Discussion in 'Campaigning discussions' started by Praxeologist, Sep 13, 2010.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
Why we need not use the guns of government to ensure the levels of safety that suit each of us.
Probably would help if you posted the links although might not be able to until your post count rises. Interesting and well edited piece. Although sound a little low and sometimes hard to hear, but makes you pay attention and is not overbearing in tone or style. Again as soon as you can, I'd post the links cause I cant really make out the address, but maybe someone has better speakers and can post them for you.
Regulation is as you say a double edged sword especially if you give it to the FDA. I really dont understand why the ecig companies cant just do what the regular snake oil salesmen do and just post the traditional the FDA HAS NOT APPROVED yadda yadda yadda and be treated like regular tobacco, supplements, etc. Safety is a misnomer, since almost everything we do daily can kill you just as easily as a gun, especially the FDA approved stuff in your medicine cabinet. But it sounds o too logical that there should be some regulation, of course self-regulation imposed by the community of manufacturers, suppliers, and users would do the trick, it's not the government's or most people's first thought. My biggest worry is the eventual regulation of nic levels to useless levels, then again I'm unlikely to ever buy 100mg/ml again because the stuff is a pain to work with safely and accurately. But would have to buy and mix my own if it was difficult to get 36mg to fight the urges on occasion.
Only problem libertarians have is their (our?) live and let live philosophy means they (we) are not nearly as loud as groups like the AMA (almost as twisted as the FDA with nearly as much power but theoretically like the UL for doctors) or the anti smoking crowd (Apparently they managed to ban smoking out on the balcony of your own home with fines/etc in Burbank?). Fortunately the status quo has gotten to the point that the libertarian inside most Americans is waking up and saying no I dont need you to spoon feed me from cradle to grave in a bubble, we'd rather live our lives to the fullest and take our chances. But most Americans and even most vapers cant quite fully embrace honest libertarian ideals, cause we've been trained to believe there is some scary thing out there coming to get you. Some cheap Chinese company contaminating there juice with antifreeze or some self absorbed idiot texting while they are driving. Basically the same thing, someone doing something stupid that could get people killed. We all agree they should be stopped, but how, why with regulation of course. Slippery slope for sure, but one we are always going to be standing on I fear. Trust is very rare in today's society, but we can always count on the USDA seal, FDA approved toothpaste, etc etc. Of course we never know what we missed out on by waiting for someone to tell us it was safe or knew who to blame when we got sick because no one can actually check ever single plant, side of beef, egg, etc. But we all trust the label which in the end is nothing more than an honest company trying to comply with set standards, of course you must still read and pay attention to what's on the label to make your informed choice. But every now and then you get a bad egg and someone needs to drop the hammer. When the almighty dollar is the only concern, not providing a quality safe product that's where the system breaks down.
Regulation is preventative sometimes to stop something we already know is a problem (texting while driving) other times it's just to save us from the scary unknown possibilities. That's where it goes off the rails most times. Fact is people are people and not all of us care about the consequences of our actions. Think that is where the libertarian movement loses most people. Hard to imagine a world where we were free to do anything, but should that hurt another we'd have to face the music. Consequences would be the regulator, not some pencil pushing bureaucrat. Kill someone while texting and driving face life/death penalty seems harsh, but if that was the consequence there would be a change in behavior.
Sorry if I got off on a rant, kinda got me rolling with the mention of libertarian at the end. Great video hopefully you dont get any tickets for vaping in CA. Would love to see that conversation or court case, but most vapers dont go outside unless they want too.
Hey thanks for the comments, Ctry Boy! I was really hoping to spark some discussion, since I could only cover so much in a Youtube vid, and I know I wasn't clear on some points.
First off, the links I mentioned at the end. They are in the youtube text, but you obviously can't see that on this page.
Free Talk Live podcast
You might also enjoy The Freeman
I have no idea what I'm doing when recording video. I shot one take, realized it was 15 minutes, and just started cutting out pauses and non essential parts until I got under 10 mins. Thanks for letting me know that the sound is too low. I'll watch that next time.
I'm mostly in agreement with you, until this part:
While we may never eliminate aggression and fraud, I believe that the profit motive found in the market is the most effective, and only moral way of dealing with bad apples (or eggs). The market punishes wrongdoers and bad business decisions. In a free market, the aggressor is liable for full restitution to the victims. Under the state, we have just the opposite; limited liability, corporate welfare, cronyism, protectionism...
I must disagree with you here. Throwing a person into a rape room or killing them outright is not only brutish, but fraught with economic problems as well. When my assailant is locked up, I suffer another loss; the state demands that I pay for the caging and/or killing. Wouldn't it be nice to see a justice system based on restitution instead of vengeance? An assailant who later poses no apparent danger (such as a Bernie Madoff) should be out doing book tours and making as much money as possible - to pay back his victims!
Ok, have to agree you got a pretty good point. Consequences to action was my main thought, although no clear idea of what those should be. If there were true consequences to people's actions the world would be a different place. I have libertarian leanings, but like many havent fully embraced the libertarian way of thinking. Hard to fight years of indoctrination by public education. Guess I tend to believe that ignorance can be fixed, where as stupidity (i.e. texting while driving) is incurable so thinking the person would continue to pose a threat should be removed from society somehow to protect us all from their stupidity.
The 'free' market has been replaced by the 'safe' market. Where everyone must be protected and the government will always be there to save us. People overcome obstacles if you let them, but if you give them an easy way out, they will usually take it and never face the obstacle, improving themselves in the process of removing the obstacle once and for all. Safety trumps almost as many arguments as 'think of the children'. Hard to fight stupid soundbites with logic and common sense.
Hopefully the tide will begin to turn, otherwise we all will have to turn libertarian if we want to eat at mcdonald's, have the occasional twinkie, or enjoy a pleasant vape.
A more eloquent case is made against the FDA over at Center for a Stateless Society.
Separate names with a comma.