So what do you do about the FDA and the CDC? One approach is to scream "Get rid of the FDA and the CDC!" That what I call NL, because I don't think it attracts any support. It may even be wrong--it could be that in our modern society if you abolished the FDA and the CDC we would be worse off. The alternative I suggest is to create a COO position that has the authority, when faced with a pandemic, to kick out what I called the "peacetime bureaucrats" and instead foster a sense of urgency and rigor (do experiments, think about cost-benefit analysis, etc.) And create a CA position that can point out what the FDA and CDC are doing wrong if the COO can't see it.
I understand the point that, if we have these institutions, they could at LEAST work better, and have someone competent at the head who thinks and not what we have, which is a sclerotic hydra that can't make decisions or track its own organization and is accountable to no one. (I'm over-simplifying and painting with a broad brush here of course, as there are many dedicated public servants and workers who do great and important work on not very much money and know their stuff very well, etc. etc.).
But I can't see how it can be a serious libertarian argument - it's basically conceding the whole point.
As an aside, all debates about "but roads! but trash! but post office!" is so misleading, as the main expenses and excesses of the current government aren't really in those areas - and, in fact, it is a frequent phenomenon that excellent, good programs lose their funding in favor of expensive boondoggles, and then are cancelled for being "ineffective". Just like with the Giuliani and crime example you gave in another post, you can improve a LOT, by streamlining regulation and trimming a lot of excess, and Not Doing Obviously Bad and Dumb Things, without having to Abolish the Government and Privatize Everything.
So what do you do about the FDA and the CDC? One approach is to scream "Get rid of the FDA and the CDC!" That what I call NL, because I don't think it attracts any support. It may even be wrong--it could be that in our modern society if you abolished the FDA and the CDC we would be worse off. The alternative I suggest is to create a COO position that has the authority, when faced with a pandemic, to kick out what I called the "peacetime bureaucrats" and instead foster a sense of urgency and rigor (do experiments, think about cost-benefit analysis, etc.) And create a CA position that can point out what the FDA and CDC are doing wrong if the COO can't see it.
I understand the point that, if we have these institutions, they could at LEAST work better, and have someone competent at the head who thinks and not what we have, which is a sclerotic hydra that can't make decisions or track its own organization and is accountable to no one. (I'm over-simplifying and painting with a broad brush here of course, as there are many dedicated public servants and workers who do great and important work on not very much money and know their stuff very well, etc. etc.).
But I can't see how it can be a serious libertarian argument - it's basically conceding the whole point.
As an aside, all debates about "but roads! but trash! but post office!" is so misleading, as the main expenses and excesses of the current government aren't really in those areas - and, in fact, it is a frequent phenomenon that excellent, good programs lose their funding in favor of expensive boondoggles, and then are cancelled for being "ineffective". Just like with the Giuliani and crime example you gave in another post, you can improve a LOT, by streamlining regulation and trimming a lot of excess, and Not Doing Obviously Bad and Dumb Things, without having to Abolish the Government and Privatize Everything.