BTW I don't think anyone in the RP thread said that "Let the buyer beware." should be the only ethical standard in business. I think they said that markets work better with better informed consumers. That's hardly a call to anarchy.
Stardust came pretty close.
All I could think of were the thalidomide kids.
EDIT: Naked thalidomide!
This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.
That's a prety broad brush.
I don't follow.
True, but the sheer number of outspokenly anti-gay preachers and politicians they catch with gay prostitutes or soliciting gay sex sort of makes me feel like there's definitely a recurring theme there. Maybe not 100%, but it's getting to be a pretty safe rule of thumb.Hypocrisy.
??? Are you saying my post pointing out hypocrasy is itself hypocrasy? In what way?
I don't follow.This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.
That's a prety broad brush.
CIrno gave an example of one idiot to justify his assertion that all conservatives are a certain way. I can do that too.
Since Wiener likes to tweet photos of his junk to underage girls, all democrats in congress do.
It's not even remotely accurate and to suggest it is is preposterous.
That's all I'm saying.
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern, except where children are concerned. I took offense, my bad.
I also disagree with Kirth's assertion that American taxpayers are somehow complicit in the crimes of the American governmentThat assertion is true if and only if the previous assertion that "everything is perfect if the only rules are caveat emptor and laissez faire" is also true. If you disagree with my assertion, you are thereby disagreeing with the previous one. Which is fine -- I personally disagree with it as well.
I assume you understand that, "everything is perfect if the only rules are caveat emptor and laissez faire" is a complete straw man argument because arguing for less government is not the same as arguing for no government.
I presume you're just using some hyperbole rather than trying to deliberately construct a straw man argument, but it does get a bit tiresome. I'm not aware of any anarchists here for you to argue against.
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern.
Unless, of course, those darned gays want to get married, right? Or someone wants a morning-after pill.
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern.Unless, of course, those darned gays want to get married, right?
Nope I Don't Care.
My stance is...
If govt gives tax status or other govt benefits for being married, all Americans get it, gay or otherwise.
Otherwise, gov't should stay out of marriage all together.
I don't follow.This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.
That's a prety broad brush.CIrno gave an example of one idiot to justify his assertion that all conservatives are a certain way. I can do that too.
Since Wiener likes to tweet photos of his junk to underage girls, all democrats in congress do.
It's not even remotely accurate and to suggest it is is preposterous.
That's all I'm saying.
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern, except where children are concerned. I took offense, my bad.
I wasn't offended; I literally missed your point. I follow now.
I too get tired of the assumption that all conservatives want to regulate what adults do with their own bodies.
I assume you understand that, "everything is perfect if the only rules are caveat emptor and laissez faire" is a complete straw man argument because arguing for less government is not the same as arguing for no government.
Sigh. Stardust said those should be the only two rules. Then he said that consumers need to be informed, but that it wasn't the government's business to inform them. Who else will? The companies who wouldn't be required to? Like hell they would.
Saying that the best market system is one with NO government regulation at all is an anarchist approach to the market. It's not "less government" if someone says "no government regulation."
My stance is...
If govt gives tax status or other govt benefits for being married, all Americans get it, gay or otherwise.
Otherwise, gov't should stay out of marriage all together.
Ah! You're an old-skool conservative. I used to self-identify similarly, until the "values" people hijacked the term.
Ah! You're an old-skool conservative. I used to self-identify similarly, until the "values" people hijacked the term.My stance is...
If govt gives tax status or other govt benefits for being married, all Americans get it, gay or otherwise.
Otherwise, gov't should stay out of marriage all together.
Yeah, me and my folks go round on stuff like this.
I'm fiscally conservative, and a lot of the socail mess that's out there fed gov't shouldn't even be concerned about.Everytime my mom says "But that canidate is pro-life!" I usually ask, "Well what else do they bring to the table?"
How about we get the country on track fiscally, then quibble about killin' babies or gay marriage?
Although my historical forebears kicked the anarchists out of the International Workingman's Association, I find it necessary to point out that any anarchist worth a damn is opposed not only to government (or "the state" as they'd prefer to call it), but capitalism as well.
Although my historical forebears kicked the anarchists out of the International Workingman's Association, I find it necessary to point out that any anarchist worth a damn is opposed not only to government (or "the state" as they'd prefer to call it), but capitalism as well.
I disagree, but I find many of the anacho-capitalist arguments to be compelling.
|
??? Are you saying my post pointing out hypocrisy is itself hypocrisy? In what way?True, but the sheer number of outspokenly anti-gay preachers and politicians they catch with gay prostitutes or soliciting gay sex sort of makes me feel like there's definitely a recurring theme there. Maybe not 100%, but it's getting to be a pretty safe rule of thumb.Hypocrisy.
Sorry too brief ... no the rule of thumb you were speaking of, typically it is called hypocrisy.
|
|
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern.Unless, of course, those darned gays want to get married, right?Nope I Don't Care.
My stance is...
If govt gives tax status or other govt benefits for being married, all Americans get it, gay or otherwise.
Otherwise, gov't should stay out of marriage all together.
gov't should stay out of marriage all together
Who are these anarcho-capitalists and when did they develop?
Anarchism, as far as I know, is an amorphous body of thought that grew up out of the body of work of Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin and others, anti-capitalists to a man. They went through a terrorist phase (Johann Most, Luigi Galleani, Emma Goldman) and a syndicalist phase (EG, again, Big Bill Haywood and the IWW, Alfred Rosmer) and...I guess after that I stopped paying attention.
EDIT: Never mind, I found it on my own.
gov't should stay out of marriage all togetherI am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern.Unless, of course, those darned gays want to get married, right?Nope I Don't Care.
My stance is...
If govt gives tax status or other govt benefits for being married, all Americans get it, gay or otherwise.
Otherwise, gov't should stay out of marriage all together.
+1
Who are these anarcho-capitalists and when did they develop?
Anarchism, as far as I know, is an amorphous body of thought that grew up out of the body of work of Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin and others, anti-capitalists to a man. They went through a terrorist phase (Johann Most, Luigi Galleani, Emma Goldman) and a syndicalist phase (EG, again, Big Bill Haywood and the IWW, Alfred Rosmer) and...I guess after that I stopped paying attention.
EDIT: Never mind, I found it on my own.
Wiki is pretty good.
Yeah, that's where I went. Thanks.
I don't follow.This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.
That's a prety broad brush.CIrno gave an example of one idiot to justify his assertion that all conservatives are a certain way. I can do that too.
Since Wiener likes to tweet photos of his junk to underage girls, all democrats in congress do.
It's not even remotely accurate and to suggest it is is preposterous.
That's all I'm saying.
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern, except where children are concerned. I took offense, my bad.
So you're comparing literally decades of anti-gay discrimination and laws aimed at ensuring it continues, often by figureheads who are hypocritical and go against their own standards of morality they hold others to...
...With a dude emailing his junk to some girls?
Hey, if you want, I can continue to give examples of "morality" conservatives ending up being guilty of exactly what they preach. And if you have the long list of things Anthony Weiner did to legislate and try to crack down and victimize "dudes who email their junk to girls they flirt with on the internet" that'd also be pretty interesting!
Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?
My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?
Yes. We did.
Namely, our social norms and cultural ideals that stated it was ok to experiment on minorities and punish children who were born homosexual is what causes this.
|
|
Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?Yes. We did.
Namely, our social norms and cultural ideals that stated it was ok to experiment on minorities and punish children who were born homosexual is what causes this.
No "WE" didn't. You do not know me, or my family history. Making sweeping generalizations like that is very naive.
Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
+1. Buyer beware greases the wheels of fraud and corruption.
+1. Buyer beware greases the wheels of fraud and corruption.Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
So if deregulation is bad, and the corporations control the government, your answer is to have the corporate controlled government write some regulations. I somehow dont think that will work. Like BT states over and over, no one (who is sane) is promoting complete lack of government.
A smaller, more transparent government regulatory system would seem to be a good start to me. I think that the most important regulations would be the ones that would ensure that a free market stays free. (e.g. Antitrust Laws, Anti-collusion laws, consumer information acts)
A smaller, more transparent government regulatory system would seem to be a good start to me. I think that the most important regulations would be the ones that would ensure that a free market stays free. (e.g. Antitrust Laws, Anti-collusion laws, consumer information acts)
And to ensure the integrity of the regulatory body, lobbying and offering of sinecures has got to stop. No one ever votes against their own self-interest, or at least not consistently, and having an industry own their "regulators" is what has gotten us into a lot of nasty messes in the recent past.
I agree
No "WE" didn't. You do not know me, or my family history. Making sweeping generalizations like that is very naive.Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?Yes. We did.
Namely, our social norms and cultural ideals that stated it was ok to experiment on minorities and punish children who were born homosexual is what causes this.
Yes.
We did.
We as a whole, not as individuals but as a collective society, did it, and we did it by intellectually supporting racism to a degree in which it was deemed "ok" to experiment on minorities, or by supporting abuse of homosexuals to the point where they are sent to "reeducation" camps.
No "WE" didn't. You do not know me, or my family history. Making sweeping generalizations like that is very naive.Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
BTW "we" didn't all do terrible things to minorities. Who does your pronoun accuse?Yes. We did.
Namely, our social norms and cultural ideals that stated it was ok to experiment on minorities and punish children who were born homosexual is what causes this.
Yes.
We did.
We as a whole, not as individuals but as a collective society, did it, and we did it by intellectually supporting racism to a degree in which it was deemed "ok" to experiment on minorities, or by supporting abuse of homosexuals to the point where they are sent to "reeducation" camps.
Maybe you did that. I did not.
A smaller, more transparent government regulatory system would seem to be a good start to me. I think that the most important regulations would be the ones that would ensure that a free market stays free. (e.g. Antitrust Laws, Anti-collusion laws, consumer information acts)And to ensure the integrity of the regulatory body, lobbying and offering of sinecures has got to stop. No one ever votes against their own self-interest, or at least not consistently, and having an industry own their "regulators" is what has gotten us into a lot of nasty messes in the recent past.
How do you define lobbying?
How do you stop it?
"I did not kill that man. A bullet did."
Did you fire the gun?"
"Well, yes, a gun was fired that propelled the bullet, but the gun did not kill that man; the bullet did."
"Was it you who fired the gun?"
"Guns fire because of the laws of physics."
I don't follow.This is the equivalent to saying since Charlie Rangle can't be trusted to obey the tax laws he himself writes, niether can any other Democrat.
That's a prety broad brush.CIrno gave an example of one idiot to justify his assertion that all conservatives are a certain way. I can do that too.
Since Wiener likes to tweet photos of his junk to underage girls, all democrats in congress do.
It's not even remotely accurate and to suggest it is is preposterous.
That's all I'm saying.
I am a conservative. I do not think bed room behavior should be a gov't concern, except where children are concerned. I took offense, my bad.
So you're comparing literally decades of anti-gay discrimination and laws aimed at ensuring it continues, often by figureheads who are hypocritical and go against their own standards of morality they hold others to...
...With a dude emailing his junk to some girls?
Hey, if you want, I can continue to give examples of "morality" conservatives ending up being guilty of exactly what they preach. And if you have the long list of things Anthony Weiner did to legislate and try to crack down and victimize "dudes who email their junk to girls they flirt with on the internet" that'd also be pretty interesting!
The concept of painting with a broad brush is that it usually is supremely exaggerated. Theres plenty of folks in both parties who have done crazy stuff, all while supposedly championing one cause or another, or claiming to represent a large part of the nation via some missinterpreted mandate, and then having actions that contradict those things. But if its easier for you to be intellectually dishonest and portray it only mainly occurring on one side vs another, be my guest.
+1. Buyer beware greases the wheels of fraud and corruption.Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.So if deregulation is bad, and the corporations control the government, your answer is to have the corporate controlled government write some regulations. I somehow dont think that will work. Like BT states over and over, no oene (who is sane) is promoting complete lack of government.
A smaller, more transparent government regulatory system would seem to be a good start to me. I think that the most important regulations would be the ones that would ensure that a free market stays free. (e.g. Antitrust Laws, Anti-collusion laws, consumer information acts)
many are those who would dismiss such laws as government interference.
+1. Buyer beware greases the wheels of fraud and corruption.Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.
Our regulatory structure expands rapidly (~80,000 pages of new federal laws and regulations a year IIRC) year after year, but it fails terribly. How much more regulation is enough? 100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000 pages a year? How many hundreds of billions of dollar more a year will solve the problem? Who will pay for it and how?
many are those who would dismiss such laws as government interference.+1. Buyer beware greases the wheels of fraud and corruption.Is your answer to every government blunder more power for the government?My answer to problems caused by deregulation is to regulate it.So if deregulation is bad, and the corporations control the government, your answer is to have the corporate controlled government write some regulations. I somehow dont think that will work. Like BT states over and over, no oene (who is sane) is promoting complete lack of government.
A smaller, more transparent government regulatory system would seem to be a good start to me. I think that the most important regulations would be the ones that would ensure that a free market stays free. (e.g. Antitrust Laws, Anti-collusion laws, consumer information acts)
They are government interference, albeit IMHO necessary. I truly believe that the free market would work, if only we would let it*.
*and ensure that it stays free.
Dept. of Education SWAT Raid Update: Not for a Student Loan, DoE Says
The US department of education has its own swat teams?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody expects the Department of Education!
Nobody expects the Department of Education!
LMAO!
Rape Factories
Why is the government doing so little to end sexual assault in prisons?
This is our government.
Wait, wut?
Eric Holder is a bad AG?
Who knew?
Wait, wut?
Eric Holder is a bad AG?Who knew?
I wonder if John Edwards would have been better.
Well, he can channel the spirits of dead babies...
Obamacare: Medicaid for the middle class?
IIRC, CBO says this will add another $450,000,000,000 to the cost projection of Obamacare in just the next ten years. I guess someone should have read the bill.
Our regulatory structure expands rapidly (~80,000 pages of new federal laws and regulations a year IIRC) year after year, but it fails terribly. How much more regulation is enough? 100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000 pages a year? How many hundreds of billions of dollar more a year will solve the problem? Who will pay for it and how?
So the amount of regulation/effectiveness of regulation is objectively measured by how many/few pages it has? So this is like Dragonball Z where super-powerful, yet ineffective, regulation is like power levels? "EPA is at 9000! I kill jobs ROAR!"
There's always going to be corruption. But that doesn't mean that we should defund/deregulate government/industry to the point of ineffectiveness whether it be in an absolute fashion--as the libertarians wish--or in an after-the-fact way--as the Tea Partiers wish.
I also wouldn't say that all regulation or even most regulation fails terribly. As others have pointed out, you enjoy not having a finger in your hamburger right? For the most part the FDA does its job.
But anyway:
Let's see who can balance the budget.
Our regulatory structure expands rapidly (~80,000 pages of new federal laws and regulations a year IIRC) year after year, but it fails terribly. How much more regulation is enough? 100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000 pages a year? How many hundreds of billions of dollar more a year will solve the problem? Who will pay for it and how?So the amount of regulation/effectiveness of regulation is objectively measured by how many/few pages it has? So this is like Dragonball Z where super-powerful, yet ineffective, regulation is like power levels? "EPA is at 9000! I kill jobs ROAR!"
There's always going to be corruption. But that doesn't mean that we should defund/deregulate government/industry to the point of ineffectiveness whether it be in an absolute fashion--as the libertarians wish--or in an after-the-fact way--as the Tea Partiers wish.
I also wouldn't say that all regulation or even most regulation fails terribly. As others have pointed out, you enjoy not having a finger in your hamburger right? For the most part the FDA does its job.
But anyway:
Let's see who can balance the budget.
The FDA does a wretched job, and it criminalizes life saving treatment.
The argument could just as easily be turned around to say that our food is pretty darn safe so the FDA is a complete waste of time. I'm not making that case per se, but your argument is akin to suggesting the MMS was doing a good job before the BP disaster. Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows the MMS was a completely corrupt and incompetent division of Interior.
Some people make the assumption that food and pharmaceutical companies would immediately start poisoning their customers if the government didn't stop them. I don't think that's a great business model.
Every regulatory agency that I am familiar with just creates the illusion of providing protection, and that illusion costs hundreds of billions.
Some people make the assumption that food and pharmaceutical companies would immediately start poisoning their customers if the government didn't stop them. I don't think that's a great business model.
There would be no way to discover if they were doing so -- we eat so many foods, there would be absolutely no way to link any particular symptom (that might show up 10 years later) to a particular food or drug. Most consumers don't have a fully-staffed and well-equipped biomedical and chemical research lab in their garage. Therefore, it would de facto be legal to cause any harmful side effects at all, as long as they didn't show up too quickly. And if it were cheaper to produce foods and drugs that caused those effects (vs. those that didn't), then that's exactly what good business practice (in the sense of maximizing shareholder returns this quarter) would dictate. Read Sinclair's The Jungle -- apprarently, before the FDA, that's exactly how things worked.
In this regulation-less system, I could sell "ALL CERTIFIED ORGANIC WHOLESOME FOOD" and list saturated fat of 0% and very low sodium. That would all be made up, though, because there would be no reason not to outright lie about those things. Who would catch me? A competitor? People would chalk that up to a smear campaign. So I could charge surprisingly reasonable prices for this "wholesome" food (which would consist of rabid rats fed on cement dust to fatten them up, lard, and liposuction leftovers, injected with cocaine to make everyone think it was the best thing they ever ate).
The FDA does a wretched job, and it criminalizes life saving treatment.
The argument could just as easily be turned around to say that our food is pretty darn safe so the FDA is a complete waste of time. I'm not making that case per se, but your argument is akin to suggesting the MMS was doing a good job before the BP disaster. Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows the MMS was a completely corrupt and incompetent division of Interior.
Some people make the assumption that food and pharmaceutical companies would immediately start poisoning their customers if the government didn't stop them. I don't think that's a great business model.
Every regulatory agency that I am familiar with just creates the illusion of providing protection, and...
I must not know anything because it was BP...by BP's own eventual admission, that was the major cause of the oil spill, unless you're arguing that overly-weak regulatory bodies can't do their jobs properly, then well, the Professor and I would agree with you. And while we're at it, your metaphor fails. If we ever have a third of all the ground meat suddenly explode across the country then we'd have an apt metaphor. As it is, you've ridden the straw man train to Hyperbole Town.
So I could charge surprisingly reasonable prices for this "wholesome" food (which would consist of rabid rats fed on cement dust to fatten them up, lard, and liposuction leftovers, injected with cocaine....
Sounds good to me!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey folks! I heard my cousin Sock might be in here. Anybody seen him?
Some people make the assumption that food and pharmaceutical companies would immediately start poisoning their customers if the government didn't stop them. I don't think that's a great business model.There would be no way to discover if they were doing so -- we eat so many foods, there would be absolutely no way to link any particular symptom (that might show up 10 years later) to a particular food or drug. Most consumers don't have a fully-staffed and well-equipped biomedical and chemical research lab in their garage. Therefore, it would de facto be legal to cause any harmful side effects at all, as long as they didn't show up too quickly. And if it were cheaper to produce foods and drugs that caused those effects (vs. those that didn't), then that's exactly what good business practice (in the sense of maximizing shareholder returns this quarter) would dictate. Read Sinclair's The Jungle -- apprarently, before the FDA, that's exactly how things worked.
In this regulation-less system, I could sell "ALL CERTIFIED ORGANIC WHOLESOME FOOD" and list saturated fat of 0% and very low sodium. That would all be made up, though, because there would be no reason not to outright lie about those things. Who would catch me? A competitor? People would chalk that up to a smear campaign. So I could charge surprisingly reasonable prices for this "wholesome" food (which would consist of rabid rats fed on cement dust to fatten them up, lard, and liposuction leftovers, injected with cocaine to make everyone think it was the best thing they ever ate).
So without the FDA and USDA no one could hold a company committing fraud accountable? I don't agree. I'm not even sure the private sector could do a worse job than the FDA and USDA.
Every one would like reasonably safe food and drugs, but the FDA doesn't make that happen anymore than OSHA makes safe workplaces. We would like for our food to be raised safely, but the USDA doesn't make that happen either.
So I ask the same question I keep asking. How much regulation is enough? How many regulators, inspectors and enforcers will it take to make the system work? How many millions of pages of law, regulation, and case law will get the job done? How much will it cost, and how will we pay for it?
Do we agree that our current regulatory structure is doing a dreadful job?
If we can agree that the current system is failing then what is the solution?
Let's assume for discussion that I'm willing to impose regulations on businesses that actually engage in interstate commerce. What should the government do beyond prosecuting assault, theft and fraud and enforcing contracts in the courts?
So without the FDA and USDA no one could hold a company committing fraud accountable?
My claim is that no one would know fraud had been committed. Private citizens lack the means to design, conduct, and evaluate large-scale tests. Even if I put together a private company that does nothing else, there's nothing at all to keep me from accepting bribes to give certain products a "pass," since I'm beholden only to my shareholders -- unless in your scheme all consumers have private eyes to watch the private "regulators" who watch the producers? I don't see how removing the FDA actually improves anything.