The only proper purpose of a government

[candycorn]

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.

Ahh, the conservative trainwreck of thought on display once more.

 

[jillian]

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

Isn't it grand when leftoids claim people shouldn't receive the benefits for which they have paid taxes?

Not nearly as grand as when the pseudo-cons use the hard-core atheist Ayn Rand, ever.

more funny that they think she's a political theorist they should "believe in" as opposed to a novelist who idealized selfishness for her own means... in particular, cheating on her husband openly and humiliating him, while being a huge hypocrite and living off of the government till.

someone with real scruples would have refused the money...you know, since it's an "entitlement".

 

[jillian]

Then again, the founders were traitors and terrorists.

According to gubmint school revisionist history.

So which part of the following is incorrect?

1) The colonies were part of the Kingdom of Great Britian.
2) Residents of the colonies at times resorted to destruction of private property for political purposes, with the intention or hope to effect political change.
3) Residents of the colonies at times resorted to violence against the uniformed military.
4) Residents of some colonies erected false governments in rebellion against the established governments under law.
5) The colonies raised armies that engaged in open hostilities against their Sovereign.

the difference between being a traitor and a patriot is winning

 

[konradv]

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.

Sounds like Rand and bin Laden had a lot in common. Isn't that the justification he used for attacking civilians?

 

[konradv]

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

Drugs become orphans because of a lack of profit motive. Are you saying we should be subsidizing them? Isn't that the exact opposite of your normal argument or is this just a case of throw any shit against the wall and see what sticks?

 

[konradv]

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.

Another case of throw any shit up against the wall to see what sticks! Fen-Phen wasn't a single drug, but a combination never intended to be taken together, so never tested in combination.

 

[Sallow]

"; 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 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 criminalsthe 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

Where is any of that in the US Constitution?

Good on you to quote a supporter of Tsarist Russia.

 

[Votto]

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.

Ever heard of Underwriters Labratories? We accept government intervention into every aspect of life because they have wheedled their way in inch by inch and it seems the norm to us now. This is why liberals accept and expect a nanny state. They've come to believe it is the norm, an actual role of government and now come to expect it. Imagine if companies employeed people to do what the government has taken over and done quite poorly?

Ever wonder why raw milk is becoming all the rage? Thank the government for enforcing standards to such a point that it's no longer dangerous to drink it.

If it was dangerous to drink, how much of it would they even sell?

 

[Votto]

"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

It is all about natural rights. That is why the left has adopted the natural right to health care and retirement etc. Essentially, the left is prepared to do whatever it takes to see to it that these natural rights are not only preserved to be free to pursue, but they will also be bought and payed for by taxpayers. In addition, it should be done at ANY price, including the destruction of the Republic.

Now go take it away from them.

What will happen is the eventual destruction of the Republic. Nothing can stop that now.

 

[Sallow]

"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

It is all about natural rights. That is why the left has adopted the natural right to health care and retirement etc. Essentially, the left is prepared to do whatever it takes to see to it that these natural rights are not only preserved to be free to pursue, but they will also be bought and payed for by taxpayers. In addition, it should be done at ANY price, including the destruction of the Republic.

Now go take it away from them.

What will happen is the eventual destruction of the Republic. Nothing can stop that now.

Seriously..what are these "natural rights" you are talking about?

Nature doesn't recognize any "rights".

Rights come from human notions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Atlas Shrugged and the Lord of the Rings are two of my favorite books.

One creates a fastasy land where larger than life heros wage epic battles against mythological evil and has ensnared many a young man into a perpetual state of arrested development.

The other one has orcs.

 

[Sallow]

What happened?

No one defending this?

 

[Oddball]

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.

Another case of throw any shit up against the wall to see what sticks! Fen-Phen wasn't a single drug, but a combination never intended to be taken together, so never tested in combination.

Fact remains that the drugs were FDA approved.


And what of Vioxx?...Thalidimide?...Their standing in the way of the mainstream use of aspirin for AMI patients?

How much pain and suffering and unnecessary deaths are enough for you callous and ghoulish worshipers of Big Daddy Big Gummint?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Caveat Emptor ???
No thanks.
Good way to crash the economy.

Lot of folks here need a refresher on History 101.

 

[Oddball]

Caveat Emptor ???
No thanks.
Good way to crash the economy.

Lot of folks here need a refresher on History 101.

Straw man argument?
Good way to completely marginalize your input on the matter.

Looks like you need a refresher in logic 101.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

The case that brought the FDA into existance for starters. Some doctor was supending cough surp in anti-freeze. It worked, that is the medicine stayed in solution, but it killed several kids too.

Cough Syrup, Dead Children, and the Case for Regulation | Speakeasy Science

 

[nodoginnafight]

Caveat Emptor ???
No thanks.
Good way to crash the economy.

Lot of folks here need a refresher on History 101.

Straw man argument?
Good way to completely marginalize your input on the matter.

Looks like you need a refresher in logic 101.

That's EXACTLY what you are proposing. (regardless of cutesy emoticons).
How often do you see people resort to personal insults and emoticons when they have no real counter-argument?

 

[Koios]

Caveat Emptor ???
No thanks.
Good way to crash the economy.

Lot of folks here need a refresher on History 101.

Straw man argument?
Good way to completely marginalize your input on the matter.

Looks like you need a refresher in logic 101.

The folly is in thinking FDA is a consumer protection agency, to any great extent.

Bear in mind that getting new drugs or med-devices to trials, much less onto the market, in the US, is more difficult than anywhere else on planet earth, by orders of magnitude. And before going off on govmint regulation gettin' in the way, we're talking about Big Pharma, who pretty-much get anything they want, even Medicare not being allowed to bid on their products; they vitually own FDA not to mention the folks on Capitol Hill and Penn Ave. So the cost of drugs, here, are higher than anywhere else in the world, making the US the bulk of Big Pharma's profit.

So what the burdensome regulation accomplishes, to the delight of Big Pharma, is that smaller players (new biotech startups) simply cannot raise the venture capital needed to penetrate the US market. Instead what the startups do is get into trials in Europe, China and South America, and prove market viability there, at which time the start up is aquired by Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Glaxo SK, etc, who have the bucks and inroads to get it into the US market and cut a fat hog with it.

 

[Oddball]

Caveat Emptor ???
No thanks.
Good way to crash the economy.

Lot of folks here need a refresher on History 101.

Straw man argument?
Good way to completely marginalize your input on the matter.

Looks like you need a refresher in logic 101.

That's EXACTLY what you are proposing. (regardless of cutesy emoticons).
How often do you see people resort to personal insults and emoticons when they have no real counter-argument?

No, it isn't.

The FDA could very handily be replaced by outfits like Underwriter's Laboratories or an entirely new private testing operation.

One of the big problems with the mindset of the lolberal central planner mindset is the completely preposterous noting that if Big Daddy Big Gubmint didn't do X, Y or Z, then nobody would do it.

 

[g5000]

UL is an example, not any sort of proposed catch-all of a solution.

There are lots of other free market organizations that certify people doing certain things, USHPA, USPA, PADI, PSIA all serve as examples of such.

You fools are advocating a return to the days of the utterly corrupt guild system which was guilty of the very things of which you accuse the federal regulatory system.

No one is proposing that. The guilds were similar to unions. They could force people to follow their dictates. The organizations listed above don't have any authorization to compel anyone to do anything. They are purely sources of information.

Sources of information which are easily corrupted, acting as shills for their corporate sponsors. No thanks, we already have enough of that.