Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Anyone who thinks the FDA is overreaching here has little awareness of how stupid the majority of the world's population is. The people that this protects don't know how to even read this statement from the FDA.

Perhaps the startup echo chamber has more respect for unchecked opportunism; if that's the case, someone should make a startup called 23andMeFree (monetized by ads, duh) that has you spit in a tube, send it to some PO Box, then randomly generate positive and negatives across the board. If you wanted the scam to last longer, you could even generate random values based on statistics of certain characteristics. A true libertarian must support such a business.




WRT to libertarianism, you can't have a free market if virtually all of one side of a contract are too ignorant to participate rationally. If its designed to not be a free market and doesn't involve rational decisions, there's not much libertarian commentary on the topic. That political stance is orthogonal to the discussion.


One might easily argue that the majority of the population is too ignorant to participate in the computer market, the handheld device market, the automobile market, the housing market, the super-market, or any other market. Ignorance alone is not evidence that government intervention will improve outcomes in any situation.


With respect to to?


As part of the world's population, isn't there a high chance that the FDA contains some fraction of the "stupid" majority? Is it possible that a majority of the FDA could be labeled "stupid"?


A true libertarian must support such a business.

I'm not sure that libertarianism is coherent enough to admit the existence of "true" adherents, but surely you mean to say that a "true libertarian" must not support the outlawing of such a business? Typical libertarians often display preferences among businesses. E.g., a libertarian might prefer Taco Bell to Panera Bread.


It's a matter of libertarianism being very broad rather than incoherent. They are more divided on economic issues than social issues.


The classic definition is what most people think of: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. These two ideas are coherent because they both require minimal intervention on the part of the state. But libertarians are often attacked for not supporting equal individual rights, which does require forceful intervention by a state. This dichotomy is what non-libertarians have trouble understanding. And when something is poorly understood, it is often vilified.

Edit: this should have been posted under the post above, but I meant to take issue with your comment on the division on economic issues. The only division I've seen is tactical, not philosophical. Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division?


>Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division?

The deepest divide (of American libertarianism) is probably deontological (natural rights) versus consequential (pragmatic) libertarianism. Most of the branch ideologies originate from one of the two.

A good read on the subject. The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard [1].

[1] http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp


Sorry I return to this thread a bit late. Consequentialists, at least, often advocate their position in tactical terms (read Jeff Miron for example), so I'm not sure this divide qualifies as "deep" or "philosophical". Maybe it's simply the case that consequentialists see the divide as tactical while natural-rights enthusiasts see it as deep and philosophical. A disagreement the very nature of which inspires more disagreement seems... robust.

Since I have long been "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" I did for a time wonder if I were libertarian. However, enough libertarians have subsequently explained how my opposition to most military action, to drug prohibition, to immigration limits, and to financial bailouts is counter to their libertarianism that I am left confused. (I occasionally call myself anarchist but that seems to annoy "true" anarchists even more than "true" libertarians!)

Thus my skepticism of libertarianism's coherence. I certainly don't intend to "vilify" anything, but up above I tried to correct what I felt to be a misrepresentation of even the amorphous understanding of libertarianism I do have. That is, it's clear to me that libertarians don't "support" all business interests without question. Any particular business might be objectionable or simply uninteresting in any number of ways.


Fact check: libertarians think fraud is a rights violation, a crime that is properly punished.

On the other hand, governance by the FDA is tantamount to punishing for a crime not committed. It'd be like putting cameras in your home because you might abuse your children someday. And surely, a lot of stupid people abuse their children, right?


Well, get back to me when negligence is punished like fraud, since the impact on the victim can be just as drastic regardless of tortfeasor's intent or lack of same.


No, you stop advocating that the rights of innocents are violated for the sake of cases where there is evidence of fraud. Instead, advocate that cases of fraud are actually followed up on. Be an upstanding citizen, not part of the ignorant mob.


Are you saying there should be no culpability for negligence?


He is saying there should be a presumption of innocence.


There's a presumption of innocence in fraud cases as well. I'm not proposing handing out fines in the absence of a conviction. I strongly disagree with his claim that governance by the FDA is equivalent to punishment, in fact I think it's total bullshit.


Of course it's punishment. You have to pay an extraordinary amount of time and money under threat of violence. And even when you do comply, from then on you have to start judging whether or not the next feature you add is worth the cost of compliance.

This is going to stifle innovation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: