chairs are dangerous. They lead to a sedentary lifestyle causing obesity, heart disease and plethora of other health problems. Obviously all chairs should be banned. Obviously this is hyperbole, but Im interested in how far you are willing to go in the interest of public safety.
I can think of two good reasons for raw milk. It tastes really good and I want some. Why would you deny me that? Im not forcing you or anyone else to drink it, after all.
Doesnt matter. i want some. Why would you deny me that? And where have you purchased the illegal raw milk to make your comparision, citizen?
Im going to walk away from this now. Im going to agree to disagree with you. I believe that if I fairly purchase something that harms no one else, I should be able to. You do not. And we'll leave it at that.
Let's give this another try.
Human rights and civil liberty violations as well as corruption, waste, fraud, and secrecy are prime examples of government folly.
Or corporate folly. Or even just plain folly. But I know those don't get under your skin as much. ;-)
:)
There's some truth to that. Stupidity and evil committed through government force are especially repugnant to me.
Corporate stupidity and evil often want to make me beat my head on the wall, but I find remedies more readily available. I can choose to quit or not do business with corporations that raise my ire in most cases. I've quit corporate jobs that I hated, and there are a number of corporations I won't do business with if I can help it.
I can try to avoid individuals that I find objectionable. That's a mixed bag at best, but I have yet to find a country that I like better, and if I refuse to pay my taxes in protest there are serious consequences.
Although the occasional post of corporate folly probable wont hurt anything as I demonstrated upthread by my failure to distinguish a private utility from a public one.
*facepalm*
The ugly thing is, you're both right.
Do you really think an armed raid is an appropriate reaction to the possession of raw milk?No, but I don't think it's a common or widespread problem, and the problem there is the "armed raid" coming from police militarization (which is a serious problem) and not the raw milk part.
How far should the government go to control what adults put in their own bodies in your opinion?How free should people be to sell dangerous scams as food? The second hit for "raw milk" in Google (after Wikipedia) was this, which begins, "There's little mention in the mainstream media these days, of traditional foods having healing properties." So no, I am not sympathetic to people selling snake oil. I don't think you should have THE FREEDOM to scam people, even if the free market will somehow let you. (PS the free market does f~%*all about scams.)Fraud is already a crime. Fraud should be prosecuted even though it rarely is.
I think people should be free to decide what they put in their own bodies, but I think crimes without victims should not be crimes.
I also tend to trust people to make better choices for themselves than the state. Some people will make choices that I think are foolish, but I am also of the belief that they own themselves, and they are free to make choices that don't harm others or their property.
Obviously we have opposing views regarding personal freedom.
Although the occasional post of corporate folly probable wont hurt anything as I demonstrated upthread by my failure to distinguish a private utility from a public one.*facepalm*
But wait!
There's still hope!Those sorts of things happen all the time, and I'm sure it SOMETIMES happens to private utilities that are natural monopolies, i.e. state sanctioned and regulated monopolies. Heck it may have even been the case in your example, I'm far too lazy to bother checking.
Some people make choices for other people (read: parents for their kids) and those choices can be extremely harmful if it's just a free-for-all. Now, you can say that, yes, they will indeed be punished because of existing laws. The problem is, though, that it's always after the fact and after the harm is done. So it should be in everyone's best interest to keep certain harmful products off the market.I also tend to trust people to make better choices for themselves than the state. Some people will make choices that I think are foolish, but I am also of the belief that they own themselves, and they are free to make choices that don't harm others or their property.
Obviously we have opposing views regarding personal freedom.
I see it differently. I think that is a dangerous slippery slope, and I think it violates peoples rights.
For example, current US government regulations criminalize some life saving/extending treatments. Those treatments have very real and serious risks attached to them, but the government takes that choice away from the patient.
Most people agree that treatments that have serious risks attached should be regulated or banned.
I don't see why it's moral or logical to impose criminal sanctions on a terminally ill patient and their doctor for making an informed choice to take a risk that might result in years of extended life. I would like to see this change, but I would also like for people to recognize that by right the choice should be the patient's not the government's.
Again, you're talking about consenting adults, which is a whole different ball game than e.g. parents and a child or another situation where it involves an adult who can't give consent.
I'm not sure which treatments you're talking about. If you're talking about medical marijuana, then I fully agree that it should be legalized (heck, ordinary use of marijuana too). It's still a very different thing from...
For the time being let's stick with consenting adults.
I don't think it's the role of the state to regulate what you chose to put in your body.
Marijuana is an excellent example of the slippery slope.
1. People argue that some drugs can have a social cost and the government should intervene to help protect people. That sounds reasonable.
2. Congress passes laws that allows the federal government to regulate drugs and they create bureaucracies to research, regulate, and enforce drug policies. That seems reasonable to most people.
3. A number of things happen over the years including the war on drugs. The war on drugs goes too far for some people and not far enough for others. One of the (presumably) unforeseen results of the war on drugs is the current stupidity over pot.
So as it stands now we have an absurd and destructive policy that probably does more harm than good. Even if we adopt less stupid approaches to drugs we are still left with the notion that the government has the right to decide what consenting adults can put in their bodies. Therefore if one party makes what I would consider a good change another can reverse that when power changes hands.
For me the fundamental question is, "Do we own ourselves?".
If you own yourself then it stands to reason that you are free to do things with your own body that might seem like a bad idea to me.
I believe that every violation of this idea is dangerous to liberty.
I accept that the predictable result of freedom includes the freedom to do things I find really dumb so long as they don't initiate violence against others and their property.
For example if you choose to abuse heroine I don't have the right to use force to stop you and neither does the state. If you decide to steal my car to support your addiction then I have the right to defend my property, and the state can justly enforce the laws against theft.
I know what makes people come around to your point of view. Sarcasm. The more of it the better. Yeah, that'll win them over. Especially whenever someone admits that their wrong. That is most definitely when you wanna rub salt in their wound. Absolutely nothing could be more constructive.
Or you know, government should be accountable to the governed. Step one in that is making sure the governed know what the government is doing. But hey, whichever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried a well thought out post, but I failed. I prefer to watch from the peanut gallery.
I will add this though: personally I almost never interact with the government directly. I pay taxes so that the government offers protection and services that aren't really possible without that infrastructure.
The only direct interaction I ever have is with police, who, in personal experience, have been utterly unable to address concerns I have (theft of personal property, noise complaints, etc.) and inflexible when I unwittingly perform minor infractions.
By and large I'm much more worried about what corporations are allowed to get away with.
Im going to walk away from this now. Im going to agree to disagree with you. I believe that if I fairly purchase something that harms no one else, I should be able to. You do not. And we'll leave it at that.Right up until you get a contagous disease, like, say tuberculosis by injesting unpasturized milk from a cow infected with m. bovinus and start spreading it around. There's your harming others. Pasturized milk is one of a number of things that made tuberculosis a rare disease in the developed world.
It can be produced safely (France and Germany do) but considering that the numbers of illnesses compared to consumers of it in tne US is high we're obviously not capable of it.
Besides, raw milk is nasty. I'll take the pasturized and homoginized fresh (it was in the cow that morning) organic milk from the dairy farm any day.
Failure to wash ones hands regularly can spread disease too. What should the sentence be for that? How might we go about policing that?
Is the question just one of practicality?
What about having unprotected sex? There are very serious social and personal consequences. Is this something the state should police?
What about having children? Some people are dreadful parents. Should the government put a permit system in place?
I'm not suggesting you are a proponent of policing any of these activities per se.
I am suggesting that regulating what consenting adults do with their own bodies has very real risks.
When I look at the war on drugs the slippery slope seems real to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, government sometimes does foolish things. The drug war, as it has been prosecuted, is a boondoggle. Legalize it! I'm down!
Now let's not tear down the government because it does something wrong, let's work to change the things that are wrong about it and keep the things that are right about it.
I think "less government" is far too simplistic a goal. We have too much government in some places (drug war, military industrial complex in general), not enough some places (SEC, EPA) and just right in other places (roads). And I'm sure I'll not get any two people to agree on my categorizations, but you get my point.
Although the occasional post of corporate folly probable wont hurt anything as I demonstrated upthread by my failure to distinguish a private utility from a public one.*facepalm*
But wait!
There's still hope!
Those sorts of things happen all the time, and I'm sure it SOMETIMES happens to private utilities that are natural monopolies, i.e. state sanctioned and regulated monopolies. Heck it may have even been the case in your example, I'm far too lazy to bother checking.
Yup. Private utility. I managed to overlook that in something like a 2 paragraph article.
I'm not going to live this one down for a while am I?
Yup. Private utility. I managed to overlook that in something like a 2 paragraph article.
I'm not going to live this one down for a while am I?
I wasn't really giving you crap about your mistake. Happens to the best of us.
I was more trying to lampoon the general tone of your posts, and the radical right in general.
People will blame the government for things it does wrong, and rightly so. They've also been conned into blaming the government's involvement in its entirety for being ineffectual, in other worse when they didn't do ENOUGH.
Not that you were doing this here, but I have seen that precise argument put forth. "What? It was a government sanctioned monopoly? Well if the government would just let free market forces..." and you can't say you haven't heard the same argument on other topics.
People (again, not necessarily you) will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to find a way blame problems on the government or Obama.
I tried a well thought out post, but I failed. I prefer to watch from the peanut gallery.
I will add this though: personally I almost never interact with the government directly. I pay taxes so that the government offers protection and services that aren't really possible without that infrastructure.
The only direct interaction I ever have is with police, who, in personal experience, have been utterly unable to address concerns I have (theft of personal property, noise complaints, etc.) and inflexible when I unwittingly perform minor infractions.
By and large I'm much more worried about what corporations are allowed to get away with.
To me, the gravest injustices are when corporations use government to carry out their will. Hell, theres very few things posted in either of the folly threads that cant be traced back to corporate interests. To me, the two are intertwined. some good examples (some of which go back years) Im not providing links because Im tired, feel free to google.
Kelo
War on Drugs (seriously read about the congressional hearings that led to marijuana prohibition for the hilarity alone)
Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan
Banana Wars (history repeating before our very eyes today with oil instead of bananas)
Mohammed Mosaddeq
To summarise, just about everything you read in government folly could ultimately be put in the corporate malfeasance thread. The reason that I think the government folly thread is more important, is that when the government facilitates the folly, it is done in our name and uses our money.
What about having children? Some people are dreadful parents. Should the government put a permit system in place?
You might have something here...
To me, the gravest injustices are when corporations use government to carry out their will.
I think I can agree with that on general principle.
The illusion that I find disturbing is that somehow without the government those corporations couldn't get away with this stuff.They might change their tactics, but I'm CERTAIN that far, far worse things would be done to us.
There are two camps in this, ok? There's the big money, big government conservatives who will do whatever is necessary to secure greater freedoms and lesser burdens for their corporate overlords. Deregulation is the biggest thing, as well as taxes. They want to minimize the risk and maximize the reward for the richest among us.
The small government libertarian conservatives believe less government will lead to greater happiness, as we'll all be allowed to pursue our own goals. They think government is itself a problem. Many of them don't seem to realize the kind of new gilded age that, almost as a matter of course, will rise out of this small government utopia.
The former is cynically manipulating the latter into thinking their goals are the same. They most assuredly are not.
I know what makes people come around to your point of view. Sarcasm. The more of it the better. Yeah, that'll win them over.
I can't stop laughing at this. This is genuinely funny.
Good. Then I'll assume you got my point. Once a guy apologises for his mistake and admits that you are right, its probably for the best to let him go.
Or you know, government should be accountable to the governed. Step one in that is making sure the governed know what the government is doing. But hey, whichever.
I'M DOING MY CIVIC DUTY ON THIS MESSAGEBOARD FOR ROLEPLAYING GAMERS, INFORMING PEOPLE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN LIVE IN MY COUNTRY
Yes I am. I do so on every messageboard that I frequent. Also, why are you screaming at me?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
I tried a well thought out post, but I failed. I prefer to watch from the peanut gallery.
I will add this though: personally I almost never interact with the government directly. I pay taxes so that the government offers protection and services that aren't really possible without that infrastructure.
The only direct interaction I ever have is with police, who, in personal experience, have been utterly unable to address concerns I have (theft of personal property, noise complaints, etc.) and inflexible when I unwittingly perform minor infractions.
By and large I'm much more worried about what corporations are allowed to get away with.
Some corporations certainly do many terrible things. When those things violate the rights of others such as theft, pollution, or murder then the government should prosecute them. It's not always that simple, but that's the core idea.
However I can't recall examples of private corporations exterminating tens of millions in gulags and concentration camps, of bombing campaigns that willfully destroy civilian population centers with conventional and atomic weapons, or numerous other things that nation states are pretty uniquely able to do.
I don't suggest for a second that the prison industrial complex has its hands clean for example, but there is a real difference between what corporations are capable of doing to us and the state.
Okay, let's run with what common ground we can establish.
I think that pollution is SO heinous, is often SO difficult to remedy or contain, that the government should regulate it other than just slapping companies on the wrist when it happens.
Personally I think that it should be written into the constitution, so we can't provide loopholes and exemptions for corporations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Governments are defined by their monopoly of force; if a corporation has enough military power to do the things you're talking about, it is a government by definition.
The British East India Company, for example.
Yup. Private utility. I managed to overlook that in something like a 2 paragraph article.
I'm not going to live this one down for a while am I?
I wasn't really giving you crap about your mistake. Happens to the best of us.
I was more trying to lampoon the general tone of your posts, and the radical right in general.
People will blame the government for things it does wrong, and rightly so. They've also been conned into blaming the government's involvement in its entirety for being ineffectual, in other worse when they didn't do ENOUGH.
Not that you were doing this here, but I have seen that precise argument put forth. "What? It was a government sanctioned monopoly? Well if the government would just let free market forces..." and you can't say you haven't heard the same argument on other topics.
People (again, not necessarily you) will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to find a way blame problems on the government or Obama.
I do agree with the idea that government established monopolies are counter productive.
For example I get 2 of my utilities from the city now. I have no choice legally. However I don't live in the city so I have zero vote or voice regarding city utilities.
I view government as a necessary evil at best and an intolerable one at worst.
I am unapologetically anti government. I can't think of an area where I want more of it, and I think we would be better off with less in general.
However for me the question is primarily a moral one. Do we own ourselves? Are we citizens who consent to be governed or are we subjects and property of the state?
Individual liberty has drawbacks, but so does servitude and subjugation.
Even if the downside to freedom is more than the downside to servitude I prefer liberty and self ownership.
I suppose the question I have is, "If a majority prefer servitude do they have the right to force that on the minority who disagree?".
You might have something here...
What about having children? Some people are dreadful parents. Should the government put a permit system in place?
Was there supposed to be a smiley in there, or are you being serious?
Was there supposed to be a smiley in there, or are you being serious?You might have something here...
What about having children? Some people are dreadful parents. Should the government put a permit system in place?
Half serious.
Parenthood is a sticky wicket because it ISN'T an individual liberty issue; you have a kid in tow. Whatever bad decisions you make you inflict on another intrinsic to that situation.Whatever monster you spawn, come their 18th birthday, is not just your problem but the rest of the world's.
I do agree with the idea that government established monopolies are counter productive.However for me the question is primarily a moral one. Do we own ourselves? Are we citizens who consent to be governed or are we subjects and property of the state?
Individual liberty has drawbacks, but so does servitude and subjugation.
I'll just address these points, if you don't mind.
Gov't established monopolies are necessary to keep prices down. You would either have a genuine monopoly, and a genuine private monopoly over something like water or power would be FREAKING DISASTROUS! Or you would have an oligopoly, where a number of businesses are better off not competing and so it may as well be a monopoly. We've decided as a society that electricity and water (among many other things) ought to be treated as a right, so we've heavily regulated their distribution.
My problem with the last thing is, I'm sorry, it makes you sound like an utter loon. There's vast swaths of territory between complete liberty and "servitude" as you put it. We are far closer to the former than you'd think listening to you.
I do agree with the idea that government established monopolies are counter productive.However for me the question is primarily a moral one. Do we own ourselves? Are we citizens who consent to be governed or are we subjects and property of the state?
Individual liberty has drawbacks, but so does servitude and subjugation.
I'll just address these points, if you don't mind.
Gov't established monopolies are necessary to keep prices down. You would either have a genuine monopoly, and a genuine private monopoly over something like water or power would be FREAKING DISASTROUS! Or you would have an oligopoly, where a number of businesses are better off not competing and so it may as well be a monopoly. We've decided as a society that electricity and water (among many other things) ought to be treated as a right, so we've heavily regulated their distribution.
My problem with the last thing is, I'm sorry, it makes you sound like an utter loon. There's vast swaths of territory between complete liberty and "servitude" as you put it. We are far closer to the former than you'd think listening to you.
I don't think I've ever said that the only choices are total anarchy or total despotism. You are free to think that I'm an utter loon, but the question remaining seems to me to be how much power are you willing to give the state to enforce what you consider the common good. Government is force. Sometimes force is a necessary thing. I am in favor of minimum government force and maximum individual liberty. I accept that some level of government force is necessary to protect individual liberty. I think we can all agree that prosecuting murderers is a legitimate use of government force. We disagree about using government force to protect people from themselves or some other general social "good". I'm very aware that the notion of self ownership and human rights are basically seen as a joke by both parties. My position is certainly a small minority, and I'm quite used to being considered loony.
However the notion that the state should violate peoples rights for their own good seems rather loony to me regardless of whether that notion is propagated by the religious right or the nanny state left.
We disagree about using government force to protect people from themselves or some other general social "good".You haven't yet addressed the contradiction in your arguments, though, where you espouse the right of people to do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but seem to go back and forth over whether it's right to provide people with the means to harm themselves. To use raw milk as an example, nobody is making it illegal to drink, just to sell it as food. Sellingtainted raw milk as food does harm people: it gives them listeriosis or tuberculosis. What's the problem with that ban?
If I sell an addictive drug to an addict, aren't I harming them? If I put a gun in the hands of a depressed person, aren't I harming them? If I take advantage of someone's irrational action, aren't I harming them?
Bolded part from me. this is where I think we differ. If it was really about the disease, then monitor the raw milk, like they apparently do in Europe. Straight out banning the sale is ludicrous, IMO, and seems to only further the interests of larger dairies while pushing out smaller boutique dairies that either have to fill a niche market (like selling raw milk) or be absorbed into the larger dairies to survive.
Don't mistake my stances for those of someone else.
I understand your POV because I once shared it.
You said "Individual liberty has drawbacks, but so does servitude" which to me presents a false dichotomy. It sure seems with that (and other quotes, don't make me go back through your post history) that you think those are the only choices.
I can get on board with self-ownership, more or less. I'm not a big private property proponent, but I understand the appeal. The difference is where we draw lines between you and other people. Things you do affect other people, and I think that the government has a genuine place protecting people from one another. And not just after the fact, which I think is a key difference.
Government should act proactively as a watchdog to prevent the sorts of abuses that we all agree are wrong.
I also think that peoples rights only matter and should only be protected when those individuals are of sound mind (yes, we should protect the mentally ill from harming themselves to a reasonable degree) and are well informed (let's not kid ourselves, raw milk can kill you).
This is why the government mandates warning labels on cigarette packages, which if you'll remember wasn't always the case and the general populace was either uneducated or in severe denial as to the health effects of tobacco. If there is no such check in place, as there is not with raw milk, its sale and consumption should be regulated if not prevented.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
I tried a well thought out post, but I failed. I prefer to watch from the peanut gallery.
I will add this though: personally I almost never interact with the government directly. I pay taxes so that the government offers protection and services that aren't really possible without that infrastructure.
The only direct interaction I ever have is with police, who, in personal experience, have been utterly unable to address concerns I have (theft of personal property, noise complaints, etc.) and inflexible when I unwittingly perform minor infractions.
By and large I'm much more worried about what corporations are allowed to get away with.
To me, the gravest injustices are when corporations use government to carry out their will. Hell, theres very few things posted in either of the folly threads that cant be traced back to corporate interests. To me, the two are intertwined. some good examples (some of which go back years) Im not providing links because Im tired, feel free to google.
Kelo
War on Drugs (seriously read about the congressional hearings that led to marijuana prohibition for the hilarity alone)
Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan
Banana Wars (history repeating before our very eyes today with oil instead of bananas)
Mohammed Mosaddeq
To summarise, just about everything you read in government folly could ultimately be put in the corporate malfeasance thread. The reason that I think the government folly thread is more important, is that when the government facilitates the folly, it is done in our name and uses our money.
I think that you make a very valid point, and I'm sure that we agree that fascism and mercantilism are rotten things, but I have trouble seeing how corporations can be primarily blamed for the horrors in Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China or Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter.
I know corporations can do dreadful things on their own and worse through the power of the state, but some governments have capabilities that dwarf the largest corporations. It seems to me that restraining the power of government merits the greatest vigilance over what's being done with our money and power in our name.
If it was really about the disease, then monitor the raw milk, like they apparently do in Europe. Straight out banning the sale is ludicrous, IMO, and seems to only further the interests of larger dairies while pushing out smaller boutique dairies that either have to fill a niche market (like selling raw milk) or be absorbed into the larger dairies to survive.
That's nice theorycrafting. Can you show me some data?
I can only speak for Wisconsin, my home state, the dairy state, but most dairy farms are small and family run. At least that I've encountered/know of. They're small businesses who sell to larger companies (Dean, Golden Guernsey). Some of my classmates growing up had dairy farms, and they didn't even drink raw milk, they either bought it from the store or at least boiled it.Raw milk as natural diet is effing bananas. Next we'll be talking about lead as a cosmetic.
I think that you make a very valid point, and I'm sure that we agree that fascism and mercantilism are rotten things, but I have trouble seeing how corporations can be primarily blamed for the horrors in Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China or Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter.
Without going into the whole "fascism = corporatism" thing...
Neither has the FDA or the EPA, so let's tone it down a bit and compare apples and apples.
That's nice theorycrafting. Can you show me some data?
I can only speak for Wisconsin, my home state, the dairy state, but most dairy farms are small and family run. At least that I've encountered/know of. They're small businesses who sell to larger companies (Dean, Golden Guernsey). Some of my classmates growing up had dairy farms, and they didn't even drink raw milk, they either bought it from the store or at least boiled it.Raw milk as natural diet is effing bananas. Next we'll be talking about lead as a cosmetic.
What theorycraft? What data do you want? Check wal-mart stores vs smaller mom and pop businesses. If a dairy doesnt want to sell to a larger company like Deans, what do they do? They cant compete with Deans larger production, so in order to survive, they have to compete indirectly, by offering something Deans doesnt. I can offer you data, but I dont know what you want, specifically. That smaller comapanies have trouble competing with larger ones?
As far as raw milk being effing bananas, thats fair. I think suicide and whiskey are bananas too. But I dont want to ban them.
What theorycraft? What data do you want?
Show me that the people selling raw milk are doing so to get out from under the corporate thumb, and testimony that that is why they're doing it, as opposed to being part of a movement that misinforms as to the health risks of their product and sells it under the table to make a quick buck. Albeit perhaps just to get by in these economic times.
BTW that's how you get raw milk around here. No one was setting up boutique dairy shops to sell raw milk, you know a guy who knows a guy who will sell you a pail of it for cheap. Usually it's WHILE they're under contract to a company and are trying to make money on the sly.
Don't mistake my stances for those of someone else.
I understand your POV because I once shared it.
You said "Individual liberty has drawbacks, but so does servitude" which to me presents a false dichotomy. It sure seems with that (and other quotes, don't make me go back through your post history) that you think those are the only choices.I can get on board with self-ownership, more or less. I'm not a big private property proponent, but I understand the appeal. The difference is where we draw lines between you and other people. Things you do affect other people, and I think that the government has a genuine place protecting people from one another. And not just after the fact, which I think is a key difference.
Government should act proactively as a watchdog to prevent the sorts of abuses that we all agree are wrong.
I also think that peoples rights only matter and should only be protected when those individuals are of sound mind (yes, we should protect the mentally ill from harming themselves to a reasonable degree) and are well informed (let's not kid ourselves, raw milk can kill you).
This is why the government mandates warning labels on cigarette packages, which if you'll remember wasn't always the case and the general populace was either uneducated or in severe denial as to the health effects of tobacco. If there is no such check in place, as there is not with raw milk, its sale and consumption should be regulated if not prevented.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
I have never been a proponent of anarchy. I believe I've clearly identified myself as a minarchist for many years. Some would say that I'm tediously consistent.
I believe in general terms that the expansion of state power comes at the expense of individual liberty. I don't believe the relationship is absolute. Theoretically there could be a benign dictatorship I suppose, but I can't imagine such a thing lasting. Conversely if I thought anarchy provided perfect liberty I would favor it, but I can't imagine such a thing lasting. As a minarchist I accept that government is a necessary evil, but it's an evil I want to minimize.
I don't think this is a false dichotomy. I think people delegate a certain amount of power to the government when they consent to be governed. The nature of the state seems to be to expand and perpetuate its power. It seems in the habit of using more power than the people cede to it, and I think we have a duty as citizens to oppose that habit.
While I don't think the relationship between is absolute I still maintain that for the most part the expansion of the state takes place at the expense of the individual.
I don't believe I have ever accused all proponents of expanded state power of having the worst motives on the right or left. I'm sure human nature being what it is some do, but I expect most mean well.
Limited government is not at odds with being proactive per se. For example threaten to kill someone violates the right of the individual threatened. I think we can agree that the state doesn't have to wait for the individual to actually be killed before the government can act.
We can probably find some common ground on disclosing hazards and having an inform populace, but I also think there are limits to how much you can protect people from themselves. For example I think we would agree that if tobacco companies started running ads about how healthy smoking is for you that would be fraud. On the other hand I've never heard of someone buying their first pack of smokes, looking at the label and suddenly going, "Oh crap! These are bad for you! I'm not going to smoke them!" People will knowingly do self destructive things for a variety of reasons. I think they have that right.
I'm not sure I agree entirely with the sound mind position either. I think we would agree that the idea of stripping peoples rights for mental health reasons is subject to abuse and should require a high standard. We would probably disagree where the bar should be set.
I think that you make a very valid point, and I'm sure that we agree that fascism and mercantilism are rotten things, but I have trouble seeing how corporations can be primarily blamed for the horrors in Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China or Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter.Without going into the whole "fascism = corporatism" thing...
Neither has the FDA or the EPA, so let's tone it down a bit and compare apples and apples.
*sigh*
I never said or suggested that.
I said I believe governments are a greater threat than corporations.
The portion of my quote that you omitted seems quite clear.
Did anyone else think I was suggesting some kind of equivalence between Hiroshima and the FDA?
I also did not say that corporations do nothing but good, and government does nothing but evil.
Is that more clear?
Clear as mud.
What I'm saying is that you can't use examples like you provided in any sort of case dealing with the actual US bureaucracy. You make these grand lunatic gestures about how awful government is, and in the next breath say "see, they're trying to keep you from yummy raw milk" and don't expect a reasonable reader to think there's a connection in your mind.
Hiroshima=bad, sure.
Why are you railing against the FDA?
Show me that the people selling raw milk are doing so to get out from under the corporate thumb, and testimony that that is why they're doing it, as opposed to being part of a movement that misinforms as to the health risks of their product and sells it under the table to make a quick buck. Albeit perhaps just to get by in these economic times.
I can easily believe that. Often you'll only get one milk distributor in an area and you either need to take what they'll pay you or cough up for your own FDA approved refinery.
I can think of two good reasons for raw milk. It tastes really good and I want some. Why would you deny me that? Im not forcing you or anyone else to drink it, after all.
Because its easier to ban the sale than to stop you from giving it to your kid, who isn't able to weigh the delicious taste against the risk.
There's definitely more than one milk distributor doing business in Wisconsin.
Clear as mud.
What I'm saying is that you can't use examples like you provided in any sort of case dealing with the actual US bureaucracy. You make these grand lunatic gestures about how awful government is, and in the next breath say "see, they're trying to keep you from yummy raw milk" and don't expect a reasonable reader to think there's a connection in your mind.Hiroshima=bad, sure.
Why are you railing against the FDA?
I don't see where this is confusing you.
Can you quote what I said that you find so baffling?
I just don't see where I suggested that the FDA has done something as bad as what the US government did at Hiroshima. The FDA has certainly done bad things, but I'm not seeing how that would equate to the atomic bombings. If I said that by all means show me.
I can oppose horrors like Stalin's Russia, and I can oppose other offenses like the government banning some marriages between consenting adults. Besides being injustices committed by governments I don't see the relationship.