Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal.
|
They do have one common fallacy in economic thinking: They only consider two parties. They never consider the other parties involved in a free market, for one, the consumer/taxpayer. What is fair for them? For example, the first example you gave in the previous post considers the Mexican restaurants. You consider the chain owner, and the family owner, but you do not consider the consumer/taxpayers. Why is it fair for the government to take their money, then relocate it to where the government wants? If those people want the family business to stay open, they'll find a way. If not, then sure, that guy fell prey to a free market society. But it is better one man fall prey than an entire nation to have their money stolen from their wallets and given to less effective businesses or wherever the government feels it should risk spending other peoples money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
One clarification, if I may: the DMV is not a federal institution.
|
I don't believe I said it was, if I did I'm sorry. My example was only in giving a common public sector field that people are familiar with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
1) All United States citizens (lawful ones, anyway) who wish to travel overseas require a passport, issued by the State Department. The form of this is the same for all US citizens - as is, no doubt, the cost.
|
Why do they require a passport? What requires this? My questions may be a little bit of a straw man, and for that, I apologize, but they are essential. I don't believe passports should be a requirement for travel. I have one, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't mean I support the idea (as hypocritical as that sounds).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
2) The FDA provides a lot of regulation in the USA in the field of public health, particularly in relation to food standards and drugs.
|
The FDA does a terrible job at regulating drugs, and is partly responsible for the increasing healthcare prices. They've eliminated competition and have removed very good drugs from coming onto the US market that are regulated in other countries to cure diseases at very low costs. This is why, in many cases, you hear of people traveling to other countries to receive healthcare (apart from medicine).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Imagine this agency is dissolved, and instead two large private agencies assume their responsibilities on the basis of more efficient and effective testing and oversight at competitive rates. A new drug, product X, is submitted to both for verification. Agency A conducts its tests and determines that the product is not safe for public use, and refuses verification. Agency B conducts its tests and determines that the product is safe for public use and grants a licence. Both sets of tests are valid - it is a question of the criteria each use in determining safety. Retailers are therefore left with Agency A refusing to allow the product on sale, and Agency B giving the go ahead. Which one should consumers listen to?
|
I don't believe there should be a "which one should consumers listen to." It's not for me to determine. As aforementioned the FDA has a done a terrible job and in more cases has caused more harm. Again, a little research goes a long way, I don't feel the necessity to delve into this for the sake of time and eliminating the length of the post. When it comes to the free market it depends on the transparency of the report and the reputation of the inspectors. A belief that the FDA does this better is laughable.
Quote:
|
For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.
|
http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-fda...-bed-together/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9sfT0Teqw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uursKkzV-7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezBh4V-K7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
3) In Europe (seeing as my examples thus far have been US-based), crash testing for cars (and vans) is carried out by a body called Euro NCAP. This is an association backed by a combination of automotive groups and governmental departments, and is independent from the automotive industry. Imagine that, instead of this body carrying out testing, it is instead tendered out to a group of private companies. With profitability and shareholder interests to contend with, plus potential influence by the industry, it is conceivable that the testing methodology may not be as rigorous across all the companies, yet they may produce their results in a very similar format (e.g. star ratings). Consumers may be unaware as to the difference, and assume that a good rating from one company is equivalent to a good rating from another company. Does this amount to an improvement of the service to consumers?
|
I think this all returns to the free press, transparency, and their reputation. If we have several reputable people testing out vehicle safety, there is likely one that stands out as being superior. This means that certain vehicles may pay to get it certified by those testers in order to give ease of mind to the people that are concerned. In often cases these regulations, however, make it very difficult for companies to start up at all in the vehicle industry, never really giving the opportunity to other entrepreneurs. It in facts harms the market and competition. This is one of the special advantages larger corporations get from the government. They create regulations to remove potential competitors. This issue also removes the will of the consumer. These regulations increase costs of vehicles. If a customer wants to pay more for safety, they should be able to. If they do not have the money to pay for the superior safety, they should be free to do that as well. In other words, customers shouldn't be forced to pay more for vehicles simply because the government wants to regulate safety standards that are often times unessential. Why not pay for the base safety inspection to know that your car is operable and capable of getting from point at to point b, than pay more for other add-ons. In some states these safety regulations require vehicles to have a rear view camera. This increases the costs of the vehicle, the employers money, and the purchasing power of the individual is now stifled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
but to say that competition and the free market always improves services is not something I can agree with.
|
That is fine. I just think that we should be able to support what we want and don't want individually and not impose these issues on people who don't want them. I believe your money should go where you want it. I wouldn't force you to support any of my ideas against your will, and I'd hope you wouldn't expect that of me, either.
While I'm not done responding, this is all I can get to for now. Your questions are similar to what I've heard before, but fun to think over. I hope that you don't take my ignorant responses and ignore them, but that they at least help you research your own beliefs in the government, as I'm certain you do.