situation I fear of being put into as a soldier, especially since I plan on going 100% if I do join (Which would probably mean Officer status).

Thanks for the replies, guys, I appreciate it. This was basically what I was looking for.

Obviously, I think it is important to objectively define whether a war is or is not moral. I have little or no sympathy with the soldiers who deserted when facing deployment to Iraq. The main question here is not a legal one. Clearly, leaving the military without permission is going to mean bad consequences, almost no matter what. But morally, once you take upon yourself a responsibility, do you have an obligation to fulfill it, no matter what? My view on it is that it's a matter of degree. Obviously, the perfect job does not exist. The military, I am sure, is the same. You are going to have to deal with some things that you are not going to like. For instance, I consider the Vietnam war to have been a pointless altruistic venture, but it is not immoral enough in the sense that I would desert if faced with serving there (Of course, there are a whole LOAD of factors when considering that context, not the least of which being that service was compulsory). But if I were faced with something clearly and objectively wrong? I think that integrity would demand that I, at the absolute least, speak out against it, if not more.

I'd like to start by clarifying that I am not a soldier myself, though I am considering becoming one. I consider myself knowledgeable about the core of Objectivism, though still a newbie. If the answer to this is something embarrassingly simple, then I apologize and merely ask assistance as to where I can do further reading. Now, I know that Objectivism rejects unearned and unaccepted duty and responsibility. But when you take a responsibility upon yourself, of your own free will, you are morally required (Though perhaps that is too strong a word...) to fulfill it, yes? For instance, having a child. Once you make the decision to have a child, and it is born, you cannot simply abandon it on the side of the street because you do not think that taking care of it is in your self-interest. You made the decision to have the child, and now you must care for it until it becomes an adult (Or at least arrange for it to be properly taken care of in another form). But what if you make a decision at one point in time, and then realize later that continuing to honor it would be immoral? Now, on to the hypothetical part of the question. When someone joins the military, they essentially accept certain risks. For instance, you cannot expect to be allowed to go AWOL when a war comes if you joined during peace times. You made the commitment, and now you must honor it. But lets say that a rational man (Objectivist) joins the military, under the premise that he wishes to protect his own freedom and the freedom of his loved ones, and under the understanding that the country he was fighting for was a free, more or less moral one. But then, down the line, the country takes a change of direction and becomes not so moral, and takes a military action that he believes to be irredeemably immoral (For instance, using the military as a police force to subjugate it's people). Technically, he took upon his shoulders certain risks when he signed the enlistment contract. But on the other hand, he is convinced that the way the military is being used - and thus the actions he is forced to take himself - are immoral. What would be the properly moral thing to do, according to Objectivism? I thank you for any of your thoughts that you can give me.

I'm kind of a newbie, but I don't really see the point of the question. You either choose life, or die. And if someone chooses death, then that is pretty much the end of the conversation, the way I see it. Do you actually have people trying to argue with you that death is a better standard? If that is the case, then really, what can you say to them?

A matter of confusion for me recently has been the topic of vice presidents. There seems to be much importance placed on who chooses who for the position, but from what I have read (Admittedly, limited), the vice president is little more then a figurehead who has little or no power. What does the Vice President actually do? Also, in your opinion, what do you think the importance of the Vice President is? I apologize if this kind of question is inappropriate here. If it is, would you at least give me some idea of where to look elsewhere for more information?

On the subject of Palin, I am more and more deciding that I like her, personally. On the surface, she looks just as religious as McCain, but it seems her professional record says a bit differently. This article at LGF, while not really focusing on her stance itself, seems to indicate that she is pro-gay rights. Considering that she also seems to be more or less a moderate when it comes to Creationism being taught in schools, I am coming to think that she may be the kind of religious person who - amazingly, I know - is willing to keep Church a personal matter, and out of politics. Anyone have any evidence to the opposite? P.S. Also, from Wikipedia, "Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. She does not believe that global warming is man-made. She opposed listing of the polar bear as an endangered species, and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aereal hunting of wolves." Of course, that same article seems to refute all of what I just said above. Politics is so damn confusing...

Axiom? Funny, I don't remember reading about that one. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure such an "axiom" does not exist in Objectivism. You'll notice that honest questions and criticisms are routinely answered on this excellent forum to great length and detail. But people here are only going to bother answering a question for you if you have already worked for it and are truly lost. You clearly have read nothing of Ayn Rand, and therefore you do not deserve to have your question taken seriously. Not to mention the entire structure of your post dripped with the feeling of some typical Marxist attack. If you want your questions answered, actually read Ayn Rand's work, and also read a few books about Capitalism outside of the Marxist Economics class. You might actually learn a few things.