Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dale Kemp
The devil is always in the details. On this question, the devil is in the meaning of "minimal" government regulation.
My view would be that minimal regulation would still have the FDA. It might not prevent unapproved drugs from being sold, but would approve drugs as safe, after rigorous testing. So consumers could choose whether to take anapproved drugs, or not, based on the greater risk, since they hadn't been proven safe.
Some would believe that Microsoft should be broken up, and multiple operating systems forced upon the populace, to prevent monopoly by Microsoft. I believe that in the case of software, anybody, and any time, could offer a better product, and Micorsoft would go broke so fast, you'd envy Standard Oil Corp. during the depression of the thirty's. So it isn't in the public interest to break up Microsoft, because the marketplace can control its operations.
But I would suggest that some monopolies might need breaking up, to protect the public. The way to tell which ones is to watch their pricing behaviour. If they use their market share as a weapon on competitors and then jack up prices to heavy profit levels, then they might need breaking up. Maybe Microsoft has done that?
Anyway, less government is better government, until we need our government to do something for us.
|
The FDA does not need to be a governmental institution. Take the ADA for example. I do not use non-ADA approved toothpastes. Why can't there be a similar private institution regarding drugs, acting in the same way: it's perfectly legal to sell non-ADA toothpastes, but far fewer people will use them.
In the case of Microsoft, see my above point. I believe with the proper handling of creative works, most of the issues with the Microsoft situation would go away and false regulations would no longer be holding them up.
I'm not entirely sure regarding anti-trust laws personally. I can see where I might support their limited existence, but I first would like to see things set up where the consumer has more power and the stockholders have more responsibility.
I don't think the caveat of "until we need our government to do something for us" is entirely accurate either. I'd like to see a situation where the government doesn't NEED to do something for us because we have the power to do it ourselves.