tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (06/10/85)
Frankly, the followup on this should long ago have moved to net.politics.theory . Please post any further followup exclusively there. > From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > A company which (for instance) is > testing the purity of drugs will not be paid for by the manufacturers, > because it represents a cut in profits. It will not be paid for by the > ultimate consumers, because they cannot afford it individually; (-: I am glad we know a priori that organizations like Underwriters Laboratories and Consumers Union (for example) [spelling OK?] can not exist. Let's see. The UL seal of approval represents a cut in profits, right, because it makes no difference to consumers. And Consumers Union has no members because they cannot individually afford it (probably because of taxes). I'd better go make sure there aren't any seals on my toothpaste, before the tube leaks. Insurance companies surely won't pay for such testing because only the government has a so-called "enlightening interest" in reducing the damages suffered by the insured. Scientists won't do the testing on their own or academically because they don't want to know. Perhaps *The National Enquirer* will join up with Dan Rather to save theory from such responsible, realistic, historical, untheoretical considerations. "60 Minutes finds pregnant monster egg in untested placebo." No, we know the placebo was rehearsed. Darn. :-) > moreover, > they are not in a position to check that (for instance) the testing company > is not being brided [bribed? -- tdh] by the manufacturer. Governmental regulation has been manipulated before by private interests. That is one of badly designed government's facilitative functions. David Hudson