Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Mona
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Must resist, must ... not ... succumb ... to the compulsion to discuss "libertarianisn" ... ooooh, oh, gaaagh, it's got me....
But, if I'm some lunatic who, after my doctor has strongly stressed to me that laetrile is snake oil and will not cure my cancer, yet I am adamant that it is my choice over chemo, I should not need the doctor or the state's permission to obtain the junk. At a minimum, I don't think I should have to prove any more than that I've fully discussed it with a physician.
How then do you feel about laws against fraud? Where does "salesmanship" cross the line, and do you want courts to be in the business of determining this on an everyday basis?
And you do realise that this is the country where 70% of the people thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and a bare quarter if that knew how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq, a figure not much helped by the retrospect of a year's "worth" (I'm using the term loosely) of intensive coverage and analysis by the media.
Your thoughts? Anyone else?
Cheers from your somewhat "libertarian" friend,
-
@ bucky1
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne]: How then do you feel about laws against fraud?
Fraud is a form of coercion and must be prevented....
What of my question about the thin line between "salesmanship" and "fraud". How is fraud "coercion"? Isn't it rather "mistake" or "failure to agree to the terms" (if you seriously want to talk 'Contracts 101')? Isn't "coercion" the majick talismanic word for libertarians?
... If the government would give me information on drugs and their efficacy(sp?) and then let me decide what I would ingest; I would be a free man taking responsibility for my own actions.
What of my questions as to how this applies in a country where a vast majority thought that Saddam was in on 9/11? Keep in mind the Rx medicine ads you're now seeing too....
If a company here in town claimed their snake oil cured Cancer but in fact there was no proof of this claim, they would be guilty of false advertising and could be charged....
That's not "coercion", FWIW. But thanks. What about the fine line? Care to answer my question as to whether we should let courts handle each individual case to see if "informed consent" (or "informed decisionmaking") took place, or let the gummitn handle the egregious cases en masse, once and for all?
They could claim that they "think" it does and leave it up to me.
You seem to be a somewhat easy mark for some types of 'snake oil'... ;-)
My brother died young of brain cancer incurred in the Navy (who denied responsibility) because he handled 'depleted uranium' shells on a carrier. We might have tried damn near anything back then, but it was our decision to make.
Sorry to hear that. How would you rather have had the situation handled?
Cheers,
-
@ Mona
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think laetrile sellers should be required to advertise that the AMA, FDA & etc., see no validity to their claims. But after that, it is up to the individual.
Then you agree with the problem, but not on the mechanisms of a 'solution'. How about putting up "speed limit" recommendations (you know, like those little yellow signs that everyone ignores)? (yes, I know that speed limit violations potentially hurt others, but seeing as we're talking means of enforcement of what the gummint thinks is 'good behaviour'....)
Do you think that "truth-in-advertising" really works? Are there efficiency problems (as I've hinted)?
Who would have the means and the duty to go tracking down false claims? Who would have the duty to enforce the provisions? (FWIW, I'd note that your suggestion is the one adopted for cigarettes and alcohol ... think it works?)
Cheers,