The only proper purpose of a government

[bripat9643]

you forgot the fact that she died collecting social security benefits.

A program to which she paid into, under threat of incarceration if she refused, therefore was perfectly within her moral code recoup that which was taken from her by compulsion.

Seems you authoritarian looters like to ignore that little tidbit of fact.

I think Ayn forgot to ask herself "What would Dagny do?" Rand was an absolutist. Social Security was wrong. Nobody should accept it. Period. No matter if you paid into it, accepting it would still be an affront to human dignity. Rand never waivered from her zealous hatred for the program.

Please quote Rand saying no one should accept Social Security. She did hate the program, as do I. It's a giant Ponzi scheme - theft on a colossal scale, but that doesn't mean you should try to recoup the money that's been robbed from you.

That is, until she was collecting the check herself. Then, magically, she came up with this post hoc argument that it was okay, just as long as the recipient called it something different (i.e. call it a reimbursement).

You're just making up bullshit. You don't know the slightest thing about Rand.

So, instead of trying to make swans out of ugly ducklings let's just call the duck a duck. Rand was a deranged lunatic who, when push came to shove, couldn't walk the walk. Rand taking Medicare and SS benefits can be summed up in one sentence: Oh, but that's different, somehow....

You're delusional. Cheap ad hominems are the only arguments you have. when you post an actual fact, perhaps someone will bother to pay attention.

 

[g5000]

Private "watchdog" organizations would work best. There are also the courts which could convict & prosecute the offenders.

Sticking with the pharmaceutical example, take a look at those "therapies" which are not regulated by the FDA.

Homeopathy, for example. Magnetic shoe soles. Ionic bracelets. Reiki. And so forth.

Billions are spent on these utterly fraudulent devices, often at the cost of great harm and even death to the users who forego proper medical treatment in favor of these scams.

No prosecutions. No "watchdog" organizations that are in the least effective against them.

None.

 

[Oddball]

That all sounds great, and a large part of me agrees. However, Ayn Rand's brand of libertarianism (or if you wish, her godless Objectivism) is one which takes no preventive measures whatsoever.

For example, the regulation of our food and drugs. Rand's minions are silent about doing anything preventive before you take food or medicine into your body, and only punishes the wicked after they have killed you with their poison for profit. As if the fear of punishment will stop evildoers. This is an attitude which is the epitome of gullibility and suffers from a profound ignorance of human nature and history.

The preventative actions should be taken by the insurers of and investors in the given companies....Huge federal bureaucracies like the FDA act as noting more than defacto protection rackets for the purpose of keep BigPharm big.

Regulatory capture is a hazard of every type of government. But I prefer the FDA to what we had before the FDA, which was nothing.

That's not regulatory capture...That's the shopkeepers shutting the hell up and paying the protection loot, lest they end up like Lehman Brothers should times get tough.

And nobody is asking you what you prefer...A shakedown racket is a shakedown racket, and you pay for it too, whether you like it or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Regulatory capture is a hazard of every type of government. But I prefer the FDA to what we had before the FDA, which was nothing.

based on what? How has the FDA improved anything?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ayn Rand was an idiot, her followers idiot clones.

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his"-Ayn Rand

 

[g5000]

Regulatory capture is a hazard of every type of government. But I prefer the FDA to what we had before the FDA, which was nothing.

based on what? How has the FDA improved anything?

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Ayn Rand was an idiot, her followers idiot clones.

That's hilarious coming from a senile moron.

Why don't you go back to the thread where you are defending the Communist government of Cuba, and quit annoying the adults in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

Regulatory capture is a hazard of every type of government. But I prefer the FDA to what we had before the FDA, which was nothing.

based on what? How has the FDA improved anything?

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What evidence do you have that the FDA improved food quality or drug safety? One thing is certain, the FDA has vastly reduced the number of life-saving drugs available on the market. Thousands of people have died waiting for the FDA to approve numerous life-saving drugs.

The scandal you refer to involved the United States Army, another branch of government. So I fail to see what relevance it has to marketing food in the private market.

 

[g5000]

There are flaws in the Constitution, but on the whole it is a magnificent document.
As to where I "lifted" the quote, I refer you to the John Galt speech in Atlas Shrugged.

Everything that is wrong with Rand's philosophy can be found in the pages of the train tunnel incident where Rand justifies the death of every man, woman, and child on the train. In her mind, they all deserved exactly what they got.

She was one twisted puppy.

 

[eflatminor]

That all sounds great, and a large part of me agrees. However, Ayn Rand's brand of libertarianism (or if you wish, her godless Objectivism) is one which takes no preventive measures whatsoever.

Not true. Libertarians believe strongly in preventative measures. We buy insurance in case we get sick or if the house burns down. We arm ourselves in case criminals attempt to hurt us or our families. We do the due diligence and research into products and services BEFORE buying them. All preventative measures.

For example, the regulation of our food and drugs. Rand's minions are silent about doing anything preventive before you take food or medicine into your body, and only punishes the wicked after they have killed you with their poison for profit.

Here's the rub: We have the FDA and people still get sick...and nobody really gets punished, while costing taxpayers dearly. Not to mention it's unconstitutional. So, the reality is we would ACTUALLY punish the wicked and we would allow free people in free markets to demand the measures required to keep poisons from hitting the market. Personally, I'd have far more confidence in companies in the business of reviewing/critiquing the products and services of other companies than the government, who is always in the pocket of the largest corporations.

As if the fear of punishment will stop evildoers.

The government regulators don't stop evildoers...and they cost us a fortune in the process. We would have actual punishment (as opposed to useless fines) for those that hurt others. Evildoers are stopped when they're incarcerated.

This is an attitude which is the epitome of gullibility and suffers from a profound ignorance of human nature and history.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about relying on government bureaucrats to keep you safe. Profoundly ignorant.

 

[g5000]

based on what? How has the FDA improved anything?

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What evidence do you have that the FDA improved food quality or drug safety? One thing is certain, the FDA has vastly reduced the number of life-saving drugs available on the market. Thousands of people have died waiting for the FDA to approve numerous life-saving drugs.

Yeah, I've heard that meme many times. Libertarians like to conjure up the image of the fat heart disease patient who died while waiting for the miracle cure which the FDA was holding up. But they can never provide the number of drugs which are denied by the FDA as being too dangerous for human consumption, and thus saving countless lives.

Hmmm...

 

[Oddball]

Regulatory capture is a hazard of every type of government. But I prefer the FDA to what we had before the FDA, which was nothing.

based on what? How has the FDA improved anything?

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never heard of orphan drugs, have you?

Why is the FDA purposefully keeping people in pain and suffering?

Orphan drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koios]

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his"-Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand wrote a great American novel: Foutainhead, and then got a bit wacky thinking she'd created a moral imperitive for laissez faire, and her authorship suffered greatly, albeit, she earned a following among dipshits with no grasp of history nor political economics.

So what is government, and its purpose? Five thousand years ago, when we were largely tribal, with small polities, albeit over a million of them, government protected the tribe, pursuant to the leaders desires ... which was to remain leader, and thus acted in the tribe's interest. Keep people fed (#1) and safe (#2) and their turf protected (#3).

Then larger societies, of a million or more, with relatively few polities. Here's where things evolved, into modern city states, which had very ordered societies, trade and expectations of service in support of the ruler and waging wars with other city states, if need be. Basically, a closed economic system, with the very beginnings of modern world economics: foriegn trade / commerce. And of course, the beginning of defining ourselves by where and under what we are born. (National identity).

Today, we're mostly like that, with well defined boundaries, and about 20% of our GDPs deriving from globalization (trade with other nations).

What hasn't changed is leaders wanting to keep their jobs, and thus pleasing most of the citizens, most of the time, something Ayn overlooked due to her intellectual lock-down onto laissez faire, which in fact sucks ass. Mixed economies rule the planet, despite Ayn's feelings about them.


And worse, one of the faster growing economies, and one that many fear could displace the USA as being #1, (PRC, aka China) is about as close to a "state capitalism" as we've yet to see in modern times; and is something Ayn was most loathe to think could be successful.

 

[g5000]

based on what? How has the FDA improved anything?

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never heard of orphan drugs, have you?

Why is the FDA purposefully keeping people in pain and suffering?

Orphan drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you have things backwards. The US Government works to get those drugs on the market which otherwise would not.

 

[Oddball]

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What evidence do you have that the FDA improved food quality or drug safety? One thing is certain, the FDA has vastly reduced the number of life-saving drugs available on the market. Thousands of people have died waiting for the FDA to approve numerous life-saving drugs.

Yeah, I've heard that meme many times. Libertarians like to conjure up the image of the fat heart disease patient who died while waiting for the miracle cure which the FDA was holding up. But they can never provide the number of drugs which are denied by the FDA as being too dangerous for human consumption, and thus saving countless lives.

Hmmm...

But do the know-nothing bureaucratic stooges at the FDA ever get held liable when they approve drugs like Vioxx and Fen-Phen, that end up killing people?

NEWP!....That one gets kicked back to the pharm companies.

And asswipe lolberals have the nerve to snivel about the high costs of prescription medications.

 

[Oddball]

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never heard of orphan drugs, have you?

Why is the FDA purposefully keeping people in pain and suffering?

Orphan drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you have things backwards. The US Government works to get those drugs on the market which otherwise would not.

Like hell they do...They don't give a flying fuck...All they want is their $500+ million in protection loot to certify the medication, or it can just stay buried on the shelf.

 

[regent]

I always thought the best purpose of government was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

 

[bripat9643]

Food quality, drug safety. You really need this explained to you?

United States Army beef scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What evidence do you have that the FDA improved food quality or drug safety? One thing is certain, the FDA has vastly reduced the number of life-saving drugs available on the market. Thousands of people have died waiting for the FDA to approve numerous life-saving drugs.

Yeah, I've heard that meme many times. Libertarians like to conjure up the image of the fat heart disease patient who died while waiting for the miracle cure which the FDA was holding up. But they can never provide the number of drugs which are denied by the FDA as being too dangerous for human consumption, and thus saving countless lives.

Hmmm...

The FDA can't provide that figure either. Remember, the FDA approved thalidomide. The justification for the FDA is the idea that corporations can make big profits by injuring or killing their customers. Any drug company that produced drugs that killed or injured a large number of people would quickly find itself out of business. There are hoards of ambulance chasing attorneys out there looking for any case they can file against a giant drug company. Many fortunes have been made that way. The idea that the FDA has prevented any significant deaths or injuries from dangerous drugs doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Please quote Rand saying no one should accept Social Security. She did hate the program, as do I. It's a giant Ponzi scheme - theft on a colossal scale, but that doesn't mean you should try to recoup the money that's been robbed from you.

You want a specific quote? Oh, I see. You're one of those weak minded people who can't grasp anything unless it's spoon fed to you. Maybe you should focus more on knowing and understanding the overall schema of Rand's preachings. I'll say it again, Rand was an absolutist. The SS program is either purely good, or purely evil. There's no middle ground if one embraces an absolutist approach. And she maintained an absolutist criticism of SS right up to the day that she started collecting SS. It was only then that she created her post hoc excuse, which is exactly what her "reimbursement" babble was. If Rand was to stay true to her lifelong positions, then she could not ever accept SS benefits, regardless of having ever paid money into it. Doing so was a violation of her absolutist philosophy.

You're just making up bullshit. You're delusional.

Cheap ad hominems are the only arguments you have.

I see you share Rand's penchant for hypocrisy.

 

[bripat9643]

Please quote Rand saying no one should accept Social Security. She did hate the program, as do I. It's a giant Ponzi scheme - theft on a colossal scale, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to recoup the money that's been robbed from you.

You want a specific quote? Oh, I see. You're one of those weak minded people who can't grasp anything unless it's spoon fed to you. Maybe you should focus more on knowing and understanding the overall schema of Rand's preachings. I'll say it again, Rand was an absolutist. The SS program is either purely good, or purely evil. There's no middle ground if one embraces an absolutist approach. And she maintained an absolutist criticism of SS right up to the day that she started collecting SS. It was only then that she created her post hoc excuse, which is exactly what her "reimbursement" babble was. If Rand was to stay true to her lifelong positions, then she could not ever accept SS benefits, regardless of having ever paid money into it. Doing so was a violation of her absolutist philosophy.

In other words, you can't quote her saying what you claim. You just know it's true.

And for your information, I've read everything Ann Rand ever wrote and most of what has been written about her.

You're just making up bullshit. You're delusional.

Cheap ad hominems are the only arguments you have.

I see you share Rand's penchant for hypocrisy.

Nope. I just post the facts.