What are libertarians?

[DrDoomNGloom]

Was it that far above your pay grade?? I want a list of ingredients, I do not want a warning label on a pack of cigarettes that says the surgeon general has determined cigarette smoking bad for my health ................

Then it's that far above your pay grade too, because general, not specific statements like it's "bad for my health" isn't what I advocated either. It would be things like that it's more specific, like that it can cause cancer and how likely that is and what sort of testing was done on it.

Once again, I don't need to read that shit is bad for my health ....... they said the same for artificial sweeteners, had to crayfish later ..........

 

[Pogo]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

 

[Rikurzhen]

How about we get back to companies that make wholesome, healthy products without a lot of additive's and preservatives. The more small print you put on a product label the less most will pay attention to it ,,,,,,,,

Companies are responding to what the market desires. People want fresher food, food which last longer without spoiling, food that isn't bland, etc. Chemical additives alter food in ways that people prefer.

What you're talking about is either organic food or locally grown food, which both translate into more expensive food. People will pay more for what they want but, as should be evident, in a battle between quality and price, price is winning.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Are you kidding me? Um no. Cigarettes sold decades before consumers knew the hazardous effects. Are consumers supposed to intuitively grasp what causes heart disease, lung cancer, throat cancer, or mouth cancer? Um no.

Ask people from that generation if they seriously did not know that cigarettes were bad for them. They will admit they did.

I remember seeing some WWII film and the soldiers called cigarettes "coffin nails."

 

[Rikurzhen]

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

And in our current system, that didn't matter because it was government's job to take care of us. How did that work out for you?

In a libertarian system, their lies would have destroyed them in civil court.

As I said, corporations already have a knack for deceiving the consumer for the sake of profit. They are creative like that. Letting corporations design and sell whatever the hell they want is dangerous and absolutely insane. How could a consumer always prove in court a product harmed them?

Let's talk about our healthcare system for a moment as another bad libertarian idea. There's a lot of private money in our healthcare system right? That's part of why it is state of the art. Tell me do you think the maker of cancer drugs care that poor people can't afford their products? No because all the money is in the middle class and wealthy class. They make huge buck with or without the poor buying their products. That is the danger of a privately funded healthcare system. Profit comes before care.

Same with where you put your own money. I never run into people who purposely choose suboptimal investments or shop at stores with uncompetitive prices or who turn down raises at work because they want the money to go to hire a new worker.

Universal Healthcare is immoral in that it involves coercing money from one person in order to spend it on another person and the recipient is the only one who benefits. I need a new car, can I send you the bill?

 

[kaz]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

 

[rightwinger]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Of course it is

Why else do we have an FDA?

 

[kaz]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Of course it is

Why else do we have an FDA?

Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?

 

[rightwinger]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Of course it is

Why else do we have an FDA?

Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?

Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?

Why don't you file one?

 

[Disir]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Of course it is

Why else do we have an FDA?

Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?

Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?

Why don't you file one?

They know damn well it's Constitutional. It's why they rely so heavily on propaganda.

 

[Pogo]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Actually they didn't "ban" them so the point is moot. What they did was propose to take them off the GRAS list. That's it. And some Randbots went into seizures over that, even after it was essplained.

Let's take it a step further though.

Do you insist on a Constitutional right to be born deformed by Thalidomide?

Know why you never got that right?

Because da big bad gummimint (FDA) put up a stop sign and said, no you can't sell that drug. Other countries did, and suffered the consequences. But not here.

Damn statists.

 

[PredFan]

I'm a libertarian as well. A libertarian believes in liberty and freedom. We don't simply follow the constitution, we follow the intent of the framers of the constitution. Limited government. Not no government.

So, you follow something that doesn't exist!!! "Intent of the framers of the constitution" implies they were all of the same intent. Human nature alone should tell that that's false. Get any two people together and you're often going to end up with three opinions.

Who says it doesn't exist? You? Please.

 

[PredFan]

I'm a libertarian as well. A libertarian believes in liberty and freedom. We don't simply follow the constitution, we follow the intent of the framers of the constitution. Limited government. Not no government.

Is that intent explicit or implicit and if implicit, what exactly implies it??
In other words, you want to interpret the Constitution to suit you or a group with which you ally .................
What if we choose to interpret it differently??

Freedom, liberty, self-reliance, and self-governing.

 

[PredFan]

Shits storm of Hypocrisy ..............

By definition, you do your thing, as long as I approve and I will do my thing regardless of what you say!!

Strawman.

Libertarian view is you have the right to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on my right to do the same.

In a nutshell.

 

[bripat9643]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

The part I don't understand is where I agreed to it.

You still here?

Can't answer the question?

You still here?

If you didn't agree with our form of government, you are welcome to leave at any time

Why should I leave? Why shouldn't government allow me to secede?

Why haven't you seceded fingerboy?

My take is that you lack the balls

Even you are not too stupid to understand what happened to people in the past who refuse to take orders from Uncle Sam.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you kidding me? Um no. Cigarettes sold decades before consumers knew the hazardous effects. Are consumers supposed to intuitively grasp what causes heart disease, lung cancer, throat cancer, or mouth cancer? Um no.

Ask people from that generation if they seriously did not know that cigarettes were bad for them. They will admit they did.

My mother quit smoking 45 years ago. She knew it was bad for your health. That's why she quit.

 

[rightwinger]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

The part I don't understand is where I agreed to it.

You still here?

Can't answer the question?

You still here?

If you didn't agree with our form of government, you are welcome to leave at any time

Why should I leave? Why shouldn't government allow me to secede?

Why haven't you seceded fingerboy?

My take is that you lack the balls

Even you are not too stupid to understand what happened to people in the past who refuse to take orders from Uncle Sam.

As I predicted....Fingerboy lacks the balls

 

[konradv]

I'm a libertarian as well. A libertarian believes in liberty and freedom. We don't simply follow the constitution, we follow the intent of the framers of the constitution. Limited government. Not no government.

So, you follow something that doesn't exist!!! "Intent of the framers of the constitution" implies they were all of the same intent. Human nature alone should tell that that's false. Get any two people together and you're often going to end up with three opinions.

Who says it doesn't exist? You? Please.

I didn't say me. It's evident on the face of it that not all the framers had the same intent. That would be a statistical and logical impossibility. That fact that libertarians keep repeating that meme despite its flaws, just shows they're trying to fool everyone, including sadly, themselves. At least there's some honesty to outright stealing from someone. Libertarians, on the other hand, are too stupid to even know what they're doing.

 

[Ropey]

What are libertarians?

People who believe that they should be able to do pretty much anything as long as they're responsible for what they decide to do.

They're stuck at some point between youth and adult.

 

[konradv]

What are libertarians?

People who believe that they should be able to do pretty much anything as long as they're responsible for what they decide to do.

I can't get over that just about every point of conflict has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, since libertarians are such enemies of prior-restraint. It doesn't do somebody much good to get a large monetary judgement after the fact, if they're permanently maimed. To make it a little fairer the guilty party should be made chattel-labor for as long as the tort is in effect.