The Role of Government: FDA etc.

[The Anthem]

I understand why Objectivists support the lessening to the power of government (More gov. less rights). If their only role is to protect our rights, it seems like their would be some holes. If there were no FDA, who would regulate food? The gov. regulates pollution, I know I don't want my water to be full of chemicals. It just seems like there are some things that the gov. provides us that I don't want to go away, but would in an Objectivist government.

[D'kian]

If their only role is to protect our rights, it seems like their would be some holes. If there were no FDA, who would regulate food?

No one. Food manufacturers and drug companies who like repeat business, which is to say all fo them, would make sure their products go out uncontaminated, they do what theya dvertise and won't cause adverse reactions. Same as airlines don't want their investment, in the form of aircraft, to crash every other day, and so on for other industries.

And of course liability laws would still be around.

The gov. regulates pollution, I know I don't want my water to be full of chemicals. It just seems like there are some things that the gov. provides us that I don't want to go away, but would in an Objectivist government.

This is a more complex subject. For instance, the government could tell you not to dump toxic chemicals on someone else's property, thus protecting other people's property rigths. But I'll leave the details to others.

[The Anthem]

A drug company would lose customers after the contaminated drug is circulated, which means people would be contaminated before the company faces consequences. The FDA insures (mostly) that contaminated drugs won't get out at all.

[Chops]

A drug company would lose customers after the contaminated drug is circulated, which means people would be contaminated before the company faces consequences. The FDA insures (mostly) that contaminated drugs won't get out at all.

But the drug companies will realize that if they put out a less than healthy product, without disclosing the details of side-effects like that they will

1) Likely be sued, and

2) More Likely lose business

It wouldn't be in their own best interest to release shoddy products.

Likely, what would happen, is that competing private organizations would take the place of the FDA. They could inspect the food or drugs and if they pass inspections, certify the product, providing some legal cushion as well (something to the effect of "We certify this product, and should it have undisclosed adverse effects, we will be held accountable." Then naturally, on store shelves, there would be multiple levels of products:

1) Those certified by a number of different FDA-Clones. The more certified, the better, and likely, the more expensive.

2) Those certified by a single FDA-Clone (probably a little cheaper, due to not having to get it certified by a bunch of organizations)

3) Those not certified by anything, except by the company's guarantee.

In the case you buy something under (3), and it turns out to cause cancer or something, you sue the company.

In any case, it'll always be in the best interest of the companies involved to produce the best product they can, and to avoid legal troubles.

As for your issues with the regulated water ("You don't want chemicals in your water"), that falls under the same category as the FDA-clone stuff above.

[The Anthem]

Thats what I was missing, liablity! I was in an arguement with my father about this and I said private companies could take over the FDA's role. They have to be liable, then they wouldn't be corrupt, as my dad then suggested.

[softwareNerd]

On this topic, check out this blog post at ReasonPharm.

[The Anthem]

That was a very good link. Thanks.

[Greebo]

Similarly for pollution - a company which belches toxic fumes into the atmosphere, making the people around it sick, is responsible for causing harm to those people through its negligence. Ditto for a company that pours toxins into the waters.

What rational business person wants to contaminate the air and water they very well may breathe and drink?

[DragonMaci]

Likely, what would happen, is that competing private organizations would take the place of the FDA. They could inspect the food or drugs and if they pass inspections, certify the product, providing some legal cushion as well (something to the effect of "We certify this product, and should it have undisclosed adverse effects, we will be held accountable." Then naturally, on store shelves, there would be multiple levels of products:

1) Those certified by a number of different FDA-Clones. The more certified, the better, and likely, the more expensive.

2) Those certified by a single FDA-Clone (probably a little cheaper, due to not having to get it certified by a bunch of organizations)

3) Those not certified by anything, except by the company's guarantee.

We have several organizations doing that for food here in NZ even though we have a food equivalent of the FDA (we do have a drug equivalent but it is separate). For example, the Heart Foundation does a Heart Foundation Tick for foods it certifies that pass its standards.I don't know for sure, but I assume the Heart Foundation charges a fee so that they can cover there costs and get some additional funding for their other activities.

Edited June 12, 2008 by DragonMaci

[brandonk2009]

The proper role of government is to prevent the initiation of force. I think that the government has an obligation to retaliate against a corporation, a business, or an individual that pollutes the land, air, water, etc. of others. The justification for retaliatory action is the premise that pollution can not only damages the environment and make areas unlivable, but can seriously harm and diminish the lives of individuals who come in contact with it.

Of course, the premise that part of government's proper role is to protect the environment has some very important implications... One that was brought up between a mixed-economy supporter and I, was cars and the pollution they make. I don't think an individual ought to be penalized by the gov't for driving, however in large cities (think of Los Angeles), one can't help but notice the collective effects of thousands of cars. If pollution is considered an initiation of force, and the proper role of gov't is to prevent that initiation, then would the government have the right to impose emission restrictions? Or in the case of airlines or certain industries, etc.? Where would the limits and restrictions lie?

[adrock3215]

If pollution is considered an initiation of force, and the proper role of gov't is to prevent that initiation, then would the government have the right to impose emission restrictions?

No emission restrictions. An individual can, however, provide his own restrictions by choosing to move out of LA and into North Dakota.

As for the food safety aspect, this isn't a legitimate government function either. We all check up on the restaruant we eat at on some level. For example, if you walk into a chinese carry-out place and see a rat running around, you probably won't order there, even though there is a Food Service License from your local government hung out front.

Edited June 13, 2008 by adrock3215

[Qwertz]

Re: pollution - it is just a fancy word for trespass and property damage. Gov't may punish trespass and property damage, both civilly and criminally. But gov't has no right to cap emissions when those emissions do not cause trespass or property damage.

~Q

[DavidOdden]

We all check up on the restaruant we eat at on some level. For example, if you walk into a chinese carry-out place and see a rat running around, you probably won't order there, even though there is a Food Service License from your local government hung out front.

That's true, but suppose you don't see a rat or have any other indications that the place is selling poison rather than food. When you sell something, like a car, a roast, or a washing machine, there is an implied warranty on what you are selling. The washing machine is a washing machine, and not an explosive device set to blow up the first time you use it; the roast is sold as an edible piece of meat, and thus you need not get an independent laboratory test to determine that it isn't laced with ricin. It is not a foregone conclusion that a restaurant is free of liability if their negligent food preparation causes damage, in lieu of specific preemptive food-safety regulations.

[D'kian]

I've been thinking about the matter.

For one thing there are such things as independent entities, private ones, who check up on manufacturers and service providers. there's Underwriters Laboratories (UL) which tests ap´ñiances and such. There are innumerable restaurant guides, too. On another front, supemarkets won't sell tainted food, either. They've an interest to keep their customers coming back. And then there's the media, which loves to do stories about negligent manufacturers.

But the argument is uaully "If the government doesn't supervise and regulate X, then X will ahve all sort of unpleasant consequences." So, how well did that work in the USSR and Eastern Europe, where government not only supervised and regulated, but produced and owned everything. By the implied logic in the argument, the Soviet Union should have been a consumer's paradise, right? Well, we do know how well that worked out.

[Publius]

I'm uneasy about the prospect of a company paying another company to vouch for its services/products. There just seem to be too many examples out there of such close financial arrangements leading to corruption. Such as Arthur Anderson and Enron, for example.

Sure companies have all the incentive in the world to deliver quality goods and services, but yet there are endless examples of tainted meat, defective child seats, dangerous medications, etc., unleashed on the public, liability be damned. The cost/benefit analysis often results in companies choosing to keep news of the offending product on the down low.

Wouldn't the best arrangement be for people to voluntarily fund independent certification firms for food safety and products? An official seal of approval from such an organization would mean so much more to me than one from a certification company I knew was paid money by the company they were supposed to be vouching for.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Publius

[Maximus]

We need to keep in mind that the FDA was formed for a very good reason. The Pure Food and Drug Act was passed because the food supply in this country was basically contaminated. The laws were inconsistant with respect to each State. There were outbreaks of Cholera and other diseases due to extremely unsanitary conditions in the food industries.

"Conditions in the U.S. food and drug industries a century ago can hardly be imagined today. Use of chemical preservatives and toxic colors was virtually uncontrolled. Changes from an agricultural to an industrial economy had made it necessary to provide the rapidly increasing city population with food from distant areas. But sanitation was primitive in the light of modern standards. Ice was still the principal means of refrigeration. The great pioneers of bacteriology were just starting their string of victories over infectious diseases. Milk was still unpasteurized. Cows were not tested for tuberculosis.

In the same era, thousands of so called "patent" medicines such as "Kick-a-poo Indian Sagwa" and "Warner's Safe Cure for Diabetes" reflected both the limited medical capability of the period and public acceptance of the doctrine that the buyer could and should look out for himself. Medicines containing such drugs as opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine were sold without restriction. Labeling gave no hint of their presence. Otherwise harmless preparations were labeled for the cure of every disease and symptom. Labels did not list ingredients and warnings against misuse were unheard of. What information the public received came frequently from bitter experience."

Full article here

[adrock3215]

"Conditions in the U.S. food and drug industries a century ago can hardly be imagined today. Use of chemical preservatives and toxic colors was virtually uncontrolled. Changes from an agricultural to an industrial economy had made it necessary to provide the rapidly increasing city population with food from distant areas. But sanitation was primitive in the light of modern standards. Ice was still the principal means of refrigeration. The great pioneers of bacteriology were just starting their string of victories over infectious diseases. Milk was still unpasteurized. Cows were not tested for tuberculosis.

So, today the food supply is safer. The question is: How much of the increase in safety can be attributed to the FDA and how much can be attributed to capitalists creating safer, more reliable methods of producing food? My submission is very little to the former and mostly to the latter.

[adrock3215]

That's true, but suppose you don't see a rat or have any other indications that the place is selling poison rather than food. When you sell something, like a car, a roast, or a washing machine, there is an implied warranty on what you are selling. The washing machine is a washing machine, and not an explosive device set to blow up the first time you use it; the roast is sold as an edible piece of meat, and thus you need not get an independent laboratory test to determine that it isn't laced with ricin. It is not a foregone conclusion that a restaurant is free of liability if their negligent food preparation causes damage, in lieu of specific preemptive food-safety regulations.

I agree. However, I have food handlers licenses in the states of MD, VA and DC. From my experience, the licensing exams contain a multitude of absurdly irrelevant questions (How long can a steak with a bone be stored at 72 degrees before it needs to be reheated? What is the proper process for reheating it? Where can the steak be served? Are plastic utensils ok? What happens if you prepare the steak without washing your hands while singing Happy Birthday two times in order to make sure you spent 30 seconds rubbing them with a soapy lather?) Moreover, I have been through many Food Safety Inspections, and can submit that the inspectors are clowns who can be paid a few hundred bucks to pass you, regardless of the condition of your restaraunt. My point is to say that these laws are doing nothing of any value for any of us (at least in the 3 states I have seen them in practice). Whereas most people will try to make the claim that the laws are actually working.

[KendallJ]

I'm uneasy about the prospect of a company paying another company to vouch for its services/products. There just seem to be too many examples out there of such close financial arrangements leading to corruption. Such as Arthur Anderson and Enron, for example.

Actually these examples are quite few. Far overwhelming are the exmaples of success. But then the deafening sound of the silence of safety and peace are pretty hard to hear. This is the problem that leads to the "there ought to be a law" mentality.

The evidence outweighs your fears.

[KendallJ]

We need to keep in mind that the FDA was formed for a very good reason. The Pure Food and Drug Act was passed because the food supply in this country was basically contaminated. The laws were inconsistant with respect to each State. There were outbreaks of Cholera and other diseases due to extremely unsanitary conditions in the food industries.

No the FDA was enabled because Upton Sinclair published the jungle.

"Conditions in the U.S. food and drug industries a century ago can hardly be imagined today. Use of chemical preservatives and toxic colors was virtually uncontrolled. Changes from an agricultural to an industrial economy had made it necessary to provide the rapidly increasing city population with food from distant areas. But sanitation was primitive in the light of modern standards. Ice was still the principal means of refrigeration. The great pioneers of bacteriology were just starting their string of victories over infectious diseases. Milk was still unpasteurized. Cows were not tested for tuberculosis.

The huge revisionist error in this thinking is comparing any standards of yesterday to stanards of today and thus saying there was a huge "problem". This is the same issue when one looks at the urban development of today in third world countries. We see shanty towns outside of Shanghai and are horrified and call for govt action.

The fact is the myth of the pastoral "good life" meant that most poeple who migrated to the cities (both then and today) were significantly IMPROVING their lives.

Adrock's point is THE point. Once you put govt controls in place you have no way to deconvolute what would have happened with or without govt intervention so somehow the FDA gets credit for the whole shabang. Without them we say, we'd still be in that mess.

The reality is that for every NEW problem encountered with transporation, urbanization, and industrialization, there are numerous examples of self-regulation beginning and succeeding.

One I can think of today that almost no one is aware of because it works so fundamently well is the ASME pressure vessel code. Back in the late 1800's when we were beginning to fashion boilers and other vessels from iron and steel, we had a major problem with these things exploding under pressurized use, a problem that killed a ton of people and was common (considering every steam engine of the day was in essence a pressure vessel). A private association, the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) developed a specification or code to both dictate proper manufaturing and testing techniques to confirm that such vessels were designed to withstand their design specifications. That code was entirely voluntary, that is, a customer could request a vessel be "code stamped" or not, and was entirely audited and controlled by independant inspection and certification reports. That code is still in use today, and is still completely voluntary, and pressure vessel are now more ubiquitous in society then ever (think of every air conditioner, every water heater, every propane cylinder, etc. in addition to industrial vessels). Again, the deafening roar of the silence of safety and peace that the free market brings. Anyone see people dying left and right from pressure vessel explosions? Anyone hear calls for govt regulation of the vessel industry? Not a peep, because this was all taken care of before the socialist, paternalistic mentality of the early 20th century Progressives changed the political landscape. Today the only agencies that can't regulate their industries effectively are the govt ones.

The mistake in the analysis is that one must consider more than just retrospective horror stories based upon standards of living that simply didn't exist at the time.

a. what was the standard of living at the time and what choices were people making relative to all the actual options out there?

b. what damage or more importantly what risk of damage was caused to people by such practices relative to the general risk of being alive?

c. what mechanism were already emerging privately to deal with those risks?

What books like The Jungle did is insert hysteria for actual rational analysis of that situation.

Edited June 14, 2008 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

Wouldn't the best arrangement be for people to voluntarily fund independent certification firms for food safety and products? An official seal of approval from such an organization would mean so much more to me than one from a certification company I knew was paid money by the company they were supposed to be vouching for.

We already do. When I buy any electrical device I pay for the little UL sticker on it that says it's safety has been tested. Again, trillions of examples of safety supplied by private industry. UL is not corrupted and no one short circuits the system. And UL would never consider it because their entire livelihood banks on teh prospect that they remain uncorrupted. If they were to be discovered to be approving inherently unsafe materials in some sort of backroom deal, that little seal, that brand, which today means so much to so many companies would lose all its value. Please read Alan Greenspan's article in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

The problem with your examples is that they fail to recognize that the independant certificaion company's biggest asset is there independant, non-biased credentials.

Recognize that financial auditors are not agents for consumers or purchasers of company stock. They are agents who meet regulations imposed for corporate reporting for the govt.

The Enron, financial auditor debacle is not an example of the free market gone amock, but aperfect example of why financial regulation of industry can't prevent such things from happening, but the free market could. IF there were less auditing (i.e. meeting arbitrarily-imposed reporting requirements) and more insider trading, Enron would never have gotten as far as it did.

[KendallJ]

The proper role of government is to prevent the initiation of force. I think that the government has an obligation to retaliate against a corporation, a business, or an individual that pollutes the land, air, water, etc. of others.

Partially right and partially wrong. The problem here is to made "pollution" in general a class of "damage." It is unnecessary. Damage is objectively demonstable in cases of real damage, and you are right, govt should punish those who create real damages, as a case of the initiation of force principle. But not one whit of environmental law is needed for this sort of just prosecution.

The mistake plays into the trap of any person who says that "pollution" in general creates damage but for which no actual damage (or damage that is infinitessimally small, i.e. less so than the damage cuase by the risk of living an ordnary life) is demonstrable. When you apply that sort of standard to the claims of damage, most claims evaporate.

Of course, the premise that part of government's proper role is to protect the environment has some very important implications... One that was brought up between a mixed-economy supporter and I, was cars and the pollution they make. I don't think an individual ought to be penalized by the gov't for driving, however in large cities (think of Los Angeles), one can't help but notice the collective effects of thousands of cars. If pollution is considered an initiation of force, and the proper role of gov't is to prevent that initiation, then would the government have the right to impose emission restrictions? Or in the case of airlines or certain industries, etc.? Where would the limits and restrictions lie?

Pollution is not the initiatoin of force (see my explanation above), and we have a name for conditions that exists from the output of millions of point sources, and the particular terrain and geography of a location: nature. If one wants to start getting really technical by your particular definition, then the sun has "destroyed" the environment in Death Valley since it is unlivable. Non-point source pollution is a natural phenomena regardless of if the point source is the pollution of the atmosphere by the numerous volcanoes that erupt every year or by the millions of cars that are driven. It is not DAMAGE.

Man and the free market deal with nature just fine. If smog in LA were causing real differences in standard of living, you'd see mechanism develop to simiply avoid it. Property values would go up in outlying areas, business would move to the outskirts, etc. the same way that property values in Death Valley are low. The fact that people choose freely to go into such areas means they must not be damaged to any extent that outweighs the benefits of living and working in those areas.

Edited June 14, 2008 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

The huge revisionist error in this thinking is comparing any standards of yesterday to stanards of today and thus saying there was a huge "problem".

Exactly! and also claiming that the rules and regulatiuons are the critical reason for ther change.

One could take what Maximus quoted, and rewrite it for cars:

Conditions in the U.S. car industry a 70 years ago can hardly be imagined today. Use of poor materials -- virtually horse-carriages with a motor -- was virtually uncontrolled. Changes from local carriage-makers to Detroit-centred car-manufacture had made it necessary to provide the rapidly increasing city population with cars from distant areas. But engineering design was primitive in the light of modern standards. Wood was still used for parts of the car's structure. The great pioneers of manufacture were just starting their string of victories over poor design. Tires still not inflated. Fenders were not tested for crashes.

Supposed Summary: It is law and government regulations that took us from the Model-T to the multi-air-bag Volvo.

Edited June 14, 2008 by softwareNerd

[adrock3215]

Adrock's point is THE point. Once you put govt controls in place you have no way to deconvolute what would have happened with or without govt intervention so somehow the FDA gets credit for the whole shabang. Without them we say, we'd still be in that mess.

Another area where this phenomenon occurs is the banking industry. A widespread fallacy is that the only reason anyone uses a bank today is because of FDIC insurance. Time after time, big government controls get credit for working well. Absurd.

[softwareNerd]

A widespread fallacy is that the only reason anyone uses a bank today is because of FDIC insurance.

The FDIC is like affirmative action for tiny banks. When it comes to "No Name Bank of Little No Name Town" (there are quite a few of those), most people would avoid those today if it weren't for the FDIC. If one knows how to jump through the hoops to procure a license to run a bank, there's a bit of "free money" to be had.