To Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens

[ScienceRocks]

A few questions.
1. Do you think we should have the fda that makes sure we have standards for food?
2. Do you believe in the clean air and water acts?

These two within my opinion help make our nation far better then most of the world.

 

[ScienceRocks]

All agencies not demanded by the Constitution, since the 9th and 10th Amendments expressly prohibit all of those agencies outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

So the question then is, which agencies are those?

Treasury Department.
Embassies (State Department)
Armed forces (War/Defense) (assuming Congress has authorized their existence every 2 years as demanded by the Constitution.)

Post office.

That's it.

A modern nation could not function properly with these terms.

These people aren't interested in a modern nation. Only of a "union" of states of a second rate power that allows them to shine their guns all day.

 

[Kosh]

Eliminate paychecks of those in Washington whose net worth is over $1 million dollars.

 

[Kosh]

All agencies not demanded by the Constitution, since the 9th and 10th Amendments expressly prohibit all of those agencies outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

So the question then is, which agencies are those?

Treasury Department.
Embassies (State Department)
Armed forces (War/Defense) (assuming Congress has authorized their existence every 2 years as demanded by the Constitution.)

Post office.

That's it.

A modern nation could not function properly with these terms.

These people aren't interested in a modern nation. Only of a "union" of states of a second rate power that allows them to shine their guns all day.

Far left propaganda at it's best

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With regard to foods, goods, and services that are unsafe, it’s idiocy to argue that the ‘invisible hand’ will intercede and put companies out of business that sell unsafe products, as by the time the products are discovered to be unsafe, far too many consumers will be injured or killed. The notion that the markets can ‘regulate’ themselves is naïve and foolish, as such self-regulation is far too weak, slow, and inefficient to respond in a timely manner.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With regard to foods, goods, and services that are unsafe, it’s idiocy to argue that the ‘invisible hand’ will intercede and put companies out of business that sell unsafe products, as by the time the products are discovered to be unsafe, far too many consumers will be injured or killed. The notion that the markets can ‘regulate’ themselves is naïve and foolish, as such self-regulation is far too weak, slow, and inefficient to respond in a timely manner.

The idea that companies have some kind of incentive to injure or kill their paying customers is what's naive and foolish.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Again, you'd have, just to take one example, Thalidomide babies running around because there's no screening process to corral drug corporations that have no interests in public health. You'd have foods laced with carcinogens, as well as toothpastes, cosmetics, etc. You'd have planes flying into each other because nobody's in charge above them, plus contraptions unworthy of flight on their own. Then there's railways and highways, the regulations of which would change every time one hit a state line. You'd have unlistenable radio and TV because anyone with enough money could plunk a transmitter down, and shout out their competitor. Libraries? Gone. And you'd have, again to take one example of the Linbergh baby, criminals taking refuge across state lines for lack of an FBI to pursue them.



In short you'd have chaos. I get the impression that's what you want.



The "free market" is an environment that fosters competition and a lively marketplace of goods and services. It doesn't address needs of the common public interest. Because it can't; it has no motive to do that.

Yes how did the world get so far without the government watching us and guiding us? We should have gone extinct before cave men could even use fire! Who regulated that fire and how in the world did the world not burn completely down from caveman fire!?

Uh... I don't believe there is a Federal Department of Caveman Fire, dear. And it's obvious there is no Department of Thinking Things Through.

Bro you're mind is apparently a lost cause. Go read sarcasm for dummies before you write two posts that make a point too obvious for someone as discernibly obtuse as you make yourself out to be. Enjoy reading the TV guide for your entertainment. Anything more witty seems beyond your reach.

 

[Pogo]

Yes how did the world get so far without the government watching us and guiding us? We should have gone extinct before cave men could even use fire! Who regulated that fire and how in the world did the world not burn completely down from caveman fire!?

Uh... I don't believe there is a Federal Department of Caveman Fire, dear. And it's obvious there is no Department of Thinking Things Through.

Bro you're mind is apparently a lost cause. Go read sarcasm for dummies before you write two posts that make a point too obvious for someone as discernibly obtuse as you make yourself out to be. Enjoy reading the TV guide for your entertainment. Anything more witty seems beyond your reach.

Yeah I've heard that stupid people don't get sarcasm. Maybe you'll understand when you're older.

Maybe by then you can figure out some kind of point.

 

[Pogo]

With regard to foods, goods, and services that are unsafe, it’s idiocy to argue that the ‘invisible hand’ will intercede and put companies out of business that sell unsafe products, as by the time the products are discovered to be unsafe, far too many consumers will be injured or killed. The notion that the markets can ‘regulate’ themselves is naïve and foolish, as such self-regulation is far too weak, slow, and inefficient to respond in a timely manner.

The idea that companies have some kind of incentive to injure or kill their paying customers is what's naive and foolish.

Never heard of tobacco? Or alcohol?

How 'bout Thalidomide?

Injuring and killing isn't the objective; the objective is purely profit. The injuring and killing part is just a cost of doing business. If the profit outpaces "consumer spoilage" ... guess who loses.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With regard to foods, goods, and services that are unsafe, it’s idiocy to argue that the ‘invisible hand’ will intercede and put companies out of business that sell unsafe products, as by the time the products are discovered to be unsafe, far too many consumers will be injured or killed. The notion that the markets can ‘regulate’ themselves is naïve and foolish, as such self-regulation is far too weak, slow, and inefficient to respond in a timely manner.

The idea that companies have some kind of incentive to injure or kill their paying customers is what's naive and foolish.

Never heard of tobacco? Or alcohol?

How 'bout Thalidomide?

Injuring and killing isn't the objective; the objective is purely profit. The injuring and killing part is just a cost of doing business. If the profit outpaces "consumer spoilage" ... guess who loses.

That a product is harmful in and of itself is not evidence that there is an incentive to harm or kill the customers on the part of the companies selling it. Do you really think Marlboro or whoever wouldn't prefer to have their customers live longer, and thus purchase more cigarettes, than to have them die early?

 

[1776]

So dumbfuck.....protecting Americans is a low priority for scum like you.

The NSA helps our country understand what is going on in other countries to prevent damage to the US, our allies and others.

Department of Homeland Security.
NSA.

That's about it.

 

[PredFan]

Right off the top of my head:

The Federal Reserve
The Department of Education
The EPA

There are more as Diamonddave has pointed out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those advocating for the elimination of scores of Federal agencies and/or the elimination of current regulatory policy are clearly ignorant and naïve; they live in a bizarre fantasy world completely detached from reality.

Thank goodness they constitute a tiny minority.

 

[KGB]

Pretty much everything except DoD. If it isn't called out in the Constitution, it shouldn't exist.

 

[Pogo]

The idea that companies have some kind of incentive to injure or kill their paying customers is what's naive and foolish.

Never heard of tobacco? Or alcohol?

How 'bout Thalidomide?

Injuring and killing isn't the objective; the objective is purely profit. The injuring and killing part is just a cost of doing business. If the profit outpaces "consumer spoilage" ... guess who loses.

That a product is harmful in and of itself is not evidence that there is an incentive to harm or kill the customers on the part of the companies selling it. Do you really think Marlboro or whoever wouldn't prefer to have their customers live longer, and thus purchase more cigarettes, than to have them die early?

You're not listening.

Marlboro knows its product kills; inasmuch as that removes customers, it's a cost. It also knows it can hook X number of new addicts; that's a profit. And even in the customers it loses it can suck their dollars for 40-50 years.

Profit outpaces cost. That's all there is to it.

In the case of Thalidomide, more to the point of the thread, between 10,000 and 20,000 births worldwide were sabotaged by a drug put out to make profit for Grünenthal. 2,000 for example in the UK. The drug was never sold here. Why not? Because the FDA, a federal agency whose job it is to screen such dangerous drugs, did its job and kept it off the market saving thousands of ruined lives. That's what the agency is there for.

That's not an incentive the drug company had before putting it on the market.

 

[KGB]

Those advocating for the elimination of scores of Federal agencies and/or the elimination of current regulatory policy are clearly ignorant and naïve; they live in a bizarre fantasy world completely detached from reality.

Thank goodness they constitute a tiny minority.

You need to read the Constitution again. It spells out very clearly what is permitted.

 

[Pogo]

Pretty much everything except DoD. If it isn't called out in the Constitution, it shouldn't exist.

The internet isn't in the Constitution.

Bye.

 

[Sallow]

All agencies not demanded by the Constitution, since the 9th and 10th Amendments expressly prohibit all of those agencies outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

So the question then is, which agencies are those?

Treasury Department.
Embassies (State Department)
Armed forces (War/Defense) (assuming Congress has authorized their existence every 2 years as demanded by the Constitution.)

Post office.

That's it.

A modern nation could not function properly with these terms.

Why not? Support your claim. Let us pit the Free Market against Government functions. Other than the Department of Transportation (which can still be argued in favor of the Free Market), I would love to see which parts of society would collapse without a Swarm of Officers eating out the substance of the People (Declaration of Independence).

Why?

Because you say so?

None of you folks are even attempting to start a nation.

Get to it.

Put your theories to the test.

Show the world!

 

[Sallow]

Those advocating for the elimination of scores of Federal agencies and/or the elimination of current regulatory policy are clearly ignorant and naïve; they live in a bizarre fantasy world completely detached from reality.

Thank goodness they constitute a tiny minority.

You need to read the Constitution again. It spells out very clearly what is permitted.

You should do the same.

 

[KGB]

Pretty much everything except DoD. If it isn't called out in the Constitution, it shouldn't exist.

The internet isn't in the Constitution.

Bye.

Is there a Dept of the Internet or are you just being an ass.