From some writing I did today:
Given that the climate naturally changes and human beings have generally thrived the warmer it has been, it is quite possible that a higher global temperature with higher CO2 levels would be a great boon. It makes no sense to believe that the unchanged climate is the ideal. - The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
Hmm. Idk. I know their have been various phases of interesting climates throughout the ages. However, the world we are in now has evolved to deal with the climate we’ve had now for a while, no? I get what Alex is saying. Who knows if the unchanged climate is the ideal. Maybe more CO2 is better. However, the unchanged client is the one we know how to deal with. It’s the one we have been dealing with it. A changed climate can bring new problems and issues that we don’t know how to deal wtih.
It reflects the idea that unless the law holds people to the bargains they make, the unscrupulous and irresponsible will exploit the conscientious and trustful. And it serves to put the powerful and the humble on the same plane. Great lords and ladies may not need a court’s help to keep a carpen- ter from defaulting; they control many future building commissions and a whole apparatus of local power as well. The yeoman householder may have nothing but the law on his side. It is surely one of the greatest ironies of modern law that latter-day reformers have come to see contracts as nothing more than a stacked game in which producers hold all the cards, a mere pretext for the oppression by the weak of the strong. History teaches otherwise.- [[Liability The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences]]
Hmm. That makes sense. I think the only issue here is just how expensive and difficult it is for a regular person to go through and deal with the legal system. Maybe it was better in the past? I think modern contracts represent a stacked game. Companies change terms all the time. They have teams of lawyers to help them get away with this stuff. They have courts that help them get away with this stuff. A lay person is just fighting an insane uphill battle. Maybe it was better before?
Some years ago, the FDA held a news conference and proudly announced, “This new heart drug we’re approving will save fourteen thousand American lives a year!” No one stood up at the press conference to ask, “Excuse me, doesn’t this mean you killed fourteen thousand people last year — by delaying its approval?” - [[Give Me a Break]]
Hmm. I kinda changed my mind on this point. I agree with the general point I think, which is that their shouldn’t be government regulation and stuff. However, whats wrong with testing in and of itself? I’ve had a similar kind of thought with the roads. Should the government be in charge of and own the roads? I don’t think so. However, so long as they own the roads it makes sense for them to have requirements and stuff about speed limits and driving licenses. They need to make sure their roads are safe. In maybe a similar way, what’s wrong with testing?
I think Stossel’s argument here is based on the idea that the businesses did sufficient testing or that, even if they didn’t, that people would know that and should still be able to try the drug anyway. However, what if the business itself delayed the drug because of testing? Does that mean the business itself should be seen as terrible for letting people die while they made sure the drug is safe? I don’t think so. (This is specific to this issue/argument. I do think other FDA stuff is bad and its testing process is probably very bad too.)
