From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:46:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FDA_dis
In-Reply-To: <554m18$kq8@life.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <32768A8C.794B@ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> I'll have to reread John's piece tomorrow (I'm on vacation right now), but
> it doesn't surprise me. He and I have been arguing about this topic via
> email for the last week or so. He takes the traditional liberal view of
> government regulation of drugs is necessary; I take the more libertarian one.
> 
> The Cato Institute, BTW, will be putting together a roundtable on this soon.
> 
> -Declan

Characterising this as the "traditional liberal view" is somewhat
misleading,
its not as if Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich would disagree much. The
argument is
more over which special interest group is to be advantaged by changes in 
regulation. If I was a citizen of a country where the government was
elected
by a billion dollars of corporate contributions I might be a
libertarian.

Its important to remember that its the World Wide Web and not simply
limited
to the US. As long as US companies set up subsidiaries in Europe they
will be constrained by European law. In the net.age law is becomming a
major
export for many countries. 

Regulation is not necessarily anti-commerce. UK beef farmers would be
better
off today if there had been more regulation, a weak "free-market"
attitude 
to public health has destroyed the entire industry. It is often in a
companies
commercial interest to voluntarily agree to be regulated. Microsoft
recently 
signed an agreement to be bound by the European computer privacy
regulations 
because by doing so they gained a business advantage - people would
trust 
them with their data.

Much of the advertising regulation being discussed is private, agreement
on
standard formats for image placements for example. There is existing
government
regulation of advertising in many countries however. In particular much 
stricter control over advertising of drugs, making misleading statements
in
advertising and so on.In the UK  there is regulation of advertising
through
the advertising standards council which is a voluntary body in the sense 
that it has no statutory enforcement powers but has practical authority 
because the publishers will not publishe ads that fall foul of its
decisions.

A more serious problem however is likely to be dramatically different
cultural norms. In the US people expect to be lied to in adverts. In
countries
where there is regulation of advertising there is a general expectation
for comparisons to be fair and for ads to be truthful. I'm just waiting
for a major corporation to create an Intel scale PR disaster by applying
sleasly US style marketing techniques in markets where the downside is
very large. One recent example is Hoover which had a $30 odd million 
debacle over a "free flights" giveaway that was based on sleasly US
style
marketing techniques. The company ended up having to live up to the
spirit of its offer rather than the letter as it intended simply to
preserve the value of the brand.


If you don't believe in anti trust laws there is no basis on which you
can object to the sort of regulation by cabal that the advertising
standards council represents. Of course such cabals cannot exist in the
libertarian belief system since their existence is denied a-priori 
by invoking the spirit of Milton Freedman. Milton Freedmen is of course
a rightwing ecconomist whose theories are widely admired by free
market ecconomists who admire Mitlon Freedman.


		Phill