The Election

[PoolMan]

And I thought of one other thing.

What happens when someone gets cancer? I mean, I could go my whole life saving my extra money and never need it, while my neighbour blows through his life savings going through expensive treatments. The "other" benefit of a socialistic structure (yep, I'm Canadian, does it show?) is that redistribution to points of need is something that has to happen, too. In your scenario, what's there to provide for someone who becomes sick through no fault of their own, but can't afford to pay for treatment? Sorry you've got to die, but at least you're living in fiscal responsibility!

Sorry, don't take any of this personally, Blade, but there's a point where government is actually NEEDED to mind and fund the social structure. What you're talking about would reduce the economy to feudalism.

[bladestarr]

military (compare the wage we pay our soldiers versus what private contractors get) and maybe big public works projects (dams, roads, etc.)

Actually, economies of scale are taken care of in a free economy. Without needless government regulations, the cost of constructing things will not be nearly so high, and corporations will be able to work on the projects rather than the federal government. Now who will do the cheaper, better work: a government employee making the same hourly wage no matter what kind of work he does, or a private contractor who can get the best materials at the lowest cost and pass the savings onto the people using the 'public work'?

And as for the wages of soldiers, war is actually detrimental to the economy, as it CREATES instability. he US had 0 inflation up until we got involved in World War I. Then while the economy did well in the short run with the larger production of goods for the war, after the war the economy fell flat, and it has been oscillating ever since. This creates depressions and recessions and causes needless suffering, not only during the war, but well after. I think the pay difference is not nearly as important as the difference in lifestyle between those at war and those not at war.

Sorry, don't take any of this personally, Blade, but there's a point where government is actually NEEDED to mind and fund the social structure. What you're talking about would reduce the economy to feudalism.

Read that page I linked to Pooly, it does explain everything very well. And as for medical expenses, check out this comparison between a Democratic health plan and a Libertarian one:

www.boogieonline.com/revolution/body/health/lp_phc.html

And also, the medical industry is actually the most highly regulated industry of them all, and as such has the highest costs to the medical providers, which they then pass off to everyone else. Medications and procedures would be MUCH cheaper if the market was not regulated nearly as much as it is. Regulation kills the free market, which in turn kills the people.

[bladestarr]

As another side note, looking back at all of this, most of these social problems are the RESULT of a large federal government, and so the answer is not a larger government, but a smaller one. That is like trying to cure an overweight person by giving them more food!

[PoolMan]

The page you linked to explains nothing, particularly towards health care. It's a series of highlights. The other is a novel. No middle ground?

Anyways, my impatience aside, I guess I have some fundamental problems with what you're saying.

Even if what you're talking about works in the long run, in the short term (and I'm still talking years here) there would be every manner of human suffering as what little support there is for the poor bottoms out and the rich enjoy 30% more surround systems, Big Macs, and SUV's.

And the medicine industry is every bit as regulated up in Canada as it is in the USA, and somehow we've got it figured out so that it's not supremely expensive. And that's in a largely socialistic system.

[bladestarr]

Actually no, the founding of America proves that a truly free market does NOT perpetuate a larger difference between the classes. Back when the country first began, any person could open up a hot dog stand on the corner and earn their livelihood by working and slowly gaining wealth, now with regulations such as zoning restrictions and the FDA no one can open up a hot dog stand legally without already having the money to pay for lawyers, pay for inspectors and spend the time and money it takes to follow all of these regulations. A free market gives people the opportunity to raise themselves from the bottom, while the current system actually maintains the differences betweeen the classes. The problem with these social programs is while they look good by themselves, if you include all of the other regualtions and programs that are required to enforce the programs, the entire rest of the system defeats the spirit of the programs. Every time you make a manual adjustment to the economic market, another thing gets out of place. The system will run fine by itself as Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' guides the free market on its course.

As another example. There are fields in Iowa (where I am) that are being left unused because the government is PAYING the farmers not to use them. This is called a government subsidy, which artificially raises the prices of goods to protect the thousand or so farmers that need the price of the good to be high. Now if there was no subsidy then more efficient organization could take over those farms after they fail and produce tons of corn much more efficiently, thus saving the lives of many children that would normally starve to death due to the cost of food being too expensive.

Regulation=bad, free market=good

And actually Pooly, that second page is shorter than some of you review pages, it just looks longer because they use bigger text

[bladestarr]

And the medicine industry is every bit as regulated up in Canada as it is in the USA, and somehow we've got it figured out so that it's not supremely expensive. And that's in a largely socialistic system.

Actually, while Canada has a world famous socialist national health system, the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is one of the LEAST regulated, and much less regulated than the American industry. This is why all our American grandmas come up there for their meds (and some medical marijuana, but that is a whole seperate debate). But once again, regulation bad, free market good.

For a bit more info on this subject, please refer to this page:

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3374/is_5_25/ai_99984714

NEXT! ;D

[Magill]

BladeStarr said:

Actually no, the founding of America proves that a truly free market does NOT perpetuate a larger difference between the classes. Back when the country first began, any person could open up a hot dog stand on the corner and earn their livelihood by working and slowly gaining wealth, now with regulations such as zoning restrictions and the FDA no one can open up a hot dog stand legally without already having the money to pay for lawyers, pay for inspectors and spend the time and money it takes to follow all of these regulations.

I don't think opening a hot dog stand is as rigorous as you make it out to be. And you certainly don't need to be licensed by the FDA to be a restaurant. And people can still "work their way up"--Ben & Jerry's started out as a couple of hippies making ice cream in an old gas station.

I work in the medical device industry, and while the FDA can be a pain to deal with andthe approval process is tedious--it is for good reason. An example from my company--a lot of times we'll build a prototype device and think "hey, this is pretty good." In fact, I know there have been times that engineers and managers have been confident enough to want to market it right away. But due to FDA regulations, our device has to meet certain criteria. In many cases, it isn't until we do that testing that we uncover a potentially harmful design flaw.

Prior to the creation of the FDA, we had quacks cris-crossing the country selling snake oil and calling it medicine. Yes, things like Vioxx or Phen Fen happen, but think of what it would be like if there was no oversight on these companies.

I found this site (http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/) that had inflation data for the US from 1666-2002. Looking from 1776-2002, our highest rate of inflation was 29.69%, in 1778. In general, it seems like inflation spiked during or shortly after major wars (Revolutionary, 1812, Civil, WWI, WWII) and the energy crisis of the 70s.

[bladestarr]

Well okay so maybe I was exaggerating a bit, but it is proven that war is bad for the economy.

Anyways, as far as these "protections" go from the FDA, if the FDA did not exist, then watchdog groups like Consumer Reports still exist, and it won't be long at all before a company finds themselves bankrupt because no one will buy their product as everyone knows that it is not safe. The market takes care of itself, and people are not going to knowingly buy a bad product if they can help it. On top of that, the FDA is not nearly as good at protecting people as you might think. While you already mentioned a few products that have become notorius, there are many that fall through the cracks. One that comes to mind right away is Splenda (aka sucralose) a new artificial sweetner that has been approved by the FDA, but take a look at this page and tell me that they are doing their job:

www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

The fact is, individuals and the natural spreading of knowledge throughout consumer culture is far more powerful and useful than any government program. If that hot dog vendor sold a bunch of bad hot dogs, he would be out of business VERY quickly.

By the way guys, I'm love a good debate, keep it coming! As long as nobody takes it personally and it stays on the level of ideals and theories, and not personal attacks, I find this very constructive. Freedom of speech baby, yeah!

[PoolMan]

BladeStarr said:

Actually no, the founding of America proves that a truly free market does NOT perpetuate a larger difference between the classes.

The founding of America was over two hundred years ago, borne on the backs of an oppressed, tired, and frustrated people. People who were WILLING to work their way up in a free market and make what they would of their new nation.

The people of today (and I DO emphatically include Canadians in this, this is not an America-bash) are fat, lazy, spoiled, and constantly looking for the way out with the least effort and time expended. We are used to government providence, cheap food, useless entertainment, and prepackaged everything. We are not, as a society, capable of hiking up our pants and doing what you're talking about. The status quo may not be good, but it IS powerful.

The kind of changes you're talking about will never occur within the self-perpetuating governmental structure of the US. The republicans and the democrats rule the roost, and they will for a very, very long time. The electoral college will not ever be disassembled so long as the system which benefits from it exists. I've said to a few American friends I have that it's shocking that in this day and age the two party system still stands. In the last Canadian election, there were four parties with a real chance at power, and several others that were still considered relevant. That kind of choice is a lot better than Evil or Evil Lite.

I'm sorry to hear all these comments about how voting for Nader is a waste of a vote (and I don't particularly care one way or the other about Nader, I'm just saying) because you're not going with one of the teams that will win. I have an American friend, living in Canada, who cast an absentee vote for Nader. She's heartbroken that it won't do her any good, but she can't NOT vote, and she can't bring herself to vote for one of the Big Two. I'm sure you have the same frustrations with your party.

The US government will not change in any discernable or appreciable way without some kind of radical revolution. That's the principal it was built on, and it's the principal it'll one day collapse on.

[Magill]

Way off topic:

Please don't be offended, but that site on sucralose seemed a bit "woo-woo." One thing in particular that jumped out at me was the shrunken thymus glands. The thymus isn't really that important of an organ, especially in adults--it can be surgically removed in adults with no obvious effect. It is important in early childhood, as lymphocytes migrate there to become T-cells (the T stands for thymus). It also produces thymosin, a homrone improtant in maintaining T-cell lineage. But that production declines when you reach age 30-40.

By the way, what do you think about this essay: "Why Strong Laws are Needed to Protect Us"?
I've gotta get to work.

[bladestarr]

I agree with everything you say Poolman, and yes I do "weep for the species" (of Americans) that will now never know true freedom, because the governmental, political, and media strucutres are all designed like a boxing match, with the poor Libertarians and Greens and even American Communists sitting in the corner waiting for their turn whch will never happen. However, my vote does matter, at least to me. I vote Libertarian with a clear concience, even though I do realize that there will be no popular Libertarian uprising. However, the more people like me that learn about this party and vote their hearts, slowly over time the system will change. And while we will not have a Libertarian president in at least the next 20 years, the present parties will see the greater draw of votes for these ideas, and thus will incorporate these ideas into their positions. And as such, the country will change.

The American forefathers that designed this system designed it so that the country could NOT change drastically, they were visionaries that wanted to make sure that no single person could woo the entire country and change it for the worse with one single stroke. We will never have a Hitler in this country that rules all. But we will also never have a benevolent dictator that knows exactly what to do and does it, for the good of all people. The system is designed to change slowly and with input from many, many people.

This is why America was founded as a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy. Democracy is rule by the people, meaning the oppression by the majority of the minority, while a republic is rule FOR the people, so that the people can set national laws that they can all live by, and local laws suited to each region's preference. Unfortunately the system has become more and more democratic and less and less republican. This means more rule by the majority and less rule of yourself. More rule by the people rather than more rule for the people. Well the same way that is slowly changed one way... it can also slowly change back. I hope in my lifetime to finally see a free America, the America that my forefathers envisioned, and while that may not happen, I sure as hell will work towards that goal.

NEXT! ;D

[bladestarr]

As for the essay Magill pointed to, it was very well written, and very persuasive. However (you knew this was coming) there are some problems with this argument. Number one is that people used these products because they FELT safe, because the FDA said they were. This lead to LESS product testing than there would have been if there was no FDA. If the FDA did not exist, then these organizations would have no protection against the consumer market. They would take more care to test and ensure that all of the drugs they released are safe for the public, otherwise they would open themselves up to even more vicious lawsuits.

However, to get the FDA's approval, they only have to meet a certain line of standards, or so much testing before they can release the product. After the FDA has approved of the product, the Federal government is then partially responsible for the result of a bad product being relseased. Which world is better, and which would create better products: a world where companies would take full blame for bad products that hurt people, or a world where the government shared the blame? I think it is obvious that the best and most natural way is for invididuals AND organizations be personally responsible for their actions. If a company's product may harm people, and they have to take on the full burden of this action, then they will be much more careful and thourough with their testing. Any flaws in this line of thinking? Please share!

[PoolMan]

BladeStarr said:

However, my vote does matter, at least to me.

Whoa there. I never said otherwise. Your vote matters all right. It gives you the right to criticise your government officials. It gives you access to what control is available to the average individual. It's a beautiful freedom, paid for with the lives of many.

What I meant was that (at least in this election) it will likely not change anything in terms of final outcome. But you're damned right it matters.

BladeStarr said:

We will never have a Hitler in this country that rules all.

I'm starting to realize that "a" Hitler is no longer required. Simply get enough people with an agenda together, put up a figurehead leader, and voila. Vague, certainly, but in an age where lobbyists and interest groups legalize tobacco because it's just so gosh darned profitable, there are surely people working for more direct benefits.

Ooh. X Files-y.

Anyways, I applaud your position, Blade. I do. For all my devil's advocacy, I appreciate someone who takes a stand, puts some heart, mind, and soul into what they believe, and runs with it. That's very cool. I don't happen to agree with you, but you have every right to believe it with all your being, and THAT'S what's still cool about America.

[bladestarr]

Word up yo! And I guess I'll forgive you Canadians and your evil brethren to the south the Australians for invading our country, one comedian and heart-throb actor at a time.

[PoolMan]

Ha... the Australians have the heart-throbs. We have the funnymen. Unless you find Jim Carrey attractive.