/politics/ - News & Politics

Tell us how an agency like the FDA is perceived by each ideology.

>>181

Kill yourself

>>188

>One, the FDA, just like any other branch of government, has no one to hold it accountable

That can be changed.

>Two, regulation of the market ultimately hurts the economy, and restricts the freedom of the individual.

We are talking about drugs, we can't pretend that drugs are like any other product. The side effects of drugs can last for decades. They can cost lives or ruin them.

>A free-market alternative to the FDA would be a transparent independent evaluation organization,

The first people who will create such organizations are drug companies. They will be biased towards their real owners and honest towards others. Some drug companies make more money than whole countries. Personally, I think it would be naive to sit home and expect honest organizations to emerge.

>if an organization approves a bad drug, it will hurt its reputation and you can trust another one

the rest of organizations will be controlled too, they might even make deals on certain drugs and create obstacles for new drugs

Even if we assume there will be honest organizations, we just can't wait them to emerge and build reputation, and if they go corrupt, we can wait for new ones to emerge. Every delay can cost lives.

>>188

>>191

Sorry, didn't notice the "like any other branch" part. How does your solution solve this?

>>191

>we can't wait for new ones to emerge.

>>191

*we can't wait for new ones to emerge.

>>194

That's why we don't abolish the current system until we have created a working replacement. Market anarchism does overthrow the government by force, but rather by creating a way of life separate from the ideals of the state that renders it obsolete.

Build a better system, and you can phase out the old one.

>>245

once you say will abolish the FDA and allow private organizations, the pharmaceutical companies will pour hundreds of millions of dollar to be the ones creating and controlling them. How would you prevent that?

>>247

I, personally, cannot say for sure, but there are plenty of people in market-anarchist circles that have examined the problem and presented their own solutions.

One service that might be of use in preventing abuses would be contract enforcement agencies, or "agreement insurance". When any two parties voluntarily agree to some set of contractual conditions, each side will buy into a sort of "contract insurance" to protect their part of the interest in the agreement. If either side breaks the terms of the agreement without first properly nullifying it, then the contract insurer will penalize them and award compensation to the other parties.

Each time you make use of a product, there is an agreement between you and whoever you're purchasing from. When you make a purchase, you are agreeing to the conditions under which the subject of the purchase is rendered. There are two things that can nullify a purchase: one, if you don't agree with the conditions attached to the product, you won't purchase it, and two, if the provider of a product/service has done anything to violate the terms of this agreement, whether they lied about the dangers of the product or violated your trust in some other way, then they are at fault and would be forced by one of these contract insurers to pay compensation to you.

Keep in mind, what I've just described is a rough personal interpretation. There are people who explain this concept much better than I.

Here's a bonus for you: http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html

This will give you a good idea of where I'm coming from, philosophically speaking.

Weird to see a commie flag in the OP. I thought you guys at /liberty/ were all NAP-worshipping ancaps.

>>269

Eh, once you cross the threshold of anti-authoritarianism, left and right doesn't matter as much. Trust me, we argue all the time, but we ultimately hate statism more than we hate each other.

>>270

If you really look at AnCap philosophy, there's nothing stopping AnComs from starting their own communal society within the context of an AnCap society. We can co-exist.

>>191

>That can be changed.

How?

>We are talking about drugs, we can't pretend that drugs are like any other product. The side effects of drugs can last for decades. They can cost lives or ruin them.

So can withholding them. Let people make the choice of using certain drugs themselves, and hold the company accountable if they didn't put a bright "NOT TESTED" sticker on front of the drug if it has never been tested for use on humans.

Personally, I don't take any drugs I don't know. In fact, I almost never take any drugs at all, but if I did, I'd make sure it wasn't ricin before I took it. Google saves lifes.

>the rest of organizations will be controlled too, they might even make deals on certain drugs and create obstacles for new drugs

Just like a government agency can.

Ancaps are focused on the removal of the use of force and have no problem with hierarchy.

Ancoms are focused on the removal of hierarchy and have no problem with the use of force.

They are not in the least compatible.

>>329

Ancoms are the furthest left anarchists. Mutualists and left wing individualist anarchists are more compatible with ancaps though.

Neomutualists like Kevin Carson have tried to unite the two into an at least mutually survivable situation by accepting the subjective theory of value and trying to conform the labor theory of value to it as some sort of guideline for justice rather than an absolute.

People like that are quite happy to have their free association communes and let ancaps have their contractual proprietary communities.

The most extreme ancoms and revolutionary left anarchists, no, but that was always true. Sadly, ancoms are the most dominant left anarchists, and outside of 8chan, they believe in non-negotiable SJW ideology as well.

>>192

My sketch of how private regulation would work:

There are, I think, two forms of regulation. One is something akin to standard software licences. A firm producing food or drugs puts a logo, or short acronym, on their product, or on the door of stores selling it. This logo corresponds to a long and boring list of rules the product will follow, and what compensation they will provide if the product is found not to conform to them. "Our apples will contain fewer than X milligrams of cyanide; if one of our apples is found to contain more milligrams than this we will pay the customer $50,000 in compensation", for example.

This works for claims that can be checked by customers. For claims that can't be checked, inspection firms would come into play. A firm producing food or drugs would pay an inspection firm to inspect their product, check it abides by the rules - either the rules the food or drug firm has chosen to follow (see above), or some separate list of rules the inspectors apply. If it does the inspection firm agrees to have "Approved by InspectionCo!" on the box.

You will say that the food or drug firms will pay off the inspectors. Which is why no customer would ever trust a product that has not been approved by several inspection firms. You will say the inspection firms will collude - but they won't. They won't, because there is an infinitely more attractive opportunity available: publish the evidence of the food or drug firm's failures to conform to the rules, or in other words, that all the other inspection firms who inspected their product were bribed and are therefore untrustworthy. What bribe can possibly match the profit to be gained from utterly destroying your competition?

My favorite part of this is how the last problem it involves is self-correcting. You might say - there are ten firms in the business. If one takes a bribe, a second is offered a bribe and has the opportunity to rat out the first, they are helping themselves but also helping out all the rest of their competition too. But the more firms take the bribe, the more the next firm has to gain from blowing the lid: they kill not just one of their competitors but several. I doubt this problem would even last past the first firm that took a bribe, but even if it did, there is not a snowball's chance in hell it would last for several of them.

I've been thinking about Anarcho-Capitalism and its philosophical underpinnings.

Basically, as long as property has been justly acquired in accordance with the NAP, then it's yours. The first way to acquire property is usually taken as being mixing your labor with the land to create something new, and then you can sell it off or whatever, and so long as new owners engaged in voluntary trade, then it's okay and just.

However, almost all property at some point was taken from someone through conquest in the past.

The standard Ancap answer to this is to just say that we can't really sort this out as there are too many claims that can't verified, so we should just assume a statute of limitations and say that all existing property is just.

This is one approach, but I think there's another approach that is totally consistent with Ancap first principles, and that is to say that precisely because none of the existing property claims can be verified to have origins in the NAP, we should act as if every piece of property has not undergone initial appropriation yet. Every piece of property is treat as unowned yet.

Therefore, all existing private property claims are wiped out and the whole thing starts again with claims being valid based on usage, mixing labor, and the NAP.

All absentee claims collapse since they can't be proven to be in accordance with the NAP historically. The property then goes to the occupiers. You can literally construct worker ownership from Ancap first principles depending on how you address the historical question of appropriation.

This is also only an extension of an idea Rothbard (seen as the father of ancap) already played with in a pamphlet "All power to the Soviets". When talking about illegitimate government ownership in the socialist countries, he said that since governments don't have a legitimate claim, they don't even have the right to sell off the property. Rather, their property being illegitimate should be treat as unowned and given to the workers in shares.

Since the definition of the state in Ancap is any body that coercively appropriates outside of accordance with the NAP, then this applies to bodies that would normally be considered private too (consider thiefs).

Taking this further as I have done, if first appropriation back in history cannot be justified as almost all property was taken by force from those who had actually mixed their labor to create it, subsequent generations who traded for that property have been trading in something with no legitimate ethical backing.

Therefore the NAP demands that all absentee claims are nullified, and we reset the market.

This branch off from Anarcho-Capitalism, I have just created would be called "Resetism", and being that it is revolutionary rather than conservative of absentee claims, it can be considered farther to the left than regular Ancap based on statute of limitations/unprincipled exceptions, though at the same time it is still based on the free market and ethically justified private property in accordance with (one interpretation of) the NAP.

>>553

(cont)

You get two results from this.

As in regular Ancap, you get: free markets, private property, NAP.

As in socialist Anarchy, you get: revolutionary redistribution of property to who uses and occupies it.

This is the one and only way that you can have Ancap and redistribution of property in a non-contradicting package.

This may be the "third position" of anarchism. What do you think?

>>182

Shitty. The Non-GMO Project is a private third party institution who is far more useful and accurate and trusted compared to the FDA's USDA Organic labeling interference.

Why can't other aspects of the FDA be replaced in similar fashions?

>>191

>Complains about how Americans need instant results for everything and can't get to things efficiently

>Wants instant results for everything and won't get. Things efficiently

>>270

This.

>>271

And this. Well, it's rectangles and squares. An"coms" can coexist in AnCapistan, but AnCaps are persecuted in AnCommiestan.

>>554

Most AnCaps already intrinsically accept this. The issue with your theory is when the CEO defends his claims at places he's never even been to, that's where lefties get butthurt.

>>567

If they are actual socialists, yes.

Ancaps have no problem with absentee relations/private property, so long as they were gained justly.

It's the second part of the above sentence that can be used to create a more middleground version. It's not going to please extremely conservative Ancaps, and its not going to please far-left Ancoms who want no private property and no market, but it might please people closer to the middle, and Ancaps who feel like Rothbard's argument can be extended to history.

>>572

That's why I call it "third position" anarchism (though maybe distributist, neomutualist, and geolibertarian anarchy are also like that).

>>424

Op here, this is true, sadly. By AnComs, I suppose I actually meant AnSocs/mutualists more specifically. Most hardcore AnComs are believers in violent revolution.

>>181

I feel like I should post this here. A 100 page free e-book, an AnCap political treatise by anarchist youtuber Adam Kokesh.

http://www.adamvstheman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FREEDOM-ebook.pdf

As a side note, I'm fairly impressed with the post quality on this board. Let's hope that stays true.

>>619

>As a side note, I'm fairly impressed with the post quality on this board. Let's hope that stays true.

If you have any suggestions to improve or maintain the quality, please let us know (on the meta thread).

More like /liberty/ embarrassment thread.

>>631

Behold, the second least insightful post in the entire thread. We appreciate your contribution.

>>631

>>662

Also

>sage

Nice downvote friend.

>>188

Free-Market anarchism is Jewish Feudalism

>tfw no oekaki for OC snek

Anarchism/Minarchism is a bad system, we already had it before when it was called Feudalism. The exception being this time it would be Jewish Feudalism.

>>3109

>Anarchism is Feudalism

Anarchists ran away from Feudalists and started their own communities.

If you're going to talk out your ass, at least try to pretend like you're intelligent instead of spewing bullshit.

Ancaps are misinformed tbh

>>3114

>Statists are misinformed tbh

>>3114

Missinformed on what?

>>3113

Lel thats all anarchism leads to though, endless local Feudal Settlements then the faggots who set it up run away leaving all the people who were stupid enough to believe them behind. Anarchism does not work unless your goal is to usurp power.

>>181

Word of wisdom:

FIST IN THE AIR ORIGINATED IN MARXISM

smh tbh fam

>>3858

>FIST IN THE AIR

clarification:

fist in the air symbolism

>>3859

no, until marxism came along, no human being to walk this earth ever thought of putting their fist in the air.

FACT

>>3858

Did you actually read the image, or the original post for that matter? It's a general anti-authoritarian discussion thread, which left-libertarianism / anarcho-socialism is included under.

>>181

>This is a thread for general discussion

Yet when someone mentions something against your ideology, you get triggered and rely on ad hom.

Also,

>unironically supporting anti-establishment while supporting the leftist establishment at the same time

>>3968

They all love abortion and the hatred of the unborn unites them

Real libertarians are Christians

>>3968

>you get triggered and rely on ad hom.

Please show me one instance of this, looking at all of my posts so far I haven't used an ad-hominem in response to any legitimate arguments.

>unironically supporting anti-establishment while supporting the leftist establishment at the same time

I was just throwing them a bone, when I made this thread I didn't know how many lefties were on /politics/. I don't actually support their ideas, I was just trying to be diplomatic.

>>3970

I'm agnostic, but strongly oppose abortion except in instances where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, or was a result of rape. Even then the idea is a bit sickening, but it's understandable.

Also, be careful of that "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

>>3985

You will find that most irreligious people across the political spectrum approve of abortion for any reason as they don't value human life. Christianity can make any political ideology viable. Its often downplayed as "not politics" but actually its essential to the human condition. Any political position leads to destruction without God, and any political position can be viable with faithful Christian practitioners.

>>3987

Christianity makes political/economic models better in the same way ethnic pride does- it doesn't. Cultural "homogeneity" does to an extent, but you can't fix a shitty model by saying you believe it's better.

>>3988

Christian monarchy works--see European history, lets look at Britain.

Christian constitutional republics work-see American history.

Christian national socialism works--see Nazi Germany.

Christian communism works-see early church history from the Bible.

If the people practicing a political ideology are Christian the system is in fact better. The average European was Christian, the average American was Christian, the average Nazi German was Christian, and of course the early church was Christian (all of these examples were Bible believing Christians, so the same rule might not apply to catholics.)

Now we have an interesting lense because we can observe what happens when Christianity is pulled out from under two of these political systems. See Britain and America. Now don't try to tell me that Christianity suddenly caused its own collapse after hundreds of years of sustained success, not it was an outside attack.

>>3988

Supernatural defines the natural. Man is not the highest, and if he is, then no man can judge another, and none are correct. That is folly and chaos.

Anyone who argues for godless "virtue" is a fool.

>>3991

I think all of those things worked because they are white, not because they are christian

>>4013

የኢትዮጵያ ንጉሠ ነገሥት መንግሥተ worked, it was christian but nigger.

>>3991

Monarchy worked long before Christians did it, ask the Vikings about it.

Constitutional Republics worked long before Christians did it, see the ancient greeks.

National Socialism actually didn't work. From an economic standpoint, Hitler's nation was on the brink of collapse/there was extreme scarcity that was as bad/worse than under "debt-ridden Germany" (which was quickly recovering before his policies, much in the same way as the American "new deal"), simply put, it was a paper screen. The only thing that temporarily saved them was the rest of Europe declaring war, giving them an excuse to print money out the wazoo.

I recall quite a different story from the Christian Americans who first tried communism/socialism when they first came to America. Not to mention you can hardly call helping your neighbor to be the equivalent of communism- Jesus said help your neighbor, not redistribute all resources.

I might be Orthodox, but I see no excuses for trying to say Christianity is required in ordsr to be successful or even to say it works towards helping be successful unless you mean "religious freedom to do your own thing" (which you clearly didn't from your past posts).

>>4018

>I might be Orthodox

Found the problem. Abortion is heavily practiced in Orthodox countries

> Not to mention you can hardly call helping your neighbor to be the equivalent of communism- Jesus said help your neighbor, not redistribute all resources.

I know you Orthodox don't read the Bible so I'll suffer you. In the book of acts many of the converts would sell all of their possessions and bring the money to donate to the Church. The apostles would then purchase what everybody needed including food and clothing and forward the rest of the money for preaching the gospel and missionary works. It was essentially communal. In America, churches were communal. Tithes were given to the church which would then use the money, often to help those in need.

Atheist communism in practice of course isn't like that at all.

>Germany was quickly recovering before his policies, much in the same way as the American "new deal"

What allowed Adolf's party to come to popularity was the overwhelming degeneracy of the Jewish Weimar Republic. The Jews relentlessly sought to loot and pervert all German institutions. They essentially raped and looted the entire country. People were in such destitute ecnomic and moral poverty that you could order a variety of prostitutes like from the menu of a restaurant on every street corner--for example, there was a specific title for a mother-daughter prostitution team. I read someone's writing about it, how horrified they were but the proficiency with which the little girls' tiny fingers could work; they were of course experts.

>>3987

> they don't value human life.

How do I not value human life?

>Any political position leads to destruction without God, and any political position can be viable with faithful Christian practitioners.

What?

>>3987

>they don't value human life

that's pretty rich since christianity values devotion to god as higher than loyalty to other humans

>>4051

>that's pretty rich since christianity values devotion to god as higher than loyalty to other humans

God values human life. You claim that fedoras are loyal to other humans but then you go about aborting the unborn

>>4126

God doesn't give a fuck about human life. He likes to kill people just because they offended Jews.

>>4131

>God doesn't give a fuck about human life. He likes to kill people just because they offended Jews.

Actually God killed the Jews because they offended him. It says so in the Old Testament

Y'all like to call Christians cucks, but God actually kills his wives who commit adultery, in accordance with his law.

Ezekiel 23 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:

3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.

4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

6 Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.

7 Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.

11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.

12 She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, captains and rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses, all of them desirable young men.

16 And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea.

17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

23 The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, and Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them: all of them desirable young men, captains and rulers, great lords and renowned, all of them riding upon horses.

24 And they shall come against thee with chariots, wagons, and wheels, and with an assembly of people, which shall set against thee buckler and shield and helmet round about: and I will set judgment before them, and they shall judge thee according to their judgments.

25 And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.

26 They shall also strip thee out of thy clothes, and take away thy fair jewels.

27 Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee, and thy whoredom brought from the land of Egypt: so that thou shalt not lift up thine eyes unto them, nor remember Egypt any more.

28 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will deliver thee into the hand of them whom thou hatest, into the hand of them from whom thy mind is alienated:

29 And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labour, and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.

30 I will do these things unto thee, because thou hast gone a whoring after the heathen, and because thou art polluted with their idols.

36 The Lord said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;

37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.

>Jews practice human sacrifice, and this is why God kills them

38 Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths.

39 For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house.

>what do you think he will do to you murderers

45 And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.

46 For thus saith the Lord God; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.

47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.

48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.

49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord God.

And suddenly the cries of "c-cuck! cuck!" turn to wailing and whining about the oppressive patriarchy of God the Father

>>2266

>tfw no consitutionalist snake gf

Liberty is alright

>>4133

My thread was derailed by Christians. That's a first.

>>4133

So, did God kill Mary for cucking Joseph with him?

>>5370

I used to joke with a catholic GF about the stupidity that is the 90,000 foot dick coming out of the sky to conceive jesus.

I always imagine it dropping out of the top of the camera frame with one of those "slide-whistle" sound effects.

"look, itz teh holy benis!"

bump