If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Those BPA-Free products you've been using? Turns out they contain more Synthetic Estrogen than BPA, and the Plastics Industry has developed the testing methods the EPA uses that intentionally don't detect it because: Free Market   (motherjones.com) divider line 169
    More: Scary, BPA, EPA, free markets, idea, Environmental Health Perspectives, Michael Green, estrogens, big tobacco  
•       •       •

5931 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:59 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 02:42:15 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


"And after we get rid of the EPA, we'll set caps on punitative damage awards! BWAHAHAHA!"
 
2014-03-07 02:44:38 PM  

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.


That's a fascinating color of sky you have there.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:52 PM  

jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency.


How would you know the certification was bad?  Heck, how would you know what sort of certification each item you eat should have?   It could take years before the problems start to show, and years more to trace back the source of the illness.  And then who has the money to fight this through the courts?

There's nothing stopping people from doing what you describe now.  But the costs involved, time lines, and potential pay offs often aren't worth it.  I'd rather not get cancer, than know that heirs might get a $100,000 payout after years of litigation after my death.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:26 PM  

nexxus: meat0918:  Neither, just woefully misinfromed.

How so?  I don't think I am, but I'm always open to learning new things.


If history is any guide, it is not instantaneous, and even more rarely is it successful.

A company worth billions can drag out a court fight for years, well beyond what a few people can afford to pay for.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:31 PM  

FnkyTwn: nexxus: This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.


surely you are for executing some of the government that's complicit in this too?
you know it takes both right?
/or if you were trolling, well done
 
2014-03-07 02:47:22 PM  

nexxus: a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market


jigger: That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA.


Unless you live in Texas and you can't even go to court and instead get mandatory arbitration, but don't worry, because the agency hired to manage the arbitration is paid by the company you're trying to sue. Also, your damages are capped at $250k and then your lawyers fees come out of that.

Your system is flawless, that's why it works so well in all those Libertarian countries around the world.
 
2014-03-07 02:48:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"


Hey, we're on the same side here, mostly.  I just think that allowing governments to say what's safe and what isn't, and then letting 'bad companies' hide behind their decisions .. particularly when they've influenced those decisions .. is unwise.  When government is involved people believe they're safe, and the companies are protected .. *that's* the issue.  Put the risk on the companies, where it belongs..not on individuals who, as you've pointed out, don't often have access to test equipment and such (though I do think there would be reliable 3rd party testing companies out there if it weren't for gov't).

I actually do have quite a lot of equipment.  And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me.  I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally.  &c.
 
2014-03-07 02:49:14 PM  

nexxus: Dr Dreidel: nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"

Hey, we're on the same side here, mostly.  I just think that allowing governments to say what's safe and what isn't, and then letting 'bad companies' hide behind their decisions .. particularly when they've influenced those decisions .. is unwise.  When government is involved people believe they're safe, and the companies are protected .. *that's* the issue.  Put the risk on the companies, where it belongs..not on individuals who, as you've pointed out, don't often have access to test equipment and such (though I do think there would be reliable 3rd party testing companies out there if it weren't for gov't).

I actually do have quite a lot of equipment.  And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me.  I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally.  &c.


Which EMFs do you think can harm you?
 
2014-03-07 02:50:30 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I'm going to market botulism tester home kits and then when those are proven to test precisely nothing, I'll reappear under a different pseudonym and market basically the same thing.  Repeated forever!  I'll be rich!


That would be fraud.  We already have laws for that.

But no, probably nobody will have money to buy them because they're too busy learning the bio-chemistry involved in how to test for a thousand different products and then getting science degrees necessary to read the results.

I think that would be fantastic.  Though degrees aren't required to read results.  Most things aren't nearly as complicated as that.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:04 PM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency.

How would you know the certification was bad?  Heck, how would you know what sort of certification each item you eat should have?   It could take years before the problems start to show, and years more to trace back the source of the illness.  And then who has the money to fight this through the courts?

There's nothing stopping people from doing what you describe now.  But the costs involved, time lines, and potential pay offs often aren't worth it.  I'd rather not get cancer, than know that heirs might get a $100,000 payout after years of litigation after my death.


The problem, now, is that there's far less incentive for anyone to do this.  The government has effectively monopolized this function by protecting companies once they/their products pass 'standards'.  If they didn't do that, and 'caveat emptor' .. everyone would want to know what they were eating, drinking, breathing, etc. .. as it is now, it doesn't matter because there's no way to go after anyone or force change if the products/whatever meet with government approval.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:19 PM  
Oh look, DDT all over again.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:54 PM  

inner ted: surely you are for executing some of the government that's complicit in this too?
you know it takes both right?
/or if you were trolling, well done


Yeah fine. I just want people prosecuted, but with our current revolving door system between lobbyist and government, they're really just all the same people. And i'll give a little on the execution part of it too as long as they end up in jail for looooong sentences and get fined ALL the profit they made while selling us out.
 
2014-03-07 02:57:08 PM  
Uh huh. So how much of that shiat is leaking, and what harmful effect would there be for the average person, and what other sources are there?

MJ's article is mostly "but they're just like tobacco companies"!
 
2014-03-07 02:57:50 PM  

meat0918: nexxus: meat0918:  Neither, just woefully misinfromed.

How so?  I don't think I am, but I'm always open to learning new things.

If history is any guide, it is not instantaneous, and even more rarely is it successful.

A company worth billions can drag out a court fight for years, well beyond what a few people can afford to pay for.


I have first hand experience with this, so I get what you're saying (truly, I do) .. but most of these companies hide behind government rules and regulations.  If they couldn't do that, and liability could be established in those cases the same way it is generally (proximate cause .. 'but for' and such), that would stop.
 
2014-03-07 02:58:09 PM  
no need to worry, the tin foil that mother jones readers have tightly wrapped around their heads will keep them from growing man-boobs from all of that extra estrogen.
 
2014-03-07 03:00:22 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


9/10
 
2014-03-07 03:01:11 PM  

FnkyTwn: Unless you live in Texas and you can't even go to court and instead get mandatory arbitration, but don't worry, because the agency hired to manage the arbitration is paid by the company you're trying to sue. Also, your damages are capped at $250k and then your lawyers fees come out of that.

Your system is flawless, that's why it works so well in all those Libertarian countries around the world.


Statutory damage caps are *also* a result of government interference in free markets, often at the behest of those most likely to be held liable for bad behavior.

There's no such thing as a damage cap under the common law, only under statutory law.
 
2014-03-07 03:01:13 PM  

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


cdn.memestache.com
 
2014-03-07 03:01:56 PM  
I do believe I have grown several new pineal glands and a large number of new cortical folds.

Fascinating sensation to have six or seven simultaneous trains of thought. The static, however is a bit unpleasant.

I consulted my cat on the matter of mitigating the static, but discovered I had interrupted her musings on corrected equations for the Alcubierre Drive.

Hmm.
 
2014-03-07 03:02:06 PM  
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but most scientists can't even detect the low levels of BPA in serum of people, rats, or monkeys that are given CHRONIC  (ingesting) exposure to these products.  So yeah, not really the danger so many people believe  it to be.

I tried to give you a link to an actual scientific paper in addition to and easier to digest NPR article.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:04 PM  

meat0918: Which EMFs do you think can harm you?


Most of them.  It's pretty much proven that EMFs create stress (at the cellular level) in the body, and stress is bad .. enough of it leads to disease.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:31 PM  

FnkyTwn: inner ted: surely you are for executing some of the government that's complicit in this too?
you know it takes both right?
/or if you were trolling, well done

Yeah fine. I just want people prosecuted, but with our current revolving door system between lobbyist and government, they're really just all the same people. And i'll give a little on the execution part of it too as long as they end up in jail for looooong sentences and get fined ALL the profit they made while selling us out.


i would like that too & agree that the back and forth between corps & gov't is a HUGE problem - just want both sides of the turd to be seen
 
2014-03-07 03:04:55 PM  

FnkyTwn: Yeah fine. I just want people prosecuted, but with our current revolving door system between lobbyist and government, they're really just all the same people. And i'll give a little on the execution part of it too as long as they end up in jail for looooong sentences and get fined ALL the profit they made while selling us out.


If we could show that they knowingly allowed harm to come to people, I'm all for it.  I think intent is important, here.  Mistakes do happen.
 
2014-03-07 03:05:14 PM  

nexxus: The problem, now, is that there's far less incentive for anyone to do this. The government has effectively monopolized this function by protecting companies once they/their products pass 'standards'.


If a product harms you, you can sue.  Regardless of what "government certification" it has.  If a FDA approved medicine turns out to have long term side effects that don't turn up during the testing, you can sue.  If my USDA approved beef is tainted with e.coli, I can sue.  Just because a product has passed some sort of government inspection, doesn't mean the government is indemnifying the company or product.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:23 PM  

nexxus: Dr Dreidel: nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"

Hey, we're on the same side here, mostly.  I just think that allowing governments to say what's safe and what isn't, and then letting 'bad companies' hide behind their decisions .. particularly when they've influenced those decisions .. is unwise.  When government is involved people believe they're safe, and the companies are protected .. *that's* the issue.  Put the risk on the companies, where it belongs..not on individuals who, as you've pointed out, don't often have access to test equipment and such (though I do think there would be reliable 3rd party testing companies out there if it weren't for gov't).

I actually do have quite a lot of equipment.  And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me.  I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally.  &c.



So then I would hours researching every single product before I buy and take the advise from a 3rd party with no legal responsibility to me? Sounds super duper efficient.

Your scenario does not work unless we eliminate the corporate shield and hold managers and stock holders personal responsible for damages.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:44 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: you left out the Pacific gyre

I guess there's five major oceanic gyres now. Disposable isn't what it used to be.



Can't we just nuke the gyres? It would vaporize all that crap so it would no longer be harmful to anything.
 
2014-03-07 03:10:56 PM  
Yes, neXXus, we get your point. Government = automatically bad.

Evidently there are no such things as industry lobbyists.

And since government = business on your planet, it can have a monopoly.

Why do you hate business?
 
2014-03-07 03:11:27 PM  

nexxus: I actually do have quite a lot of equipment. And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me. I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally. &c.


Do you test that equipment yourself every time you use it, or do you generally rely on manufacturing standards and the randomized testing of components and completed products it requires to ensure that device you just plopped 6 grand on works as advertised?

You ASSUME you don't use products that release that much EMF...because it's been tested in accordance with government rules about manufacturing for such products and devices.

I work for a medical device company. You're telling me we shouldn't have the FDA test the hell out of these things, make DAMN sure we've documented every step of the process (including any deviation from the approved product description) along the way, and are eligible to be audited at any time by the Agency?

Do you really think we'd get half as good oversight and results if we shuttered the FDA and told millions of diabetics to "just trust" our device, the software and systems it uses, the test strips and lances we sell, and the support we offer?

Would YOU put that much trust in a company to manage your diabetes? (Bear in mind, a failure of ONE of those components might send you into insulin shock, which can cause permanent injury and death, which are also costly.)
 
2014-03-07 03:14:06 PM  

Abuse Liability: I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but most scientists can't even detect the low levels of BPA in serum of people, rats, or monkeys that are given CHRONIC  (ingesting) exposure to these products.  So yeah, not really the danger so many people believe  it to be.

I tried to give you a link to an actual scientific paper in addition to and easier to digest NPR article.


Wait, so Mother Jones exploited the public fear of chemicals and scientific illiteracy to push a distorted and overblown view of the dangers of a compound?
 
2014-03-07 03:16:22 PM  
No petroleum product is safe for humans
 
2014-03-07 03:16:48 PM  
I knew those uppity Whole Foods hippies with the pretentious BPA-Free plastic bottles would get their comeuppance some day...
 
2014-03-07 03:16:59 PM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: If a product harms you, you can sue.  Regardless of what "government certification" it has.  If a FDA approved medicine turns out to have long term side effects that don't turn up during the testing, you can sue.  If my USDA approved beef is tainted with e.coli, I can sue.  Just because a product has passed some sort of government inspection, doesn't mean the government is indemnifying the company or product.


Generally, if a product passes EPA/whoever certs/regs, it all gets a lot (orders of magnitude) harder.  "We followed public safety guidelines" .. "We did as we were told", &c.

For instance, the EPA actually issues pollution permits to power plants, refineries, and such allowing them pollute at certain levels.  They're more or less shielded from liability, effectively, as long as they stay within those limits, regardless of whether what they're putting out actually harms someone.

You might read the CWA (clean water act), CAA (clean air act), OPA (oil pollution act), and the like.  They all use language like '(un)approved releases' to qualify when the polluter may be held liable and such.  As far as I know, it works very similarly with food, medication, etc.  It's not impossible to sue, but it's much, much more difficult when the government approves of whatever it is.
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:17:15 PM  

nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.


And as everyone knows, natural selection is a perfect model on which to base a society. Natural things are always good.

It's not like natural selection allowed us to evolve the ability to think and cooperate with other humans, thus giving us the ability to specialize our expertise so that everyone doesn't have to be an expert on everything.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:16 PM  

nocturnal001: So then I would hours researching every single product before I buy and take the advise from a 3rd party with no legal responsibility to me? Sounds super duper efficient.

Your scenario does not work unless we eliminate the corporate shield and hold managers and stock holders personal responsible for damages.


I do spend hours researching nearly every product I use.  I would take advice from a third party if I trusted them and/or had some recourse if they willfully misrepresented something and I was harmed.

Who said anything about leaving corporate shields and such intact?  I think anyone who knowingly harms someone else should be held responsible.  Like using a chemical you know is toxic but not telling anyone.  Or actively preventing people from finding out that what you're doing is harmful.  That sort of thing.
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:21:32 PM  

StopLurkListen: nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA

Cool! A "Caveat Emptor" Libertarian! That approach is a totally winner in China, by the way. Sorry about your dog. And everything else.

[amptoons.com image 500x750]


Might fit the "Naive" spot as well
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:25:47 PM  

generallyso: nexxus: That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.


Not to mention that even the smartest people can't be an expert on everything. Also, smart people aren't immune to doing stupid things.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:29 PM  

Kittypie070: I do believe I have grown several new pineal glands and a large number of new cortical folds.

Fascinating sensation to have six or seven simultaneous trains of thought. The static, however is a bit unpleasant.

I consulted my cat on the matter of mitigating the static, but discovered I had interrupted her musings on corrected equations for the Alcubierre Drive.

Hmm.


Have you ever heard of Discordianism?
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:28:06 PM  

nexxus: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


How do you think it would be different?
 
2014-03-07 03:28:33 PM  

nexxus:

I do spend hours researching nearly every product I use.


Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?
 
2014-03-07 03:30:22 PM  

real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?


Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.
 
2014-03-07 03:31:49 PM  
Dr Dreidel:  Do you test that equipment yourself every time you use it, or do you generally rely on manufacturing standards and the randomized testing of components and completed products it requires to ensure that device you just plopped 6 grand on works as advertised?

I actually do test test equipment from time to time, but not every time.  No.  I generally rely on the reputations of the companies that manufacture said equipment.  I've learned the hard way that relying on government standards is unwise.

You ASSUME you don't use products that release that much EMF...because it's been tested in accordance with government rules about manufacturing for such products and devices.

No, I actually have an EMF meter and I know what the EMF emissions of the products I use are.

I work for a medical device company. You're telling me we shouldn't have the FDA test the hell out of these things, make DAMN sure we've documented every step of the process (including any deviation from the approved product description) along the way, and are eligible to be audited at any time by the Agency?

I'm not going to argue that less testing, documentation, etc. is better than more.  I don't agree and wouldn't win, anyway.  What I will argue over is whether it's best to allow a government that's thoroughly corrupt to oversee that process.  I think it would be better for a 3rd party(-ies) that could actually be held liable for failures in the process, without limit, to oversee it.  Right now, Government is immune.  And they *DON'T* always do their jobs the way you describe.  I have first hand experience.

Do you really think we'd get half as good oversight and results if we shuttered the FDA and told millions of diabetics to "just trust" our device, the software and systems it uses, the test strips and lances we sell, and the support we offer?

I think we'd be worse off without independent testing and such.

Would YOU put that much trust in a company to manage your diabetes? (Bear in mind, a failure of ONE of those components might send you into insulin shock, which can cause permanent injury and death, which are also costly.)

I don't put trust in doctors, or the health care system, generally, to manage my health.  But your point is well made.

Overall, you make good points here.  Really.  I don't think we're too far apart on the main point that it's best to test and such.  My biggest problem is that the government isn't reliable, is corrupt and easily corruptible, and that it also has soverign immunity.  Bad combination.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:20 PM  

Kittypie070: real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?

Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.


Which Cabal do you belong to?
 
2014-03-07 03:36:26 PM  

Ant: generallyso: nexxus: That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.

Not to mention that even the smartest people can't be an expert on everything. Also, smart people aren't immune to doing stupid things.


This is why we'd have reliable third party testing.  Who would want to research and test everything themselves?
 
2014-03-07 03:38:28 PM  

real_headhoncho: Kittypie070: real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?

Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.


Which Cabal do you belong to?


I don't.
 
2014-03-07 03:39:35 PM  
No wonder my boss is so effeminate.
 
2014-03-07 03:42:42 PM  
Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.  Whether it's money to fund the military or entitlements - whatever your political persuasion - they steal your money (and thus your time) and spend it on shiat you'd rather they not.  If they didn't rob you (and yes, it is theft, unless you freely give it - threatening you with fines, jail, etc. makes any 'contribution' you make coerced) you'd have plenty of time to do research on the things that mattered to you, and a lot of other things.  (And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:15 PM  

Ant: How do you think it would be different?


I think systems would have developed and evolved to support that kind of society (a free one).  Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that.

We can go into detail if you want, but I have to run to the grocery.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:20 PM  

nexxus: Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.
[snip]

(And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.


So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:27 PM  

nexxus: My biggest problem is that the government isn't reliable, is corrupt and easily corruptible, and that it also has soverign immunity. Bad combination.


That it is. (Though I'm OK with some kinds of sovereign immunity.)

But I think government is less susceptible to those problems than private industry is, with the added bonus that I at least retain some manner of choice in my elected officials.

// and while I would absolutely love more competition in my markets, it's not a panacea
// some markets - utilities and healthcare, to name two - SHOULD be public monopolies
 
2014-03-07 03:50:34 PM  
HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report