Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ideal - You are free to trust business to provide safe products at a free market price.
Fact - do not expect this to happen without close product safety and anti-monopoly regulation by an honest government.
Reality - the corporate interests that own the politicians control the government. Do not expect very much protection from these people. They are too busy protecting their masters.
Right, but what I guess I don't get is this - the government (whether it's a government of, for and by the people is irrelevant) assumes that people aren't able to make informed and safe choices about what toothpaste they buy without forcing companies to label it in a certain way. The government assumes, rightly or wrongly, that the market can't handle this task itself.
Why is it that we are allowed to vote for politicians who have the power to send this country to war without any regulation whatsoever? Why is it that we aren't trusted (or don't trust ourselves) to buy toothpaste without all sorts of regulations but we are trusted to vote (i.e. buy) politicians who can send us to war?
Does anyone not see this apparent disconnect?
Either we need to get rid of the labeling requirements on toothpaste, or we need to regulate who runs for office (requiring much more accurate "labeling of positions"), as well as regulation of who votes, with only people who can demonstrate adequate knowledge of the candidates and their positions being allowed to vote. After all, unlike a person buying potentially poisonous toothpaste (he kills only himself), a person making an uninformed vote can potentially poison a lot more people.
Why is it that we are allowed to vote for politicians who have the power to send this country to war without any regulation whatsoever?
Does anyone not see this apparent disconnect?
Have you ever studied American Government? Or, read, and perhaps studied, the Constitution.
I have to assume you hav not for, if you had, the answer to your question above is found in the Constitution and its amendments.
Have you ever studied American Government? Or, read, and perhaps studied, the Constitution.
I have to assume you hav not for, if you had, the answer to your question above is found in the Constitution and its amendments.
Erm, nice you're being so simple.
Toothpaste isn't covered in the Constitution, nor labeling requirements of any kind. If we have taken it upon ourselves as a country to have labeling requirements and other big government regulations, then surely we ought to be regulating voting or even doing away with it?
Actually, if we were following the Constitution as it was intended, then a lot of people who are voting wouldn't be voting today (i.e., those who hadn't proven themselves to be economically viable upstanding members of society).
Yes, before you ask, I am trying to incite controversy to some degree.
Toothpaste isn't covered in the Constitution, nor labeling requirements of any kind. If we have taken it upon ourselves as a country to have labeling requirements and other big government regulations, then surely we ought to be regulating voting or even doing away with it?
Actually, if we were following the Constitution as it was intended, then a lot of people who are voting wouldn't be voting today (i.e., those who hadn't proven themselves to be economically viable upstanding members of society).
Yes, before you ask, I am trying to incite controversy to some degree.
If you noticed - I limited my comments to the issue of election of public officials.
And, yes, a case for labeling could be constitutionaly made - "protection of the general welfare" -
Again - have you ever studied American Government ?
This is the first I've read the view that candidates for president are not sufficiently labeled. Perhaps they ought to come with toothpaste type labeling:
Obama - use pea size amounts. swallow too much of his rhetoric and get to a physician.
Clinton - Brush after every meal and every intern visit with my husband.
Bush - Builds strong enamel. Kills terrorist germs that are harmful to your health.
Right, but what I guess I don't get is this - the government (whether it's a government of, for and by the people is irrelevant) assumes that people aren't able to make informed and safe choices about what toothpaste they buy without forcing companies to label it in a certain way. The government assumes, rightly or wrongly, that the market can't handle this task itself.
Your ignorance as to the role and history of, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration is contributing to your sense of civic alienation. READ MORE! POST LESS!
Another example: Do you think that all the "energy drinks" now being marketed to young people actually provide the benefits that are being claimed in their advertisements? Same with skin-improving makeup? What if there is a harmful ingredient in that makeup? Do you expect the consumer (with no chemistry lab in his/her kitchen and with no graduate degree in organic chemistry) to be able to determine whether there are harmful chemicals in the makeup? Sheesh, help us out here.
Your ignorance as to the role and history of, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration is contributing to your sense of civic alienation. READ MORE! POST LESS!
Folks, rest assured, I'm quite well versed in U.S. history, U.S. government and a lot of other history and government. I might be many things, but I'm not ignorant, at least not ignorant of things I take time to write about.
Perhaps I was tired when posting and didn't get my message across that well. Perhaps you all are too dense to see that I'm not asking questions to help me better understand how U.S. government works, but more philosophical questions pertaining to why we've let ourselves get to this situation where we have a system of government that is bloated, contradictory in nature, criminal in action and economically inefficient and downright unsustainable. It was never supposed to be this way.
In case you haven't gathered, I'm a political libertarian, although to be quite honest, I would rather see complete abolition of the state and the prevalence of anarchy to what we have now.
"In case you haven't gathered, I'm a political libertarian, although to be quite honest, I would rather see complete abolition of the state and the prevalence of anarchy to what we have now."
In a nut shell, aren't Libertarians basically Republicans who wanna smoke a joint?
In case you haven't gathered, I'm a political libertarian, although to be quite honest, I would rather see complete abolition of the state and the prevalence of anarchy to what we have now.
Libertarianism is for adolescents and the extremely selfish and anti-social. It's "citizenship lite."
Yeah, I like the point the previous poster made. A Libertarian is a Republican for whom life hasn't worked out that great.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
