You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Ways to improve LessWrong - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: adamzerner 14 September 2014 02:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (102)

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 September 2014 09:12:50PM 0 points [-]

Of course, I favor putting "medical freedom" I & R on the ballot,

Our present system is very much broken on the other hand evidence based medicine needs expensive trials. Currently the reason drug companies run expensive trials is because otherwise the FDA wouldn't approve their products.

and think that putting legalized "Transhumanism" on the ballot simply invites needless controversy.

What do you mean with legalized transhumanism? I don't remember anyone outlawing transhumanism.

Comment author: RPMcMurphy 17 September 2014 03:35:53PM *  0 points [-]

.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2014 03:56:58PM 2 points [-]

If we are not a nation of slaves, there can be no mandatory approval required...

OK, so the US (and the rest of the developed world) is a nation of slaves. What next? X-D

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 September 2014 05:30:30PM 0 points [-]

The very idea that we cannot obtain TRUE advertising about medical goods and services (where the truth is no defense! ...Throwing out the jury supremacy hard-won from over 300 years of jurisprudence and civil disobedience!) is antithetical to the social existence of anything other than slaves.

Mixing factual questions with what you want to be true is a bad idea. Whether or not getting rid of the FDA will result in no clinical trials is a factual question. On LW the common word to describe that kind of reasoning is 'mind-killed'.

How can a law that has no valid corpus delicti ("body of crime") be enforced in court, when the common law (which all precedent to this date states that the 6th Amendment is referring to, when it refers to "due process") demands that all criminal prosecutions contain a valid "corpus," and where the 4th amendment also maintains the same?

The common moral framework on LW is that people are utilitarians or consequentialists. Most of us don't believe in God given "natural law" but think that laws are entirely man-made. We can discuss which laws are good and which aren't, just because some Christians considered certain laws naturally produced by God doesn't imply that they are binding in the 21th century.

The thing is that I would like to eat more tuna. Mercury content in tuna is unfortunately high enough that the European food safety authority advises against daily tuna consumption. Under the Obama administration the EPA calculate the cost of the decreased IQ of children in the US and found that it's cost effective to put barriers on the ability of the free market to produce mercury emission. If you sit down and calculate childrens IQ is just worth more.

I like that the EPA stops the free market from producing mercury pollution. Fortunately some day on the future that means I can regularly eat tuna.

Yes, the reason drug companies run expensive trials is because they are coerced into doing so, and because they are complicit in the final result of anyone having not done so being banned from the marketplace by the realistic threat of violence

No, Big Pharma likes to have the standard at the level where they are. They don't always lobby for the standards for clinical trials to be less but sometimes even lobby against lowering of standards.

The basic idea of dealing with issues of the tragedy of the commons is to come to a common agreement and then enforce that agreement by punishing people who violate it.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 September 2014 05:41:53PM *  1 point [-]

The basic idea of dealing with issues of the tragedy of the commons is to come to a common agreement and then enforce that agreement by punishing people who violate it.

That's one way. Another usual and frequently successful way is to introduce property rights.

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 September 2014 06:26:26PM -2 points [-]

It's not another way it's an example of the same way. Property rights are a common agreement. Certain individuals own certain things. If an individual violates that agreement about who owns what, they get punished.

For environmental pollution the system is cap-and-trade.

As far as big pharma goes patents are also a crucial part of the system.

Comment author: RPMcMurphy 04 October 2014 08:26:24AM *  0 points [-]

.

Comment author: ChristianKl 07 October 2014 04:06:59PM 0 points [-]

We need enough discussion to come up with "a good plan now" rather than "a great plan next week."

There you are just naive. What you are doing now is unlikely to produce an actionable plan now or even next week. You might argue it's still worth fighting for your course and that it might win long-term but you are talking outside of the overton window and therefore are unlikely to move much.

Drug legalisation advocates were smart in focusing first on medical marijuana instead of wanting full legalisation in one go. If they hadn't made that strategic decision we probably wouldn't have gotten as far as we are at the moment.

All this screeching and pointing provides a valuable service to the servile: it allows them to worry about numbers and STEM problems without having to think about messy human networks, moral judgments, and other things that people on the autistic spectrum have major problems with.

On LW we talk quite a lot about moral judgments. and quite a lot simply prefer to reroute the trolley cart even when it's violates the individual rights of the person that get's run over. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy even if you might not like it.

I find that Mark Newman and Kevin Kelly's statements on those subjects have a lot to offer, even though they tend to occasionally break down, or "stray from bayesian logic."

That's a strawman, quite a lot of people do make arguments on LW that might "stray from bayesian logic." That's not my criticism my criticism is that you confuse what you want to be true with finding out what's true.

Unless there are other philosophy salesmen here, who have take a good, long, hard look at the philosophy of the masses, from random street samplings, for over 13 years ...which I doubt.

Going on a mission doesn't increase the ability of a Mormon to really understand. It rather makes him more committed than warranted because he defends his beliefs day in day out. Mormonism does happen to be a religion that grows but it doesn't grow based on rational argument.

Comment author: ChristianKl 17 September 2014 06:30:13PM *  -2 points [-]

Laws against fraud already made drugs as safe as they could be

Really? There the common sentiment that before evidence-based medicine going to the doctor was more harmful to your health then simply avoiding the doctor. Pre-1906 Western medicine was very bad.

We could change the present system so that you are allowed to sell drugs that aren't FDA approved but if anybody who takes the drug has any problem with it they can sue you for malpratice worth millions of collars. I don't think that would be an improvement over the existing system.

For a company it's very valuable to be able to simply comply with an existing standard instead of regulations and then be able to say in front of a court: "Look, we did what the official regulations say." Instead of being dependent on guesses what a jury will think. A jury that probably doesn't understand the evidence base very well and that's not able to run their own studies the way the FDA can.

Legal uncertainty is bad for business.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit