> a government that is limited to and efficacious in protecting them (individual rights).

Oddly, you just provided the downfall of such a government. From the obvious 'think of the children' type of abuse of power you would also have those that see protecting some rights as infringing on others.

The FDA is an example of the latter. The FDA is a consumer rights organization, yet there are no shortage of people that see any protections as infringing on their rights.

Thank you for your comment.

Are you saying that a government focused on protecting individual rights cannot exist, because people sometimes disagree?

If so, that's too big a leap for me -- I don't see how one necessarily follows from the other.

> because people sometimes disagree?

Because the majority may disagree. The majority will choose to infringe upon the rights of whatever minority there is if they disagree with it for whatever reason. Sometimes it's just the loud that push it and the majority don't care and stay quiet, but the result is the same.

Protecting rights is an aim every good government must have but it can not be the only aim. It must also recognize when to step in to put a stop to the majority infringing on the rights of others. A government exists for the good of the society as a whole as well as the good of the individual.

In my original comment, part of what I said was that I wanted a society that understood and cherished individual rights. If we had such a society (we don't) the majority would not choose to infringe upon the rights of minorities.

As regards the second paragraph, above, if a government is committed to protecting individual rights, implicit in that is not allowing majorities to infringe the rights of others.

A government that genuinely protects the rights of individuals also provides for the good of society as a whole, but this happens by side effect, if you will, rather than as the result of an explicit aim of the government. In other words, when you protect individual rights, you do what is best for all concerned.

Finally, I want to emphasize that I do not expect to see such a society anytime soon. Said differently, I think that what I advocate is possible, but unlikely.

> The FDA is a consumer rights organization

No, not really. It does not even remotely represent patients needs, and patient organizations do not take part in any of the FDA decisions, as far as I know.

Yes it is. Just because it doesn't rush the newest cancer treatment to market or that it doesn't work the way you think it should doesn't change that.

I saw an old advertizement the other day declaring the health benefits of donuts. The other day we had a link here with Mickey Mouse hawking amphetamines as, again, a healthy way to perk up.

You can't sell food or drugs in the US that make false health claims because of the oversight of the FDA. You can't bring a drug to market without extensive testing for the same reason. Your food has to be clearly labeled with it's contents and a real breakdown of its nutritional facts because of FDA regulations.

The FDA is a consumer rights agency.

Then if it were the case why isn't the FDA paying way more attention the quality of clinical trials before approving new drugs? Why do they only require a single successful clinical trial to register anything? Why don't they audit the clinical trial sites to confirm that the results reported by the drug companies are reliable and not falsified?

I suppose that the amount of people that are willing to work in quantifiable/effective ways that give the individual, as much as any society, the incentive to push towards a society that understands and cherishes individual rights, and a government that is limited to and efficacious in protecting them will be less than the amount who want it, so in the logical conclusion of things:

we will get neither until that imbalanced can be addressed.