I trust the regulations that are in place on the amount of bacteria allowed in diary products. I trust the microbiologists in government who came up with this regulation based on evidence-based medicine and his 10 years of post-graduate education in this specific field. These people are trained specialists, not mysterious government bureaucrats or politicians.
I trust that the microbiology tech who follows these regulations at my local dairy knows what he’s doing, and trys his best to follow the rules.
I WOULD NOT trust the microbiology tech to make up his own rules based on the demands of the production manager who want’s to minimize the amount of product lost.
I just don’t have the time or ability to be an expert in every facet of our increasingly complex society. I need someone to do that for me. I trust the government expert motivated by professionalism and the public good over the private company employee motivated by profit and the fear of losing his job any day of the week.
Ha, like you I contribute very little compared to the top bracket. I don’t give a shit about the money, I’m tired of being lied to.
You also managed to leap over my point. We had regulations in place that were supposed to provide inspections for interstate bridges. There wasn’t enough money, so the government didn’t bother with the inspections, and as a result people died.
To me, the correct response should have been to admit they don’t have the funds, and display the fact that the bridge wasn’t being inspected. Either let people make the choice to drive on an uninspected bridge, or close the bridge. The wrong response was to let people die.
Remember septimus asked:
*I’d still like a Libertarian to answer the question in OP: What do you think of Democracy? I don’t know if elections exist in your Utopia, but if they do there will soon be a Proposition 1:
“Because of the spate of food poisoning in restaurants since Emack’s Utopia was put in effect, the government will forthwith resume food and restaurant inspections.”*
For some reason I don’t remember a referendum after the bridge collapse. The government should have assessed how much money it needed, and then levied a tax. Voters could then decide if bridge safety was important enough to them. You know, democracy.
This entire thread is a testament to the flawed assumption that our food is safe because of the government. I hate to be the one to tell you this but they lack the funds to inspect facilities as frequently as they should. Yet for some reason they don’t admit that to us, they let people go into uninspected restaurants, and eat potentially unsafe food.
Follow the line of logic you guys are putting forth:
without regulation (ie health inspectors) there will be a spate of food poisoning.
unregulated restaurants will make people sick
so regulations are needed, they keep restaurants in line
Ergo: if the government can’t afford to properly regulate the food industry, they shouldn’t allow restaurants to be open, unregulated restaurants are too dangerous. The correct procedure should be to shut restaurants down until they get inspected. Just like they should have shut down the bridges if they weren’t inspected. And they shouldn’t allow commercial air traffic if they can’t afford to properly regulate it.
Then we’ll see what’s actually important to people vs what’s just lip service.
No, people in the real world don’t assume their food is safe because of the government. We assume our food is safer because of the government - safer, that is, in comparison to what it would be without government regulation.
A system that works 95% of the time in reality is better than a system that works 100% of the time in theory.
You shouldn’t. The specialist isn’t the one making the regulations. They make suggestions for the bureaucrats or politicians to ignore. There are a lot of funny examples of this but for the life of my I can’t think of them off the top of my head. Speed limits are one, I just linked to experts that said the war on drugs failed.
I’ve mentioned the ban on raw milk cheese several times, do you why it was banned? Do you know how many lives have been saved as a result?
Again the problem is that of money. The beef we get in supermarkets is loaded with bacteria. If food safety was an actual concern the government wouldn’t allow the sale of beef, it would conclude the risk is too high. But the beef industry is massive, again I have to point out the case of the senator from South Dakota that tried to suggest people should eat less red meat. The food pyramid is the best example of government all fucked up.
But that’s exactly what happens. Government works with industry to set limits on things like bacterial loads, where industry says, “setting the limit too low hurts our bottom line.”
Going back to the mortgage crisis, Democrats pushed to ease the restrictions so low income and minorities could get mortgages. The governmoent isn’t willing to regulate away an industry when jobs are on the line. People are going to shit themselves when the read this, but the truth is both Republican and Democrats are equally bad for this.
And again, I have to ask why? What did the government do to earn your trust? The government “expert” was appointed by a politician. The Surgeon General, FEMA director, and Treasury Secretary are all cronies. I’m pretty sure you saw both Capitalism a love story, and Inside Job. The CEOs you’re distrustful of are the same people making the regulations you trust.
Hank Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasure Secretary. Why would you trust him now when you claim you didn’t trust him before? The current Surgeon General used to be a paid consultant for Burger King, the guy before her was openly critical of how the government suppressed scientific data in favour of political ideology. Medical specialists knew about AIDS while the government refused to acknowledge it.
Plutocracy is the natural result of Greed-is-Good Libertarianism. Government is bought and paid for in your system. I’m afraid you’re arguing against yourself in your latest post:
The solution is a government which serves the common man, rather than one corrupted by rich corporations and elected by voters fed libertarian deregulation tripe.
You place the blame incorrectly. Better targets for blame would include cynical pundits bought and paid for by the finance industry, the pushing of bad (often fraudulent) paper, misplaced incentives, and especially deregulation. There is enough blame to encompass the Democrats, but their error was in being too right-wing and libertarian; it wasn’t not being libertarian enough. :smack:
There are many hard-working, sincere, intelligent people in the lower ranks of government, but your ilk disparages them. Instead it is your ilk that encourages the appointment of industry leaders as regulatory chiefs. Again, one wonders whether you’ve lost the thread or have been on our side the whole time.
The “government” that actively opposed AIDS research and treatment was Ronald Reagan, an idol of your libertarian ilk.
Sure we can measure the effectiveness of government regulation. As I’ve pointed out, we can look at history. Compare the health problems in the food industry before 1906 to the health problems in the food industry after 1906.
Government regulation in the food industry was enacted in 1906 and health problems dropped significantly. Conclusion: government regulation made things better.
No, it’s incorrect to try and compare across history and claim regulation saved the day. A lot has changed in the food industry since man walked upright. Wide spread use of consistent refrigeration did way more than any regulation. From what I’ve seen in developing nations it’s inconsistent electrical supply that prevents proper refrigeration which leads to food poisoning. Pots of curry were stored on the counters over night. Meat had to be bought and cooked the same day.
I stopped arguing, because like debating with conspiracy theorists, you can’t combat stubborn ignorance. I’m just glad that I live in a country where true Libertarianism will never take hold. Like a Sarah Palin presidency, it would force me to renounce my citizenship, and I expect to be a citizen for a few decades more.
Unfortunately I do, which is why I don’t have the blind faith you do. I’ve worked in dozens of professional kitchens, which again is why I trust neither them nor the health department.
How many food inspections have you been through? Do you have a food managers certification?
Have you really never seen bullshit regulation based on nothing but political/religious ideology? Why is the drinking age 21 in the US but lower every where else in the world? Why is the speed limit 55, specialists have already concluded many speed limits make things worse. Why can’t I buy alcohol on Sundays?
If you had a clue you’d be able to answer even just one of those questions. Let’s see what **septimus **has to say on the subject:
I’m still not sure what case you think you’ve made. But it’s YOUR system that gives regulatory powers to a government to easily bought and paid for. As long as industries can buy politicians you can never trust their regulations or lack there of.
Nice solution, what colour will the unicorns be? Would you care to tell us how to achieve that? Should we not allow libertarians to vote? Or stop media for feeding them? I’m also curious who the “common man” is, but it seems you should at least include a few women.
So when government fails it’s because it was being libertarian? If you can’t trust the Democrats, and obviously don’t trust the Republicans, who is left?
Nope, I like those people. But now I get to say that there are many hard-working, sincere, intelligent people in the lower ranks of corporate management, but your ilk disparages them.
That’s been my point the whole time, and it’s not my ilk, it’s our ilk. That is the natural result, we vote in people, they appoint their buddy as regulator, hilarity ensues. I fucking hate the morons these people appoint, and that’s why I don’t want them making regulations. They can’t be trusted to appoint decent people, and those appointees can’t be trusted to make regulations. So why then would you trust the product that results?
That’s not my ilk, that’s my proof. Unless you can come up with a way that prevents ideologically driven politician from winning elections there is no reason to trust their regulations.
And that my friends is how a debate is concluded.
On a side note, my wife designs medical devices, and she’s with you guys. She has management constantly cutting corners and rushing products to market. She knows the FDA is the only thing slowing them [management] down. Seems like proof for your side right?
Unfortunately the FDA is a political organization like any others, it is forced to balance between public safety and industrial efficiency. If they made the regulations too tight products would never go to market, too lax and more people die. But how are they supposed to find the balance? If you asked for my wife’s opinion she would happily spend millions dollars/hours working on her products, to her it’s never ready. The FDA doesn’t care what she has to say, because she’s an egg-head. It has to pick a number at random, things like, “test for a year, or test on 100 sheep, but don’t kill more than 4.”
If you asked civil engineer’s their opinion bridges would be four times as strong and cost four times as much. Following the Challenger explosion NASA asked both the engineers and management (previous engineers) to work out probability of failure for each launch. The engineers all came up with numbers around 90%, management closer to 10%.
And if you need further proof look at the sushi industry. The government has no idea how to handle it. They waffle back and forth.
That’s the “specialist” advising government on new regulations. And you end up with statements like, “teens shouldn’t drive at night.” But then loop holes like, “it’s okay if they’re driving home from work.” No, it’s not okay, if driving at night is risky enough to ban it, than stick with it, don’t open a massive loophole that isn’t related to the safety of the act. You’ll also notice that “at night” has to be defined in an arbitrary way as something between when the sun goes down and when it gets dark. What about teens up north?
What a shame that someone so articulate, with such an advanced, evolved understanding of society, beyond that of us ordinary wage-slaves, can’t keep a job washing dishes in a restaurant.
Let’s see if I follow. The right-wing “libertarian” deregulators in power have cut the funds for bridge inspection until one collapsed. Your solution? Further reductions in bridge inspection and funding?
I don’t know if your implication that every single regulation and its funding be put up for vote was facetious or not. Most democracies are representative democracies where we choose leaders and legislators who agree with our ideals and make rational decisions. Unfortunately many voters, like you, are deceived and/or stupid.
Problem: Inspections are underfunded.
Solution: Reduce the inspection budget.
Problem: Government revenue is inadequate.
Solution: Cut taxes further.
Come on, emacknight, tell us you’re not as stupid as the other Teabaggers and Libertarians.
That’s right. How did they get into power? And you’ve already admitted that there isn’t a left-wing pro-regulation choice. It’s right-wing vs even-more-right-wing.
No actually, my solution is to either fund it properly or admit you can’t. The bridges went uninspected, but people weren’t told until AFTER the collapse. The correct procedure would have been to admit they can’t afford the inspects, then put up a sign, “use at your own risk.” Eventually, when the government finally got around to inspecting other bridges, they realized several of them weren’t safe to drive on and had to close them. People had been driving on them for years!
That was your implication, remember? The proposition to reinstate inspections (post 170)
That’s right, the electorate chooses their leaders. But as you’ve shown over and over the electorate are bunch of high-school drop outs, both stupid and easily deceived. The same people who can’t be bothered to read the contract they are signing are the same people voting for the leaders you expect to regulate. Are you thus surprised at the results? At some point you’re going to have to realize that the “ideals” of the general electorate suck, thus schools teach shit like intelligent design, and states ban gay marriage.
And yet, many Americans’ ideals are libertarian in nature. Shouldn’t that be respected?
I’m not allowed to vote, regulations prohibit me, but I’m still taxed. Would you like to further regulate who is and is not allowed to vote? Frankly, it sounds like your utopia doesn’t allow for democracy.
Wrong, either fund it properly or don’t do it.
Wrong again, I’m all for higher taxes. What I don’t like is this insistence first that it should be paid for by the top bracket, and second that “lower government spending” isn’t part of the equation.
How much are you personally willing to pay for restaurant health inspections? That is a very important question that no one really wants to admit to. Forget the poor for a second and think about “the common man.” If he had a choice of paying more to go to the inspected restaurant, or saving $10 by going to one that was uninspected, which do you think he’d choose? Which would you choose?
Right now you give the impression you think this is scientists vs thiests, as if are starting from a point of reasoned logic, trying to enlighten the deceived morons. But to most of us it reads like Catholics arguing against Protestants. You’re both batshit insane. Blind faith in government regulation is as stupid as blind faith in the free market. Neither will save you if you can’t be arsed to buckle your own seat belt.
Apples and oranges. I’m sure there are crappy and/or incompetent low level inspectors that are enforcing rules. I’m talking about the scientists who come up with regulations based on the best available knowledge and evidence.
Of course there will be inspectors that are poor. Of course there will be political interference in scientific decisions. That is the nature of our form of government.
What is idiotic, however, is saying (as you seem to be) that because the system is not 100% efficient, we should therefore toss it out and have no regulations whatsoever. This excluded middle has been pointed out to you again and again, and you have yet to address it.
You’re either being deliberately disingenuous, and are playing devils’ advocate to show how stupid pure libertarianism is, or you’re a fool.
Nobody has blind faith in government regulations. This is a statement of your own creation. We do recognize that they are the best available alternative, especially when contrasted against no regulations whatsoever.
Most of what happened in 1906 was in relation to fraud. Fraud is a crime just like murder and theft. Oddly enough, the courts found the government action too broad and struck most of it down, didn’t you know that?
I bet you also didn’t know that libertarian is not anarchy. There must still be rule of law, including laws against fraud.
Have you ever wondered why the government allows the sale of cigarettes? A known carcinogen, addictive, leads to a variety of diseases. Seems like the perfect thing for the FDA to step in and ban. But it doesn’t, why?
