Abolishing FDA/EPA/FAA - how to explain to those who fear deregulation

[D.A.S.]

Ron Paul has said many times that he would prefer to do away with EPA and FDA, and this question once again came up in the MSNBC debates. I'm a scientist/engineer, and a lot of folks in my circles fully support the EPA and the FDA as necessary agencies to protect us from harmful effects of fraud and corporate greed, although they contend that both agencies aren't most efficient at what they do.

I understand the property rights argument for protecting the environment, but I've been combated with an argument saying that the property rights argument is only helpful to sue someone after the damage has already been done, rather than having regulation in place to prevent the damage in the first place. I must admit, I didn't have a quick comeback to that and wanted to solicit some ideas from folks here.

When it comes to the FDA, the people, who understand that the FDA has stood in the way of innovation and let a lot of bad drugs slip right through its fingers, still credit the FDA for monitoring food safety and certain standards for drinking water, etc. They say, how can a non-government body be set up to take on the crucial function of protecting the uninformed citizens from harm of corporations aiming to take advantage? I must admit, I didn't have a quick comeback to that either.

Please share some ideas for how this part of Ron Paul's platform could be marketed to inquiring people with those kinds of deeper questions, and perhaps if you know of a book I should read (Ron's or otherwise) that explains on how to deal with questions like that, I'd be very grateful to be pointed in that direction!

[erowe1]

I'm a scientist/engineer, and a lot of folks in my circles fully support the EPA and the FDA as necessary agencies to protect us from harmful effects of fraud and corporate greed, although they contend that both agencies aren't most efficient at what they do.

That sounds odd to me. When I was working as a civil engineer the majority opinion I encountered in that field was people who thought environmental regulations were ridiculous. I always figured the people who supported them had to be predominantly musicians and tattoo artists and stuff like that.

[sickmint79]

well, i think an important thing to bring up here is can the president actually even do it? i'm under the impression that a president paul couldn't do any of this without support from congress anyway.

i agree that free market principles don't sound too practical for many EPA applications; there are a lot of externalities there and difficulties around it. i don't know about getting rid of the FDA either but it would be nice to see a different FDA. regarding the topics you mentioned, i might bring up some of the failures of the FDA or what it doesn't allow you to do - like choose to take an unapproved drug/surgery in the US that has been shown successful elsewhere, even if you are willing to take the risk of whatever the outcomes might be. or find some studies that show how the FDA hasn't really been that effective; these are not hot topics for me, but you may be able to find some graphs or data showing that food safety improved since the FDA was created; then show the prior 20 years and say look - food safety was also increasing there at the same rate. whatever that incident was with the bad eggs and the one bad egg farmer consolidating and controlling a ton of the market might be a good example too of what current policies have actually produced - people think this organization is out there keeping them safe, but really it's a false sense of security.

hopefully someone better versed than i can chime in on some of these topics. FAA seems easier, i think air traffic control and airports are public/private or fully private in many other countries out there.

i try to always steer the conversation towards economics, foreign policy and the war on drugs myself.

[erowe1]

well, i think an important thing to bring up here is can the president actually even do it? i'm under the impression that a president paul couldn't do any of this without support from congress anyway.

i agree that free market principles don't sound too practical for many EPA applications; there are a lot of externalities there and difficulties around it. i don't know about getting rid of the FDA either but it would be nice to see a different FDA. regarding the topics you mentioned, i might bring up some of the failures of the FDA or what it doesn't allow you to do - like choose to take an unapproved drug/surgery in the US that has been shown successful elsewhere, even if you are willing to take the risk of whatever the outcomes might be. or find some studies that show how the FDA hasn't really been that effective; these are not hot topics for me, but you may be able to find some graphs or data showing that food safety improved since the FDA was created; then show the prior 20 years and say look - food safety was also increasing there at the same rate. whatever that incident was with the bad eggs and the one bad egg farmer consolidating and controlling a ton of the market might be a good example too of what current policies have actually produced - people think this organization is out there keeping them safe, but really it's a false sense of security.

hopefully someone better versed than i can chime in on some of these topics. FAA seems easier, i think air traffic control and airports are public/private or fully private in many other countries out there.

i try to always steer the conversation towards economics, foreign policy and the war on drugs myself.

He could submit budgets that defund those things, and veto their unbalanced budgets when they send them to him, and demand they send him a balanced one or override his veto.

He also would have ultimate say over discretionary enforcement of laws. The executive branch can never enforce all laws consistently, no matter who's president. He could just tell the EPA, "Sorry, we don't have money to waste on you sending agents around to tell people they can't build on their land because it has cat tails growing on it."

[Elfshadow]

I have been having success by following Ron Paul example. Who makes the regulations? If the regulations are controlled by the bureaucracy and they are controlled by the politicians and the politicians are controlled lobbyist and the lobbyist are controlled by the corporations, how effective can the regulations be?

Its quite amusing to watch some of my liberal coworker heads start to work around that.

[D.A.S.]

I have been having success by following Ron Paul example. Who makes the regulations? If the regulations are controlled by the bureaucracy and they are controlled by the politicians and the politicians are controlled lobbyist and the lobbyist are controlled by the corporations, how effective can the regulations be?

Its quite amusing to watch some of my liberal coworker heads start to work around that.

But the devil's advocate would say that there are also a lot of good regulations in the mix. I guess I gotta learn a whole lot about EPA and its policies to be able to rebuff defense of the EPA from the scientific community, where a lot of people have been involved in lobbying for beneficial EPA regulations. It's unmistakable though that EPA does do some good, while it also has a lot of bad.

[Elfshadow]

But the devil's advocate would say that there are also a lot of good regulations in the mix. I guess I gotta learn a whole lot about EPA and its policies to be able to rebuff defense of the EPA from the scientific community, where a lot of people have been involved in lobbying for beneficial EPA regulations. It's unmistakable though that EPA does do some good, while it also has a lot of bad.

The rebuff to that is that a regulation that looks good today might be proven tomorrow to be harmful to the population but because they where following the regulations their is nothing to be done to make them deal with the harm they caused where as if there was no regulations they could be forced to fix the problems they caused.

[erowe1]

But the devil's advocate would say that there are also a lot of good regulations in the mix. I guess I gotta learn a whole lot about EPA and its policies to be able to rebuff defense of the EPA from the scientific community, where a lot of people have been involved in lobbying for beneficial EPA regulations. It's unmistakable though that EPA does do some good, while it also has a lot of bad.

What are the good regulations? And why should they be under the charge of the federal government instead of the states?

[parocks]

well, i think an important thing to bring up here is can the president actually even do it? i'm under the impression that a president paul couldn't do any of this without support from congress anyway.

i agree that free market principles don't sound too practical for many EPA applications; there are a lot of externalities there and difficulties around it. i don't know about getting rid of the FDA either but it would be nice to see a different FDA. regarding the topics you mentioned, i might bring up some of the failures of the FDA or what it doesn't allow you to do - like choose to take an unapproved drug/surgery in the US that has been shown successful elsewhere, even if you are willing to take the risk of whatever the outcomes might be. or find some studies that show how the FDA hasn't really been that effective; these are not hot topics for me, but you may be able to find some graphs or data showing that food safety improved since the FDA was created; then show the prior 20 years and say look - food safety was also increasing there at the same rate. whatever that incident was with the bad eggs and the one bad egg farmer consolidating and controlling a ton of the market might be a good example too of what current policies have actually produced - people think this organization is out there keeping them safe, but really it's a false sense of security.

hopefully someone better versed than i can chime in on some of these topics. FAA seems easier, i think air traffic control and airports are public/private or fully private in many other countries out there.

i try to always steer the conversation towards economics, foreign policy and the war on drugs myself.

You're trying to convince Democrats, right?

[hmochel1992]

I understand the property rights argument for protecting the environment, but I've been combated with an argument saying that the property rights argument is only helpful to sue someone after the damage has already been done, rather than having regulation in place to prevent the damage in the first place. I must admit, I didn't have a quick comeback to that and wanted to solicit some ideas from folks here.

Once it has been established that the pollution (the property rights violation) is punishable in court, the aggressors will be less likely to pollute in the future. Additionally, if the aggressors choose to continue polluting, they will lose money every time they do so, and it will not be financially sustainable. In essence, the threat of being sued will act as a regulation.

[D.A.S.]

You're trying to convince Democrats, right?

This is for blue Republicans.

But EPA is easier for me to sell based on property rights enforcement. FDA is tougher to sell. What's a food/drug safety watchdog out there to replace FDA?

[erowe1]

This is for blue Republicans.

But EPA is easier for me to sell based on property rights enforcement. FDA is tougher to sell. What's a food/drug safety watchdog out there to replace FDA?

I think the case against the FDA is very strong. It's not just a matter of it being less good than some alternative, it's a matter of it clearly making us worse off.

Look at it this way. If I and my doctor decide that there's some medicine out there that I should try, the main purpose of the FDA is to tell me if I can or not.

It also doesn't have a good track record of doing what its own stated mission is of ensuring that the drugs it approves are safe and effective.

And as to your question of what watchdog would replace it, I don't think you have to know the specific answer. It's enough just to know that it would be easily replaceable by not just one, but multiple for-profit organizations that would give their seals of approval to drugs, so that consumers would be able to vet drugs according to which ones were approved by the company whose methods of evaluation they value most.

[Maximus]

Everyone knows the Better Business Bureau (BBB seal), Consumer Reports, and JD power rankings for cars

You trust those seals because they are good companies and they are committed to giving good, reliable, information. If they gave out fraudulent information you would ignore them. In the same way, you could have a trusted private agency take the lead on testing drugs (the FDA has a horrible track record anyways).

When I point out that there are tons of private agencies that people trust all the time, people see that it can be done.

[erowe1]

Everyone knows the Better Business Bureau (BBB seal), Consumer Reports, and JD power rankings for cars

You trust those seals because they are good companies and they are committed to giving good, reliable, information. If they gave out fraudulent information you would ignore them. In the same way, you could have a trusted private agency take the lead on testing drugs (the FDA has a horrible track record anyways).

When I point out that there are tons of private agencies that people trust all the time, people see that it can be done.

How do Jewish people verify that the meat they buy has been slaughtered according to kosher laws? Does the government regulate that for them?

[D.A.S.]

I think the case against the FDA is very strong. It's not just a matter of it being less good than some alternative, it's a matter of it clearly making us worse off.

Look at it this way. If I and my doctor decide that there's some medicine out there that I should try, the main purpose of the FDA is to tell me if I can or not.

It also doesn't have a good track record of doing what its own stated mission is of ensuring that the drugs it approves are safe and effective.

And as to your question of what watchdog would replace it, I don't think you have to know the specific answer. It's enough just to know that it would be easily replaceable by not just one, but multiple for-profit organizations that would give their seals of approval to drugs, so that consumers would be able to vet drugs according to which ones were approved by the company whose methods of evaluation they value most.


Everyone knows the Better Business Bureau (BBB seal), Consumer Reports, and JD power rankings for cars

You trust those seals because they are good companies and they are committed to giving good, reliable, information. If they gave out fraudulent information you would ignore them. In the same way, you could have a trusted private agency take the lead on testing drugs (the FDA has a horrible track record anyways).

When I point out that there are tons of private agencies that people trust all the time, people see that it can be done.

Those are the similar points to the ones I've talked about with people. Some people who are more knowledgeable agree, while others say "well what about drinking water standards and E.Coli testing in food? i don't wanna drink some lead-laced water and have no oversight over the quality of our food"... I guess I wasn't sure how to come back on that in a convincing way.

[erowe1]

Those are the similar points to the ones I've talked about with people. Some people who are more knowledgeable agree, while others say "well what about drinking water standards and E.Coli testing in food? i don't wanna drink some lead-laced water and have no oversight over the quality of our food"... I guess I wasn't sure how to come back on that in a convincing way.

Again, even if you want those things, why do they have to be federal and not state? Is there some reason that all states have to agree on the same level of purity in their water?

And there's still the point about freedom. When there's an outbreak of E. Coli, why shouldn't I be allowed to weigh the risk for myself, rather than having the government tell me that I can't buy any tomatoes or whatever?

[D.A.S.]

All very good points for sure. I think talking about stuff like that takes a little practice, but I'm getting there.

Thanks for helping me out here!!

[erowe1]

All very good points for sure. I think talking about stuff like that takes a little practice, but I'm getting there.

Thanks for helping me out here!!

Of the various pro-freedom educational organizations out there, I'm partial to the Independent Institute. They've put out some good stuff on the FDA. Unfortunately, I can't remember a specific article or book to recommend. But you might find some by browsing around.
http://www.independent.org/
They've also made a website specifically about the FDA:
http://www.fdareview.org/

[D.A.S.]

Of the various pro-freedom educational organizations out there, I'm partial to the Independent Institute. They've put out some good stuff on the FDA. Unfortunately, I can't remember a specific article or book to recommend. But you might find some by browsing around.
http://www.independent.org/
They've also made a website specifically about the FDA:
http://www.fdareview.org/

Thanks, erowe1 -- exactly the stuff I've been looking for. :-) +rep

[sailingaway]

Start with the dates the agencies were created and ask if America was all that bad before then..... in the case of education, for example, education was BETTER. The thing is, people can't conceive of the world without these agencies and you have to remind them they didn't always exist AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Why can't states do it? States did 'multistate' stuff all the time, the uniform commercial code, the air quality coop the northeastern states put together... it just needs to be an actually vetted idea that people agree with, which is a good thing itself, and when errors are made they are less likely to be made for the entire country before people realize what a terrible idea it was.

There are countries that have private air traffic controllers, as well.

Also discuss regulatory capture. How sure are you that consumers are the ones served when the heads of both the FDA and Agricultural department are either FROM Monsanto or are a Monsanto legal eagle from a lawfirm heavily hired by Monsanto? It is a revolving door.

Individuals are better represented at the local level where they can actually show up at a hearing they care about, while still attending to their work and affairs. You need a lobbyist to be represented in DC.

[PRIEST]

Federal agencies approve fluoride in the water. That should be the indicator right there that they don't have your best interest in mind.

Private companies create filters to get the fluoride out. These are your friends.

[noneedtoaggress]

Instead of worrying about how the market might organize, concentrate on how awful the current situation is. If they're only seeing it as "inefficient" they're not looking close enough.

The issue is that the government's regulations are backed by violence and coercion, which only distorts the market and allows for the corruption of concentrated power. The issue is centralized power, being forced to fund an agency which gives out violent mandates.

This seems like a good thing if you're view of the state is one of righteous authority, knowledge, and benevolence. You have to show them how it causes problems, rather than creates solutions.

The FDA, just like the TSA, or the Fed or whatever... it's all safety security theater as cover for protectionist rackets...
(and after they cause problems they blame it on the free market and say they need more money and more power to fix it.) Show them that, otherwise you're competing your weird foreign sounding "private regulation" stuff with their concept of this decent-albeit-inefficient system which we already have in place.

[simon1911]

I got in with a Dem at work about FDA. She thought I was nuts. I countered to her on how often does she google for some drugs before taking it or whether she just assume it's safe because FDA says it's safe. She acknowledged that and said that is true.

At another time, I also got in with another Dem at work on EPA. I brought up how California wanted to have stricter emission laws but was denied because it was deemed as EPA's turf. He went on some rant about pollutions and claimed how some the oil/gas industry has been dumping heavy metals to our rivers and he wanted to have some government study done on its impacts first. I countered whether he immunized his kids because heavy metals comes with those inoculations. He got very upset and mumbled something about getting some outbreak. At this point I kinda gave up on him but he kept on talking. He brought up how incandescent bulbs replacement has saved society $15B a year and that that only came about with government regulation. Without it, those companies aren't going to invest on these breakthrough tech. I countered if it was so breakthrough, why does it take government regulation.

All and all, I don't think I got anywhere with either and I felt very discouraged because people have been so misinformed.

[noneedtoaggress]

All and all, I don't think I got anywhere with either and I felt very discouraged because people have been so misinformed.

You've got to plant the seeds before the ideas can grow. Hopefully some of their later experiences will water it. ;)