My sources can beat up your sources.

[DCLugi]

One of the most important questions is "How do you know?" With so much information overload are we to all become relentless journalists if we are to know anything?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.c1f4975c0ad4

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/

[dsayers]

With so much information overload are we to all become relentless journalists if we are to know anything?

Are we all to become tailors if we wish to wear anything? It's just another form of division of labor. There are people out there so passionate about such things that they're doing the research. They will establish a brand, same as any other trade, and people will be able to compete and/or decide which sources are reputable. Meanwhile, more things are becoming crowd-funded and de-centralized. I trust in network strength. Meaning that there are more people looking for the truth about topic X then there are people invested in distorting the truth about topic X.

 

Once again, this is just another example of the way the State destroys everything. Without unlimited free money, nobody would be able to "buy science" and make it look like whatever they want is true. This is why it would've been great if people would've been spreading ideas such as not abusing your children, the State is immoral, etc instead of fighting about which tyrant will enslave our children.

 

Most of what we're fed isn't important anyways. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. From this, we can derive that child abuse is deplorable and the State is intolerable. Everything else is preference. Does chemical X kill you or help you? Without companies being able to buy State protection, the market will bear out the truth and that will not be a concern of the future. Today, people cannot even grow their own food without the mafia taking notice because it takes away their ability to steal you and make you too lethargic to fight or rival them.

[rosencrantz]

 Does chemical X kill you or help you? Without companies being able to buy State protection, the market will bear out the truth and that will not be a concern of the future.

 

How will that work out?

[dsayers]

How will that work out?

Ever see somebody swear by organic because Monsanto is poisoning the food (their sentiments)? That's in the presence of the State. Or maybe I don't understand your question.

[rosencrantz]

How will the market determine the toxicity of chemicals, some of which are lethal after a long time?

[DCLugi]

How will the market determine the toxicity of chemicals, some of which are lethal after a long time?

I would imagine there would be an inspection industry for this kind of thing.

[thebeardslastcall]

How will the market determine the toxicity of chemicals, some of which are lethal after a long time?

 

This question is suggestive of a negative. Implies a solution in the absence of knowledge or awareness or the ability to make a risk assessment.

 

I hear statists ask questions like that all the time "There cannot be a 'market' solution to this 'problem', which we suggest is a problem without any evidence, therefore we need violence to magically solve this 'problem'. Therefore government is the only solution" Pure evil insanity.

 

People trained to ask the wrong questions is a large part of the insanity and propaganda problem plaguing us.

[rosencrantz]

I would imagine there would be an inspection industry for this kind of thing.

 

 

Yeah. But inspection industries are prone to favouring the clients who give them something to inspect and pay for it.

 

"There cannot be a 'market' solution to this 'problem'

 

There are market solutions but they don't fit into the Jetson's world lalala land a lot of libertarians seem to have.

[dsayers]

How will the market determine the toxicity of chemicals, some of which are lethal after a long time?

Why do you ask? Are you reading anything that's written? Do you think that people WANT to eat toxic stuff? Do you think the market doesn't already research and reveal that which is harmful? Did I not JUST make that very point? Do you think the State is protecting us from such things? Why do you suppose food should have chemicals in it?

 

I think you're taking the piss here. I'd be delighted to learn that I'm wrong.

[rosencrantz]

Do you think that people WANT to eat toxic stuff?

 

Nice moving of the goalpost.

 

Do you think the market doesn't already research and reveal that which is harmful?

 

Do you have examples?

 

Why do you suppose food should have chemicals in it?

 

To feed a mass population you need preservative chemicals or a really expensive infrastructure.

[dsayers]

Nice moving of the goalpost.

You mean being asked asked questions and not answering them? I noticed that too. No thank you.

[rosencrantz]

Why do you ask?

 

I am interested.

 

Are you reading anything that's written?

 

I do. 

 

 Do you think that people WANT to eat toxic stuff?

 

Yes. People still smoke, drink alcohol, and eat sweets.

 

You mean being asked asked questions and not answering them?

 

I still have no idea how a market solution would look like.

[DaVinci]

Rosencrantz, is what you are asking "How do you find out what is toxic without killing people"? If so that's a good question. Obviously we know what already kills people because they have died, and I don't think any person who considers themselves rational and compassionate would suggest forcing anyone to be a guinea pig. So how you get to the data without getting the data does seem to be a conundrum.  

[DCLugi]

 

Yeah. But inspection industries are prone to favouring the clients who give them something to inspect and pay for it.

 

I could see the rise of a third party inspection industry that's funded by the subscribers who want the products they are consuming inspected. It would be the FDA with actual incentive to please their customers instead of stealing the money then pretending to care. As far as the free market being a magic 8 ball that knows the future of toxic disasters, yeah probably not gonna happen.

[rosencrantz]

Rosencrantz, is what you are asking "How do you find out what is toxic without killing people"?

 

My question is twofold:

 

a) How can you find out if something is toxic?

b) How can it be made sure that companies don't actually distribute toxic chemicals?

 

Say in an anarchist utopia you and a bunch of other companies make tomacco. You know it is highly addictive and has severe side effects. How would a free market response be to the tomacco problem?

[dsayers]

The truth wants to be free. We have some of the vilest people in the world being protected by the most powerful system in the world, yet their misdeeds come to light. I'm not sure why you'd ask what a free market solution would look like as we have those now, even in the midst of State-powered protections and censorship. This is how I know "I'm interested" is not the truth.

[thebeardslastcall]

Still seems like you're asking a ridiculous question. Are you suggesting someone being punished for unknowingly and innocently harming people while trying to provide for them, when there is no evidence to suggest they are harming people and people are voluntarily choosing to take that risk, knowing there may be harm in hopes of gaining a benefit? People aren't being forced to eat any specific food in a free society. They can grow their own food if they really want to and have access to arable land or can go through the effort to satisfy their own level of risk and desire to get the quality of products they desire.

 

I still have no idea what you're suggesting beyond just screwing around with irrelevant or trolling questions. Poisoning the well calling anything a utopia. No such thing as a utopia. To the degree that there is a solution to any problem a free market will provide a better solution than a statist society and those who fail will fail based on their own bad choices. Responsibility will go where it belongs. People who choose wisely and assess the situation well will do better than those who experiment and fall victim to toxic stuff. In a free society it would seem almost trivial to test out the use of new chemicals before taking the risk of consuming them. This society will only exist with lots of thoughtful, smart, and high integrity people, which will be exactly the type of people able of creating and sustaining a functionally useful reputation system for helping to evaluate risks and also the type of people who would be less inclined to intentionally poison themselves. People are poisoning themselves now intentionally. People will do so in a free society as well. You sound like you're just whining that there is no utopia so you're mocking the suggestion of any progress towards a better and more free society.

 

Please make a point or stop posting. This intractable problem, calling stuff 'utopia', and whining about every suggestion is just trolling.

[DaVinci]

Still seems like you're asking a ridiculous question. Are you suggesting someone being punished for unknowingly and innocently harming people while trying to provide for them, when there is no evidence to suggest they are harming people and people are voluntarily choosing to take that risk, knowing there may be harm in hopes of gaining a benefit? People aren't being forced to eat any specific food in a free society. They can grow their own food if they really want to and have access to arable land or can go through the effort to satisfy their own level of risk and desire to get the quality of products they desire.

 

I still have no idea what you're suggesting beyond just screwing around with irrelevant or trolling questions. Poisoning the well calling anything a utopia. No such thing as a utopia. To the degree that there is a solution to any problem a free market will provide a better solution than a statist society and those who fail will fail based on their own bad choices. Responsibility will go where it belongs. People who choose wisely and assess the situation well will do better than those who experiment and fall victim to toxic stuff. In a free society it would seem almost trivial to test out the use of new chemicals before taking the risk of consuming them. This society will only exist with lots of thoughtful, smart, and high integrity people, which will be exactly the type of people able of creating and sustaining a functionally useful reputation system for helping to evaluate risks and also the type of people who would be less inclined to intentionally poison themselves. People are poisoning themselves now intentionally. People will do so in a free society as well. You sound like you're just whining that there is no utopia so you're mocking the suggestion of any progress towards a better and more free society.

 

Please make a point or stop posting. This intractable problem, calling stuff 'utopia', and whining about every suggestion is just trolling.

It seems to me what he is asking is how you get the data "this is poisonous to humans when consumed in X quantities over Y amount of time". Today we see people die from long term cigarette smoking, excessive drinking, or drugs and so have the data to inform people of the toxicity of these things, but that data came from people who had to consume these things and die from them in order for others to know for certain that they are capable of being killed by them. The data has come post death. 

 

People keep mentioning free market solutions, but I'm not sure a growing market for forensics is preferable over a market for preventative measures. But how do you get data for preventative measures before you harm people? 

[thebeardslastcall]

How do you even know when to do something to be preventative? There must be some ability to make a risk assessment, otherwise there's nothing you can do under any circumstances, and I'm not sure when that is ever actually the case. If there is some notion of the possibility of preventative measures, there is a hint of risk and a means to make that decision to be more cautious with your own health. There's also a risk in rejecting positive improvements that have some associated risk potential. You can't know before there is evidence, you can only guess, and that's a personal choice each person will make for themselves. Thus the benefits, risks, and negatives will accrue based on how well each person guessed the best route for themselves. Failures are inevitable. The free market allows successes based on risk, which is essential for life and progress. If you never take risks you're going to die. You can't prevent failures from occurring, they'll happen one way or another. Denying risks that lead to success almost reduces the overall amount of life, which is like a form of harm or death in a way, so preventative measures can also be harmful. An abundance of caution can prevent necessary risks and lead to death. I still don't see the positive moral and functional alternative to a free market to make these choices for each individual.

And to address the smoking thing, there were obvious risk factors there. People inhale and cough and anyone that is new to smoking also finds that stuff smelly. The harmful effects of smoking cigarettes didn't come out of nowhere and people who knew about the process could tell there was a mass concoction of chemicals going into them that could do who knows what. This idea of being blind with no sense of danger, but being able to take preventative actions makes no sense. Before you try something untested you take the time to test it if you want in whatever way is acceptable to you (assuming no violence against others). The data doesn't have to come post death that there is a risk or potential harm. I didn't have to jump off a 20 story building to know it would be dangerous because I'd realized jumping pressured my legs and could harm me from smaller non-lethal heights.

 

The alternative to free market solutions is violent solutions. There's your guaranteed, but preventable, harm. Still mystified by implications that people can't come together voluntarily to fund measures to help avoid dangerous substances. Those that don't care about their health will do worse than those who do. There's some natural selection taking care of that problem. Suicidal people will do worse than non-suicidal people and will have more kids and the sane market will grow to outclass the insane market. That's what the free market is about, letting the sane people prosper and letting the insane people fail to move forward in a moral, fair, and just way. There is no "nobody ever fails or gets harmed" solution. That's an impossible standard.