Has the fdas reaction to ecigs made you lose faith in govt

[catlvr]

Never had much faith in the government to begin with. All a bunch of double talking greedy a**es looking out for themselves and their fat wallets. I doubt if there is one true honest politician out there and if they started out honest, it didn't last very long or they didn't stay in politics. I try to keep up with politics from afar. I just love watching their town hall meetings and big public addresses. Do they ever answer anyone's questions with a direct answer? I don't think I've ever heard one. They had a town hall meeting here awhile ago concerning the Health Care reform situation. It was supposed to be a question and ANSWER meeting. Didn't hear a clear answer to ANY questions. Hated Obama's health care reform bills but never did give any details on how it needed to be changed. And this vietnam vet got up to ask a question and was moreless told to sit down he wasn't paying taxes. WTF!!

 

[doots]

I lost faith 30 years ago.

Its all about money!

 

[JenJen]

I am not anti government per se, but we sure don't seem to learn from our mistakes. Oddly enough I got an email today about Thomas Jefferson, and some of the things he said when our Government was formed are very pertinent to the problems we have now.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson



I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson



My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government..
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kent C]

deadcat2 - Yes, it is human nature.
The reason socialism doesn't work is because of human nature.

That's exactly right. You can though, make humans into mindless robots through force and indoctrination from preschool to doctorate. It does help if you cut out summer vacations too.

MANY people will always do the least they can get away with.
And if they don't have to work for something, MANY of them won't bother.

True again.

It may not be pretty, but capitalism spurs progress.

Corporate welfare kills progress. Companies that get rewarded for failure will continue to fail. Companies that get punished for success will eventually fail and then get rewarded. Same with individuals.

If you are fine without much progress, then I can agree with you to some extent.

Without progress people starve and die.

There are not a whole lot of people that work hard for the good of others.

Mother Teresa acted in her own rational self interest, in order to get to heaven. Were it not for that, she wouldn't have done what she did. That is the nature of which you speak, above. Selfishness is not in one's own self interest. Conflating selfishness with self interest is propaganda.

 

[Kent C]

deadcat2 - Again, just for the sake of a different opinion.

Same here.

Yes, not wearing a seat belt harms others.

It clearly doesn't.

And not wearing a helmet harms others.

Again, nope.

It raises the insurance premiums that my company has to pay.

Your company entered into an agreement with an insurance company knowing that it was engaging in a collective type enterprise where the costs of care would be spread among all subscribers with no connection individual actions. It also knew that the more accidents/use of services that premiums would rise. This was part of the consent when they signed the agreement with the insurance company and is also part of each person who decided to work for that company. From your statements above, it would be consistent that 'getting sick' harms others. Any so called 'harm,' because of the prior consent, is 'self-inflicted' not other-inflicted.

It means that I will make less money than I could.
It takes money out of my pocket.

Money you gave away as soon as you signed the contract or decided to take a job under those conditions. It isn't robbery when you consent to those conditions in the first place. Which you did.

Having said that, I don't wear a seat belt very often.
And I would NEVER, EVER make my child wear a helmet while riding a bicycle.

Not here to argue, just wanting to present some other perspectives to consider.

Not here to argue either, but those "perspectives" are what the statists use to take away rights or to justify taking them. They're as bogus as the rest of their arguments.

 

[DC2]

I disagree, but I am not really going to argue about it because I believe it is better to pay for others and the harm they do to themselves than it is to take away the rights of others to harm themselves.

So I guess I'm agreeing with your conclusion but disagreeing with your premises.

 

[DC2]

I love going to Mexico, because I can go to these really cool hotels that have really neat features because they don't have to follow building codes as much as we do here in the United States.

Like I went to this one place that had these awesome little narrow stairs that wound right up the side of the building, all the way to the roof. And they had a deck on the roof with a railing you could actually lean over if you want to. It was an excellent place to have a few drinks before dinner.

And coming down for dinner AFTER having a few drinks was one heck of an adventure!
I guess they don't worry about getting sued by everyone who trips and falls and breaks their neck.

You can't even open the windows in hotel rooms in the United States anymore.

 

[Mossman]

Well, I, for one, have an abiding and unwavering faith in our government...

I have all the faith in the world that our government will continue to strip our rights and liberties away from us, so long as we continue to do nothing about it.

It's been happening for years, and most of us have been asleep....

 

[surbitonPete]

I would just like to provide another thought to occupy your time.

Yes, it is human nature.
The reason socialism doesn't work is because of human nature.

MANY people will always do the least they can get away with.
And if they don't have to work for something, MANY of them won't bother.

It may not be pretty, but capitalism spurs progress.
If you are fine without much progress, then I can agree with you to some extent.

There are not a whole lot of people that work hard for the good of others.

Just a short time ago I would have been in total agreement with you, but I have listened to and read nearly all the Zeitgeist movement's ideas and the more I have thought about it and listened to what they have to say, the more I can see they are right and human nature is the result of the monetary system itself. It isn't really some sort of fixed human behaviour that is unchangeable, it's only unchangeable 'because' of the monetary system, change the system and people will also change...... and even the idea that capitalism is essential for progress because financial gain is the only incentive that drives progress is completely wrong and you would be surprised just how many people would be so very happy and rewarded to work for the good of others if it wasn't for having to spend all their time working for the good of themselves and their own family. Nothing ever makes me feel happier than when I do something for someone else for nothing but it's always hard finding the time for that because I am always so busy having to do something for myself.

With a monetary system the new boss will 'always' be the same greedy, dishonest, unethical person as the old boss. Human beings are being 'made' to be like that by the monetary system itself, not because it is Human nature. Greed, dishonesty and a lack of ethics brings the greatest rewards in the monetary system, either to the individual, to the business or even to the country itself.

 

[DC2]

You know, I might tend to agree with you that human nature COULD be better than it appears to be, but I don't think we will ever know. The only way we could ever experiment and find out if that is the case or not is to eliminiate competition for resources, which is not possible.

 

[Proverb]

I would just like to provide another thought to occupy your time.

Yes, it is human nature.
The reason socialism doesn't work is because of human nature.

MANY people will always do the least they can get away with.
And if they don't have to work for something, MANY of them won't bother.

It may not be pretty, but capitalism spurs progress.
If you are fine without much progress, then I can agree with you to some extent.

There are not a whole lot of people that work hard for the good of others.

Not to get too far off topic, but while I agree that man, in general, is out for himself and will do whatever to make sure that he's taken care of, pure capitalism is not without its flaws. Many people will always do the least they can get away with, and that's true no matter what socio-economic structure a country has.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great and definitely spurs progress, but is only good as long as it's regulated. I mean, I don't know about you, but as a vaper I actually LIKE knowing that when I buy a bottle of USP Grade Propylene Glycol, I *know* it's PG without having to learn the hard way (e.g. deathly ill or fatal results) that it's a bottle of diethylene glycol with a different label slapped on to it; because it's regulated.

Even then the systems not perfect, I mean look at Wal-Mart, the most vile of corporations has managed to squeeze through it straggle hold a lot of honest Americans. "Always low prices." Yeah, because they take advantage of their employees and outsource LOTS of production jobs to the Chinese and other cheap labor countries. $10 for a pair of Levis or Wranglers, well, that's awesome, and it's also equally 'awesome' that Levis and Wranglers have had to cut thousands of American employees in order to keep up with Wal-Marts price cuts.

bah /rant off.

To get back on topic, government serves a purpose. Regulation of proper labelling so we know what we're buying (can't make informed decisions without first having proper knowledge) is just one of the many things that it's necessary for. The FDA in particular though needs reform, and needs it badly. It has been given way too much authority and is way too easily influenced by our 'free market'.

 

[DC2]

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great and definitely spurs progress, but is only good as long as it's regulated. I mean, I don't know about you, but as a vaper I actually LIKE knowing that when I buy a bottle of USP Grade Propylene Glycol, I *know* it's PG without having to learn the hard way (e.g. deathly ill or fatal results) that it's a bottle of diethylene glycol with a different label slapped on to it; because it's regulated.

There's a fine line between watching out for us and making our choices for us.
It's a line that may always move back and forth, like almost all lines do.

 

[Proverb]

There's a fine line between watching out for us and making our choices for us.
It's a line that may always move back and forth, like almost all lines do.

Hehe, very true. Now if only that line were easy to manage .

 

[Applejackson]

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great and definitely spurs progress, but is only good as long as it's regulated. I mean, I don't know about you, but as a vaper I actually LIKE knowing that when I buy a bottle of USP Grade Propylene Glycol, I *know* it's PG without having to learn the hard way (e.g. deathly ill or fatal results) that it's a bottle of diethylene glycol with a different label slapped on to it; because it's regulated.



To get back on topic, government serves a purpose. Regulation of proper labelling so we know what we're buying (can't make informed decisions without first having proper knowledge) is just one of the many things that it's necessary for. The FDA in particular though needs reform, and needs it badly. It has been given way too much authority and is way too easily influenced by our 'free market'.

There's a fine line between watching out for us and making our choices for us.
It's a line that may always move back and forth, like almost all lines do.

There's a big fat line between testing & labeling, and regulation. Their only purpose should be to test all products and label their ingredients. After that, it should be up to doctors and dieticians to inform us what's good or bad. Then, we make our own damned decisions based on that information. "Regulation" is unnecessary and only opens the door to situations like this.

 

[Proverb]

There's a big fat line between testing & labeling, and regulation. Their only purpose should be to test all products and label their ingredients. After that, it should be up to doctors and dieticians to inform us what's good or bad. Then, we make our own damned decisions based on that information. "Regulation" is unnecessary and only opens the door to situations like this.

Regulation is most definitely necessary. Whose to say that the doctor or dietician is accredited and not just using some phony degree? What's to stop corporations like Wal-Mart from paying it's employees $0.20 an hour after they've driven away all of the local businesses? The government regulates these things. They say you have to have a valid medical license to practice medicine, you have to pay your employees a minimum living wage. To say that regulation is unnecessary is simply wide-eyed idealism.

Now excessive regulation, like in the case of the FDA is a bad thing, and I'm not arguing that.

 

[Kent C]

I disagree, but I am not really going to argue about it .

Good choice.

because I believe it is better to pay for others and the harm they do to themselves than it is to take away the rights of others to harm themselves..

It isn't an either or thing. And if you choose to pay for others then they are not 'harming' you as you originally stated. And "Rights" are restraints on others, not on oneself. There's no 'rights of others to harm themselves' - it's just none of your business. And you don't 'take that away' by paying for it when they do. They'll still do it whether you pay or not.

So I guess I'm agreeing with your conclusion but disagreeing with your premises.

My premises were:
- That one agrees with paying for others actions when one signs the insurance policy.
- That one agrees that one's insurance premiums can rise when someone harms themselves or are harmed.
- That one can't be 'robbed' or 'harmed' by someone else's actions when they have consented to the either of the above.

With which premise do you disagree?

 

[Kent C]

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is great and definitely spurs progress, but is only good as long as it's regulated.

How would you define capitalism?

If you define it as a 'free market' which is unregulated, then you've contradicted yourself in one sentence - iow, you're saying:

"An unregulated market is great as long as it's regulated."

See how the 'Don't get me wrong' plea isn't really working here?

 

[Applejackson]

Regulation is most definitely necessary. Whose to say that the doctor or dietician is accredited and not just using some phony degree? What's to stop corporations like Wal-Mart from paying it's employees $0.20 an hour after they've driven away all of the local businesses? The government regulates these things. They say you have to have a valid medical license to practice medicine, you have to pay your employees a minimum living wage. To say that regulation is unnecessary is simply wide-eyed idealism.

Now excessive regulation, like in the case of the FDA is a bad thing, and I'm not arguing that.

Regulation by the FDA is not necessary. They don't license doctors. Having an entity to check doctors' credentials is hardly what I would consider true "regulation", and I don't even believe it is something that needs to be a government agency or even necessary at all. The government makes you think that THEY have to regulate these things. Why? What makes them any more reliable than a private body? The Universities the doctor attended and the hospital that they completed their residency in should be keeping record of this and presenting a diploma or certificate. If a doctor is sued for malpractice, that would be on record. The government licensing of doctors only gives people a false sense of security and allows the lazy not to research their own health care provider. There's also nothing stopping a "doctor" from using a phony degree now, even with government licensing. It happens all of the time. I don't believe in minimum wage laws either, so that argument's out. What keeps Walmart from paying $0.20 an hour is that people can't live on it and won't work for it. In a free market all of this levels out. When you have something like the minimum wage, it throws all of this off balance and creates unemployment. In fact, the minimum wage laws help Walmart (or other such corporate giant) drive the other businesses out of their area.

From Ron Paul in response to Minimum Wage Increase Act:

Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus `wedge' between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the `minimum wage.' This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?

Congress should not fool itself into believing that the package of small business tax cuts will totally compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely effected by federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America's, are doomed to fail.

In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

 

[Porphy]

The government made me lose faith in the government.

See sig.

 

[Century 21]

I think it has for me