Last week’s edition of this column discussed the areas of water and air pollution, where we probably need the government’s involvement for the health and safety of the general public. But there is another area where most people believe we need government involvement which actually could be much better addressed by the private sector. This is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Taken from its website, its formal mandate is to be responsible for “protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices, cosmetics, animal foods & feed and veterinary products.” But in so many ways the FDA actually works against the public’s health and safety.
It is generally agreed that it costs hundreds of millions of dollars for a company to receive an FDA certification for any new products, whether they be pharmaceutical, medical devices or otherwise. That means that only products that will potentially generate large amounts of income will be pursued. This in turn means that products that would be of large benefit to small numbers of people or small benefit to large numbers of people will likely be lost because they simply don’t pencil out. In addition, the FDA’s involvement adds many years onto the certification process, which means that some people could die or needlessly suffer because of the delay. Why does it cost so much and take so long? Because the FDA is a vast bureaucracy in which there are multiple incentives for a bureaucrat not to make a decision. For example, if an FDA official certifies ten products, and nine of them are successful in saving lives and alleviating pain, etc., but one of them causes upset stomachs or headaches, figuratively that person’s head will roll. Instead, a private company, such as Underwriter’s Laboratories, could step in and both speed up the process, alleviate suffering and cost much less. Why? Because there would be competition among various private companies to do a timely and effective job. And there still would be accountability, because if the company certified a product that did not perform as advertised, both that manufacturer and certifying company could be successfully sued. Unlike with air and water pollution, it would be clear who the manufacturer and certifier were, so they could be held responsible for their products and representations. So once again, in this area, as well as almost all others, Liberty results in better outcomes than Big Government.
Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)
2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President,
along with Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President
Please forward this on to your circle of friends for their consideration. And, by the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejimgrayoai, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com. Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.
from WordPress http://ift.tt/2gInme5
via IFTTT
For the past 92 editions this column has advocated the benefits of Liberty as opposed to Big Government. But this does not mean that greater Liberty and a lessening of government always produce the best results. The “reset button” should always favor Liberty, but sometimes there must also be a balance. This point was reinforced again when a great friend of mine recently sent me the book Leaded: The Poisoning of Idaho’s Silver Valley by Michael C. Mix (Oregon State University Press, 2016). In this book, Dr. Mix traces the history of mining in Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Valley from its beginning in the 1880s, when the area was truly pristine and even sublime, until the last large mining operations closed in December of 1981, after which the area was soon designated as one of the most polluted of the Superfund sites.
Under our nation’s laws governing presidential elections, each state is empowered to choose how their citizens’ votes will count in the Electoral College. Most states have chosen a “winner takes all” system. The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska. In those states, the winner of the popular vote receives two Electoral College votes, and the winners of the two individual congressional districts in Maine and three in Nebraska receive one vote each. But there are other systems that would bring more Liberty in voting, so that people could both vote their consciences and also keep from “wasting their vote” by voting their consciences. The most promising systems are “Instant Runoff Voting” and “Approval Voting.”
Here are some observations and final thoughts about the 2016 presidential election:
As I hope you have noticed, for the past 89 weeks this series has focused upon how Liberty in so many circumstances more positively and effectively addresses and resolves issues and problems in our world than Big Government. And this has been shown to be true in many areas, including justice, the tax code, education, healthcare, security, immigration, international relations and many more. In addition, I anticipate that you have noticed my assertions that Libertarian Gary Johnson is the only presidential candidate who would consistently employ Liberty in Washington, just as he did as the two-term governor of New Mexico. In fact, this directly led to his campaign slogan “Good Government is Easy: Watch!” Well, the presidential election is now upon us, but Governor Johnson will not win it outright. (He could still win if the election is sent to the House of Representatives under the 12th Amendment.) Why won’t he win it outright? Because even though he is on the ballots in all 50 states, he was not included in the presidential debates, which is the Super Bowl of presidential politics. And he was not included because the debates are completely controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates which, in turn, is completely controlled by high-ranking Democrats and Republicans.
+a.jpg)
