Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

1679111262

Posts

  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    So, are you saying that Ron Paul's slogan should be:

    "Ron Paul: Too crazy to be able to get anything done!"

    I find it a testament to how fucked up the Bush presidency is, that "I promise not to do anything at all" is actually seen as a positive in the public's eyes.

    You would think Bush is trying to destroy the republican party.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    I'm not saying that deregulation in the food industry would be a good thing. I'm saying that there are valid enough arguments for it that you can't call it retarded. .

    Then supply some already or quit whining.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    3) Ron Paul has never proven himself as a leader.

    * The man has served ten tems in congress. What has he actually accomplished in all that that time? Be specific.
    * The man can't even run an 8 page newsletter. What makes you think he can run an entire country?

    http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

    Read that house.gov Bio and tell me again that he has a weak service record (weaker than Hillary's or Obama's or McCain.
    I read the whole thing. I can tell you right now that it comes nowhere close to Hillary's accomplishments as First Lady, and that if we reduce Obama's political accomplishments to "gave key note address at DNC Convention," he would still have accomplished more than Ron Paul.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    All you need to know is free market economy is a race to the bottom. Whoever can get the lowest price and remain profitable wins. That usually means monopoly, cutting corners (such as health regulations), and price gouging so that competitors bottom out.

    Government is important not only in making sure economy doesn't consume itself, but also so that the products that come out of the economy are safe to the consumer. As much as I want limited government involvement, many processes that Ron Paul wants absolved would hurt the consumer/citizens in the long run.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    I'm not saying that deregulation in the food industry would be a good thing. I'm saying that there are valid enough arguments for it that you can't call it retarded. .

    Then supply some already or quit whining.

    1.) We can eat what we want.

    Do I need to say more? I don't even need a voluminous list. Whether or not the negatives would outweigh the cons, I think it's quite clear why many people would want to have a greater range of choice about what things they are permitted to put inside of their bodies.

    Because there is risk, though, and these people came to an incorrect conclusion, they are retarded and I'm pretty sure that their dads are their aunts.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The other day I took my dollar bill and bought a candybar. Either my dollar is worthless, or the candybar is worthless. Or, just maybe, the dollar bill is doing the job it was intended. To allow me to get a candybar.

    I believe the point is that some are concerned with the future value of our currency. Since the dollar is basically an IOU (and not backed only by trust in the US government), we don't know where it's going to be going. Right now it's obviously going down. Eventually you could need two dollars to buy that candy bar, and you may be getting paid the same in the workplace. Someday it could be that people will not accept the dollar. I guess some of the worry that Dr. Paul has expressed was regarding China paying for our war debt.

    I know it's not necessarily your responsibility to think about economic problems, we have other people who do that.

    There is some talk about an Amero... http://youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

    According to Snopes they haven't designed it yet, and I'm sure it's at the very least a decade or two away. But obviously some people are thinking about it.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amero.asp

    Edit: This is an exciting thread but I've got to do other things. I'll be back in a while. Thanks for the debate folks. I hope I didn't just derail this into an Amero debate or anything. sorry

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The other day I took my dollar bill and bought a candybar. Either my dollar is worthless, or the candybar is worthless. Or, just maybe, the dollar bill is doing the job it was intended. To allow me to get a candybar.

    Don't you see, if we revert back to the gold standard that Snickers will only cost you a nickel! Who doesn't want penny candies?! Communists, that's who.

    moniker on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    All you need to know is free market economy is a race to the bottom. Whoever can get the lowest price and remain profitable wins. That usually means monopoly, cutting corners (such as health regulations), and price gouging so that competitors bottom out.

    Government is important not only in making sure economy doesn't consume itself, but also so that the products that come out of the economy are safe to the consumer. As much as I want limited government involvement, many processes that Ron Paul wants absolved would hurt the consumer/citizens in the long run.

    Exactly. The only argument someone can make in favor of that level of deregulation is when they set "freedom" - the freedom to put severed fingers in cans of beans - as their ultimate, all-consuming priority. There is room for reasonable people to disagree about all sorts of things the government does but that sort of extremist freedom-above-all philosophy ultimately helps no-one.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The other day I took my dollar bill and bought a candybar. Either my dollar is worthless, or the candybar is worthless. Or, just maybe, the dollar bill is doing the job it was intended. To allow me to get a candybar.

    I believe the point is that some are concerned with the future value of our currency. Since the dollar is basically an IOU (and not backed only by trust in the US government), we don't know where it's going to be going. Right now it's obviously going down. Eventually you could need two dollars to buy that candy bar, and you may be getting paid the same in the workplace. Someday it could be that people will not accept the dollar. I guess some of the worry that Dr. Paul has expressed was regarding China paying for our war debt.

    I know it's not necessarily your responsibility to think about economic problems, we have other people who do that.

    There is some talk about an Amero... http://youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

    According to Snopes they haven't designed it yet, and I'm sure it's at the very least a decade or two away. But obviously some people are thinking about it.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amero.asp

    Edit: This is an exciting thread but I've got to do other things. I'll be back in a while. Thanks for the debate folks.

    And you know what fixes all of that? Self reliance. If we, one of the biggest consumers in the world, no longer NEED imported products, the value of our dollar increases. Money is an ebb and flow, you cannot expect the dollar to always be on the top of economy if you are not producing most of your own economy.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I believe the point is that some are concerned with the future value of our currency. Since the dollar is basically an IOU (and not backed only by trust in the US government), we don't know where it's going to be going. Right now it's obviously going down. Eventually you could need two dollars to buy that candy bar, and you may be getting paid the same in the workplace.
    And eventually my dollar could be worth two dollars but my debt could be the same. With a currency backed by gold there is nothing for the worth of the dollar to go but up and that would be worse for poorer people. Companies eventually have to change their wages to meet the cost of living. Lenders don't need to do that.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    All you need to know is free market economy is a race to the bottom. Whoever can get the lowest price and remain profitable wins. That usually means monopoly, cutting corners (such as health regulations), and price gouging so that competitors bottom out.

    Government is important not only in making sure economy doesn't consume itself, but also so that the products that come out of the economy are safe to the consumer. As much as I want limited government involvement, many processes that Ron Paul wants absolved would hurt the consumer/citizens in the long run.

    These are very good points but I can't address them now. I will be thinking about it though.

    I also agree with the last thing you said. I'm just not sure that we NEED government regulation, but as I said, I'll be thinking about it.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Inflation is the lesser of two evils. You want a little bit of inflation to encourage people to spend- driving the economy.

    Deflation gives people the incentive to save- which is good, you want some savings...but it also cripples the desire to consume. If my dollar is worth two dollars if I wait a month, it is in my interest to spend as little as possible.

    And all those companies I might have perused go out of business as a result. Deflation is the greater of two evils. Fiat money allows for the control of inflation, rather than being tied to gold stocks. This is good. Gold standard would mean more frequent and severe depressions rather than the regular, cyclical recessions we see now.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    I'm not saying that deregulation in the food industry would be a good thing. I'm saying that there are valid enough arguments for it that you can't call it retarded. .
    Then supply some already or quit whining.
    1.) We can eat what we want.

    Do I need to say more? I don't even need a voluminous list. Whether or not the negatives would outweigh the cons, I think it's quite clear why many people would want to have a greater range of choice about what things they are permitted to put inside of their bodies.

    Because there is risk, though, and these people came to an incorrect conclusion, they are retarded and I'm pretty sure that their dads are their aunts.
    Except children. I mean, really, fuck children, right? If they want to eat food that doesn't contain large doses of poison, but that's all their parents buy, well, then, that's just their problem, right? I mean, all we have to do is abolish compulsory education, and then they can just go out and get a job for themselves, so they can have the freedom to buy their own fucking food, right? Though, of course, the parents won't know what they're buying, anyhow, because we've done away with the FDA, which means no more FDA regulations on nutritional labeling or ingredient lists. Which is no problem, right, because anything poisonous will kill a bunch of people. Of course, it might not kill them for 30 years, but that doesn't matter, because we've got more freedom, right? And we all died for the freedom to put poison in food we sell people.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Do I need to say more? I don't even need a voluminous list. Whether or not the negatives would outweigh the cons, I think it's quite clear why many people would want to have a greater range of choice about what things they are permitted to put inside of their bodies.

    "Greater range of choice"? Between tainted and non-tainted food? Can you actually find evidence that people want to buy rotten meat and poisoned drugs? I'm guessing no.

    Of course, as history has shown us, there is no shortage of people who'd happily sell rotten meat and poisoned drugs, and clearly you value their freedom over everyone else's. And then sob and moan about people deeming this "crazy."

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    I'm not saying that deregulation in the food industry would be a good thing. I'm saying that there are valid enough arguments for it that you can't call it retarded. .

    Then supply some already or quit whining.

    1.) We can eat what we want.

    Do I need to say more?

    Yes, because I cannot verify the health or safety of the contents of what I consume without federal regulations.

    Are you not aware of what a collective action problem is? Or do you consider the death of consumers, and thus their lack of purchasing power, to be a market force that will drive ConAgra products out of business eventually solving the problem of lethal foodstuffs with only a few externalities that create new expanses in other parts of the economy. Namely undertakers.

    moniker on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    All you need to know is free market economy is a race to the bottom. Whoever can get the lowest price and remain profitable wins. That usually means monopoly, cutting corners (such as health regulations), and price gouging so that competitors bottom out.

    Government is important not only in making sure economy doesn't consume itself, but also so that the products that come out of the economy are safe to the consumer. As much as I want limited government involvement, many processes that Ron Paul wants absolved would hurt the consumer/citizens in the long run.

    Exactly. The only argument someone can make in favor of that level of deregulation is when they set "freedom" - the freedom to put severed fingers in cans of beans - as their ultimate, all-consuming priority. There is room for reasonable people to disagree about all sorts of things the government does but that sort of extremist freedom-above-all philosophy ultimately helps no-one.

    I think you're forgetting that people don't buy food from companies that serve them human fingers. I think that's what the media should be for. I also think that's a principle of capitalism. Ugh I really have to go, I'm just going to close the browser...

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I, for one, cannot wait to be able to buy cocaine tooth drops.
    cocainepx5.jpg
    I think you're forgetting that people don't buy food from companies that serve them human fingers. I think that's what the media should be for. I also think that's a principle of capitalism.
    If only there wasn't a group of people who do not have readily available access to most forms of media. People would need to know that the companies serve them human fingers. Luckily for us, there is no way for a company to cover up any scandal that might be brewing. After all, huge corporations can't afford to influence the few media companies.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    I think you're forgetting that people don't buy food from companies that serve them human fingers. I think that's what the media should be for.

    And what you're forgetting is that this was tried and it didn't work. You wanna know why people are so impatient with these discussions? It's because for most of us - like ninety percent of the population - the question of whether it's okay to regulate food was settled a century ago.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    Talous wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The other day I took my dollar bill and bought a candybar. Either my dollar is worthless, or the candybar is worthless. Or, just maybe, the dollar bill is doing the job it was intended. To allow me to get a candybar.

    I believe the point is that some are concerned with the future value of our currency. Since the dollar is basically an IOU (and not backed only by trust in the US government), we don't know where it's going to be going. Right now it's obviously going down. Eventually you could need two dollars to buy that candy bar, and you may be getting paid the same in the workplace. Someday it could be that people will not accept the dollar. I guess some of the worry that Dr. Paul has expressed was regarding China paying for our war debt.

    I know it's not necessarily your responsibility to think about economic problems, we have other people who do that.

    There is some talk about an Amero... http://youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

    According to Snopes they haven't designed it yet, and I'm sure it's at the very least a decade or two away. But obviously some people are thinking about it.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/amero.asp

    Edit: This is an exciting thread but I've got to do other things. I'll be back in a while. Thanks for the debate folks.

    And you know what fixes all of that? Self reliance. If we, one of the biggest consumers in the world, no longer NEED imported products, the value of our dollar increases. Money is an ebb and flow, you cannot expect the dollar to always be on the top of economy if you are not producing most of your own economy.

    How can you possibly justify having market forces dictate something so valuable as currency? Sure the free market is a panacea. Just not there. There we have to base the value of the dollar on some shiny metal that we dig out of the ground in order to place in a different part of the ground with paid guards standing around it. Anything short of that is just asking for trouble as the market has no way of creating a just value on our money.

    moniker on
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »

    I think you're forgetting that people don't buy food from companies that serve them human fingers. I think that's what the media should be for. I also think that's a principle of capitalism. Ugh I really have to go, I'm just going to close the browser...

    Wow, you're going to put all that regulation in the hands of... journalists? Aren't you bold. Let's presume that journalists could in fact catch all health hazards out there in an unregulated world. There is still the problem where most journalists' hands are tied because they can't lie when dealing with corporations. The days of gotcha and yellow journalism have been squashed by laws prohibiting certain methods journalists USED to be able to do to get to the bottom of the news story.

    Yeah, I'll just let an agency mandate things for me, rather than rely on independent sources with one hand tied behind their backs.

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    All you need to know is free market economy is a race to the bottom. Whoever can get the lowest price and remain profitable wins. That usually means monopoly, cutting corners (such as health regulations), and price gouging so that competitors bottom out.

    Government is important not only in making sure economy doesn't consume itself, but also so that the products that come out of the economy are safe to the consumer. As much as I want limited government involvement, many processes that Ron Paul wants absolved would hurt the consumer/citizens in the long run.

    Exactly. The only argument someone can make in favor of that level of deregulation is when they set "freedom" - the freedom to put severed fingers in cans of beans - as their ultimate, all-consuming priority. There is room for reasonable people to disagree about all sorts of things the government does but that sort of extremist freedom-above-all philosophy ultimately helps no-one.

    I think you're forgetting that people don't buy food from companies that serve them human fingers. I think that's what the media should be for. I also think that's a principle of capitalism. Ugh I really have to go, I'm just going to close the browser...

    Actually they do. You might want to brush up on the early part of the 20th century.

    moniker on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Removing regulation would be horrible for the economy. How many countries do you think would allow imports from America if the food might be poisonous?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sinclair's point was that the government should be doing something about the outrage, you jackass.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    imbalanced wrote: »
    All you need to know is free market economy is a race to the bottom. Whoever can get the lowest price and remain profitable wins. That usually means monopoly, cutting corners (such as health regulations), and price gouging so that competitors bottom out.

    Government is important not only in making sure economy doesn't consume itself, but also so that the products that come out of the economy are safe to the consumer. As much as I want limited government involvement, many processes that Ron Paul wants absolved would hurt the consumer/citizens in the long run.

    These are very good points but I can't address them now. I will be thinking about it though.

    I also agree with the last thing you said. I'm just not sure that we NEED government regulation, but as I said, I'll be thinking about it.

    You might also want to meditate on the fact that free markets =! competitive markets. And it is competitive markets that have your vaunted market forces apply to them, not necessarily free markets. Look at your cable or high speed internet company for examples of regulation that improved competition and thusly their services. Benefits which immediately vanished when the FCC abolished the regulations.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    I think you're forgetting that people don't buy food from companies that serve them human fingers. I think that's what the media should be for. I also think that's a principle of capitalism. Ugh I really have to go, I'm just going to close the browser...

    Unless, of course, the same media company that might otherwise broadcast reports of human fingers is owned by the canned finger company..

    Unless, of course, the infrastructure that allows media to reach wide segments of the population- like, say, the internet- is owned by companies with no incentive to send it out to poor or isolated areas, so in the absence of some sort of government insistence on equitable spread of infrastructure, they'll never see the media reports.

    Unless, of course, they're working 80 hour weeks in their company towns shopping at the company store and do not have the time or road access (controlled by the company, see) to shop elsewhere or even browse what media they have access to for "human finger alerts."

    Unless, of course, they're just busy. Or miss the news report on the canned fingers but catch the one on the poisoned water. Or don't hear about it. Or are the first unlucky person to discover the canned finger.

    Unless, of course, the canned finger corporation provides the cheapest food available and some people are too poor to afford more reliable canned goods and therefore have to accept that one out of ten cans they buy has a bit o' a person in it.

    Unless, of course, news agencies made more money doing stories about puppies and foreign wars and never bother to investigate finger-food.

    Unless, of course, journalists do care about it, but lack nation-wide coordination and infrastructure to provide accurate and comprehensive details on food safety to consumers.

    Unless, of course, these intrepid food-safety watchmen do manage to form a wider collective organization to monitor food safety. But the finger-food companies swiftly form competing, similar organizations and provide them with better funding and advertising, so the consumer has several conflicting reports and no central, trustworthy institution to look at for reliable information.

    If only people were part of some sort of framework or structure for collective action, and could delegate to that structure some sort of organization that would perform the task of monitoring food safety and content for them.

    If only...

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    jacob wrote:
    "Greater range of choice"? Between tainted and non-tainted food? Can you actually find evidence that people want to buy rotten meat and poisoned drugs? I'm guessing no.

    Not everything currently prohibited by the FDA is poison. I can't believe you're saying this while calling Ron Paul extreme.
    moniker wrote:
    Yes, because I cannot verify the health or safety of the contents of what I consume without federal regulations.

    You can- though probably not as effectively, I bet. I don't deny that.
    thinatos wrote:
    Except children. I mean, really, fuck children, right?

    No, not fuck children. That's not necessary, either.

    Knives are bad for kids. So are guns. And sharp edges. And large amounts of prescription medicine.

    That's why they have parents to protect them.







    BRB in 16 hours or so. I start at Target tomorrow. Hopefully I manage to slip a needle into a Halloween candy bag- if I do my job well some kid might eat it.:roll:

    Organichu on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    moniker wrote:
    Yes, because I cannot verify the health or safety of the contents of what I consume without federal regulations.

    You can- though probably not as effectively, I bet. I don't deny that.

    How? The only thing I know is that a can doesn't bulge with flavour, it bulges with e. coli. Beyond that I'm reliant on nutriton facts and the ingredients list that are federally mandated. Remove those or allow corporations to be as honest there as people are with their resumes and I may well be drinking soylent soda or cocain cola without any recourse or, to my horror, knowledge of the fact. I will be unwillfully poisoned by another and have the freedom of eating untainted food taken away from me in favor of another getting the freedom to surreptitiously poison me at a profit.


    BRB in 16 hours or so. I start at Target tomorrow. Hopefully I manage to slip a needle into a Halloween candy bag- if I do my job well some kid might eat it.

    You poor persecuted poster. Having to defend your stated positions and everything.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    jacob wrote:
    "Greater range of choice"? Between tainted and non-tainted food? Can you actually find evidence that people want to buy rotten meat and poisoned drugs? I'm guessing no.

    Not everything currently prohibited by the FDA is poison. I can't believe you're saying this while calling Ron Paul extreme.

    But a lot of it is. If you have a problem with a specific FDA policy, we can debate the merits of a particular ban. But that's not the same argument as going after the existence of the FDA as a whole.

    See, this is why I can't stand Libertarians. It's this dichotometric thinking that drives me crazy- there seems to be no substance to the philosophy outside of whining about individual and isolated failures of governance. If the FDA screws up on one thing, throw the whole fucker out!

    Ignore the fact that most of the time it protects the consumer.

    moniker wrote:
    Yes, because I cannot verify the health or safety of the contents of what I consume without federal regulations.

    You can- though probably not as effectively, I bet. I don't deny that.[/quote]

    No, he can't, unless he's a fucking chemist or doctor or some other professional. Some of this shit takes specialized training and knowledge. Or tools! How many people here have a food test analysis kit? Home chemistry set?
    Knives are bad for kids. So are guns. And sharp edges. And large amounts of prescription medicine.

    That's why they have parents to protect them.

    And those parents have entered into an arrangement with their government to delegate their duty of monitoring food safety, so they, you know, have time to do shit like parenting or work or leisure.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    moniker wrote:
    Yes, because I cannot verify the health or safety of the contents of what I consume without federal regulations.

    You can- though probably not as effectively, I bet. I don't deny that.

    How? The only thing I know is that a can doesn't bulge with flavour, it bulges with e. coli. Beyond that I'm reliant on nutriton facts and the ingredients list that are federally mandated. Remove those or allow corporations to be as honest there as people are with their resumes and I may well be drinking soylent soda or cocain cola without any recourse or, to my horror, knowledge of the fact. I will be unwillfully poisoned by another and have the freedom of eating untainted food taken away from me in favor of another getting the freedom to surreptitiously poison me at a profit.

    You can see if it has needles in it. You can tell if the meat smells like my asshole. Again, I admit that your methods of evaluation are very limited compared to the resources available to a governmental institution. I don't support the full dissolution of the FDA. Like I said, though, people who want its influence lessened aren't necessarily crazy. I'm not sure why you're polarizing.
    phobos wrote:
    See, this is why I can't stand Libertarians. It's this dichotometric thinking that drives me crazy- there seems to be no substance to the philosophy outside of whining about individual and isolated failures of governance. If the FDA screws up on one thing, throw the whole fucker out!

    I didn't say anything about wanting to throw out the FDA. I said that people who do want to throw it out- or people who want to lessen its prominence- are not necessarily crazy. It is not 'insane' to want to consider a wider range of protein powders, or to decide for yourself from anecdotal testing whether a new replacement for aspirin may be worth the risk when the FDA says it may cause severe headaches.

    I don't know why my thinking is described as dichotomous when the only thing I'm doing is trying to institute a gradient of sensibility. Every post I have made so far in this thread has had one purpose: to exhibit that Ron Paul and his followers aren't completely retarded. As an atheist, I hardly support all of the guy's ideas. Don't ascribe all of his beliefs to me just because I'm not crucifying him.
    And those parents have entered into an arrangement with their government to delegate their duty of monitoring food safety, so they, you know, have time to do shit like parenting or work or leisure.

    You draw the line here (at examining their food). Why not at what school they go to? What kind of toys they can play with? I'm not saying you're wrong and that adults should make all of these executive decisions for their children, but you can't deny that when drawing a line as arbitrary as this, someone who may fall a centimeter on the other side is not by definition a complete moron.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    moniker wrote:
    Yes, because I cannot verify the health or safety of the contents of what I consume without federal regulations.

    You can- though probably not as effectively, I bet. I don't deny that.

    How? The only thing I know is that a can doesn't bulge with flavour, it bulges with e. coli. Beyond that I'm reliant on nutriton facts and the ingredients list that are federally mandated. Remove those or allow corporations to be as honest there as people are with their resumes and I may well be drinking soylent soda or cocain cola without any recourse or, to my horror, knowledge of the fact. I will be unwillfully poisoned by another and have the freedom of eating untainted food taken away from me in favor of another getting the freedom to surreptitiously poison me at a profit.

    You can see if it has needles in it. You can tell if the meat smells like my asshole. Again, I admit that your methods of evaluation are very limited compared to the resources available to a governmental institution. I don't support the full dissolution of the FDA. Like I said, though, people who want its influence lessened aren't necessarily crazy. I'm not sure why you're polarizing.

    headshake.gif
    phobos wrote:
    See, this is why I can't stand Libertarians. It's this dichotometric thinking that drives me crazy- there seems to be no substance to the philosophy outside of whining about individual and isolated failures of governance. If the FDA screws up on one thing, throw the whole fucker out!

    I didn't say anything about wanting to throw out the FDA. I said that people who do want to throw it out- or people who want to lessen its prominence- are not necessarily crazy. It is not 'insane' to want to consider a wider range of protein powders, or to decide for yourself from anecdotal testing whether a new replacement for aspirin may be worth the risk when the FDA says it may cause severe headaches.

    I don't know why my thinking is described as dichotomous when the only thing I'm doing is trying to institute a gradient of sensibility. Every post I have made so far in this thread has had one purpose: to exhibit that Ron Paul and his followers aren't completely retarded. As an atheist, I hardly support all of the guy's ideas. Don't ascribe all of his beliefs to me just because I'm not crucifying him.

    But that isn't an argument against the FDA or even against specified policies within the FDA. You're basically grabbing at straws to justify denying me my freedom from ingesting tainted foods or drugs because the FDA may be more strict than is prudent regarding ____. Where ____ is something you and Paul have yet to fill in.
    And those parents have entered into an arrangement with their government to delegate their duty of monitoring food safety, so they, you know, have time to do shit like parenting or work or leisure.

    You draw the line here (at examining their food). Why not at what school they go to? What kind of toys they can play with? I'm not saying you're wrong and that adults should make all of these executive decisions for their children, but you can't deny that when drawing a line as arbitrary as this, someone who may fall a centimeter on the other side is not by definition a complete moron.

    Umm, there are federal regulations regarding children's toys. Remember the Mattell recall due to lead paint? Yeah.

    moniker on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    headshake.gif

    :(
    But that isn't an argument against the FDA or even against specified policies within the FDA. You're basically grabbing at straws to justify denying me my freedom from ingesting tainted foods or drugs because the FDA may be more strict than is prudent regarding ____. Where ____ is something you and Paul have yet to fill in.

    Before I go hunting for specific examples with links- let me ask this, because I've got other stuff to do: do you think that there are substances extant outlawed by the FDA whose ingestion will not cripple or kill you?
    Umm, there are federal regulations regarding children's toys. Remember the Mattell recall due to lead paint? Yeah.

    I didn't explain that well. I know that there are restrictions on toys. I meant something more severe. For example, why not outlaw pink toys for families who only have boys? Couldn't this make the male effeminate and ultimately make his life more difficult? I recognize that currently the FDA doesn't outlaw pink toys- however, it's another example of where the line could be drawn with mandated programs like the FDA.

    Thankfully, our FDA is not nearly so bad as to make judgment calls like these. However, it could make such calls. My point was that drawing the line there would probably have some of you agree with me that the FDA should back off a bit. Why, though? This would make the choice of how to raise your kid a bit easier- which is what Phobos was talking about: allowing the government to make some of your decisions for you.

    I think the government should have a say in those decisions. Otherwise parents could do whatever they wanted (which is obviously a terrible idea). However, if we all agree (and you and I do agree on this) that the government has a role- however significant- in determining how we raise our children, I think it's ridiculous to say that anyone who supports moving that line a few feet to the left or to the right is moronic.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I thought we solved this fucking debate 100 years ago.

    shryke on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    headshake.gif

    :(
    But that isn't an argument against the FDA or even against specified policies within the FDA. You're basically grabbing at straws to justify denying me my freedom from ingesting tainted foods or drugs because the FDA may be more strict than is prudent regarding ____. Where ____ is something you and Paul have yet to fill in.

    Before I go hunting for specific examples with links- let me ask this, because I've got other stuff to do: do you think that there are substances extant outlawed by the FDA whose ingestion will not cripple or kill you?

    Yes, but adverse effects that fail to meet the metric of death and/or massive organ failure doesn't really make them all that swell, and using that as the dividing line is foolish and insane on the face of it.
    Umm, there are federal regulations regarding children's toys. Remember the Mattell recall due to lead paint? Yeah.

    I didn't explain that well. I know that there are restrictions on toys. I meant something more severe. For example, why not outlaw pink toys for families who only have boys? Couldn't this make the male effeminate and ultimately make his life more difficult? I recognize that currently the FDA doesn't outlaw pink toys- however, it's another example of where the line could be drawn with mandated programs like the FDA.

    Thankfully, our FDA is not nearly so bad as to make judgment calls like these. However, it could make such calls. My point was that drawing the line there would probably have some of you agree with me that the FDA should back off a bit. Why, though? This would make the choice of how to raise your kid a bit easier- which is what Phobos was talking about: allowing the government to make some of your decisions for you.

    I think the government should have a say in those decisions. Otherwise parents could do whatever they wanted (which is obviously a terrible idea). However, if we all agree (and you and I do agree on this) that the government has a role- however significant- in determining how we raise our children, I think it's ridiculous to say that anyone who supports moving that line a few feet to the left or to the right is moronic.

    None of that is related to health or safety, so I don't see it's relevance and is basically just an extreme hyperbole of Phobos' point. Oh, and claiming that libertarians want the FDA abolished is not hyperbollic, they actually do advocate that.

    moniker on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    I thought we solved this fucking debate 100 years ago.

    You're misunderstanding the issue that is being debated (at least by me).

    I believe that the government does and should have a role in deciding many things about our everyday lives- what we can and cannot do, eat, take, etc.

    If you're coming away from my posts thinking that I don't want the government in my life, I'm bad at expressing or you're bad at understanding. It is probably error on my end, since English is not my first language. If so, I'm sorry. I'm trying my hardest to make it clear.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.

    Savant on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah, the problem is your fighting against things, like the FDA, which we figured out long ago are GOOD things.

    shryke on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Yes, but adverse effects that fail to meet the metric of death and/or massive organ failure doesn't really make them all that swell, and using that as the dividing line is foolish and insane on the face of it.

    I was just using that as a litmus test. I don't support products that make you piss uncontrollably for 9 years, either. I was just confirming that there were some things you would accept. I need to go to bed soon, but now that I see you're at least somewhat receptive, I'll be sure to post some examples tomorrow.
    None of that is related to health or safety, so I don't see how it's relevance and is basically just an extreme hyperbole of Phobos' point.

    Mental health is absolutely a substantial component of overall health and welfare.
    Oh, and claiming that libertarians want the FDA abolished is not hyperbollic, they actually do advocate that.

    Some do. There is a gradient, which is something that I've been trying to say for a few hours now.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, the problem is your fighting against things, like the FDA, which we figured out long ago are GOOD things.

    I'm not fighting against the existence of the FDA.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.

    Good, good. We'll just wait for someone to die before anything gets done. And that's when it'll stop immediately, cause the legal system is a paragon of speed and efficiency.

    shryke on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.
    Good, good. We'll just wait for someone to die before anything gets done. And that's when it'll stop immediately, cause the legal system is a paragon of speed and efficiency.
    And that would basically legalize carcinogens, as long as they took long enough to cause cancer.

    Thanatos on
This discussion has been closed.