And really, race is a bad way to group indeed. IMO more so to do with wealth, education, various environmental factors, location (urban/rural, location in country). But there will always be someone to buck the trend!
I took a poly sci course and I learned that the
more authoritarian and manipulative of the country a president was, the
better he was.
Depends on how one defines "better" but is that new idea a new one? Didn't Machiavelli pretty much say that exact thing? And it probably goes back much farther, just not written down.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:03
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:16
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
Then on the other hand in the good old days we could have whatever nasty drugs we wanted.
Edited by Slartibartfast - August 02 2010 at 19:18
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:23
JJLehto wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
All poli sci majors are prone generalizations.
Quoted for truth, and cleverness as well
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I took a poly sci course and I learned that the
more authoritarian and manipulative of the country a president was, the
better he was.
Depends on how one defines "better" but is that new idea a new one? Didn't Machiavelli pretty much say that exact thing? And it probably goes back much farther, just not written down.
Machiavelli was talking the most efficient way to rule, for the ruler.
Just because the idea was written about doesn't make it right.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:29
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
I don't agree with its existence (but you already knew that). The notion that government can somehow do an efficient job of regulating food seems silly to me, and not really substantiated by anything except the fact that it exists. I think for the most part people and the free market will regulate these things by themselves.
However, I would suspect a private "regulating" body would take its place. For example, insurance companies which insure restaurants obviously have a particular interest in the conditions of the food. A private company could serve this function.
One of the huge problems of the FDA is how it is used for political means. Companies which the government has a large stock in are protected through barbarous regulation. One recent example is the way big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have been protected by the hurdles the E-Cigarette has had to jump through.
I don't see why any product would need to be outlawed, nor a reason to mandate labeling procedures.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:36
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
I don't agree with its existence (but you already knew that). The notion that government can somehow do an efficient job of regulating food seems silly to me, and not really substantiated by anything except the fact that it exists. I think for the most part people and the free market will regulate these things by themselves.
However, I would suspect a private "regulating" body would take its place. For example, insurance companies which insure restaurants obviously have a particular interest in the conditions of the food. A private company could serve this function.
One of the huge problems of the FDA is how it is used for political means. Companies which the government has a large stock in are protected through barbarous regulation. One recent example is the way big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have been protected by the hurdles the E-Cigarette has had to jump through.
I don't see why any product would need to be outlawed, nor a reason to mandate labeling procedures.
The notion that the private sector will sell you good food out of the goodness of their hearts is pure naivete. Government regulation for all it's defects is better than the alternative.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:38
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
I will let Milton Friedman answer this question for me. Why? Because he is awesome.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:40
Slartibartfast wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
I don't agree with its existence (but you already knew that). The notion that government can somehow do an efficient job of regulating food seems silly to me, and not really substantiated by anything except the fact that it exists. I think for the most part people and the free market will regulate these things by themselves.
However, I would suspect a private "regulating" body would take its place. For example, insurance companies which insure restaurants obviously have a particular interest in the conditions of the food. A private company could serve this function.
One of the huge problems of the FDA is how it is used for political means. Companies which the government has a large stock in are protected through barbarous regulation. One recent example is the way big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have been protected by the hurdles the E-Cigarette has had to jump through.
I don't see why any product would need to be outlawed, nor a reason to mandate labeling procedures.
The notion that the private sector will sell you good food out of the goodness of their hearts is pure naivete. Government regulation for all it's defects is better than the alternative.
I agree it is naive, but they have things like lawsuites and making money to worry about, not the goodness of their hearts. Why do you trust the government to act out of goodwill, but not the private sector? I truth neither to act just because they get warm feelings in their stomachs from helping people.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:51
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
I will let Milton Friedman answer this question for me. Why? Because he is awesome.
It's a shame he's no longer with us.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: August 02 2010 at 19:56
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Time for more questions people... A regulating body of the government is the FDA... Do you agree with its existence? Don't you think without a regulating body food companies would sell us all kinds of sh*t? (they already do). Do you agree with certain products that have to be outlawed or at least with the obligation to put a "it might KILL YOU" notice on the packaging label?
Answer libertarian b*****ds...
I will let Milton Friedman answer this question for me. Why? Because he is awesome.
It's a shame he's no longer with us.
It's probably for the best. I think witnessing the Obama administration would have killed him anyway.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.373 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote:
