|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
And yet they still exist. So I guess the government can't protect you. You could be hit by a bus tomorrow. The government can't protect you. Somebody could break into your home and stab you and the government wouldn't be able to protect you.
|
So you're actually claiming that because the government can't protect you from everything all the time, that it shouldn't try to make it less common? How about we apply that to other areas:
�And yet cancer still exists. So I guess modern medicine can't protect you. You could get a tumor tomorrow.�
�And yet traffic fatalities still exist. So I guess seat belts can't protect you. You could get killed in a car accident tomorrow.� |
Absurd analogies. Because medicine and seat belts aren't taking my money from me by force and telling me it's for my own good.
| Quote: |
| The obvious point is that making and enforcing laws INCREASES safety; no one has expectations to �ensure� it. If you think making and enforcing laws kills more people than it saves, that's an awfully bold claim that needs to be supported. Since my government does NOT kill more people than anything else, it's probably the opposite. Nowhere man addressed your democide point already. |
Oh really? The narcotics laws have increased your safety? Food and drug laws have increased your safety? Gun restriction has increased your safety?
Prove it. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you (and the government that is taking our money from us whether we like it or not).
| Quote: |
| Right, but that's in addition to the protection of law enforcement, not instead of. I don't think owning a gun is necessary in many places, but that's another argument for another time. |
I support law enforcement within the confines of the constitution. I don't support cops going around bullying, beating, and even killing people, or setting up warrantless checkpoints on roads, or having TSA rent-a-cops in the airports, or having feds operating outside the law. Communities should have sheriffs and most law-abiding people should be armed to defend themselves if need be. We don't need to live in a police state to be "safe".
| Quote: |
| And that's one government policy, not all of them. |
Yeah, and?
| Quote: |
| Actually, all my experiences have been to the contrary. I don't know where you're from, but the people I know are sick of the freedoms we lost and are much more likely to vote people out of office than �giving in� to marshal law. |
Yeah right. So who are you voting for then? Obama? 
| Quote: |
You have not proven this. You have cited examples where the FDA failed, not a comprehensive body of evidence proving it is ineffective (unless you think we all expect the FDA to be perfect).
You have it backwards. YOU made the claim that the FDA does more harm than good and needs to be removed. The burden of proof falls on YOU to support your claim. Not examples of mistakes; I could use that same logic to explain that doctors do more harm than good, and back it up with hundreds of cases where doctors made lethal decisions. Those anecdotal accounts do nothing without the support of statistics.
Despite this, I linked to you the programs the FDA is running as well as a simple list of things they have banned. This proves that the FDA has had positive effects on what we consume in America. Providing examples of chemicals they have not banned does not diminish my argument of the good things the FDA does, as these chemicals would have made it to market regardless. You need to find something that would prove (or at least show a causal link) that the things we consume would be less dangerous without FDA regulation. |
This is completely absurd. You're claiming that because the FDA "may" protect you it is therefore necessary. When I point out all the examples of it not protecting you, it's merely a "mistake".
And this is all beside the point: what right does the FDA have to exist? Or to impose itself on the public (whether some people like yourself favor it or not; many people don't). If you want some regulatory body to protect you, then go find like minded people and fund it yourself. Taxpayer money should not be used.
| Quote: |
| The FDA is supposed to protect us from dangerous chemicals winding up in the things we consume. They do that, just not with a 100% success rate. |
So in other words, they don't prevent it. In fact our food is laden with chemicals, and big agro is sheltered by the FDA from having to even label it.
And yet a simple google search yields a mountain of results that state that it is causing obesity. Plus basic common sense. Americans were not always obese. It began around the the time the government started subsidizing agriculture to produce HFC and cheap oils that are in everything. Hardly a coincidence.
| Quote: |
| That sounds like people voting with their wallets (which is them demanding it). People are given a choice between 2 foods, and they have been choosing the cheaper one. If everyone decided to start using olive oil and cutting down their sugar consumption, I bet you'd see a change in farming. Sounds like free market forces to me, with the supply going to meet the demand. Sure the government subsidies prevent it from being a true �free market�, but the demand was already there. |
How is it "free market" when the government subsidizes the crap, making it so cheap? Do you even put two seconds of thought before you post?
| Quote: |
| There's already a tremendous amount of variety. The amount of food I can purchase at any given time is staggering. I don't know for sure if the business is good, but the local farms (yes, more than one) that my family buys a lot of its produce from have only been expanding since we started going there. Places that don't have those kinds of operations are like that for a reason: the demand for more expensive, fresh produce is too small to support the business. |
More anecdotal evidence. Whatever claims you make about your family, most people shop in supermarkets. The food most Americans buy is produced by a small handful of mega-companies and most of that "variety" is an illusion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2010/11/02/americas-biggest-food-companies/
| Quote: |
| I would still be in favor of changing the system to make it more friendly to small businesses, but the solution is not eliminating the FDA. |
Getting rid of the FDA would be a large step. Ending farm subsidies for Big Agro would be the main thing to do.
| Quote: |
Which does not prove that we would be better off with no FDA. |
Actually it does. It shows that the FDA knowingly allows us to buy and consume products that are harmful. It shows that the FDA either cannot or doesn't want to (likely both) protect us from things that my harm us.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
That article does NOT support your claim.
|
7th paragraph:
�That assertion is debatable. As with any cooking process, pasteurization causes some chemical change, says Jennifer Nelson, a nutritionist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., although she says that nutrition researchers are still testing to see if nutrients, enzymes and other health-related components are significantly altered. Whatever the nutritional change, Nelson cautions, "Raw milk can carry pathogens that can cause illness and death." Certain high risk groups should never drink raw milk: infants, growing children, the elderly and people who are immune compromised because their immune systems may not be strong enough to fight off the pathogens often found in raw milk, she adds. � |
See bold.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Oh, that's an impartial source. The big dairy lobby spent over 5.5 million in 2010. Large dairy producers must pasteurize their milk (due to all the blood, pus, and feces in it), so the last thing they want is to see smaller family farm producers moving in to the market with quality raw milk products.
|
Doesn't make their claim (which was supported in the Scientific American link) any less valid. |
Yes it does. There have been no deaths from raw milk. Even if there had been, what right does the government have to tell people they can't consume it? It's outrageous. It shows the FDA is willing to resort to force and coercion to force people not to eat the types of foods they want (while "coincidentally" benefiting the interests of big dairy).
Apparently those two deaths were from eating a kind of unpasteurized cheese.
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/mark-mcafee-challenges-the-cdcs-statistics-on-raw-milk-deaths/
That guy (an organic dairy farmer) breaks it down quite well here as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUG-4uUbjbY&feature=related
And two deaths in a decade is negligible. More people have no doubt died from things like bee stings or tripping and falling on their heads. The notion that we need to government to regulate such things is asinine.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
So much for the government protecting you...
|
It's quite possible that it has. I have not died from tainted milk. |
You also haven't been struck by lighting. Did the government protect you from that as well?
Should the government ban walking (you might trip and hurt yourself), bees (you might get stung), kitchen knives (you might cut yourself accidentally, or go on a stabbing rampage) etc. etc. etc.? The answer is obviously no, and the same goes for raw milk.
| Quote: |
| There is no problem to understand. I didn't ask them what they thought and assumed those 5 people held the same opinion as the rest of the community; I asked them what the academic community thought of Austrian economics. They all returned the same reply: Austrian economists have made valuable additions to the field of economics, but their views are not consistent with mainstream experts. |
This is such a cop out. As if the status quo is always right just because it's "mainstream". Show me someone trotting out the "mainstream" point of view, and I'll show you someone who has no clue about reality.
| Quote: |
| That's you being backwards. Since your views are held by a minority of experts in the field, for you to take their positions and present it as objective fact is a fallacy. Saying �a few experts believe <x>� and providing a link is a productive way to start a discussion; coming in and saying you're right and everyone else is wrong is absurd. |
No more absurd that you claiming to speak for "the majority" and saying you're right and I'm wrong because of it. The majority does not rule in a debate. The mainstream media is a joke, and mainstream science is anything but neutral. Every time you tow the line of the status quo you are advancing an agenda; so quit pretending like you're just impartial, level headed, and objective.
| Quote: |
Your source about FDR-the only source I disagreed with-flies in the face of everything that teachers and academics have been discussing. That's not to say you can't introduce the topic, just don't introduce it with the authority of objective fact. I've read the piece 3 times and cannot find any causal relationship between FDR's policies and their negative impact on TGD explained. I don't think it's a particularly good piece on the subject. However, there ARE good pieces that support your position:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
The article explains why these two economists believe FDR made TGD worse. However, the methodology has been questioned:
http://www.econ.wisc.edu/workshop/Eggertsson%20paper.pdf
Now, since neither of us are experts, I like to turn to experts. Everyone I have talked to about this who is an authority on the subject has agreed that that FDR is credited with recovery in their discipline, be it in history or economics. Again, this does not bar anyone from holding a contrary position, but such a position should not be based on a belief that they are objectively correct. |
And yet the historical record is crystal clear: that under FDR the Great Depression continued for a decade, and only ended with the advent of US involvement in WWII. It's not a matter of opinion, it's very straightforward - just go look at the dates, and it's obvious.
So FDR was good at organizing the economy into a war machine. Whoopie. He failed miserably at ending the depression during peacetime. Not even up for debate, it's established fact grounded in history.
| Quote: |
| It's saying that because the cost of both categories of expenses did not rise at the same (or a similar) rate as the CPI, that inflationary forces are not enough to explain the cost increases. Since inflation deals with the devaluation of money, and the devaluation of money was not enough to account for the price jumps, it is not inflation. |
Yes it was! Because the money is devalued by government expenditure. Did you miss the part (in Kuros' link) where the majority of medical expenses were born by the elderly, covered by medicare and medicaid? The government devalues the currency to pay for it (just like it devalues the currency to pay for wars or anything else that requires deficit spending, ie. issuing bonds).
| Quote: |
| If health insurance costs 5% more than it did last year, and the CPI said the inflation rate was around 5%, you could say that the cost increase was due to inflation, as your dollar buys you ~5% less than it did a year ago. If the cost goes up 20%, it does not mean that your dollar is worth 20% less. It means inflation increased the price a little, while something else (more expensive procedures, increased demand etc) is responsible for the difference. |
Drivel. The CPI is not what determines inflation. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, not a price phenomenon (prices increase due to inflation, not the other way around). It occurs when the value of the dollar becomes less compared to the amount of goods and services it can buy. This is caused by government.
If we had a fixed money supply, the price of something could only go up if the price of something else went down; this is not the case in an inflationary system where prices of some things can and most certainly do increase more rapidly than prices of others. This is a result of excess money creation, which distorts the market and forms bubbles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Absurd analogies. Because medicine and seat belts aren't taking my money from me by force and telling me it's for my own good.
|
Your point wasn't that it costs taxpayers money, it was that since it problems still exist, that government can't protect us.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The obvious point is that making and enforcing laws INCREASES safety; no one has expectations to �ensure� it. If you think making and enforcing laws kills more people than it saves, that's an awfully bold claim that needs to be supported. Since my government does NOT kill more people than anything else, it's probably the opposite. Nowhere man addressed your democide point already. |
Oh really? The narcotics laws have increased your safety? Food and drug laws have increased your safety? Gun restriction has increased your safety?
|
I didn't say that. I said laws in general and their enforcement protect us. Your exceptions do not disprove the rule. You can make claims about all of those things (and I agree with you on the first and third), but again, the solution is to change those laws, not get rid of law enforcement.
| visitorq wrote: |
Prove it. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you (and the government that is taking our money from us whether we like it or not).
|
So I have to prove how arresting and incarcerating people for rape, theft, murder etc. makes us safer? This is actually something I have to explain to an adult?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Right, but that's in addition to the protection of law enforcement, not instead of. I don't think owning a gun is necessary in many places, but that's another argument for another time. |
I support law enforcement within the confines of the constitution. I don't support cops going around bullying, beating, and even killing people, or setting up warrantless checkpoints on roads, or having TSA rent-a-cops in the airports, or having feds operating outside the law. Communities should have sheriffs and most law-abiding people should be armed to defend themselves if need be. We don't need to live in a police state to be "safe".
|
Since we don't have a police state, I fail to see your point.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And that's one government policy, not all of them. |
Yeah, and?
|
Don't get rid of the whole system because of a few bad policies; get rid of the bad policies.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, all my experiences have been to the contrary. I don't know where you're from, but the people I know are sick of the freedoms we lost and are much more likely to vote people out of office than �giving in� to marshal law. |
Yeah right. So who are you voting for then? Obama?
|
Probably. Can't find a better candidate. Then again, I have certain issues that are more important to me.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
You have not proven this. You have cited examples where the FDA failed, not a comprehensive body of evidence proving it is ineffective (unless you think we all expect the FDA to be perfect).
You have it backwards. YOU made the claim that the FDA does more harm than good and needs to be removed. The burden of proof falls on YOU to support your claim. Not examples of mistakes; I could use that same logic to explain that doctors do more harm than good, and back it up with hundreds of cases where doctors made lethal decisions. Those anecdotal accounts do nothing without the support of statistics.
Despite this, I linked to you the programs the FDA is running as well as a simple list of things they have banned. This proves that the FDA has had positive effects on what we consume in America. Providing examples of chemicals they have not banned does not diminish my argument of the good things the FDA does, as these chemicals would have made it to market regardless. You need to find something that would prove (or at least show a causal link) that the things we consume would be less dangerous without FDA regulation. |
This is completely absurd. You're claiming that because the FDA "may" protect you it is therefore necessary. When I point out all the examples of it not protecting you, it's merely a "mistake".
|
No. I claim that the FDA DOES protect us from some things and is therefore better than no FDA. You examples don't disprove the fact that it DOES protect us from plenty of substances. Just because it does not protect us all the time does not mean the FDA doesn't provide a net gain.
You have proved that the FDA does not protect us from every harmful product. You have not demonstrated that the FDA as a net loss.
| visitorq wrote: |
And this is all beside the point: what right does the FDA have to exist? Or to impose itself on the public (whether some people like yourself favor it or not; many people don't). If you want some regulatory body to protect you, then go find like minded people and fund it yourself. Taxpayer money should not be used.
|
Really? "Many" people don't favor having a regulatory body to ban dangerous chemicals? Do you mean "many" as a number or as a percentage? Care to source that?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The FDA is supposed to protect us from dangerous chemicals winding up in the things we consume. They do that, just not with a 100% success rate. |
So in other words, they don't prevent it. In fact our food is laden with chemicals, and big agro is sheltered by the FDA from having to even label it.
|
They prevent some chemicals. They require labels for almost all of them (your milk position and some meat issues are exceptions, not the norm).
| visitorq wrote: |
And yet a simple google search yields a mountain of results that state that it is causing obesity. Plus basic common sense. Americans were not always obese. It began around the the time the government started subsidizing agriculture to produce HFC and cheap oils that are in everything. Hardly a coincidence.
|
Off topic. Your point was that SUBSIDIES caused obesity, not HFCS.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That sounds like people voting with their wallets (which is them demanding it). People are given a choice between 2 foods, and they have been choosing the cheaper one. If everyone decided to start using olive oil and cutting down their sugar consumption, I bet you'd see a change in farming. Sounds like free market forces to me, with the supply going to meet the demand. Sure the government subsidies prevent it from being a true �free market�, but the demand was already there. |
How is it "free market" when the government subsidizes the crap, making it so cheap? Do you even put two seconds of thought before you post?
|
I do. Do you?
A free market is dictated by supply and demand. As I said before, it's not a true free market because of the subsidies, but the other side of the free market coin (demand) is clear and existed before the subsidies and without government influence. The difference between "free market" and "free market forces".
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There's already a tremendous amount of variety. The amount of food I can purchase at any given time is staggering. I don't know for sure if the business is good, but the local farms (yes, more than one) that my family buys a lot of its produce from have only been expanding since we started going there. Places that don't have those kinds of operations are like that for a reason: the demand for more expensive, fresh produce is too small to support the business. |
More anecdotal evidence. Whatever claims you make about your family, most people shop in supermarkets. The food most Americans buy is produced by a small handful of mega-companies and most of that "variety" is an illusion.
|
But my point remains valid. Small farms are able to grow and prosper (though I agree that it's under less than ideal circumstances). Besides, the most [product] Americans buy are produced by a small handful of mega-companies. The US produce industry is not unique.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's like that because people in general choose cheap over locally grown and natural. It is a free market force.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
7th paragraph:
�That assertion is debatable. � |
See bold.
|
That's my point.
| visitorq wrote: |
Yes it does. There have been no deaths from raw milk. Even if there had been, what right does the government have to tell people they can't consume it? It's outrageous. It shows the FDA is willing to resort to force and coercion to force people not to eat the types of foods they want (while "coincidentally" benefiting the interests of big dairy).
|
As I posted before, there have been deaths from raw milk.
The FDA does not ban people from buying raw milk.
The number of deaths would not be negligible if the number of consumers was also not negligible.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
So much for the government protecting you...
|
It's quite possible that it has. I have not died from tainted milk. |
You also haven't been struck by lighting. Did the government protect you from that as well?
|
Does the government have programs and regulation in place to protect us from lightning?
| visitorq wrote: |
Should the government ban walking (you might trip and hurt yourself), bees (you might get stung), kitchen knives (you might cut yourself accidentally, or go on a stabbing rampage) etc. etc. etc.? The answer is obviously no, and the same goes for raw milk.
|
Not the same thing. People need those things. They don't need raw milk.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is no problem to understand. I didn't ask them what they thought and assumed those 5 people held the same opinion as the rest of the community; I asked them what the academic community thought of Austrian economics. They all returned the same reply: Austrian economists have made valuable additions to the field of economics, but their views are not consistent with mainstream experts. |
This is such a cop out. As if the status quo is always right just because it's "mainstream". Show me someone trotting out the "mainstream" point of view, and I'll show you someone who has no clue about reality.
|
If the status quo of experts believe something, they are right far more than they are wrong. Is there a better way to become informed than the overall opinion of the expert community?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's you being backwards. Since your views are held by a minority of experts in the field, for you to take their positions and present it as objective fact is a fallacy. Saying �a few experts believe <x>� and providing a link is a productive way to start a discussion; coming in and saying you're right and everyone else is wrong is absurd. |
No more absurd that you claiming to speak for "the majority" and saying you're right and I'm wrong because of it. The majority does not rule in a debate. The mainstream media is a joke, and mainstream science is anything but neutral. Every time you tow the line of the status quo you are advancing an agenda; so quit pretending like you're just impartial, level headed, and objective.
|
When you say "FDA made the Great Depression worse", you are wrong on two levels: first, that assertion is not held by the majority of people qualified to make that assessment. Second, even if there was an even sided debate, your statement cannot be objective fact as there is no consensus.
Mainstream science has procedures in place to reduce bias. Is there a better source for information?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
Your source about FDR-the only source I disagreed with-flies in the face of everything that teachers and academics have been discussing. That's not to say you can't introduce the topic, just don't introduce it with the authority of objective fact. I've read the piece 3 times and cannot find any causal relationship between FDR's policies and their negative impact on TGD explained. I don't think it's a particularly good piece on the subject. However, there ARE good pieces that support your position:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
The article explains why these two economists believe FDR made TGD worse. However, the methodology has been questioned:
http://www.econ.wisc.edu/workshop/Eggertsson%20paper.pdf
Now, since neither of us are experts, I like to turn to experts. Everyone I have talked to about this who is an authority on the subject has agreed that that FDR is credited with recovery in their discipline, be it in history or economics. Again, this does not bar anyone from holding a contrary position, but such a position should not be based on a belief that they are objectively correct. |
And yet the historical record is crystal clear: that under FDR the Great Depression continued for a decade, and only ended with the advent of US involvement in WWII. It's not a matter of opinion, it's very straightforward - just go look at the dates, and it's obvious.
|
Again, confusing correlation with causation.
| visitorq wrote: |
So FDR was good at organizing the economy into a war machine. Whoopie. He failed miserably at ending the depression during peacetime. Not even up for debate, it's established fact grounded in history.
|
That he "failed miserably" is not established fact grounded in history. That he is credited with reducing the severity of the depression IS established and grounded in history (read any history book or talk to any history teacher). That doesn't mean it isn't open for debate.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's saying that because the cost of both categories of expenses did not rise at the same (or a similar) rate as the CPI, that inflationary forces are not enough to explain the cost increases. Since inflation deals with the devaluation of money, and the devaluation of money was not enough to account for the price jumps, it is not inflation. |
Yes it was! Because the money is devalued by government expenditure. Did you miss the part (in Kuros' link) where the majority of medical expenses were born by the elderly, covered by medicare and medicaid? The government devalues the currency to pay for it (just like it devalues the currency to pay for wars or anything else that requires deficit spending, ie. issuing bonds).
|
But the devaluation of money was not the cause of the price increase. Therefore it is not inflation (or not what people consider when they think of inflation). It was caused due to medical advances and increased demand (in part thanks to medicare and medicaid).
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If health insurance costs 5% more than it did last year, and the CPI said the inflation rate was around 5%, you could say that the cost increase was due to inflation, as your dollar buys you ~5% less than it did a year ago. If the cost goes up 20%, it does not mean that your dollar is worth 20% less. It means inflation increased the price a little, while something else (more expensive procedures, increased demand etc) is responsible for the difference. |
Drivel. The CPI is not what determines inflation. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, not a price phenomenon (prices increase due to inflation, not the other way around). It occurs when the value of the dollar becomes less compared to the amount of goods and services it can buy. This is caused by government.
|
The CPI is a measure of inflation. When a product or service has a price increase that vastly outpaces the CPI, it means that there's more than just the devaluation of money (inflation) affecting it's price.
| visitorq wrote: |
If we had a fixed money supply, the price of something could only go up if the price of something else went down; this is not the case in an inflationary system where prices of some things can and most certainly do increase more rapidly than prices of others. This is a result of excess money creation, which distorts the market and forms bubbles. |
So you're saying that the cost of medical care and college tuition would not have risen if we were on a fixed-value currency? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Absurd analogies. Because medicine and seat belts aren't taking my money from me by force and telling me it's for my own good.
|
Your point wasn't that it costs taxpayers money, it was that since it problems still exist, that government can't protect us. |
No, the point was that it doesn't have a right to exist, because it costs taxpayers money, and that can't protect us as well as the free market anyway. But of course you try to misrepresent me every step of the way (since that's what you do best).
| Quote: |
| I didn't say that. I said laws in general and their enforcement protect us. Your exceptions do not disprove the rule. You can make claims about all of those things (and I agree with you on the first and third), but again, the solution is to change those laws, not get rid of law enforcement. |
This is just plain stupid. I'm certainly not for "lawlessness". If either an individual or a company does something to harm people, then the law should be enforced against them after the fact. It is just to do so, and also serves as a deterrent for other people. But the notion that we should regulate people and businesses to prevent "pre-crime" (basically just saying they're guilty until proven innocent by getting a government permit) is a despicable notion.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Prove it. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you (and the government that is taking our money from us whether we like it or not).
|
So I have to prove how arresting and incarcerating people for rape, theft, murder etc. makes us safer? This is actually something I have to explain to an adult? |
You're just talking out of your rear end as always. NOWHERE did I state that people who have committed crimes should not be arrested. This doesn't mean that living in a police state makes us safer. Quit the contrary if anything.
| Quote: |
| Since we don't have a police state, I fail to see your point. |
You don't fail to see the point (since I even gave specific examples), you just cowardly chose to dodge the question. I guess that's what you do when you have no answer (since you're wrong).
| Quote: |
| Don't get rid of the whole system because of a few bad policies; get rid of the bad policies. |
Yeah, don't get rid of the constitution, get rid of federal bureaus that are ruining the country.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, all my experiences have been to the contrary. I don't know where you're from, but the people I know are sick of the freedoms we lost and are much more likely to vote people out of office than �giving in� to marshal law. |
Yeah right. So who are you voting for then? Obama?
|
Probably. Can't find a better candidate. Then again, I have certain issues that are more important to me. |
I rest my case. I guess all you are is talk and no action.
| Quote: |
No. I claim that the FDA DOES protect us from some things and is therefore better than no FDA. You examples don't disprove the fact that it DOES protect us from plenty of substances. Just because it does not protect us all the time does not mean the FDA doesn't provide a net gain.
You have proved that the FDA does not protect us from every harmful product. You have not demonstrated that the FDA as a net loss. |
Two obvious points:
1) You haven't proved that the FDA protects us, you merely showed that they ban some things. Big difference there.
2) I don't want your stinking protection. Your defense of the FDA is on par with defending some Mafia that come up to you and demand protection money. It may very well be the case that they do protect you, but it's still immoral for them to force you to pay.
| Quote: |
| Really? "Many" people don't favor having a regulatory body to ban dangerous chemicals? Do you mean "many" as a number or as a percentage? Care to source that? |
Let's say that any number of people don't favor it. My principle stands strong regardless of "how many", since it is not a question of "majority rules" (even though you LOVE to view yourself as the majority )
If you want a regulatory body, then pay for it yourself. Donate your money. That body should have the power to report on any products that may be unhealthy. Businesses that care about their reputation will abide by it or face boycotts. But you do NOT have the right to ban people from buying or selling what they want (as long as no fraud is being committed), and neither should the stinking federal government.
| Quote: |
| They prevent some chemicals. They require labels for almost all of them (your milk position and some meat issues are exceptions, not the norm). |
What BS. They don't even require labels for GMOs.
| Quote: |
| Off topic. Your point was that SUBSIDIES caused obesity, not HFCS. |
No, it's directly ON topic, and my point was that HFCS causes obesity and is heavily subsidized. Love how you try to just dance around issues that discredit your point of view.
| Quote: |
| A free market is dictated by supply and demand. As I said before, it's not a true free market because of the subsidies, but the other side of the free market coin (demand) is clear and existed before the subsidies and without government influence. The difference between "free market" and "free market forces". |
This is just some complete and utter nonsense... You haven't shown that the same demand existed before subsidies, because quite simply it did not. People tend to buy products that are cheaper, obviously. In a free market this means companies to offer the cheapest prices on products that people actually want. Government intervention destroys this arrangement. They ban some things, and subsidize others. Agriculture becomes a monolithic structure controlled by just a few mega-companies, heavily subsidized by the government, and the choice is diminished to the point where people all buy the same crap at supermarkets. Some people are wise to it and want to grow their own vegetables or buy wholesome raw milk, but get harassed by police.
In short, you're defending monopolies.
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's like that because people in general choose cheap over locally grown and natural. It is a free market force. |
IT IS NOT A FREE MARKET CHOICE. Get it through your thick skull already... All the processed, junk, packaged foods people buy are a result of billions of dollars of government subsidies each year. It is much more expensive to eat healthy organic food for this reason. If you got rid of the subsidies, this cheap junk would not be so cheap anymore - in fact it would probably cease to exist and people would revert back to how it used to be (and still is in many parts of the world).
| Quote: |
| The number of deaths would not be negligible if the number of consumers was also not negligible. |
There is a statement which you have no way of proving, since it's absolute BS.
| Quote: |
| Does the government have programs and regulation in place to protect us from lightning? |
You tell me 
Is there anything that big brother can't protect you from? Maybe there should be a cop in your washrooms at all times? I mean you might accidentally fall into the toilet and drown or something?
| Quote: |
| Not the same thing. People need those things. They don't need raw milk. |
People need kitchen knives? Seems to me you could just buy all your food pre-sliced, pre-cooked or irradiated, and packaged in some BPA-laden container approved by the FDA. All for your safety and benefit.
And who the hell are you to say what people need. Maybe I believe that raw milk is necessary for my health. Some control freak like yourself certainly has no right to tell me otherwise.
| Quote: |
| If the status quo of experts believe something, they are right far more than they are wrong. Is there a better way to become informed than the overall opinion of the expert community? |
More drivel. It's case by case. You cannot show or prove that the status quo is right more than they are wrong, that's just your meaningless opinion.
| Quote: |
When you say "FDA made the Great Depression worse", you are wrong on two levels: first, that assertion is not held by the majority of people qualified to make that assessment. Second, even if there was an even sided debate, your statement cannot be objective fact as there is no consensus.
|
1) Don't think I said that "FDA" made the depression worse
2) Your arrogant assertion that "majority" of "qualified" people has to agree for something to be correct is just the sort of mush-headed nonsense I've come to expect from you. The majority is often wrong. Two obvious examples off the top of my head were the "qualified experts" telling us that Iraq had WMDs, and all the climate charlatans telling us the oceans were going to rise 20 feet or whatever other nonsense du jour they would have us believe.
| Quote: |
| Mainstream science has procedures in place to reduce bias. Is there a better source for information? |
Mainstream science is probably the most biased science there is. There is more money (including big oil) behind the anthropogenic global warming charlatans than independent scientists by orders of magnitude. In fact, I rarely believe any of the rubbish they come out with these days.
| Quote: |
And yet the historical record is crystal clear: that under FDR the Great Depression continued for a decade, and only ended with the advent of US involvement in WWII. It's not a matter of opinion, it's very straightforward - just go look at the dates, and it's obvious.
Again, confusing correlation with causation. |
I'm not confusing ANYTHING. Either FDR caused the depression to end during peacetime, or he didn't. The fact of the matter is that he didn't. It ended when he took the country to war. It is so incredibly obvious.
| Quote: |
| That he "failed miserably" is not established fact grounded in history. That he is credited with reducing the severity of the depression IS established and grounded in history (read any history book or talk to any history teacher). That doesn't mean it isn't open for debate. |
Who gives a damn what he is "credited with"?
The fact, I repeat, FACT of the matter is that depression carried on right up to WWII. None of FDRs ridiculous command and control policies did anything to improve it. You might as well as Joe Stalin in the White House trying to collective workers into digging ditches and filling them up again.
You haven't provided even a single shred of evidence that anything FDR did prior to the war helped to end the depression. You just appeal to authority (the so-called "experts"), but you've got nothing of substance.
| Quote: |
| But the devaluation of money was not the cause of the price increase. Therefore it is not inflation (or not what people consider when they think of inflation). It was caused due to medical advances and increased demand (in part thanks to medicare and medicaid). |
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Medicare and Medicaid are paid for by the government. The government prints bonds to pay for it, which devalues the money generally, but that money is specifically spent on medicine which causes medical prices to rise. More people in the market throwing around newly created money (newly created this year to help pay for last year's inflation) causes higher prices.
| Quote: |
| The CPI is a measure of inflation. When a product or service has a price increase that vastly outpaces the CPI, it means that there's more than just the devaluation of money (inflation) affecting it's price. |
The CPI stands for "consumer price index"; therefore it measures prices. As I stated before, inflation is a monetary phenomenon, not a price phenomenon. Prices rise because of inflation (but at unequal rates), not vice versa. Your problem is that you don't have your definitions straight, and clearly don't understand economics.
| Quote: |
| So you're saying that the cost of medical care and college tuition would not have risen if we were on a fixed-value currency? |
The cost could still rise with increased demand, but would be constrained. If the money supply were fixed then some things could rise in price, but others would have to fall to compensate. You could not have general inflation because the money supply is not increasing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, that's some serious scholarly input.
If you're going to dumb down communism, then why not dumb down your own position?
Visitorq, your free market shenanigans are simple posturing for you to create a totalitarian society ruled by business.
Done.
You ARE setting the bars here for discussion level, and that IS where you've set them.
And it really doesn't matter how much nuance you want to blather away about if you only see totalitarianism as what was the plan from the get-go while YOU YOURSELF are advocating making business freer than it already is.
We had a free market? Why did that change? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Wow, that's some serious scholarly input.
If you're going to dumb down communism, then why not dumb down your own position? |
I leave that to you... 
| Quote: |
Visitorq, your free market shenanigans are simple posturing for you to create a totalitarian society ruled by business.
Done.
You ARE setting the bars here for discussion level, and that IS where you've set them. |
Right on queue... There is nothing either stated or implied in anything I've written that would support your above claim. It's rather the complete opposite. Gotta love the Orwellian language you trot out though: freedom = totalitarianism...
| Quote: |
| And it really doesn't matter how much nuance you want to blather away about if you only see totalitarianism as what was the plan from the get-go while YOU YOURSELF are advocating making business freer than it already is. |
You write this, and accuse me of blathering?
| Quote: |
| We had a free market? Why did that change? |
Because of government, of course. What have I been writing about all this time? The problem is you don't even read the things I write; otherwise you wouldn't be asking such questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VisitorQ,
I have a question about taxes. You have already said that you are not an anarchist and that you believe in government, just a limited one, whatever that may mean. You have also said that taxes are coercive. But, I don't understand how you can have a government that actually works without professionals running it and taxes.
The U.S. founding fathers said no taxes without representation. And, they gave the house of representatives the sole power to tax so that the people could decide through their representatives what and how much taxes they should pay. So, how is this coercive?
I understand that you still have to file and pay but isn't that just what the people want? If it wasn't, couldn't the people just elect different representatives to change the tax code?
I understand that you may or may not want to pay taxes. But, the majority of the electorate seems to think that paying (at least some) taxes is right and proper. And, that sometimes in a democracy, even with limited government, there are going to some things that others want that we don't want to do but we do anyway.
I understand that you are an idealist and you don't want to compromise what you think is right but isn't compromise just a fact of life - we compromise all the time with our family, friends, co-workers, bosses, churches, government.
Isn't the current state of our government, the product of 200+ years of compromise and that even if you were to end all laws and just start over, in 200 years, the government would probably look earily similar to the one we have now?
Anyways, why do you say taxes are coercive? And, how can you have government and not have taxes? Aren't taxes necessary? Isn't just a case of how, how many and how much? And, how would you decide how, how many and how much, if you did not let the people's representatives in the House of Representatives decide? And, what if people wanted higher taxes and more progressive taxes so that those with the most money were expected to take more responsibility to fund the government? Isn't that just the democratic way? Do you think saying taxes are coercive is a biased sentiment in anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Absurd analogies. Because medicine and seat belts aren't taking my money from me by force and telling me it's for my own good.
|
Your point wasn't that it costs taxpayers money, it was that since it problems still exist, that government can't protect us. |
No, the point was that it doesn't have a right to exist, because it costs taxpayers money, and that can't protect us as well as the free market anyway. But of course you try to misrepresent me every step of the way (since that's what you do best).
|
I quoted you as saying that crime still exists, which means the government can't protect us. You can't run away from that statement. Regardless of any other point that you were also trying to make, the sheer fallacy of that statement can't be ignored.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I didn't say that. I said laws in general and their enforcement protect us. Your exceptions do not disprove the rule. You can make claims about all of those things (and I agree with you on the first and third), but again, the solution is to change those laws, not get rid of law enforcement. |
This is just plain stupid. I'm certainly not for "lawlessness". If either an individual or a company does something to harm people, then the law should be enforced against them after the fact. It is just to do so, and also serves as a deterrent for other people. But the notion that we should regulate people and businesses to prevent "pre-crime" (basically just saying they're guilty until proven innocent by getting a government permit) is a despicable notion.
|
How can you possibly regulate that? Some of the damages businesses have done simply out-value the total capital they have to fix it. How would you even enforce this? Would you make them provide a security deposit or just assume all companies have the cash to cover all disasters? It's a way better system to have safety restrictions that we enforce. It's not "pre-crime" or "guilty until proven innocent" in any way; it's creating basic safety standards that companies must adhere to.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Prove it. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you (and the government that is taking our money from us whether we like it or not).
|
So I have to prove how arresting and incarcerating people for rape, theft, murder etc. makes us safer? This is actually something I have to explain to an adult? |
You're just talking out of your rear end as always. NOWHERE did I state that people who have committed crimes should not be arrested. This doesn't mean that living in a police state makes us safer. Quit the contrary if anything.
|
But I said that making and enforcing laws makes us safer overall, and you asked me to prove it. That at least implies that you believe the opposite. I shouldn't have to prove that point to an adult.
We do NOT live in a police state. Stop the rhetoric.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Since we don't have a police state, I fail to see your point. |
You don't fail to see the point (since I even gave specific examples), you just cowardly chose to dodge the question. I guess that's what you do when you have no answer (since you're wrong).
|
You said we don't need to live in a police state to feel safe. Since we don't live in a police state, that's off topic and doesn't address my point.
Your examples are anecdotal and don't reflect the overall experience people have with police in the west.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Don't get rid of the whole system because of a few bad policies; get rid of the bad policies. |
Yeah, don't get rid of the constitution, get rid of federal bureaus that are ruining the country.
|
Something you have yet to demonstrate, yet repeat like a mantra.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, all my experiences have been to the contrary. I don't know where you're from, but the people I know are sick of the freedoms we lost and are much more likely to vote people out of office than �giving in� to marshal law. |
Yeah right. So who are you voting for then? Obama?
|
Probably. Can't find a better candidate. Then again, I have certain issues that are more important to me. |
I rest my case. I guess all you are is talk and no action.
|
Care to elaborate, Mr. Master Debater?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
No. I claim that the FDA DOES protect us from some things and is therefore better than no FDA. You examples don't disprove the fact that it DOES protect us from plenty of substances. Just because it does not protect us all the time does not mean the FDA doesn't provide a net gain.
You have proved that the FDA does not protect us from every harmful product. You have not demonstrated that the FDA as a net loss. |
Two obvious points:
1) You haven't proved that the FDA protects us, you merely showed that they ban some things. Big difference there.
|
That is proof. There are some dangerous chemicals that used to be sold that are now banned. That is a net gain. There are other chemicals that are tightly regulated, both in dosage and labeling. That is a net gain. Your examples don't demonstrate a net loss; they demonstrate chemicals getting through which would also get through without an FDA.
| visitorq wrote: |
2) I don't want your stinking protection. Your defense of the FDA is on par with defending some Mafia that come up to you and demand protection money. It may very well be the case that they do protect you, but it's still immoral for them to force you to pay.
|
Too bad the majority disagrees with you. And since we live in a democracy, you're forced to go along with it unless you want to leave the country.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? "Many" people don't favor having a regulatory body to ban dangerous chemicals? Do you mean "many" as a number or as a percentage? Care to source that? |
Let's say that any number of people don't favor it. My principle stands strong regardless of "how many", since it is not a question of "majority rules" (even though you LOVE to view yourself as the majority )
|
Since we live in a democracy, it is very much "majority rules".
| visitorq wrote: |
If you want a regulatory body, then pay for it yourself. Donate your money. That body should have the power to report on any products that may be unhealthy. Businesses that care about their reputation will abide by it or face boycotts. But you do NOT have the right to ban people from buying or selling what they want (as long as no fraud is being committed), and neither should the stinking federal government.
|
They do because the people gave them that power.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They prevent some chemicals. They require labels for almost all of them (your milk position and some meat issues are exceptions, not the norm). |
What BS. They don't even require labels for GMOs.
|
Doesn't discredit "almost all". Make your point about how the FDA needs stricter regulations for food labels, not that it needs be get removed. You'll get a LOT more support.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Off topic. Your point was that SUBSIDIES caused obesity, not HFCS. |
No, it's directly ON topic, and my point was that HFCS causes obesity and is heavily subsidized. Love how you try to just dance around issues that discredit your point of view.
|
No. You said "We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy." You specifically blamed government policy.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A free market is dictated by supply and demand. As I said before, it's not a true free market because of the subsidies, but the other side of the free market coin (demand) is clear and existed before the subsidies and without government influence. The difference between "free market" and "free market forces". |
This is just some complete and utter nonsense... You haven't shown that the same demand existed before subsidies, because quite simply it did not. People tend to buy products that are cheaper, obviously. In a free market this means companies to offer the cheapest prices on products that people actually want. Government intervention destroys this arrangement. They ban some things, and subsidize others. Agriculture becomes a monolithic structure controlled by just a few mega-companies, heavily subsidized by the government, and the choice is diminished to the point where people all buy the same crap at supermarkets. Some people are wise to it and want to grow their own vegetables or buy wholesome raw milk, but get harassed by police.
|
Wait, people can't grow their own vegetables now?
Have you noticed that almost EVERY industry in the US is dominated by a few mega-companies?
| visitorq wrote: |
In short, you're defending monopolies.
|
I'm defending a practice that produces reasonably priced foods and keeps farms from closing down. Since there is still competition (and not only one company producing all the food), everything about your last statement is wrong.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's like that because people in general choose cheap over locally grown and natural. It is a free market force. |
IT IS NOT A FREE MARKET CHOICE. Get it through your thick skull already... All the processed, junk, packaged foods people buy are a result of billions of dollars of government subsidies each year. It is much more expensive to eat healthy organic food for this reason. If you got rid of the subsidies, this cheap junk would not be so cheap anymore - in fact it would probably cease to exist and people would revert back to how it used to be (and still is in many parts of the world).
|
You should probably source that, since as you said earlier, people tend to buy the cheaper thing when given a choice. Even if it becomes more expensive, it's still the cheaper option.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The number of deaths would not be negligible if the number of consumers was also not negligible. |
There is a statement which you have no way of proving, since it's absolute BS.
|
I'ts absolutely not BS. Anyone who knows anything about statistics understands that you have to compare results to the sample size. More people die from car crashes in the US than gunfights, but that doesn't mean gunfights are safer; it means that since there are far more people who drive than participate in gunfights, that the higher number of deaths means nothing. You have to base your statistics based on a percentage.
It gets even more complicated when trying to plot things like diseases because not only are people dying from the milk they drink, but are contagious and can infect others as well. Therefore, the rise of infections will be exponential, rather than linear.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Does the government have programs and regulation in place to protect us from lightning? |
You tell me
|
Then I guess your example was terrible.
| visitorq wrote: |
Is there anything that big brother can't protect you from? Maybe there should be a cop in your washrooms at all times? I mean you might accidentally fall into the toilet and drown or something?
|
Do we have problems with people dying in washrooms? No? Then I guess your example is silly.
"Big Brother" is pretty off topic.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not the same thing. People need those things. They don't need raw milk. |
People need kitchen knives? Seems to me you could just buy all your food pre-sliced, pre-cooked or irradiated, and packaged in some BPA-laden container approved by the FDA. All for your safety and benefit.
|
Well that seems kind of silly. It would be just about impossible to eat healthy without knives. Do we have a reason to ban kitchen knives?
| visitorq wrote: |
And who the hell are you to say what people need. Maybe I believe that raw milk is necessary for my health. Some control freak like yourself certainly has no right to tell me otherwise.
|
But, since you're not an expert (and the experts haven't confirmed one way or the other), you'd be wrong.
How am I a control freak?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If the status quo of experts believe something, they are right far more than they are wrong. Is there a better way to become informed than the overall opinion of the expert community? |
More drivel. It's case by case. You cannot show or prove that the status quo is right more than they are wrong, that's just your meaningless opinion.
|
No. It's the opinion of experts. If you want to go against the opinion of the majority of experts, who have more knowledge than you do, that's you're prerogative. It's also stupid.
Show me a better way to form an opinion than listening to the consensus of the expert community.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
When you say "FDA made the Great Depression worse", you are wrong on two levels: first, that assertion is not held by the majority of people qualified to make that assessment. Second, even if there was an even sided debate, your statement cannot be objective fact as there is no consensus.
|
1) Don't think I said that "FDA" made the depression worse
|
Misstype. FDR.
| visitorq wrote: |
2) Your arrogant assertion that "majority" of "qualified" people has to agree for something to be correct is just the sort of mush-headed nonsense I've come to expect from you. The majority is often wrong. Two obvious examples off the top of my head were the "qualified experts" telling us that Iraq had WMDs, and all the climate charlatans telling us the oceans were going to rise 20 feet or whatever other nonsense du jour they would have us believe.
|
Did you even bother to look any of this up? These two examples prove you WRONG:
1) Iraq was not a problem with experts getting it wrong. It was a problem with policy makers not listening to experts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction
2) Please link the sea levels source, because I can't find anything from experts talking about that, unless its over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Mainstream science has procedures in place to reduce bias. Is there a better source for information? |
Mainstream science is probably the most biased science there is. There is more money (including big oil) behind the anthropogenic global warming charlatans than independent scientists by orders of magnitude. In fact, I rarely believe any of the rubbish they come out with these days.
|
Not true. Despite the money going into climate research by energy companies (who want the problem to go away), the scientific community is nearly unanimous in it's position that climate change is real and man-made. Your dismissal of mainstream science without any evidence is moronic (and a little scary). There is simply no better source of information. Individual cases of the mainstream scientific consensus being wrong (of which you have not provided) does not discredit them as being a highly reliable source.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
And yet the historical record is crystal clear: that under FDR the Great Depression continued for a decade, and only ended with the advent of US involvement in WWII. It's not a matter of opinion, it's very straightforward - just go look at the dates, and it's obvious.
Again, confusing correlation with causation. |
I'm not confusing ANYTHING. Either FDR caused the depression to end during peacetime, or he didn't. The fact of the matter is that he didn't. It ended when he took the country to war. It is so incredibly obvious.
|
THAT is confusing correlation with causation. No one is arguing the timeline. The continuation of TGD correlates with FDR. For you to bring it up as proof of FDR making TGD worse, you are implying causation.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That he "failed miserably" is not established fact grounded in history. That he is credited with reducing the severity of the depression IS established and grounded in history (read any history book or talk to any history teacher). That doesn't mean it isn't open for debate. |
Who gives a damn what he is "credited with"?
|
You, since you were crediting him with other things earlier.
| visitorq wrote: |
The fact, I repeat, FACT of the matter is that depression carried on right up to WWII. None of FDRs ridiculous command and control policies did anything to improve it. You might as well as Joe Stalin in the White House trying to collective workers into digging ditches and filling them up again.
|
The US experienced a turnaround as a result of his policies. There was economic growth and job creation (whereas before it was job loss and economic loss). Some economists blame the recession of 1937 on prematurely reducing government spending.
Stalin? Do you know the difference between democracy and totalitarianism?
| visitorq wrote: |
You haven't provided even a single shred of evidence that anything FDR did prior to the war helped to end the depression. You just appeal to authority (the so-called "experts"), but you've got nothing of substance.
|
I don't have to. I'm not an expert, so it's not my argument to make. There are many people who know more about this than we do, and most of them don't agree with you.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But the devaluation of money was not the cause of the price increase. Therefore it is not inflation (or not what people consider when they think of inflation). It was caused due to medical advances and increased demand (in part thanks to medicare and medicaid). |
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Medicare and Medicaid are paid for by the government. The government prints bonds to pay for it, which devalues the money generally, but that money is specifically spent on medicine which causes medical prices to rise. More people in the market throwing around newly created money (newly created this year to help pay for last year's inflation) causes higher prices.
|
So then you can say that the government increased inflation by throwing money around. You can't say the increase of health care above the CPI is because of inflation. They're two separate things.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The CPI is a measure of inflation. When a product or service has a price increase that vastly outpaces the CPI, it means that there's more than just the devaluation of money (inflation) affecting it's price. |
The CPI stands for "consumer price index"; therefore it measures prices. As I stated before, inflation is a monetary phenomenon, not a price phenomenon. Prices rise because of inflation (but at unequal rates), not vice versa. Your problem is that you don't have your definitions straight, and clearly don't understand economics.
|
No. If you bothered to read any of my other links, inflation is defined as the gradual rise of prices over time. The devaluing of money. All these other things that you attribute to inflation are not part of the mainstream definition of the word, so if you're going to use it out of context, you need to be clear about that. If you are talking about healthcare as a specific market, then you can say that in that market the flood of government dollars depressed the value of money and is why healthcare costs have gone up (you'd still be wrong, but much less so). However, that is NOT the mainstream definition of inflation. If you want to talk about the government sinking a lot of money into healthcare as one of the causes for increasing it's cost, fine. I don't disagree. Don't call it inflation.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So you're saying that the cost of medical care and college tuition would not have risen if we were on a fixed-value currency? |
The cost could still rise with increased demand, but would be constrained. If the money supply were fixed then some things could rise in price, but others would have to fall to compensate. You could not have general inflation because the money supply is not increasing. |
Exactly. They would be more expensive regardless. That's my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| We had a free market? Why did that change? |
Because of government, of course. What have I been writing about all this time? |
Why did that change? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Absurd analogies. Because medicine and seat belts aren't taking my money from me by force and telling me it's for my own good.
|
Your point wasn't that it costs taxpayers money, it was that since it problems still exist, that government can't protect us. |
No, the point was that it doesn't have a right to exist, because it costs taxpayers money, and that can't protect us as well as the free market anyway. But of course you try to misrepresent me every step of the way (since that's what you do best).
|
I quoted you as saying that crime still exists, which means the government can't protect us. You can't run away from that statement. Regardless of any other point that you were also trying to make, the sheer fallacy of that statement can't be ignored. |
The government can't protect you from everything. This is an absolute fact. The larger point is whether the government has the right to even try. MOD EDIT out there who think that yes, the government should have carte blanche to do anything it wants in the name of "security"; sane people with healthy distrust of corrupt authority realize that it is the slippery slope to tyranny.
| Quote: |
| How can you possibly regulate that? Some of the damages businesses have done simply out-value the total capital they have to fix it. How would you even enforce this? Would you make them provide a security deposit or just assume all companies have the cash to cover all disasters? It's a way better system to have safety restrictions that we enforce. It's not "pre-crime" or "guilty until proven innocent" in any way; it's creating basic safety standards that companies must adhere to. |
Having strict laws that would ensure total bankruptcy would if any disaster occurred would be the ultimate deterrent. Far better than your absurd, frankly stupid notion that safety regulations are the answer. How'd that work for the Gulf oil spill? Or in Fukushima where they had safety standards on par with what we have in the US? Oh yeah, they got bailed out, and both companies are still running (hell, a company like TEPCO wouldn't even have nuclear reactors built on fault lines beside the ocean if it weren't for government subsidies and assurances).
| Quote: |
| But I said that making and enforcing laws makes us safer overall, and you asked me to prove it. That at least implies that you believe the opposite. I shouldn't have to prove that point to an adult. |
Depends on the laws. Not all laws make us safer.
| Quote: |
| We do NOT live in a police state. Stop the rhetoric. |
Make a checklist of the criteria for a police state. The US meets many of the those criteria to some degree. It is not rhetoric. It is denial on your part.
| Quote: |
You said we don't need to live in a police state to feel safe. Since we don't live in a police state, that's off topic and doesn't address my point.
Your examples are anecdotal and don't reflect the overall experience people have with police in the west. |
You're like a little kid with his fingers stuck in his ears pretending he can't hear you.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Don't get rid of the whole system because of a few bad policies; get rid of the bad policies. |
Yeah, don't get rid of the constitution, get rid of federal bureaus that are ruining the country.
|
Something you have yet to demonstrate, yet repeat like a mantra. |
Huh?
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, all my experiences have been to the contrary. I don't know where you're from, but the people I know are sick of the freedoms we lost and are much more likely to vote people out of office than �giving in� to marshal law. |
Yeah right. So who are you voting for then? Obama?
|
Probably. Can't find a better candidate. Then again, I have certain issues that are more important to me. |
I rest my case. I guess all you are is talk and no action.
|
Care to elaborate, Mr. Master Debater? |
No need to elaborate. The meaning was obvious.
| Quote: |
| That is proof. There are some dangerous chemicals that used to be sold that are now banned. That is a net gain. There are other chemicals that are tightly regulated, both in dosage and labeling. That is a net gain. Your examples don't demonstrate a net loss; they demonstrate chemicals getting through which would also get through without an FDA. |
This is not proof. Just because some chemicals are banned doesn't mean they don't still end up in our food. In fact most of these chemicals are in allowed to be present in "small levels" - hell, even radiation is allowed.
Moreover, it assumes that small farmers and food producers would be adding these chemicals in the first place (very unlikely, much less so than for larger companies subsidized by government).
Lastly, the FDA allows many harmful chemicals to be added by big companies that otherwise would probably not be added by small farmers and producers.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
2) I don't want your stinking protection. Your defense of the FDA is on par with defending some Mafia that come up to you and demand protection money. It may very well be the case that they do protect you, but it's still immoral for them to force you to pay.
|
Too bad the majority disagrees with you. And since we live in a democracy, you're forced to go along with it unless you want to leave the country. |
Oh, look at the little control freak show his true colors! I'm glad I was able to bring out your true nastiness for all to see...
We do not live in a "democracy" per se, but a republic. It is NOT majority rule. The law is enshrined in the constitution and cannot be legally changed by a majority vote (obviously). To repeat the adage: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? "Many" people don't favor having a regulatory body to ban dangerous chemicals? Do you mean "many" as a number or as a percentage? Care to source that? |
Let's say that any number of people don't favor it. My principle stands strong regardless of "how many", since it is not a question of "majority rules" (even though you LOVE to view yourself as the majority )
|
Since we live in a democracy, it is very much "majority rules". |
Okay, so if white people (the majority) vote to enslave blacks (the minority) again, then that would be lawful and okay? Because (in your words) the "majority rules". Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
If you want a regulatory body, then pay for it yourself. Donate your money. That body should have the power to report on any products that may be unhealthy. Businesses that care about their reputation will abide by it or face boycotts. But you do NOT have the right to ban people from buying or selling what they want (as long as no fraud is being committed), and neither should the stinking federal government.
|
They do because the people gave them that power. |
"The people"? What people? Make a list, or stop making crap up.
| Quote: |
| Doesn't discredit "almost all". Make your point about how the FDA needs stricter regulations for food labels, not that it needs be get removed. You'll get a LOT more support. |
Why the hell would I trust a body like the FDA that would engage in such despicable behavior in the first place? I'm supposed to try and force this corrupt institution to police all its Big Agro and Big Pharma cronies, when I don't believe it even has the right to exist?
I've already found ways to avoid most of the poisons they're selling me. The FDA has never helped, and in fact I see it as an active enabler of all the problems that did not, and would not exist otherwise. Abolish the FDA, and Big Agro will bite the dust. No question about it.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Off topic. Your point was that SUBSIDIES caused obesity, not HFCS. |
No, it's directly ON topic, and my point was that HFCS causes obesity and is heavily subsidized. Love how you try to just dance around issues that discredit your point of view.
|
No. You said "We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy." You specifically blamed government policy. |
Yeah, and government policy has deliberately brought us mountains of GMO corn (drive through some states and that's all there is, as far as the eye can see) that is turned into HFCS that floods the market and gets put into all our foods, making us fat. This point was completely obvious. How dense can you be not to have seen it?
| Quote: |
| Wait, people can't grow their own vegetables now? |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/woman-jailed-for-vegetable-garden_n_893516.html
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/15/cabbagegate-ga-man-fined-5k-for-home-garden/
Oh, and and by 2020 up to 30,000 spy drones flying over the US spying on us (just as in the EU, where drones will spy on farmers making sure they don't grow things without the government keeping tabs).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
In short, you're defending monopolies.
|
I'm defending a practice that produces reasonably priced foods and keeps farms from closing down. Since there is still competition (and not only one company producing all the food), everything about your last statement is wrong. |
A cartel is a form of monopoly, genius. You are being completely disingenuous.
| Quote: |
| You should probably source that, since as you said earlier, people tend to buy the cheaper thing when given a choice. Even if it becomes more expensive, it's still the cheaper option. |
Source what? That government subsidies make certain foods grown for Big Agro cheaper? Do I actually have to "explain that to an adult"? Use your damn head.
| Quote: |
I'ts absolutely not BS. Anyone who knows anything about statistics understands that you have to compare results to the sample size. More people die from car crashes in the US than gunfights, but that doesn't mean gunfights are safer; it means that since there are far more people who drive than participate in gunfights, that the higher number of deaths means nothing. You have to base your statistics based on a percentage.
It gets even more complicated when trying to plot things like diseases because not only are people dying from the milk they drink, but are contagious and can infect others as well. Therefore, the rise of infections will be exponential, rather than linear. |
Absolute, unmitigated BS. People have been drinking raw milk for millennia. You have offered NO proof that populations experienced "exponentially higher" deaths attributed to it compared to today. You are talking out of your ass, plain and simple.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Is there anything that big brother can't protect you from? Maybe there should be a cop in your washrooms at all times? I mean you might accidentally fall into the toilet and drown or something?
|
Do we have problems with people dying in washrooms? No? Then I guess your example is silly.
"Big Brother" is pretty off topic. |
Aha, look what I found on your beloved wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet-related_injuries_and_deaths#Historical_deaths
I guess we need to have police patrolling toilets now. In fact, we should set up an entire government bureau and regulate the hell out of it. For your own safety and protection.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not the same thing. People need those things. They don't need raw milk. |
People need kitchen knives? Seems to me you could just buy all your food pre-sliced, pre-cooked or irradiated, and packaged in some BPA-laden container approved by the FDA. All for your safety and benefit.
|
Well that seems kind of silly. It would be just about impossible to eat healthy without knives. Do we have a reason to ban kitchen knives? |
Of course it's bloody well silly. As is every other example of excessive government involvement in our lives, trying to coddle and protect us (while actually harming us).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
And who the hell are you to say what people need. Maybe I believe that raw milk is necessary for my health. Some control freak like yourself certainly has no right to tell me otherwise.
|
But, since you're not an expert (and the experts haven't confirmed one way or the other), you'd be wrong.
How am I a control freak? |
So if an expert tells you to go jump off a bridge, I bet you'd do it. I actually feel sorry for you, that you so mindlessly buy into whatever the "authorities" tell you, just like a lemming. And you're a control freak because you think your delusions should be forcefully imposed onto others. Straight up.
| Quote: |
No. It's the opinion of experts. If you want to go against the opinion of the majority of experts, who have more knowledge than you do, that's you're prerogative. It's also stupid.
Show me a better way to form an opinion than listening to the consensus of the expert community. |
There is no consensus. People who claim there is a consensus (and invariably use it to justify imposing their shared views onto others) are the most deluded, dangerous, pernicious control freaks imaginable.
Spare me your BS. It was a case of the government deliberately lying to the public. The so-called "experts" were trotted out to make it all seem legit, and the government did whatever it wanted, as usual. All the lemmings, like yourself, went along with it hook, line, and sinker; and all he talking heads in the media (more "experts") rationalized it after the fact.
| Quote: |
| 2) Please link the sea levels source, because I can't find anything from experts talking about that, unless its over the course of hundreds or thousands of years. |
Oh please. Go look up Al Gore's stupid movie (you know, the one with all the "experts", where he tells us the "debate is over" and there's a "universal consensus"?) Google it in like 3 seconds.
| Quote: |
| Not true. Despite the money going into climate research by energy companies (who want the problem to go away), the scientific community is nearly unanimous in it's position that climate change is real and man-made. Your dismissal of mainstream science without any evidence is moronic (and a little scary). There is simply no better source of information. Individual cases of the mainstream scientific consensus being wrong (of which you have not provided) does not discredit them as being a highly reliable source. |
Enough of your lies. You are completely full of crap on every level. There is no consensus, and the so-called experts have been caught outright lying and forging data (look up climate gate emails). They are heavily funded by energy companies, because the same banks that own the energy companies what to make money from carbon taxation (and have oil prices increase due to artificial scarcity imposed on the market by regulations). It's the biggest scam ever.
30+ thousand scientists reject the AGW myth and petition the government:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
| Quote: |
| THAT is confusing correlation with causation. No one is arguing the timeline. The continuation of TGD correlates with FDR. For you to bring it up as proof of FDR making TGD worse, you are implying causation. |
I've already posited evidence ad nauseum (including several links) that explain how his policies made the depression worse. But for you that's all in one ear out the other, because you're too full of it to ever admit you're wrong.
| Quote: |
| The US experienced a turnaround as a result of his policies. There was economic growth and job creation (whereas before it was job loss and economic loss). Some economists blame the recession of 1937 on prematurely reducing government spending. |
This is simply a LIE. Stop lying.
| Quote: |
| Stalin? Do you know the difference between democracy and totalitarianism? |
I know that Hitler was voted into power, and that the US built up the Soviet Union as a captive market (Stalin was a great ally of FDR and the West during the war). So I guess it's not as clear cut as you think, hm?
| Quote: |
| I don't have to. I'm not an expert, so it's not my argument to make. There are many people who know more about this than we do, and most of them don't agree with you. |
Oh really, "most of them don't"? Did you make up a list of "experts", count them up, and come up with a tally? Oh, you didn't? Then I guess you're just spouting out more garbage without proof.
| Quote: |
| So then you can say that the government increased inflation by throwing money around. You can't say the increase of health care above the CPI is because of inflation. They're two separate things. |
Oh man, you're not smart enough to debate this stuff
I've already explained how the government caused inflation by spending in the field of healthcare specifically.
| Quote: |
| No. If you bothered to read any of my other links, inflation is defined as the gradual rise of prices over time. The devaluing of money. All these other things that you attribute to inflation are not part of the mainstream definition of the word, so if you're going to use it out of context, you need to be clear about that. If you are talking about healthcare as a specific market, then you can say that in that market the flood of government dollars depressed the value of money and is why healthcare costs have gone up (you'd still be wrong, but much less so). However, that is NOT the mainstream definition of inflation. If you want to talk about the government sinking a lot of money into healthcare as one of the causes for increasing it's cost, fine. I don't disagree. Don't call it inflation. |
Ahaha, look at you squirm! It took you several days to reply, and this is the best you could come up with? Despite explaining clearly what inflation is and what causes it, I'm "wrong" because you think my definition of inflation doesn't match the "mainstream"? Wow, what a pathetic non-rebuttal.
| Quote: |
| Exactly. They would be more expensive regardless. That's my point. |
You have no point, nor do you have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Even though a fixed money supply would constrain a rise in prices, it wouldn't prevent prices from falling. In fact, in a free market system that is what prices tend to do, with increased competition and better technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
The government can't protect you from everything. This is an absolute fact. The larger point is whether the government has the right to even try.
|
The people gave them that right.
| visitorq wrote: |
No doubt there are many boot licking shmucks (not unlike yourself) out there who think that yes, the government should have carte blanche to do anything it wants in the name of "security"; sane people with healthy distrust of corrupt authority realize that it is the slippery slope to tyranny.
|
Not too many people think that way. Most want a happy medium between police state and anarchy.
When have I ever said the government should have unrestricted power? I have been saying the opposite.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How can you possibly regulate that? Some of the damages businesses have done simply out-value the total capital they have to fix it. How would you even enforce this? Would you make them provide a security deposit or just assume all companies have the cash to cover all disasters? It's a way better system to have safety restrictions that we enforce. It's not "pre-crime" or "guilty until proven innocent" in any way; it's creating basic safety standards that companies must adhere to. |
Having strict laws that would ensure total bankruptcy would if any disaster occurred would be the ultimate deterrent. Far better than your absurd, frankly stupid notion that safety regulations are the answer. How'd that work for the Gulf oil spill?
|
Which was a result of poor regulation or failure to enforce regulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Finding_of_fault
It is certainly clear from this example that the "free market" cannot be trusted to develop and adhere to acceptable safety standards.
| visitorq wrote: |
Or in Fukushima where they had safety standards on par with what we have in the US?
|
They did not:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-have-been-prevented.html
| visitorq wrote: |
Oh yeah, they got bailed out, and both companies are still running (hell, a company like TEPCO wouldn't even have nuclear reactors built on fault lines beside the ocean if it weren't for government subsidies and assurances).
|
The BP disaster makes it clear that companies cannot completely cover damages they cause. Your point about bankruptcy as a threat is not mutually exclusive with regulation, but your idea alone is ignorant of human nature.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But I said that making and enforcing laws makes us safer overall, and you asked me to prove it. That at least implies that you believe the opposite. I shouldn't have to prove that point to an adult. |
Depends on the laws. Not all laws make us safer.
|
Agreed. Doesn't detract from my point.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We do NOT live in a police state. Stop the rhetoric. |
Make a checklist of the criteria for a police state. The US meets many of the those criteria to some degree. It is not rhetoric. It is denial on your part.
|
Better use of my time is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
All measures consider us free. We are not in a police state. It is rhetoric.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
You said we don't need to live in a police state to feel safe. Since we don't live in a police state, that's off topic and doesn't address my point.
Your examples are anecdotal and don't reflect the overall experience people have with police in the west. |
You're like a little kid with his fingers stuck in his ears pretending he can't hear you.
|
Guess that's what you say when the facts prevent you from having a rebuttal.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Don't get rid of the whole system because of a few bad policies; get rid of the bad policies. |
Yeah, don't get rid of the constitution, get rid of federal bureaus that are ruining the country.
|
Something you have yet to demonstrate, yet repeat like a mantra. |
Huh?
|
You say over and over again that the FDA is bad, and have yet to demonstrate a net loss.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually, all my experiences have been to the contrary. I don't know where you're from, but the people I know are sick of the freedoms we lost and are much more likely to vote people out of office than �giving in� to marshal law. |
Yeah right. So who are you voting for then? Obama?
|
Probably. Can't find a better candidate. Then again, I have certain issues that are more important to me. |
I rest my case. I guess all you are is talk and no action.
|
Care to elaborate, Mr. Master Debater? |
No need to elaborate. The meaning was obvious.
|
When no good answer is available, no good answer is given.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That is proof. There are some dangerous chemicals that used to be sold that are now banned. That is a net gain. There are other chemicals that are tightly regulated, both in dosage and labeling. That is a net gain. Your examples don't demonstrate a net loss; they demonstrate chemicals getting through which would also get through without an FDA. |
This is not proof. Just because some chemicals are banned doesn't mean they don't still end up in our food. In fact most of these chemicals are in allowed to be present in "small levels" - hell, even radiation is allowed.
|
Because it's not dangerous. Bananas have naturally occurring levels of radiation. You can harvest uranium from seawater.
Many of these dangerous substances are banned because they were being added to our food. The FDA bans are in response to business's reckless behavior.
Dangerous substance in food -> FDA ban -> food is safer.
That is a net gain.
| visitorq wrote: |
Moreover, it assumes that small farmers and food producers would be adding these chemicals in the first place (very unlikely, much less so than for larger companies subsidized by government).
|
Really? Farmers don't want their food preserved so it becomes salable for a longer period of time? They don't want to fend off pests to improve (and stabilize) their crop yields?
| visitorq wrote: |
Lastly, the FDA allows many harmful chemicals to be added by big companies that otherwise would probably not be added by small farmers and producers.
|
Source please.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
2) I don't want your stinking protection. Your defense of the FDA is on par with defending some Mafia that come up to you and demand protection money. It may very well be the case that they do protect you, but it's still immoral for them to force you to pay.
|
Too bad the majority disagrees with you. And since we live in a democracy, you're forced to go along with it unless you want to leave the country. |
Oh, look at the little control freak show his true colors! I'm glad I was able to bring out your true nastiness for all to see...
|
The majority want something in a democracy and I'm a control freak for saying that's okay? What is wrong with you?
| visitorq wrote: |
We do not live in a "democracy" per se, but a republic. It is NOT majority rule. The law is enshrined in the constitution and cannot be legally changed by a majority vote (obviously). To repeat the adage: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
|
A republic is a democracy. Just not a direct democracy.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? "Many" people don't favor having a regulatory body to ban dangerous chemicals? Do you mean "many" as a number or as a percentage? Care to source that? |
Let's say that any number of people don't favor it. My principle stands strong regardless of "how many", since it is not a question of "majority rules" (even though you LOVE to view yourself as the majority )
|
Since we live in a democracy, it is very much "majority rules". |
Okay, so if white people (the majority) vote to enslave blacks (the minority) again, then that would be lawful and okay? Because (in your words) the "majority rules". Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds.
|
Is that something that's likely to happen? What non-democratic process would you like to use to prevent it?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
If you want a regulatory body, then pay for it yourself. Donate your money. That body should have the power to report on any products that may be unhealthy. Businesses that care about their reputation will abide by it or face boycotts. But you do NOT have the right to ban people from buying or selling what they want (as long as no fraud is being committed), and neither should the stinking federal government.
|
They do because the people gave them that power. |
"The people"? What people? Make a list, or stop making crap up.
|
The citizens of The United States of America.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Doesn't discredit "almost all". Make your point about how the FDA needs stricter regulations for food labels, not that it needs be get removed. You'll get a LOT more support. |
Why the hell would I trust a body like the FDA that would engage in such despicable behavior in the first place? I'm supposed to try and force this corrupt institution to police all its Big Agro and Big Pharma cronies, when I don't believe it even has the right to exist?
|
I don't trust the FDA either.
Wanna provide some source material behind your belief about the FDA?
| visitorq wrote: |
I've already found ways to avoid most of the poisons they're selling me. The FDA has never helped, and in fact I see it as an active enabler of all the problems that did not, and would not exist otherwise. Abolish the FDA, and Big Agro will bite the dust. No question about it.
|
The FDA requires all ingredients to be listed in everything you buy. They have most certainly helped you.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Off topic. Your point was that SUBSIDIES caused obesity, not HFCS. |
No, it's directly ON topic, and my point was that HFCS causes obesity and is heavily subsidized. Love how you try to just dance around issues that discredit your point of view.
|
No. You said "We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy." You specifically blamed government policy. |
Yeah, and government policy has deliberately brought us mountains of GMO corn (drive through some states and that's all there is, as far as the eye can see) that is turned into HFCS that floods the market and gets put into all our foods, making us fat. This point was completely obvious. How dense can you be not to have seen it?
|
Your point was obvious, because you stated it clearly. I then proved you wrong. The study I linked demonstrates why "We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy," is wrong.
First study was about non-compliance with a state ordinance that did not ban growing vegetable, but rather regulated how her front yard was supposed to look. Terrible law, but still legal to grow vegetables.
Second article was about a guy growing way more than his own food. It also pointed that laws are constantly changing as a result of cases like these.
Neither case is applicable.
Point being?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
In short, you're defending monopolies.
|
I'm defending a practice that produces reasonably priced foods and keeps farms from closing down. Since there is still competition (and not only one company producing all the food), everything about your last statement is wrong. |
A cartel is a form of monopoly, genius. You are being completely disingenuous.
|
You said I was defending monopolies and I'm being disingenuous?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You should probably source that, since as you said earlier, people tend to buy the cheaper thing when given a choice. Even if it becomes more expensive, it's still the cheaper option. |
Source what? That government subsidies make certain foods grown for Big Agro cheaper? Do I actually have to "explain that to an adult"? Use your damn head.
|
"This cheap junk would not be so cheap anymore - in fact it would probably cease to exist and people would revert back to how it used to be (and still is in many parts of the world)."
Bold claim with no evidence. Also a prediction that runs counter to what we know about consumer buying patterns. Source it.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'ts absolutely not BS. Anyone who knows anything about statistics understands that you have to compare results to the sample size. More people die from car crashes in the US than gunfights, but that doesn't mean gunfights are safer; it means that since there are far more people who drive than participate in gunfights, that the higher number of deaths means nothing. You have to base your statistics based on a percentage.
It gets even more complicated when trying to plot things like diseases because not only are people dying from the milk they drink, but are contagious and can infect others as well. Therefore, the rise of infections will be exponential, rather than linear. |
Absolute, unmitigated BS. People have been drinking raw milk for millennia. You have offered NO proof that populations experienced "exponentially higher" deaths attributed to it compared to today. You are talking out of your ass, plain and simple.
|
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dvmnBNj4r1wJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151663770115120.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Before 1938, when pasteurization was widely adopted, cow's milk accounted for about 25% of all food- and water-borne disease outbreaks. But with the growing popularity of raw milk products, "people don't remember the bad old days," the CDC's Dr. Tauxe says. "Pasteurization was one of the triumphs of public health that protected many people and saved many lives."
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Is there anything that big brother can't protect you from? Maybe there should be a cop in your washrooms at all times? I mean you might accidentally fall into the toilet and drown or something?
|
Do we have problems with people dying in washrooms? No? Then I guess your example is silly.
"Big Brother" is pretty off topic. |
Aha, look what I found on your beloved wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet-related_injuries_and_deaths#Historical_deaths
|
Hmm. Handful of people died on the toilet from unrelated issues. Does not support your point.
| visitorq wrote: |
I guess we need to have police patrolling toilets now. In fact, we should set up an entire government bureau and regulate the hell out of it. For your own safety and protection.
|
Risk is not worth the reward. Terrible idea.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not the same thing. People need those things. They don't need raw milk. |
People need kitchen knives? Seems to me you could just buy all your food pre-sliced, pre-cooked or irradiated, and packaged in some BPA-laden container approved by the FDA. All for your safety and benefit.
|
Well that seems kind of silly. It would be just about impossible to eat healthy without knives. Do we have a reason to ban kitchen knives? |
Of course it's bloody well silly. As is every other example of excessive government involvement in our lives, trying to coddle and protect us (while actually harming us).
|
Then why did you bring it up? It's nothing like raw milk.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
And who the hell are you to say what people need. Maybe I believe that raw milk is necessary for my health. Some control freak like yourself certainly has no right to tell me otherwise.
|
But, since you're not an expert (and the experts haven't confirmed one way or the other), you'd be wrong.
How am I a control freak? |
So if an expert tells you to go jump off a bridge, I bet you'd do it. I actually feel sorry for you, that you so mindlessly buy into whatever the "authorities" tell you, just like a lemming. And you're a control freak because you think your delusions should be forcefully imposed onto others. Straight up.
|
Why would experts tell me to jump off a bridge? Isn't that an argument parents use on 10 year-olds?
Mindless? Lemmings? Sounds like projection to me. You do nothing but spout conservative and Austrian school talking points. I haven't seen you leave that camp once. I demonstrated a position that is not held in any camp.
I think the will of the people should prevail. Saying otherwise makes YOU the control freak and anti-democracy. Straight up.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
No. It's the opinion of experts. If you want to go against the opinion of the majority of experts, who have more knowledge than you do, that's you're prerogative. It's also stupid.
Show me a better way to form an opinion than listening to the consensus of the expert community. |
There is no consensus. People who claim there is a consensus (and invariably use it to justify imposing their shared views onto others) are the most deluded, dangerous, pernicious control freaks imaginable.
|
Experts don't always come to a consensus, but they do many times. The Austrian school of economics is a perfect example.
Nice dodge to my challenge. Show me a better way to form an opinion than listening to the consensus of the expert community.
| visitorq wrote: |
Spare me your BS. It was a case of the government deliberately lying to the public. The so-called "experts" were trotted out to make it all seem legit, and the government did whatever it wanted, as usual. All the lemmings, like yourself, went along with it hook, line, and sinker; and all he talking heads in the media (more "experts") rationalized it after the fact.
|
Where do you get your information? Do you read? The experts were almost unanimously AGAINST the belief that Saddam had WMD's. The government ignored them and went ahead as planned. Read the entry.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 2) Please link the sea levels source, because I can't find anything from experts talking about that, unless its over the course of hundreds or thousands of years. |
Oh please. Go look up Al Gore's stupid movie (you know, the one with all the "experts", where he tells us the "debate is over" and there's a "universal consensus"?) Google it in like 3 seconds.
|
Al Gore's critically acclaimed movie says that if Greenland or Antarctica melt completely, that sea levels will rise 20 ft. How exactly is that "nonsense"?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not true. Despite the money going into climate research by energy companies (who want the problem to go away), the scientific community is nearly unanimous in it's position that climate change is real and man-made. Your dismissal of mainstream science without any evidence is moronic (and a little scary). There is simply no better source of information. Individual cases of the mainstream scientific consensus being wrong (of which you have not provided) does not discredit them as being a highly reliable source. |
Enough of your lies. You are completely full of crap on every level. There is no consensus, and the so-called experts have been caught outright lying and forging data (look up climate gate emails). They are heavily funded by energy companies, because the same banks that own the energy companies what to make money from carbon taxation (and have oil prices increase due to artificial scarcity imposed on the market by regulations). It's the biggest scam ever.
|
Climate gate? Where do you get your information? I see you didn't source any of that ridiculousness. However, I can source you wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Climate change is a concensus by experts and is not even up for debate anymore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/
You sound like FOX news.
Which is basically crap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| THAT is confusing correlation with causation. No one is arguing the timeline. The continuation of TGD correlates with FDR. For you to bring it up as proof of FDR making TGD worse, you are implying causation. |
I've already posited evidence ad nauseum (including several links) that explain how his policies made the depression worse. But for you that's all in one ear out the other, because you're too full of it to ever admit you're wrong.
|
Hahaha no. You provided one source that failed to actually demonstrate FDR making the Great Depression worse. Heck, the source I provided supported your position better. Your explanations have been focused solely on timeline (confusing correlation with causation), without demonstrating any causes.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The US experienced a turnaround as a result of his policies. There was economic growth and job creation (whereas before it was job loss and economic loss). Some economists blame the recession of 1937 on prematurely reducing government spending. |
This is simply a LIE. Stop lying.
|
From The Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The U.S. recovery began in the spring of 1933. Output grew rapidly in the mid-1930s: real GDP rose at an average rate of 9 percent per year between 1933 and 1937. Output had fallen so deeply in the early years of the 1930s, however, that it remained substantially below its long-run trend path throughout this period. In 1937�38 the United States suffered another severe downturn, but after mid-1938 the American economy grew even more rapidly than in the mid-1930s."
On the 1937 recession:
"One source of the 1937�38 recession was a decision by the Federal Reserve to greatly increase reserve requirements. This move, which was prompted by fears that the economy might be developing speculative excess, caused the money supply to cease its rapid growth and to actually fall again."
On mainstream opinion:
"One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."(Newsweek)
This is simply FACT. You're asking me to stop saying facts.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Stalin? Do you know the difference between democracy and totalitarianism? |
I know that Hitler was voted into power, and that the US built up the Soviet Union as a captive market (Stalin was a great ally of FDR and the West during the war). So I guess it's not as clear cut as you think, hm?
|
Since that didn't answer my question, the only thing not clear is your point.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't have to. I'm not an expert, so it's not my argument to make. There are many people who know more about this than we do, and most of them don't agree with you. |
Oh really, "most of them don't"? Did you make up a list of "experts", count them up, and come up with a tally? Oh, you didn't? Then I guess you're just spouting out more garbage without proof.
|
No. I just polled 4 econ grads, an econ professor, and read the Wikipedia entry (supported by 3 sources) as well as jaykim's source. They all say the same thing. That's all the proof a reasonable person needs.
I notice that you haven't sourced anything to the contrary. I wonder why that is?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So then you can say that the government increased inflation by throwing money around. You can't say the increase of health care above the CPI is because of inflation. They're two separate things. |
Oh man, you're not smart enough to debate this stuff
I've already explained how the government caused inflation by spending in the field of healthcare specifically.
|
No. " and wages DO NOT keep up with inflation (our grandparents generation had more purchasing power than we do" We were talking about wages keeping (or not keeping) pace with inflation. You were using the term in a mainstream way. You can't suddenly change how you use the word.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No. If you bothered to read any of my other links, inflation is defined as the gradual rise of prices over time. The devaluing of money. All these other things that you attribute to inflation are not part of the mainstream definition of the word, so if you're going to use it out of context, you need to be clear about that. If you are talking about healthcare as a specific market, then you can say that in that market the flood of government dollars depressed the value of money and is why healthcare costs have gone up (you'd still be wrong, but much less so). However, that is NOT the mainstream definition of inflation. If you want to talk about the government sinking a lot of money into healthcare as one of the causes for increasing it's cost, fine. I don't disagree. Don't call it inflation. |
Ahaha, look at you squirm! It took you several days to reply, and this is the best you could come up with? Despite explaining clearly what inflation is and what causes it, I'm "wrong" because you think my definition of inflation doesn't match the "mainstream"? Wow, what a pathetic non-rebuttal.
|
It took several days because I have a job and friends, both of which are more important than responding to your unsupported arguments in a timely fashion.
Either you are using the word in a different context, or you don't know what it means. If the cost of something increases at a rate higher than the CPI, then inflation cannot be the only cause of the increase. It's really that simple. If you are talking about inflation in the healthcare market, you need to say "inflation in the healthcare market", especially if you were referring to inflation as "purchasing power" earlier.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Exactly. They would be more expensive regardless. That's my point. |
You have no point, nor do you have any clue what the hell you're talking about. Even though a fixed money supply would constrain a rise in prices, it wouldn't prevent prices from falling. In fact, in a free market system that is what prices tend to do, with increased competition and better technology. |
My point is that there are other forces raising healthcare costs besides inflation. Your statement adds nothing to that discussion.
You COULD have said that inflation played a part in healthcare costs. You COULD have said that relaxing regulation in healthcare could reduce costs by fostering competition. You didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
The government can't protect you from everything. This is an absolute fact. The larger point is whether the government has the right to even try.
|
The people gave them that right. |
Wrong. The government gets its mandate from the Constitution, not from your made up "collective". Your logic is totally bunk, since anything the government does could be in "the peoples'" name (just look at "the Peoples'" Republic of China or similarly named countries).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
No doubt there are many boot licking shmucks (not unlike yourself) out there who think that yes, the government should have carte blanche to do anything it wants in the name of "security"; sane people with healthy distrust of corrupt authority realize that it is the slippery slope to tyranny.
|
Not too many people think that way. Most want a happy medium between police state and anarchy. |
There you go claiming to speak for other people again. While what you say right here sounds reasonable, the fact that claim to know what "most people" think shows your arrogance. You speak only for yourself.
This is such nonsense. It was a clear example of regulation encouraging development that would have been too risky to undertake in a free market. Despite all the government "safety standards" the disaster took place. In fact, some of the most polluted countries are those where governments control industry. Places like China or the former USSR. The notion that government can or will protect us from pollution is a JOKE.
Free market and private property is a much better system for environmental protection, since I have the right to sue you for damages if you damage my property (including my person, or health) with your pollution. This is not "regulation", it is simply enforcing property laws. Of course this doesn't work when the government owns land and doles out pollution rights to corporate cronies - in that case we get the classic "tragedy of the commons", of which the Gulf spill was an obvious example. And yet you fallaciously blame the free market as always
You claim to post facts and then back it up with an opinion piece? Anyway, of course the Fukushima disaster could have been prevented - the nuclear plant could simply have never been built. That it was built is thanks to government and huge subsidies; the same government that has since bailed out TEPCO and lied to the Japanese people about everything. Pretty much on par with any other government, mind you.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Oh yeah, they got bailed out, and both companies are still running (hell, a company like TEPCO wouldn't even have nuclear reactors built on fault lines beside the ocean if it weren't for government subsidies and assurances).
|
The BP disaster makes it clear that companies cannot completely cover damages they cause. Your point about bankruptcy as a threat is not mutually exclusive with regulation, but your idea alone is ignorant of human nature. |
No, the BP disaster makes it clear that companies can engage in as risky behavior as they want and still get bailed out by the government when a disaster occurs. This is exactly what happened. Why the hell would BP or anyone else change the way they do business when the government actively encourages it? Your regulatory solution has a history of FAILURE. It doesn't work. The only solution is getting government out of the picture, except when it comes to enforcing the basic rule of law. BP should have been forced to pay for every single penny worth of damage caused - iow they should be bankrupt. Instead they were bailed out (with a slap on the wrist) and the "tragedy of the commons" left nobody truly accountable. This is what corporatism is all about.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We do NOT live in a police state. Stop the rhetoric. |
Make a checklist of the criteria for a police state. The US meets many of the those criteria to some degree. It is not rhetoric. It is denial on your part.
|
Better use of my time is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
All measures consider us free. We are not in a police state. It is rhetoric. |
Here's an example of you tossing out a worthless link to wikipedia, while offering zero insight of your own. The US has many aspects that make it a police state. We have the highest prison incarceration rate on the planet (more than China, by far), we have TSA goons humiliating and molesting people in airports, we have cops that go around beating and killing people, as well as pepper spraying and arresting peaceful protesters, a president who has the power to indefinitely detain any one or even kill American citizens. And despite all that you just throw up some wiki link. Pathetic.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
You said we don't need to live in a police state to feel safe. Since we don't live in a police state, that's off topic and doesn't address my point.
Your examples are anecdotal and don't reflect the overall experience people have with police in the west. |
You're like a little kid with his fingers stuck in his ears pretending he can't hear you.
|
Guess that's what you say when the facts prevent you from having a rebuttal. |
You don't post any facts. You just toss up wikipedia links, which may or may not support any of the nonsense you post.
| Quote: |
| You say over and over again that the FDA is bad, and have yet to demonstrate a net loss. |
The net loss is obvious, and I've stated it before: the FDA costs a ton of money and does not have the right to impose itself onto people. The FDA also functions as a regulatory capture for big pharma and big agro to dominate their competition. The FDA is institution created to cartelize industry at the expense of the public, operating under the cover of ostensibly "protecting" us, while in fact ensuring that our food is full of poisons. It is one of the most insidious institutions ever created - a true monstrosity.
| Quote: |
| When no good answer is available, no good answer is given. |
That was as good an answer as you deserve. Your claim that you seek change is untrue. You vote for the status quo, and would put up with any amount of tyranny. You would just roll over and let the "authorities" have their way with you, because, hey, that's the "sane" thing to do. So yeah, just vote for Obama again, but that's the sort of thing you stand for.
| Quote: |
| Because it's not dangerous. Bananas have naturally occurring levels of radiation. You can harvest uranium from seawater. |
Yeah, and when radiation levels rise after Fukushima, the government can say 'hocus pocus, abracadabra' and magically raise the "safe" limit. Same goes for mercury levels, or anything else. And you'll always believe it, because you think the government actually gives a damn about you
Seriously, even cyanide can be harmless in small enough amounts. So taking that line of reasoning, why ban anything?
| Quote: |
| Many of these dangerous substances are banned because they were being added to our food. The FDA bans are in response to business's reckless behavior. |
Such as? I'd like to see you come up with a list. And maybe limit it to companies that don't owe their entire existence to government subsidies, hm?
| Quote: |
Dangerous substance in food -> FDA ban -> food is safer.
That is a net gain. |
Dangerous substance -> FDA approved -> food is unhealthy crud.
or, dangerous substance - FDA ban -> substance is still found in food.
+ FDA costs huge amounts of money to fund, which is stolen from the taxpayer.
+ The FDA does not have the right to police our food supply and tell people what they can or can't feed themselves.
= Net loss. By far.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Moreover, it assumes that small farmers and food producers would be adding these chemicals in the first place (very unlikely, much less so than for larger companies subsidized by government).
|
Really? Farmers don't want their food preserved so it becomes salable for a longer period of time? They don't want to fend off pests to improve (and stabilize) their crop yields? |
Strawman. Local farmers may use some chemicals (produced by FDA approved superstar company Monsanto), but require a lot less than big industrial agriculture. Local produce is also real, whole foods that are healthy - the GMO crud produced by FDA approved giants just gets processed down into packaged/junk food with no real nutritional value and tons of chemical additivies.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Lastly, the FDA allows many harmful chemicals to be added by big companies that otherwise would probably not be added by small farmers and producers.
|
Source please. |
I need a source to prove that small farmers would use less Monsanto pesticides than big agro? How about the fact that without subsidies pesticides would be more expensive? Or that big agro treats farmland like a giant factory, growing monocultures that get doused in chemicals? This is all subsidized.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/industrial-agriculture-features.html#Subsidies
| Quote: |
| The majority want something in a democracy and I'm a control freak for saying that's okay? What is wrong with you? |
You're a control freak because you think it's okay to impose your views on others, claiming to speak for the "majority" after the fact. Even if you did speak for the majority, it is moot, since the tyranny of the majority does give a legal mandate to government - only the constitution does that. We live in a democratic republic, not a majority rules democracy. Learn the difference.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
We do not live in a "democracy" per se, but a republic. It is NOT majority rule. The law is enshrined in the constitution and cannot be legally changed by a majority vote (obviously). To repeat the adage: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
|
A republic is a democracy. Just not a direct democracy. |
A republic is a republic, with elements of democracy built in. It is not a "majority rules" democracy. It is in fact even conceivable that the US could be reconfigured into more of a direct democracy, just so long as the rights enumerated in the constitution were not infringed upon. The MAIN point is our individual liberties should not be touched.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? "Many" people don't favor having a regulatory body to ban dangerous chemicals? Do you mean "many" as a number or as a percentage? Care to source that? |
Let's say that any number of people don't favor it. My principle stands strong regardless of "how many", since it is not a question of "majority rules" (even though you LOVE to view yourself as the majority )
|
Since we live in a democracy, it is very much "majority rules". |
Okay, so if white people (the majority) vote to enslave blacks (the minority) again, then that would be lawful and okay? Because (in your words) the "majority rules". Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds.
|
Is that something that's likely to happen? What non-democratic process would you like to use to prevent it? |
The constitution, of course. Even if the majority voted to enslave the minority, this should be legally prevented and the will of the majority defied by the rights of each individual. Because we do NOT live in a majority rules system.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
If you want a regulatory body, then pay for it yourself. Donate your money. That body should have the power to report on any products that may be unhealthy. Businesses that care about their reputation will abide by it or face boycotts. But you do NOT have the right to ban people from buying or selling what they want (as long as no fraud is being committed), and neither should the stinking federal government.
|
They do because the people gave them that power. |
"The people"? What people? Make a list, or stop making crap up.
|
The citizens of The United States of America. |
The people of the United States of America gave the FDA power to ban people from from eating what they want? Where do you come up with this crap?
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I've already found ways to avoid most of the poisons they're selling me. The FDA has never helped, and in fact I see it as an active enabler of all the problems that did not, and would not exist otherwise. Abolish the FDA, and Big Agro will bite the dust. No question about it.
|
The FDA requires all ingredients to be listed in everything you buy. They have most certainly helped you. |
I rarely read the ingredients (which deceptively read as some sort of benign list: instead of saying "a whole bunch of processed crud that will make you fat, cause heart disease and many other health problems"). I just buy from sources I trust, and generally avoid supermarkets. I actually shop a lot at local and farmers markets. In the US I would definitely buy things like nutritious raw milk from local farmers - except that the FDA sends around cadres of police to arrest people.
| Quote: |
| Your point was obvious, because you stated it clearly. I then proved you wrong. The study I linked demonstrates why "We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy," is wrong. |
This is a lie. Straight up.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
In short, you're defending monopolies.
|
I'm defending a practice that produces reasonably priced foods and keeps farms from closing down. Since there is still competition (and not only one company producing all the food), everything about your last statement is wrong. |
A cartel is a form of monopoly, genius. You are being completely disingenuous.
|
You said I was defending monopolies and I'm being disingenuous? |
A cartel is a form of monopoly! You are defending the cartelization of the food supply, caused by government, and then blaming it on the "free market". To say you are being disingenuous is a huge understatement.
| Quote: |
| Bold claim with no evidence. Also a prediction that runs counter to what we know about consumer buying patterns. Source it. |
Source what?? That big agro profits from billions in government subsidies? I already have sourced it ad freaking nauseum. Go back and read.
| Quote: |
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dvmnBNj4r1wJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151663770115120.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Before 1938, when pasteurization was widely adopted, cow's milk accounted for about 25% of all food- and water-borne disease outbreaks. But with the growing popularity of raw milk products, "people don't remember the bad old days," the CDC's Dr. Tauxe says. "Pasteurization was one of the triumphs of public health that protected many people and saved many lives." |
This is such absolute, unmitigated garbage. In the first place, that link is to a discussion, where the claims being made are by the same FDA that has a vested interest in banning raw milk (huge lobbying by the big dairy industry, and also just expanding FDA power over the food supply). The notion that "evil" cow's milk caused a quarter of all illnesses is just laughable. People were drinking cow's milk for thousands of years. Where's the data proving that a quarter of illnesses throughout that period were caused by it? Anybody with even an iota of common sense can see how idiotic, unfounded, and unprovable that claim is.
Moreover, even if cow's milk was "inherently dangerous", as the stooge at the FDA says, it's still my right to drink it if I so chose. The criminal scumbags in the government do NOT have a right to ban me from drinking it, or forcing me to drink the pasteurized crap produced by big dairy (which is full of dead, cooked bacteria and histamines found in all the blood, pus, and feces that go into their filthy factory-farmed milk before they process it).
| Quote: |
| Hmm. Handful of people died on the toilet from unrelated issues. Does not support your point. |
It supports my point perfectly. We don't need the government to run our lives.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I guess we need to have police patrolling toilets now. In fact, we should set up an entire government bureau and regulate the hell out of it. For your own safety and protection.
|
Risk is not worth the reward. Terrible idea. |
Just as with the FDA and other government bodies.
| Quote: |
| Then why did you bring it up? It's nothing like raw milk. |
It's exactly analogous to raw milk.
| Quote: |
[quote="visitorq"]
| Quote: |
[quote="visitorq"]
And who the hell are you to say what people need. Maybe I believe that raw milk is necessary for my health. Some control freak like yourself certainly has no right to tell me otherwise.
|
But, since you're not an expert (and the experts haven't confirmed one way or the other), you'd be wrong. |
Because confirmation by so-called "experts" (whom you can't even list in detail) is not a criteria for being right. Obviously. Experts are often proven wrong.
| Quote: |
| Why would experts tell me to jump off a bridge? Isn't that an argument parents use on 10 year-olds? |
Well, if the shoe fits...
| Quote: |
| Mindless? Lemmings? Sounds like projection to me. You do nothing but spout conservative and Austrian school talking points. I haven't seen you leave that camp once. I demonstrated a position that is not held in any camp. |
Ahaha, your position is a massive cliche. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. If I wanted to hear any of your talking points I would flick on MSNBC or any other liberal hack-job media outlet. To think you're actually claiming your views don't fall under any camp really funny.
| Quote: |
| I think the will of the people should prevail. Saying otherwise makes YOU the control freak and anti-democracy. Straight up. |
Democracy is not the end, it is merely a means to the end that is individual liberty. It can be a useful tool, obviously, since it decentralizes power - but the tyranny of the majority is to be resisted just as much as that of the minority. Anti-democracy, indeed... I guess anyone who resisted the Nazis (who had a democratic mandate) were guilty of just that too? Hm?
Democracy needs to be constrained by a higher law. The law that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct.
| Quote: |
Experts don't always come to a consensus, but they do many times. The Austrian school of economics is a perfect example.
Nice dodge to my challenge. Show me a better way to form an opinion than listening to the consensus of the expert community. |
I didn't dodge anything. I stated that the best way to form an opinion is to make up your own mind, and don't simply buy into whatever is being fed you unless it actually has merit.
| Quote: |
| Where do you get your information? Do you read? The experts were almost unanimously AGAINST the belief that Saddam had WMD's. The government ignored them and went ahead as planned. Read the entry. |
I remember Rumsfeld and Colin Powell et al. telling us all that US intelligence had confirmed the WMDs (they even listed the locations). Of course they blatantly LIED about it, but hey that's what governments do. It's all the useful idiots that go along with it that make it possible.
| Quote: |
| Al Gore's critically acclaimed movie says that if Greenland or Antarctica melt completely, that sea levels will rise 20 ft. How exactly is that "nonsense"? |
Because they were suggesting such a thing could actually happen, obviously. It never could and never will. At least not due to CO2 emissions.
Al Gore (who previously owned large holding in the Chicago Climate Exchange, and whose family fortune comes from Occidental Petroleum) went and bought a $9 million dollar ocean-front mansion after making that piece of crap movie. So I wouldn't worry about it happening too much...
Your wikipedia garbage doesn't cut it here. Go and read sources like climateaudit.com - they utterly destroy all the propaganda and lies put out by the charlatans at RealClimate.org
Moreover, I don't need to read your wikipedia trash. I actually downloaded all the emails myself and read through a great deal of them. It was incriminating beyond belief. I also remember all the spin and damage control that came after. It was like a sick joke, but everybody knew that given enough time it would blow over, and the sheep-like public would accept it as having been "resolved". You are case in point. You have no clue whatsoever, but you accept it because you can wikipedia it in 2 minutes without doing any any research or digging deeper.
| Quote: |
| Climate change is a concensus by experts and is not even up for debate anymore: |
An absolute lie. True, most scientists agree that climate change is a phenomenon that is real, but to say they all agree it is caused by CO2 is a bald-faced lie and propaganda to the max.
Your link didn't disprove anything. There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who question the official narrative.
The simple fact that governments, banks, NGOs, and big oil heavily fund the AGW crowd tells you all you need to know. It's a giant scam meant to shut off our resources, raise prices on oil, raise taxes, fill the pockets of the elite, and take away our liberties in the name of "saving the earth". That's all the eco-fascists really care about (but not real environmental issues like radiation spewing out of reactors or GMOs vandalizing the genetic health of the whole biosphere).
| Quote: |
| Hahaha no. You provided one source that failed to actually demonstrate FDR making the Great Depression worse. Heck, the source I provided supported your position better. Your explanations have been focused solely on timeline (confusing correlation with causation), without demonstrating any causes. |
What a joke. My source clearly demonstrated that FDR made the Great Depression worse. There have been scholarly books written on the subject that break it down in detail. Here is one example:
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=406&CategoryId=0&AFID=14
Feel free to read and escape your ignorance, if you want.
| Quote: |
From The Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The U.S. recovery began in the spring of 1933. Output grew rapidly in the mid-1930s: real GDP rose at an average rate of 9 percent per year between 1933 and 1937. Output had fallen so deeply in the early years of the 1930s, however, that it remained substantially below its long-run trend path throughout this period. In 1937�38 the United States suffered another severe downturn, but after mid-1938 the American economy grew even more rapidly than in the mid-1930s." |
Very easily debunked:
http://mises.org/daily/4039
| Quote: |
On the 1937 recession:
"One source of the 1937�38 recession was a decision by the Federal Reserve to greatly increase reserve requirements. This move, which was prompted by fears that the economy might be developing speculative excess, caused the money supply to cease its rapid growth and to actually fall again." |
Very easily debunked:
http://mises.org/daily/3534
| Quote: |
On mainstream opinion:
"One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."(Newsweek) |
And yet I've listed several. So not only is your Newsweek quote total crap, but you are wrong.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Stalin? Do you know the difference between democracy and totalitarianism? |
I know that Hitler was voted into power, and that the US built up the Soviet Union as a captive market (Stalin was a great ally of FDR and the West during the war). So I guess it's not as clear cut as you think, hm?
|
Since that didn't answer my question, the only thing not clear is your point. |
You know perfectly well. But if playing dumb helps you, then by all means.
| Quote: |
| No. I just polled 4 econ grads, an econ professor, and read the Wikipedia entry (supported by 3 sources) as well as jaykim's source. They all say the same thing. That's all the proof a reasonable person needs. |
That's like polling 4 Catholic priests and saying it's all a reasonable person needs to prove the Catholic faith is is based on fact.
| Quote: |
No. " and wages DO NOT keep up with inflation (our grandparents generation had more purchasing power than we do" We were talking about wages keeping (or not keeping) pace with inflation. You were using the term in a mainstream way. You can't suddenly change how you use the word.
|
I didn't change the way the word is used. I have been consistent in my usage throughout. It is you who simply doesn't understand the terms.
| Quote: |
| Either you are using the word in a different context, or you don't know what it means. If the cost of something increases at a rate higher than the CPI, then inflation cannot be the only cause of the increase. It's really that simple. If you are talking about inflation in the healthcare market, you need to say "inflation in the healthcare market", especially if you were referring to inflation as "purchasing power" earlier. |
Get it through your thick skull: the CPI is not an accurate measure of inflation. Because inflation is not a price phenomenon, but a monetary one. How many times do you have be schooled before you register it in your brain?
| Quote: |
My point is that there are other forces raising healthcare costs besides inflation. Your statement adds nothing to that discussion.
You COULD have said that inflation played a part in healthcare costs. You COULD have said that relaxing regulation in healthcare could reduce costs by fostering competition. You didn't. |
Factors other than inflation? Like what?? Increased demand? Fine, but in a fixed money supply that would not result in continually rising prices. So OBVIOUSLY inflation is the only factor that explains it. God, it you still can't even understand this basic point then you are hopeless... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If there was no government regulatory framework, who would have forced BP to clean up the mess they made? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| If there was no government regulatory framework, who would have forced BP to clean up the mess they made? |
Well in the first place, BP is not being forced to pay for all of the mess they made. According to this mainstream piece from 2010 the total damage was expected to exceed $100 billion, and so far BP has paid around $7 billion (which to a company that profited around $25 billion, with around $380 billion in revenue in 2011, amounts to a slap on the wrist). So it's not like the government is really forcing BP to pay its dues here.
Secondly, forcing BP to pay for damage has little if anything to do with actual regulations. Regulations are what allowed BP to build its oil platforms in the Gulf in the first place, and certainly failed to prevent the spill (or any of the other spills that have occurred in history). If private property rights were applied (which they have been to some extent, and should be to a greater extent), then BP should have to pay for all damages to anyone else's property. It could even be enough to bankrupt them, but that would be the just way, and also provide the ultimate deterrent for them to set up risky operations (okay, well maybe executing some of the directors China-style would be more extreme, but not sure I could advocate that)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| If there was no government regulatory framework, who would have forced BP to clean up the mess they made? |
I imagine some courts would after all those whose livelihoods, health, property, etc were negatively affected sued BP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, forgot to reply to this one last time...
| Unposter wrote: |
VisitorQ,
I have a question about taxes. You have already said that you are not an anarchist and that you believe in government, just a limited one, whatever that may mean. You have also said that taxes are coercive. But, I don't understand how you can have a government that actually works without professionals running it and taxes. |
There is quite a bit of discussion about this by libertarian scholars, not all of whom agree. Most agree that income tax is the worst sort of tax to have. Some think that capital gains or property taxes are fine, some feel that government 'user fees' are the way, and no doubt some feel that there should be no tax at all. The last I find pretty hard to accept, since I fail to see how any civil government could exist without some form of revenue (seems pretty obvious that that would be required). Personally I just think the income tax is deplorable and shouldn't even really be constitutional at all (since the 16th amendment was ratified late in history, under dubious circumstances, and just before the Federal Reserve Act was passed in the same year). I also dislike sales taxes and any sort of tariff. I could accept government user fees, but basically I think capital gains tax is the least harmful sort of tax.
But I certainly don't have all the answers on this point... It's pretty complex.
| Quote: |
| The U.S. founding fathers said no taxes without representation. And, they gave the house of representatives the sole power to tax so that the people could decide through their representatives what and how much taxes they should pay. So, how is this coercive? |
Income tax certainly wasn't included in this. Neither was central banking for that matter (which necessitates an income tax just to pay off the debt/interest the government incurs through endless bond issuance to the Fed).
| Quote: |
| I understand that you still have to file and pay but isn't that just what the people want? If it wasn't, couldn't the people just elect different representatives to change the tax code? |
Yes, this is a big part of it. This is what most Ron Paul supporters expect (Ron Paul often talks about getting rid of income tax). But to say that most politicians really represent the people (and not the special interests who essentially place them into office) I think would be naive.
| Quote: |
| I understand that you may or may not want to pay taxes. But, the majority of the electorate seems to think that paying (at least some) taxes is right and proper. And, that sometimes in a democracy, even with limited government, there are going to some things that others want that we don't want to do but we do anyway. |
I'm really not convinced this is the case. It may be that the majority acquiesces to paying taxes, but if it were not done under coercion how many would really pay? I'm guessing very few, if any. I think a lot of people try to convince themselves that they're getting something in return, to rationalize it to themselves after the fact, but I imagine most people would rather just keep the cash and spend it themselves on things they actually want or need.
| Quote: |
| I understand that you are an idealist and you don't want to compromise what you think is right but isn't compromise just a fact of life - we compromise all the time with our family, friends, co-workers, bosses, churches, government. |
Compromise is fine. Acquiescing to injustice is another. My idea of compromise would be to cut the government down to size (rather that going all the way and say we should abolish it altogether). There is no way I can jusitify the sort of obscene inflationary spending our government engages in, or taxing peoples' personal incomes.
| Quote: |
| Isn't the current state of our government, the product of 200+ years of compromise and that even if you were to end all laws and just start over, in 200 years, the government would probably look earily similar to the one we have now? |
Possibly, but I would prefer not to see it as inevitable. That sort of thinking would be rather like saying the founding fathers should have accepted King George's rule, since it was the product of hundreds of years social evolution, and that we would always end up with a king in the end regardless. Instead that tyranny was resisted, and the people were better off because of it.
| Quote: |
| Anyways, why do you say taxes are coercive? And, how can you have government and not have taxes? Aren't taxes necessary? Isn't just a case of how, how many and how much? And, how would you decide how, how many and how much, if you did not let the people's representatives in the House of Representatives decide? And, what if people wanted higher taxes and more progressive taxes so that those with the most money were expected to take more responsibility to fund the government? Isn't that just the democratic way? Do you think saying taxes are coercive is a biased sentiment in anyway? |
I think I've addressed this above.
I'll just add that if "the people" want more "social programs" to be funded, then they should donate their own money. This is what charities are for, and some can be highly generous and successful and helping those with less. But it doesn't mean that taking money by force, even if used ostensibly for good, is a just way to do things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
