That's happened plenty of times in recent years under our current system. Think of how many different class-action suits have been filed lately. The FDA and their approval processes are largely bureaucratic and frequently corrupt. The entire pharmaceutical industry has evolved into one giant racket with their help.
my understanding is that the sec is basically in place to prevent fraud and make sure that traders, companies, and investors don't lie to each other. and that is a primary role of government, to make sure people don't defraud (steal from) each other. libertarians are fine with that. then again, i actually am not sure if that is exactly what the SEC does.
speeding drugs to market would be great, instead of them getting delayed by the FDA. of course drugs can be dangerous, thats why we all hire incredibly expensive assistants (doctors) to advise us on what is safe to take. they can release all the crazy drugs they want and try to rake in profits. i will be ok becuse i won't be taking anything i am not confident in. again, it is a question of personal responsibility. if you are not foolish, and have a doc you can trust, you dont need the government to protect you with billions and billions of your money.
If people didn't need prescriptions, what would that mean for the doctoral profession? The government employs huge amounts of people, but beyond that, the legislation they impliment creates enormous amounts of jobs. I've just been wondering the pros & cons of this as of late. Lawyers, accountants, doctors - all heavily employed due to laws.
jobs are bad if they are draining tax dollars from your pocket to pay their salaries. every one of these people is working because they are taking money out of your pocket, whether you use their service or not. if the service these people are providing is actually necessary, let me buy it directly from private peeps. efficiency is our goal. i still need a doctor. i have no idea what to do when i sick. i cant tell a virus from a bacterial infection or an allergy. i need a doc to tell me what medicine i need. people re not gonna fire their doctors, and if they choose to, that is ok with me, i wish them luck, but i wouldnt advise it. i dont need the government to force me to visit the doctor before i medicate myself. i know i am not a doctor and i need advice.
No, taxes aren't directly paying them. I'm referring to private people who's jobs have been created due to laws passed. For instance, since congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, corporations have had to spend millions on compliance and it has created a $h*tload of accounting jobs. So the consumer of the corporation ultimately pays for it, but not everyone. The economy would be more efficient without it, but would it have grown as large and as fast? Perhaps it has actually increased the productivity of our economy... I dunno.
And I see the theoretical reasoing behind making drugs legal, but am unsure of the condequences of such an action. Could we really count on our society to run well with free access to any & all drugs?
it doesnt increase productivity to force more beaurocracy on people. choice increases efficiency and productivity. don't you think these companies would rather just have that money and hire more actual workers to do more development or expand their business? if you had a business, and you wanted to hire another engineer, but have to hire some jerkass red-tape managing accountant instead, don't you think that decreases productivity and limits your growth? even if you just want more profit, isnt that good for the economy for you to be rich? you will buy more things, and that will provide more jobs. jobs of people actually doing something useful. the regulatory accountant dude is a drag.
yes. people like to get wasted sometimes, but thats their right. you can get drugs already anyways. we dont need to waste more billions trying to stop you. most people dont do drugs because they choose not to. not many peeps are thinking "if only crack were legal i would get some, but durn it, it is a hassle."
