Carlton’s best classical liberal blogger

Some of my Liberal friends may feel envious that I can win a vote with just 13% support, to claim the title of ‘best solo libertarian blog in Australia’. As I do not use the label ‘libertarian’ I did not vote for myself. And as I only read a couple of the other fourteen contestants regularly enough to form an opinion on their relative merits, I did not vote for anyone else either.

But 161 readers of the Australian Libertarian Society blog did back me – though I do not know whether this is because they like my blog, or because at one point Graeme Bird was in front, and I was the most realistic chance of preventing him from winning (Graeme is the only person on moderation at this blog, but even if he wasn’t most of his comments would still be rejected for containing obscenities).

Whether I am Australia’s best solo libertarian blogger or not, I am confident that I am Carlton’s best classical liberal blogger….

58 Responses to “Carlton’s best classical liberal blogger

  • 1
    Panadawn
    June 4th, 2007 23:23

    Haha, theres a post over at Catallaxy about whether a libertarian actually won, and whether there are hard and fast descriptors to qualify as a libertarian. Worth a read.

  • 2
    David Rubie
    June 5th, 2007 00:22

    I voted for Bird. He sums up all that’s wonderful about internet Libertarians for me.

  • 3
    Andrew Norton
    June 5th, 2007 07:00

    “I voted for Bird. He sums up all that’s wonderful about internet Libertarians for me.”

    Yes, I think there was a comment at one of the other blogs saying that anti-libertarians were voting for Bird to discredit libertarianism.

  • 4
    David Rubie
    June 5th, 2007 09:31

    Libertarians do a fine job of discrediting themselves – it’s a long tradition on the internet that kooks and libertarianism go hand in hand (not sure why – my guess is that the axiomatic nature of a lot of the kookier libertarian arguments around guns and holistic medicine attract a certain kind of personality).

  • 5
    Jeremy
    June 5th, 2007 14:17

    David, you’re making a classic mistake by disregarding context.

    It’s not whether kooks and libertarianism go together, its whether kooks and libertarianism are more likely to be associated than kooks and other schools of thought, which is the important question to research.

    From what I can see, libertarians are less likely to be kooky than other ‘school’ thinkers.

    And, for mine, the comments you have posted here over the last few months about native v. non-native flora, borderless migration and Julie Bishop were classic – no libertarianism needed!

    Andrew, congratulations on your well-deserved recognition.

  • 6
    David Rubie
    June 5th, 2007 14:40

    Jeremy wrote:
    And, for mine, the comments you have posted here over the last few months about native v. non-native flora, borderless migration and Julie Bishop were classic – no libertarianism needed!
    Bishop – no explanation needed. She’s no great shakes as an education minister, no kookery needed for that conclusion.

    The rest of it is nowhere in comparison to the unscientific support of holistic medicine or unfettered gun nuttery. I’m happy to admit I have kooky moments, but none of it is as certifiable as Bird or even Ron Paul. I was asking a legitimate question, why so many libertarian kooks (or are they just loud?)

  • 7
    Jason Soon
    June 5th, 2007 14:52

    So David what problems do you have with people being both socially liberal, pro-civil liberties and economically pro-market? (which is what libertarianism boils down to)

    What exactly is wrong with such a position? It is more logically consistent than the others?

    If anything people who hold this combination of views are probably the better paid and better educated in the community, rather than ‘kooks’.

  • 8
    David Rubie
    June 5th, 2007 15:00

    Jason, I’m not referring to you (or others who can cogently argue in favour of their libertarianism). I’m merely amused at the long tradition of association between people who say they are libertarians and internet kookery. Arguably, you aren’t a libertarian in the same sense as the majority of poo throwers at Catallaxy for example. Andrew Norton didn’t move his blogging for laughs.

  • 9
    Rajat Sood
    June 5th, 2007 15:03

    Congratulations Andrew, for what it’s worth.
    As we’re moving the goalposts, what about the distinct possibility that you are Australia’s best classical liberal solo blogger? Who would have been excluded by the ALS survey that could compete?

  • 10
    Sacha
    June 5th, 2007 15:45

    Andrew N – congrats on winning, although as someone who dislikes first-past-the-post voting I’d have preferred an (optional?) preferential vote which you may well have won anyway.

    I’m sure the Liberal Party would be very happy to be able to win an election on 13% of the primary vote. Incidentally, the Country Party/Nationals used to win elections (or end up being the larger partner in a winning coalition) in Qld state elections on not huge amounts more than 13% from memory.

  • 11
    Sacha
    June 5th, 2007 15:51

    The Qld National (Country) Party won the following percentages of the primary vote in state elections the coalition won:
    1957: 20.3%
    1960: 19.5%
    1963: 19%
    1966: 18.9%
    1969: 21%
    1972: 20%
    1974: 27.9%
    1977: 27.2%

  • 12
    Club Troppo » Monday's Missing Link on Tuesday - Again
    June 5th, 2007 16:55

    [...] Norton. The ALS blog follows up with a new poll on voting intentions at the federal election. Amusing fallout from the libertarian blogger poll continues at Andrew Norton and Catallaxy. Diogenes Lamp has a [...]

  • 13
    Brendan Halfweeg
    June 5th, 2007 21:48

    So DR, did the Birdbrain scar you in some way?

    The feelgood kookery of sites like LP and Clubtroppo is what scares me more than a few loud and obnoxious libertarians like Graeme. I guess individuals not reading from the great red and green hymm books scares you lefties more.

  • 14
    Jeremy
    June 5th, 2007 21:56

    David,

    Yep, you’re right, it is a legitimate question. But …

    What I’m saying is that, there are kooks EVERYWHERE. We should ask the question – does libertarianism attract more than its fair share of them? My point, and Jason’s too (I think, I don’t want to verbal him) is that libertarians are less likely to be kooky than members of other groups.

  • 15
    David Rubie
    June 5th, 2007 22:29

    Brendan,
    I was using Mr Bird as an example – far from being scarred I enjoy having a look at his blog once a month or so for kicks. Are libertarians less likely, more likely or just as likely to be internet kooks? I’m biased so I’m unable to answer the question in any objective way without some kind of measurement of kookery – in the same way that all Volvo drivers can’t be dangerous (just that I notice them more).

    Maybe we should do a link analysis on political blogs to see how many refer back to known crackpot thinking (911 truth movement, intelligent design, over-unity power sources, abiotic oil, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, climate change denial etc). I suspect compiling the list might be difficult itself. Also, I’m not sure how you’d differentiate between “positive” links and derisory links (maybe stick to the blogroll or external link lists).

  • 16
    Sacha
    June 5th, 2007 22:38

    Wouldn’t one need data to investigate the proposition that libertarianism attracts a greater proportion of kooks than other politica philosophy? If we have no data, we are arguing into the breeze.

  • 17
    Brendan Halfweeg
    June 5th, 2007 23:56

    DR,

    You see a link between libertarianism and:

    a) Conpiracy theorists

    b) Creationists

    c) Perpetual motion theorists

    d) Abiotic oil proponents

    e) Alternative medicine adherents

    I won’t even grace the words climate change denialist, since that is not in the same league as the above. I am skeptical about climate change, and anyone who claims that makes me a denialist is in denial about what science is actually about.

    None of the above crackpottery has anything to do with libertarianism and you would be hard pressed to find anyone blogging at Catallaxy or Thoughts on Freedom or any of the blogs in the ALS competition that espouse those ideas.

    However, I will say that as a libertarian, I’d certainly defend someone’s free speech to spout such nonsense, and it would have the bonus of being an utilitarian decision to do so as it would enable me to choose fairly who I associate with.

  • 18
    Jason Soon
    June 6th, 2007 00:16

    Now David, would libertarians get extra points if a disproportionate number of them linked to ideas like secular humanism and philosophical naturalism? In my experience, most libertarians are consistent philosophical naturalists or what Richard Dawkins would call ‘brights’.

  • 19
    Jeremy
    June 6th, 2007 08:36

    ‘Wouldn’t one need data to investigate the proposition that libertarianism attracts a greater proportion of kooks than other politica philosophy? If we have no data, we are arguing into the breeze.’

    Yep. And David admitted above that he can’t get the data.

    Ergo …

  • 20
    Andrew Norton
    June 6th, 2007 09:17

    Rajat – The way John was defining ‘libertarian’, a ‘best classical liberal’ contest would look much the same.

    But in any case, a strength of blogging is a diversity that defies ranking. I find several blogs dominated by ‘isn’t this interesting’ posts to be valuable, but I am trying to do something different and so I don’t think my blog can be ranked against them. And while I don’t much go for blogs that offer predictable left or right opinion, clearly lots of people do (they provide ‘solidarity goods’, in Posner’s terminology). They can be ranked against each other, but less so against my type of blog or ‘isn’t this interesting’ blogs.

  • 21
    David Rubie
    June 6th, 2007 09:36

    Brendan, they are just examples of crackpottery and in no way limited to critiques of libertarianism (you’ll find them on left leaning blogs, conservative blogs etc.).

  • 22
    David Rubie
    June 6th, 2007 09:38

    Jason wrote:
    Now David, would libertarians get extra points if a disproportionate number of them linked to ideas like secular humanism and philosophical naturalism?
    No – I’m not interested in tracking morality, just quackery and kookery.

  • 23
    pommygranate
    June 6th, 2007 16:18

    Andrew

    Well said. I was at a lunch recently with some ‘prominent’ libertarians and asked what my particular brand was. I was slightly embarassed to admit that i have not read a single libertarian text (except Atlas Shrugged), and hence had no clue.

    I just know what i like – liberty, a civil society, cricket, soccer and my children – and what i dont like – violence, busy-body bureaucrats and bigots. Dont know what type of libertarian that makes me.

    Congratulations but the way!

  • 24
    Jason Soon
    June 6th, 2007 18:05

    evading the question David – philosophical naturalism and non-theism is as strong a sign of non-kookery as any (which is not to imply that all religious people are kooks) because lack of belief in the supernatural tends to insulate you from kookery.

    In my experience most believers in alternative therapies and holistic medicine are left wing hippies possibly Dem and Green voters. what else could they possible be?

  • 25
    David Rubie
    June 6th, 2007 22:52

    Jason, they could be Ron Paul – supposedly the most libertarian candidate in the Republican race for the presidency. I think ostensibly he thinks holistic medicine is some kind of freedom issue (or that the FDA is a socialist iron fist trying to destroy the ingenuity of the American businessman). I dunno – I just found it a strange platform to be campaigning on.

    I’m not sure how useful tracking peoples links to non-theism or whatever is going to be. It isn’t the positives that are important when identifying a kook, it’s the negatives. You might think it’s important to classify someone as a magical thinker or whatever based on their religion, but I don’t, unless they have serious issues with following the religion of their choice while publically proclaiming it, which isn’t kookery, it’s just hypocrisy.

  • 26
    JC
    June 6th, 2007 23:45

    David
    Just a polite suggestion: Are you sure you aren’t projecting you own kookiness on to others?

    Paul’s suggestion is a good one. The FDA has some very bad operating procedures that simply raises the cost of medicine and slows down the process of bringing new drugs onto the market.

    Many, many people who are in fact terminal cannot try experimental drugs due to FDA regulations. It may be that most of these drugs will never wok, however the FDA process shouldn’t prevent desperate people from trying experimental drugs. Now that’s kooky.

    The process to bring an orphan drug to market costs about US$ 2 billion and will take about 10 years.

    Paul’s agenda is to try and speed this process as well as have cost reductions.

    One other thoughful measure is to actually do away with the entire FDA/drug process by privatising the entire procedure.

    You still think that’s kooky.

  • 27
    Jason Soon
    June 7th, 2007 09:15

    Ron Paul is a qualified doctor, an obstetrician-gynaceologist who practices conventional medicine, never been accused for quackery or sued for malpractice as far as I know and has successfully delivered hundreds of babies in his past career. He probably has a more scientific background than you and practical experience of it.

    His view on holistic medicine is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles (freedom to choose) and is not an endorsement of the science behind it.

  • 28
    David Rubie
    June 7th, 2007 09:28

    jc wrote:
    The FDA has some very bad operating procedures that simply raises the cost of medicine and slows down the process of bringing new drugs onto the market.
    None of these are a bad thing. Think thalidomide.

    Jason, freedom to choose beats science? I thought you were a supporter of naturalistic philosophy?

  • 29
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 11:03

    David

    And think of every other medicine that has come through the ringer since. In any event that poor excuse you just came up with went through government testing and they still failed.

    “Jason, freedom to choose beats science? ”

    So let’s outlaw Vitamin C use because it hasn’t been proved clinically that it minimizes colds and sore throats.

  • 30
    Jason Soon
    June 7th, 2007 11:17

    David
    People see astrologers too. Should that be banned?

    If people want to be stupid, let them be stupid. I also believe people have the freedom to snort cocaine even though that has few health benefits. I don’t see what any of that has to do with downgading science.

  • 31
    Jason Soon
    June 7th, 2007 11:18

    I should add ‘let them be stupid as long as they’re not doing it with my money.

    Since Ron Paul opposes subsidised medicine, his position on holistic medicine doesn’t involve any subsidy for it.

  • 32
    Jeremy
    June 7th, 2007 13:53

    ‘Jason, freedom to choose beats science?’

    We can have both. There’s no need for us to have to choose between the two.

  • 33
    David Rubie
    June 7th, 2007 14:07

    Jason, astrologers must be labelled as entertainers for a reason (they cannot predict the future). I’m not interested in stopping people seeing astrologers or iridologists or whatever quackery they like. I do not want to see any of these things endorsed by politicians whether they believe them or not, in the same way I was horrified to hear Dr Brendan Nelson endorsing Intelligent Design as part of school science curriculum. Nobody is currently being stopped from seeing their quack, so either Ron Paul is for freedom to do something you already can, or more likely he’s attempting to elevate it to the same level as normal medicine, which is wrong.

    Jeremy – yes we can have freedom and science, but we cannot have public figures endorsing quackery.

    I didn’t suggest banning anything and I’m very amused that the default position of the libertarians is that calling something quackery is some attempt to ban it. All I want is for these things to be categorised correctly so potential users can make an informed choice. And yes, Vitamin C as a cold cure is quackery without scientific evidence to back it up, you can take as much as you like, but don’t complain to me when your sore throat doesn’t get better, or your mystic aura reader mistakes body odour for body thetans.

  • 34
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 14:33

    Rubie

    1. Let’s be very clear, Nelson didn’t support ID being taught in a science class. That’s just you trying to make us think he did. He did no such thing. All he said was that it can be taught in school. Most people wouldn’t have a problem if it were taught in religious hour, which is what he alluded to. Do you, or do you think the gobermant should decide what is taught in religious hour too?

    Yes. There is a lot of quckery being taught in school and university. Lack of gender differences would the the most laughable coming from the usual ratpack of the soft sciences. “The Australian genocide” is another quick example.

    “I didn’t suggest banning anything ”

    Well fo course you aren’t are you? You’re just inferring that unless a medication has a government stamp of approval it shouldn’t be sold. Presto you have just redefined the word ban.

    I made the point that FDA process is a long expensive and at times contradictory set of standards. Terminal patients can’t get access to 3rd stage FDA drugs that could in a long short saves their lives.

    You seem to think that unless a government stamp is on something it is no good. I guess you would have thought the old soviet food shops would have been wonderful.

  • 35
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 14:35

    Rubie

    Perhaps you can explain why you think the FDA process is just great.

  • 36
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 14:54

    One last thing.

    David Rubie just doesn’t appreciate just how restricitive the US drug market actually is. Claratine, an allergy drug is available only thorugh a doctor’s prescription. Stronger pain killers like our Codeine based stuff is also controlled in the same way. This by the way is something the “big bad” Pharmas have been fighting for a long time. Yet the FDA continues with this over zealous control of its boundaries. So buying a decent alergy pill is an expensive process in America when you add in the cost of seeing the doc.

    Paul is trying to deregulate way a lot of this nonsense and reduce the cost for US consumers. That’s a good thing.

  • 37
    David Rubie
    June 7th, 2007 15:29

    JC,

    Try to be a little less obvious when trying to misrepresent me next time.

  • 38
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 16:02

    I wasn’t, David. I was only trying to correct your obvious lack knowledge and your attempt at poltical point scoring.

  • 39
    Jeremy
    June 7th, 2007 16:09

    ‘Jeremy – yes we can have freedom and science, but we cannot have public figures endorsing quackery.’

    Yes, but what is quackery? Who is a kook?

    To ME, your ideas on non-native flora were straight out of Bizarro World. Yet if a ‘public figure’ stood up and advocated them YOU would most likely cheer her. One person’s kook can quite easily be another person’s hero.

    Let public figures advocate what they want. The public will soon work out who the quacks are, and treat them accordingly.

    I think this is consistent with classical liberalism, yes? Freedom surely means the freedom to believe and advocate quacky things.

    Or do you believe in freedom only for those people who say things that you believe aren’t quacky?

  • 40
    David Rubie
    June 7th, 2007 16:17

    My lack of knowledge? JC you entirely missed the point of raising thalidomide as a legitimate example of the FDA process being effective. I am no supporter of reactive public drug policies – they involve harm before action. That might be optimal from a financial point of view, but not so great when you’re the one harmed. I’m fully aware that the FDA is flawed, but it’s combination of science, red tape and inertia all in the long term work in favour of patients, not against them. Everybody would prefer cancer patients got their drugs cheaper and sooner, but causing them further harm by making them drug company guinea pigs will solve nothing. Hooray for Paul for trying to help people, but I don’t see much help in supporting mysticism and quackery for anybody other than quacks.

  • 41
    Jason Soon
    June 7th, 2007 16:19

    I am surprised at the lengths that David Rubie is willing to go to smear Ron Paul, a decent and principled man who, unwilling to accept Medicare from the government because of his beliefs, nonetheless opted to treat poor patients for free instead. Libertarians are against subsidies for medicine period. Point me to this alleged obsession Paul has with promoting holistic medicine, David. Sheesh some libertarian must have traumatised David when he was a child, poor petal.

  • 42
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 16:58

    My lack of knowledge?
    Well yes. It seems that way, David. It seems you’re talking about things you know little about and when caught out sprint to another topic.

    ——————-
    JC you entirely missed the point of raising thalidomide as a legitimate example of the FDA process being effective.

    No I didn’t. You missed the point that despite that drug going through the hoops at the time it still caused damage. So I fail to see hat your sacred FDA did to prevent the damage to kids.

    ———————-
    I am no supporter of reactive public drug policies – they involve harm before action.

    Ummm. So terminal cancer patients should not be allowed to take a risk with their own bodies. Yep , let’s cross those T’s and dot those I’s before we let people die.

    —————————-

    That might be optimal from a financial point of view, but not so great when you’re the one harmed.

    To try new drugs that might actually work.

    ——————————————–

    I’m fully aware that the FDA is flawed, but it’s combination of science, red tape and inertia all in the long term work in favour of patients, not against them.
    And the road to hell is always paved with good intentions
    ————————————–

    Everybody would prefer cancer patients got their drugs cheaper and sooner, but causing them further harm by making them drug company guinea pigs will solve nothing.

    Yes, lets tell a cancer patients with 6 months to live that he may actually be shortening his life if he tried the new drug. Please explain how the drug company is making money by killing their patients. I would have thought the firms would want their patients to survive.

    ——————-

    Hooray for Paul for trying to help people, but I don’t see much help in supporting mysticism and quackery for anybody other than quacks.

    He’s possibly the most decent candidate around and you’re attacking this decent man’s motives.

  • 43
    David Rubie
    June 7th, 2007 17:14

    JC, thalidomide was rejected by the FDA in the US (not because their process uncovered it’s side effects, but the inertia involved in the approval process). The effects in Europe occurred during the period where it was awaiting approval. So children were harmed, but not where the FDA had jurisdiction. Google is your friend.

    I had no idea Ron Paul was Jesus Christ incarnate – if you go back through the thread, I merely posited that his support of holistic medicine was “strange” in the context of the other policies on his web site. I stand by that. If you feel personally insulted, that isn’t my fault.

  • 44
    Jeremy
    June 7th, 2007 17:23

    It’s no credit to the FDA that the effects of Thalidomide weren’t felt in the US because somebody sat on the file. It’s a happy accident: a bit like avoiding a train accident because having an argument with your kids delayed your departure for work.

  • 45
    JC
    June 7th, 2007 17:39

    “JC, thalidomide was rejected by the FDA in the US (not because their process uncovered it’s side effects, but the inertia involved in the approval process). ”

    Gee David, that certainly helps your argument along. NOT!

    So the reason Kids were spared a shorter limb in the US was because the FDA was too slow in its prcoess.

    —————–

    “I had no idea Ron Paul was Jesus Christ incarnate

    And I said he was? All I said was that he’s a decent guy who happens to be swimming against his party’s tide when it comes to the war in Iraq and lots of other issues. I like him. I think he would make a terriific prez.

    ————————-

    - if you go back through the thread, I merely posited that his support of holistic medicine was “strange” in the context of the other policies on his web site. I stand by that. If you feel personally insulted, that isn’t my fault.

    Yes and I explained to you that US drug policy is far, far different than ours here. It is far more controlled to the extent that they actually regulate such things as Vitamins sales and allergy pills.

    For some reason you don’t seem to want to understand this, preferring to call people kooky becasue you really don’t understand the argument in the first place.

  • 46
    JamesP
    June 7th, 2007 18:13

    No need to attempt to discredit Ron Paul, he does that on his own. Despite being excellent on economics, he is shameful on foreign policy, and confirms my suspicions about many US-libertarians – that they are simply isolationists.

    In the last debate in New Hampshire, Paul basically said we should do nothing about Iran, because ‘they haven’t done anything to us’, and would rather wait till they attack the US to respond. Great.

  • 47
    parkos
    June 8th, 2007 04:08

    Thalidomide went through in the UK becuase some idiots involved in animal experimentation decided that because it was apparently safe for animals it was safe for humans.
    Thalidomide was still being used in the 1980s even after problems were identified.
    Due the fundamental flaws in animal experimentation, one of my young friends has no arms but he plays drums in a pop band that fills the larger venues in Britain.
    Animal experimentation and genetic manipulation is fundamentally wrong and opposed to liberty at its root meaning in English as life (lieben/leben German), particularly when it involves the Australian meat industry.
    You wouldnt happen to work in that industry would you Dave?

  • 48
    David Rubie
    June 8th, 2007 09:47

    JC, after reading this:
    So the reason Kids were spared a shorter limb in the US was because the FDA was too slow in its prcoess.
    I can only assume you’re trolling. Go and read the Wikipedia entry on thalidomide and the approval process and tell me that the investigator in this case did a poor job.

    Parkos, genetics isn’t just about about gene manipulation, mostly it’s about selective breeding (something farmers have been doing for millennia).

  • 49
    JC
    June 8th, 2007 13:57

    David

    thanks for your comment.

    1. You presented Thalidomide as a great example of knee deep government regulation helping avert disaster. See here.

    “JC you entirely missed the point of raising thalidomide as a legitimate example of the FDA process being effective. ”

    ————
    2. And I responded with a prefectly reasonable comment

    ” You missed the point that despite that drug going through the hoops at the time it still caused damage. So I fail to see hat your sacred FDA did to prevent the damage to kids.”

    ——–

    3 And then you finally decided to do some research on the the drug and made this comment:

    JC, thalidomide was rejected by the FDA in the US (not because their process uncovered it’s side effects, but the inertia involved in the approval process). The effects in Europe occurred during the period where it was awaiting approval. So children were harmed, but not where the FDA had jurisdiction. Google is your friend.

    ———————

    4. and then both Jeremy and I picked you up on the point that completely went over your head. see here:

    “It’s no credit to the FDA that the effects of Thalidomide weren’t felt in the US because somebody sat on the file. It’s a happy accident: a bit like avoiding a train accident because having an argument with your kids delayed your departure for work.”
    ——————–

    The final result being that you call me a troll. Look, i don’t mind you calling me everything under the sun, but you’re relying on the point that FDA slowness in approving this drug was a good thing because it saved kids from being disfigured.

    This is like saying you want to continue driving down the cliff because you were saved the first time round. I’m speechless that you think regulatory ineptude in this case trumps all. The slowness was a fluke, not a designed business strategy.

    Let’s go through this again shall we?

    The FDA regulates too much in the US, even allergy pills and pain killers that could , like here, just as easily be sold over the counter.

    The FDA controls the sale of vitamins C for instance.

    This is one of the reasons US medicine is so expensive. I know becasue I lived with it for 16 years and couldn’t believe they even regulate such thing like Telfast.

    Ron Paul wants ease this regulatory burden lifted because I think most reasonable people don’t see a need for overseeing the sale of Citrus lollipops (Vitamin. C etc).

    —-

    Finally Ron Paul simply wants to remove regulkation out of the medical system, be it haelth foods, holistic medicine or cancer drugs.

    he wants to impede the market much less so than it is now. I’m sure that if the drug market looks like ours in terms of what is over the counter and what isn’t would make him a happpier man.

    I really think you’re awfully confused.

  • 50
    David Rubie
    June 8th, 2007 14:04

    JC,

    Read it again.

    The US FDA rejection of thalidomide was not a happy accident – the applying company did not fulfill the filing requirements and the researcher rejected the application multiple times.

    Regulation works.

  • 51
    JC
    June 8th, 2007 16:13

    David
    Please stop evading the issue seeing you raised it. Do you think the FDA should be regulating herbal teas or do you think like Ron Paul that sort of thing is best left to people to decide?

  • 52
    David Rubie
    June 8th, 2007 17:04


    In fact, medical conditions associated with star anise teas include seizures, vomiting, jitteriness and rapid eye movement.

    After thalidomide, the US government decided that a drug manufacturer should prove the safety and efficacy of their compounds. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Yes, the cited herbal tea example is extreme, yes I think these things should be regulated.

  • 53
    parkos
    June 8th, 2007 17:28

    RE : Ron Paul and herbal remedies.

    I would not trust a wealthy doctor who said he did a lot of work for free. He would have had half the Houston ghetto lining up to see him if it were true. He is all about increasing the cost of health care in a system whereby poor immigrant families get nothing and children die young.

    Many of todays powerful drugs are derived from plants from Asia and South America which were and still are presented in tea format. Drugs that will knock you out or alter your heart rate.
    Some of the new painkillers being developed from shellfish poison for example have side effects like heart attacks.
    The range of medicines and health products available in US is staggering.

    It is worth testing new drugs but not for 10 years, not on animals, and not on humans. Human tissue can be grown using genetics which is effective for testing cellular and chromosomal changes and averting disaster.

  • 54
    JC
    June 8th, 2007 17:36

    David

    You’re still avoiding the issue. I have patiently taught you that the US med/FDA/ Drug/herbal tea process is very regulated.
    You believe it should be highly regulated, obviously more so than here.

    Do you therefore consider anyone who doesn’t think herbal teas need FDA authorization are kooks?

  • 55
    JC
    June 8th, 2007 17:39

    Sorry missed this

    Do you think Aussie Authorities are koos seeing they regulate anywhere near enough to US standards?

    You can purchase serious stuff over the counter like Nitro tabs to help people with Angina.

  • 56
    David Rubie
    June 9th, 2007 00:48

    JC,

    Regulation can be as simple as asking the manufacturer to put a label on the product to indicate it isn’t safe for infants, or requiring that only pharmacists distribute the product, or outright banning if it’s dangerous.

    Herbal teas can range from a variety of benign infusions to some seriously dangerous products – you can’t blithely dismiss the regulation of something just because it’s “tea”. To dismiss the regulation of a wide variety of potentially toxic items because it’s “tea” is simple minded, to demand that all “tea” be de-regulated (or removed from food and drug regulation on issues of safety and toxicity) is kookville central.

    Even simple things can be toxic like peanuts. The level of regulation needs to be commensurate with the risk. For example, there are kids at our local school who have peanut allergies and the school politely asked parents in the community not to send their children to school with peanut butter sandwiches. That level of cooperation is possible on a small level of a few hundred parents.

    However, at the national level the dynamics change dramatically. You and I can’t just ring up the owner of a factory and ask them whether their production line switches between shifts from peanut products to other things. In this case, our equivalent of the FDA requires that the products are marked with this possibility (may be traces of nuts).

    This information costs the manufacturer very little, informs customers that the product may well be toxic, saves us money in medical costs and occasionally saves a life.

    In short, it keeps us safe from nuts.

  • 57
    JC
    June 9th, 2007 02:49

    David

    You have called everyone kook’s because they don’t agree with your level of deregulation.

    Do you continue to slime Ron Paul because he disagrees with you?

    You still want to evade this issue.

  • 58
    David Rubie
    June 9th, 2007 08:46

    JC

    You’ve “patiently taught me” that you’re completely unwilling to read the answers to your questions – you’re evading the responses.