A question for those who want the government out of their lives

[chaz345]

The opposition has defined itself, do you object to my quoting them? Here is the position of conservative Republican Grover Norquist in 2001, speaking about the government in general and the FDA in particular:

Does that one conservative Republican speak for all conservatives?
You are saying that since that one person is for the elimination of the FDA that all conservatives are. That amounts to defining the position of the opposition for them. It is exactly as if I took the most extreme liberal position I could find on an issue an told you that that is what you believed and demanded that you defend it.

While it is certainly true that most conservatives are for government that is as small as possible, the term "as small as possible" has many different meanings. It would be much more accurate, and much harder for you to attack if the term were clarified to as small as possible and still have the power necessary to carry out it's constitutionally mandated duties, of which one is protecting the citizens, which ensuring the safety of foreign imports is certainly part of.



To summarize, yes I am a conservative that believes in less government interference in general, but who most definitely disagrees with the Norquist position that you quote. Do you care to actually address what I've said my position is or are you going to continue to define my position simply because I have the same general label as someone whose position is easy to attack?

 

[Daniel19]

"A nation that asks nothing of government but the maintenance of order is already a slave in the depths of its heart; it is a slave of its well-being, ready for the man who will put it in chains." -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Joshua,

Your OP frames this debate in a narrow view. Forget the FDA for a moment. When people talk about wanting government out of their lives - at least from my own personal perspective - they are talking about expanding spying capabilities and expanding governmental power in general. As an example, are you aware that Posse Comitatus was effectively revoked last year under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act? Governors no longer have the authority to resist the President's order to send troops to their respective states for domestic law enforcement.

How about California wanting to control your home thermostat by remote?

How about shouting CCTV cameras?

How about the government secretly taking your child's DNA at birth and placing it in a database?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBu6Tpvq_9w&eurl=http://www.cchconline.org/

We will be slaves if the government continues down the path it is on. Of course, you could choose to say that everything is ok. But, cognitive dissonance can only last so long - reality will bite.

 

[JoshuaW]

Joshua,

Your OP frames this debate in a narrow view. Forget the FDA for a moment. When people talk about wanting government out of their lives - at least from my own personal perspective - they are talking about expanding spying capabilities and expanding governmental power in general.

The OP used a specific, yet obscure example of why small government does not work. Small government in Texas led to a cult in which children were sex slaves and women reduced to 19th century baby machines.

Our society is the most complex in history, and government must evolve to lead it capably and responsibly. If there is waste, fraud, redundancy, the solution is to fix it. Efforts to reduce the size of government on principal alone will only lead to the kind of unanticipated disaster outlined in the OP. Who would guess that China would poison our medicine? If the FDA were doing its job, this problem would have been spotted at the border.

By the way, Grover Norquist was the author of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". He is hardly an obscure, random conservative.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The government certainly did an excellent job protecting the scores of people that died.

 

[Daniel19]

Joshua,

So, since you mentioned the Texas incident, your kind of government would regulate how people live their lives? With that said, I certainly don't agree with the cult, it's disgusting.

Government is a fearful master. If you don't keep it reigned in you'll be wearing the reigns.

 

[jgarden]

"Leave us alone" you say, "the government is too big". Oh really? How would your government defend us against things like this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/health/policy/30heparin.html



The FDA is now saying that the Heparin contamination, responsible for over 80 deaths so far, was deliberate. That's right, China sent poisoned medicine to America on purpose.

The Bush administration's total annual budget to inspect pharmaceuticals ammounts to about a day's cost of the Iraq war, and they have no intention of increasing it?

So, all of you who think the government is too big, do you ever buy medicine for your family? Do you assume it is safe? Why do you assume that, and who do you expect to take responsibility if a foreign manufacturer decides to kill you?

Risk of Canadian drugs is doubted,
FDA can't name anyone injured or killed by Canadian drugs

WASHINGTON - Although they've been warning Americans about the dangers of prescription drugs from Canada for nearly a year, U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials can't name a single American who's been injured or killed by drugs bought from licensed Canadian pharmacies.

"We don't have that," said Tom McGinnis, the FDA's director of pharmacy affairs. "I can't think of one thing off the top of my head where somebody died or somebody got put in the hospital because of these medications. I just don't know if there's anything like that."

Neither does Canada.

The Bush Administration, at the prompting of the pharmaceutical industry, has long used the "public safety" argument to discourage US citizens from buying cheaper prescription drugs in Canada.

Ironically, Heparin products produced by Baxter are not available in Canada, so Americans having the equivalent prescriptions filled in "socialist" Canada would have received their drugs cheaper and safer.

 

[TheReasoner]

Joshua,

So, since you mentioned the Texas incident, your kind of government would regulate how people live their lives? With that said, I certainly don't agree with the cult, it's disgusting.

Government is a fearful master. If you don't keep it reigned in you'll be wearing the reigns.

Yes, it certainly can be. But so can corporations. Halt the government too much, and it can't keep corporations reined in and you're in the same kind of trouble.

All in all, I think it is very important to let the people control the government, and make very sure the government isn't corrupt or has any favoritism for corporations or the rich elite.

 

[Shadowfax503]

Yes, it certainly can be. But so can corporations. Halt the government too much, and it can't keep corporations reined in and you're in the same kind of trouble.

All in all, I think it is very important to let the people control the government, and make very sure the government isn't corrupt or has any favoritism for corporations or the rich elite.

Very goos point and my feelings as well.
Our Government should not tell me how to live my life. If I choose to do something and get myself killed it is my own fault. However if in doing that I harm someone else than I am accountable for that action and government should make me pay restitution in what ever way is deemed appropriate. Same goes for corporations. If a company does something silly and goes out of business its their own fault government should not step in and bail them out. If a company does something stupid and kills or harms people than that company should be held accountable just like an individual had done the same thing. (in the drug case they should be held accountable for wrongful death or manslaughter or even murder)

Freedom and justice FOR ALL.

 

[chaz345]

Very goos point and my feelings as well.
Our Government should not tell me how to live my life. If I choose to do something and get myself killed it is my own fault. However if in doing that I harm someone else than I am accountable for that action and government should make me pay restitution in what ever way is deemed appropriate.

Clearly our government's current level of involvement and control goes way beyond that level though. Who exactly were the members of the cult in Texas hurting other than themself(collectively as a group)?

 

[Shadowfax503]

Clearly our government's current level of involvement and control goes way beyond that level though. Who exactly were the members of the cult in Texas hurting other than themself(collectively as a group)?

To hurt someone is just that someone (one).

So lets say I enjoy cutting myself. (yes very weird and sick) is it any of governments business to step in and make me stop? NO! If I cut an arm off its my own fault and I pay the price for it.

However if I decide that since I enjoy it so much my friends will also, so I cut their arms off as well. Then I have hurt them and should be held accountable for it even though they are my friends. (part of my group.)

Now on the other hand I have a bunch of like minded friends and we all like to get together and cut each other and one day we get carried away and someone bleeds to death from us cutting them (and yes they wanted us to) then it is that persons own stupidity and he/she has paid the price for it and government should back off.

Personal liberty and personal responsibility. You cant have one without the other.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[JoshuaW]

Joshua,

So, since you mentioned the Texas incident, your kind of government would regulate how people live their lives? With that said, I certainly don't agree with the cult, it's disgusting.

Government is a fearful master. If you don't keep it reigned in you'll be wearing the reigns.

Well make up your mind. Do you defend the right of cults to create whatever hell they want, or do you believe someone should have the power to stop them?

Use of the phrase "government is a fearful master" is interesting. A website called anglo-saxonisrael.com attributes it to George Washington.....he never said it. This website goes on to warn against government and offers a cure:

They get elected and appointed as "civil servants," but as soon as they taste POWER, even just a small sample, they can’t resist telling the fellow citizens what they should or should not do. Many government bureaucrats and police officials have demonstrated that they are only too willing to violate the rights of citizens. And what is the equalizer for the tyrant? You guessed it…A gun. A gun can dispatch a Tyrant’s ambitions in a heartbeat.

http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/95-theses.php

It seems those who complain the loudest about government are those who would welcome a return to the Dark Ages.

 

[HollandScotts]

The OP used a specific, yet obscure example of why small government does not work. Small government in Texas led to a cult in which children were sex slaves and women reduced to 19th century baby machines.

Texas doesn't have a "small" government by any means.

 

[JoshuaW]

Texas doesn't have a "small" government by any means.

The Texas governor has few powers beyond commuting capital sentences

The Texas legislature meets every two years

Texas does not have metropolitan government

Texas does not have townships

The lax laws in Texas are the reason the fundamentalist Mormon cult moved there in the first place. They knew they would be left alone to have sex with children and enslave their women.

 

[Shadowfax503]

The Texas governor has few powers beyond commuting capital sentences

The Texas legislature meets every two years

Texas does not have metropolitan government

Texas does not have townships

The lax laws in Texas are the reason the fundamentalist Mormon cult moved there in the first place. They knew they would be left alone to have sex with children and enslave their women.

I have to assume your are being fictitious?

 

[JoshuaW]

I have to assume your are being fictitious?

Fictitious? I was quoting Wikipedia

 

[chaz345]

Small government in Texas led to a cult in which children were sex slaves and women reduced to 19th century baby machines.

The sex with children part is certainly problematic, but then again, isn't the legal age of consent kind of arbitrary anyway? Aren't there plenty of people who are mature enough to make that sort of decision at 14 or so and others who probably aren't even at 20? But that's all beside my main point.

What if the adult women WANT to be "19th century baby machines"? Shouldn't they be free to make that choice themself? What if they like having a situation where the burdens of serving one man can be shared by many women? Now I certainly don't agree with it and don't like it but what's the difference, from a legal/moral standpoint between that and homosexuality. If the government has no business in what goes on in the bedroom of a homosexual, then why do they in this case?

 

[TheReasoner]

To hurt someone is just that someone (one).

So lets say I enjoy cutting myself. (yes very weird and sick) is it any of governments business to step in and make me stop? NO! If I cut an arm off its my own fault and I pay the price for it.

Well, in part.
However, if you are so deeply depressed you feel a need to cut yourself, then it is my belief that it is a matter of importance to society. To be somewhat cold and cynical about it - you're not living your life to it's potential, and that means money lost. You're influencing others around you, making them worry about your wellbeing and thus their productivity falls. Hence it could be cheaper for society to pay for your recovery rather than to disregard your suffering.
On another note, I think it's good to care about one another and helping one another out of tough situations. Even if the one doing part of the help is the government.

However if I decide that since I enjoy it so much my friends will also, so I cut their arms off as well. Then I have hurt them and should be held accountable for it even though they are my friends. (part of my group.)

This could happen without any conscious wish to let it happen. Then what?

Now on the other hand I have a bunch of like minded friends and we all like to get together and cut each other and one day we get carried away and someone bleeds to death from us cutting them (and yes they wanted us to) then it is that persons own stupidity and he/she has paid the price for it and government should back off.

Personal liberty and personal responsibility. You cant have one without the other.

Everything has it's limits. Personal liberty is fine. You cannot have total personal liberty however - that's anarchy.

 

[HollandScotts]

The Texas governor has few powers beyond commuting capital sentences

And the rat still has too much power.

The Texas legislature meets every two years

No man's life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

Texas does not have metropolitan government

What's this and why would we want it?

Texas does not have townships

Well we certainly have towns, so again, what is a township, and why would we want it?

The lax laws in Texas are the reason the fundamentalist Mormon cult moved there in the first place. They knew they would be left alone to have sex with children and enslave their women.

I'ld say the fact that we don't have a state income tax would be the compelling reason for them. That and we tend to be a live and let live people down here. Neither of which should change.

As for small government being the problem, you're nuts. Really, how can more corruption be good? How can adding more self serving people with agenda's to the mix with complete and total power over the people, be a good thing?

Especially when you consider the fact that most of the problems we're dealing with right now, are the problems given to us by governments of the past. You want...more problems for us to deal with?

 

[HollandScotts]

Well, in part.
However, if you are so deeply depressed you feel a need to cut yourself, then it is my belief that it is a matter of importance to society. To be somewhat cold and cynical about it - you're not living your life to it's potential, and that means money lost. You're influencing others around you, making them worry about your wellbeing and thus their productivity falls. Hence it could be cheaper for society to pay for your recovery rather than to disregard your suffering.
On another note, I think it's good to care about one another and helping one another out of tough situations. Even if the one doing part of the help is the government.

That reasoning leads to your neighbors being able to get the government to interfer with your life and force you to do things you don't want to ddo, but that are "deemed" good for you. From the positive to geting suicidal people help, to the negative like forcing people to quit drinking, or smoking, or having guns, or putting potheads though drug mandatory drug rehab, ect. That reasoning leads to Russia.

 

[variant]

The FDA monitoring prescription drugs to verify that what they claim is in them is in them and they lack poisons is not really a good example of invasive big government. This is a government institution that is helpful, and I can't really imagine it being much of a burden on personal liberty for the most part (there are a few examples where the FDA goes nuts cited below).

Consumer advocacy groups generally do some of this job like spotting trouble like lead in toys, only later prompting government agencies to act.

A better example was brought up in this thread that we can't buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada because they are supposedly deemed "not safe" by government organizations with ulterior motives.

Another example from the FDA is that I can not purchase purified Tryptofan. It was taken off the market in the 1980's because of ONE instance of contamination in ONE plant that had lead to a major outbreak in sickness. But I can't buy it over the counter now even tough it is entirely safe, I have to pay 70 dollars per bottle for prescription if I want it legally in the US. This removes it as effective competition to SSRI's which are major money for the drug industry.

Another example of big invasive federal government getting involved in my business is that it is illegal in every state to grow and use marijuana. Even if I could lobby my own state to make it legal the federal law somehow trumps my local government. My own growth and use of it would not have any bearing on "interstate commerce" and the use of this clause to justify banning it is ridiculous.

So, yeah, I like the idea of a government agency making sure that what I purchase is what I get, and that it&#8217;s not instead poison, but I don&#8217;t like the idea of a government agency that involves itself in personal decisions that are none of its business.