https://www.the-scientist.com/foundations/the-elixir-tragedy-1937-39231

https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/History/FOrgsHistory/EvolvingPowers/ucm054819.htm

https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/History/FOrgsHistory/EvolvingPowers/ucm054826.htm

https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/History/FOrgsHistory/EvolvingPowers/ucm055118.htm

@RyeNorth, feel free to let me know your thoughts on this particular instance of regulation as well if you are interested. Or anyone else. Working in health care, regulations in my industry are, the ones I am most familiar with so I'll tend toward those examples for my questions. And trust me, I've got some humdingers for stupid regs. 🙄

Take them to court and sue them. For breach of contract. They said they were selling me this, they instead sold me this.

As for safety, that's also a criminal case.

They get to go to prison.

And in the process people die? Again, that's what happened in the 1930 and before.

Sure.

Okay. You're a purist. That's cool. We're going to agree to disagree.

See Codes, that was easy. 😃

lol...

But you didn't sign a contract, you just showed or in older times didn't show the ingredients

No regulations means, it's not a crime

contract is an agreement, between 2 or more parties.

And the agreement was, I will buy this

If Paradox is willing to permit the deaths of innocents in his adherence to a pure free market, I suspect he won't have issue with some fiscal imbalances. No point in pursuing further. And no, I'm not saying Codes isn't moral, I'm simply saying that his worldview permits immorality which is dealt with after the fact. Mine wishes to address socially harmful immorality proactively. But his is likely more internally consistent because mine will always waffle over shades of grey. I respect his worldview even as I will do everything I can to counter it because my morality differs.

He does until it's his mother, or son

"this" has to be "this" and not "that".

that's the breach.

I will fight to protect him even as he eschews my protecting him. We'll be in conflict, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect him and even envy the simplicity of his worldview.

That was only a thing because of regulation, if they never regulated it. They could continue on with no consequences

no, that's an agreement.

I'm assuming he's fine with his son dying due to bad products and that he'll feel redeemed by the legal proceedings afterward to make him whole in his loss.

That dont do anything because it's not illegal to lie to your consumers

That's the logical conclusion of his argument for a pure free market. He's willing to die for it.

Until ofc regulations

And kill for it.

If they kill my son, i want them dead 😃

Yeah, you would have to do it yourself

So Paradox, my understanding is that you're okay with laws against harm. So if someone through dishonestly or duplicity causes your son's death or loss of a kidney, you want to see them held accountable by the law.

Because no regulation means it was completely legal

that would be a breach of contract, yes.

You just don't want to regulate against specific means of that harm?

I dont sign any contract when I am at the store?

you don't have to sign one.

Where is this contract they are supposedly breaching?

helps in court though 😃

sometimes...

Is it implied by regulations?