To Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens

[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.

You should do the same.

I actually read the real document yesterday at the National Archives. It's pretty clear what the Feds may have & may not have.

 

[Pogo]

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).

This relentless obsession with the all-consuming "free market" assumes that all of existence is based on competition and that everything, literally everything, is for sale. That's the flaw in the logic.

Public health isn't for sale. Public discourse isn't for sale. The General Welfare isn't for sale and cannot be achieved through competition. By definition these societal needs cannot be "privatized". That would be an oxymoron.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And they’re not going to listen.

You are correct, of course – but most, if not all, extreme fiscal rightists and libertarians have their heads encased in concrete of dogma.

The only logical recourse is to get libertarians in touch with Mr. Peabody and Sherman to see if they can use the Wayback Machine, that way they can be sent back to the 18th Century where they’ll be truly happy.

…and die at the age of 40 from tainted food or an infection.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Bullshit. It spells out what is NOT permitted, and what rights cannot be infringed.

To imagine the Constitution as some kind of shopping list for what's "permitted" is not only insane, it would have us living in the 18th century. No internet, no television or radio, no telegraph, no telephones, no cars, no electricity. Can't have 'em; they're not in the Constitution.

Get a grip already.

 

[KGB]

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.

And they’re not going to listen.

You are correct, of course – but most, if not all, extreme fiscal rightists and libertarians have their heads encased in concrete of dogma.

The only logical recourse is to get libertarians in touch with Mr. Peabody and Sherman to see if they can use the Wayback Machine, that way they can be sent back to the 18th Century where they’ll be truly happy.

…and die at the age of 40 from tainted food or an infection.

Good grief, you libs think that if mother government went away tomorrow companies would start to kill people intentionally by low standards in the name of profit. It wouldn't happen because pretty soon consumers would go to a different company. Not to mention all the laws in place that protect the consumer.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And they’re not going to listen.

You are correct, of course – but most, if not all, extreme fiscal rightists and libertarians have their heads encased in concrete of dogma.

The only logical recourse is to get libertarians in touch with Mr. Peabody and Sherman to see if they can use the Wayback Machine, that way they can be sent back to the 18th Century where they’ll be truly happy.

…and die at the age of 40 from tainted food or an infection.

True enough, although as far as tainted food, governmental food safety goes back in this country to the 1840s, which is right about when food started to be mass produced as a commodity (as opposed to being grown on one's own land or that of a neighbor). As technology develops new products, some institution must guide its path away from the anarchy of profiteering into the guidelines of public safety. The entity in a position to do that is the government -- certainly not the marketplace. That's what "promote the General Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" refers to.

Without that institutional hand, you have food and drug purveyors selling whatever they want, with any claim they want, because the only objective the marketplace has is profit.

 

[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.

Bullshit. It spells out what is NOT permitted, and what rights cannot be infringed.

To imagine the Constitution as some kind of shopping list for what's "permitted" is not only insane, it would have us living in the 18th century. No internet, no television or radio, no telegraph, no telephones, no cars, no electricity. Can't have 'em; they're not in the Constitution.

Get a grip already.

Are you a complete mental midget? This thread is about what federal departments should be abolished. My answer is to follow the Constitution. This has nothing to do with the crap you spewed above.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I am listening, you're just making an incoherent argument.

The longer your customer base lives the more profits you accrue from them. If profit is the motive, as I don't think you would argue, then the incentive is obviously to keep your customers alive for as long as possible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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).

This relentless obsession with the all-consuming "free market" assumes that all of existence is based on competition and that everything, literally everything, is for sale. That's the flaw in the logic.

Public health isn't for sale. Public discourse isn't for sale. The General Welfare isn't for sale and cannot be achieved through competition. By definition these societal needs cannot be "privatized". That would be an oxymoron.

All meaningless buzz words.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Bullshit. It spells out what is NOT permitted, and what rights cannot be infringed.

To imagine the Constitution as some kind of shopping list for what's "permitted" is not only insane, it would have us living in the 18th century. No internet, no television or radio, no telegraph, no telephones, no cars, no electricity. Can't have 'em; they're not in the Constitution.

Get a grip already.

Except that it explicitly states that that's exactly what it is.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I am listening, you're just making an incoherent argument.

The longer your customer base lives the more profits you accrue from them. If profit is the motive, as I don't think you would argue, then the incentive is obviously to keep your customers alive for as long as possible.

The fact that R.J. Reynolds exists disproves that argument. That was easy.

Once again (third time now) in any business there is cost on the negative side and profit on the positive. Customers dying off because your product gave them lung cancer is a cost. If that cost overrode the profit level, the product would cease to exist. Obviously it doesn't. What does this tell us? That the objective is profit, not public health.

 

[Contumacious]

[Without that institutional hand, you have food and drug purveyors selling whatever they want, with any claim they want, because the only objective the marketplace has is profit.

Upton Sinclair is famous for his 1906 book, The Jungle, which, among other things, described what were supposedly horrific conditions in the meat packing industry in Chicago. While most history books treat his depiction of rats and even humans being processed into meat sold to consumers as gospel truth, his book was simply untrue and represented a crude attempt to convince Americans that socialism was their only hope. (Investigation after investigation of the meat packing industry showed Sinclair’s claims to be false.

 

[Pogo]

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).

This relentless obsession with the all-consuming "free market" assumes that all of existence is based on competition and that everything, literally everything, is for sale. That's the flaw in the logic.

Public health isn't for sale. Public discourse isn't for sale. The General Welfare isn't for sale and cannot be achieved through competition. By definition these societal needs cannot be "privatized". That would be an oxymoron.

All meaningless buzz words.

"General Welfare" and "the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity" are from the Constitution. The public trust emanates from that. And that same document provides for governmental instruments to regulate that commerce in accordance with the General Welfare. Remembering also that any corporation exists at the pleasure of We the People, not at the pleasure of itself.

Hey -- come up with a world where an intervening hand on the market isn't necessary and invent your own new government. Be sure to break it here first.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I am listening, you're just making an incoherent argument.

The longer your customer base lives the more profits you accrue from them. If profit is the motive, as I don't think you would argue, then the incentive is obviously to keep your customers alive for as long as possible.

The fact that R.J. Reynolds exists disproves that argument. That was easy.

Once again (third time now) in any business there is cost on the negative side and profit on the positive. Customers dying off because your product gave them lung cancer is a cost. If that cost overrode the profit level, the product would cease to exist. Obviously it doesn't. What does this tell us? That the objective is profit, not public health.

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, we were all clear on that. The problem is you're not actually responding to anything, and making two opposite arguments. You say profits are the objective, but then argue that they're willing to accept these costs and don't care about them. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This relentless obsession with the all-consuming "free market" assumes that all of existence is based on competition and that everything, literally everything, is for sale. That's the flaw in the logic.

Public health isn't for sale. Public discourse isn't for sale. The General Welfare isn't for sale and cannot be achieved through competition. By definition these societal needs cannot be "privatized". That would be an oxymoron.

All meaningless buzz words.

"General Welfare" and "the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity" are from the Constitution. The public trust emanates from that. And that same document provides for governmental instruments to regulate that commerce in accordance with the General Welfare. Remembering also that any corporation exists at the pleasure of We the People, not at the pleasure of itself.

Hey -- come up with a world where an intervening hand on the market isn't necessary and invent your own new government. Be sure to break it here first.

Yes, and very nice poetry they are. Unfortunately that's all they are. They don't mean anything specific. And you're partly right that corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, meaning the people that they serve and who pay them for that service.

 

[Pogo]

I am listening, you're just making an incoherent argument.

The longer your customer base lives the more profits you accrue from them. If profit is the motive, as I don't think you would argue, then the incentive is obviously to keep your customers alive for as long as possible.

The fact that R.J. Reynolds exists disproves that argument. That was easy.

Once again (third time now) in any business there is cost on the negative side and profit on the positive. Customers dying off because your product gave them lung cancer is a cost. If that cost overrode the profit level, the product would cease to exist. Obviously it doesn't. What does this tell us? That the objective is profit, not public health.

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, we were all clear on that. The problem is you're not actually responding to anything, and making two opposite arguments. You say profits are the objective, but then argue that they're willing to accept these costs and don't care about them. You can't have it both ways.

There IS only one way in that point. What part of it are you not getting?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fact that R.J. Reynolds exists disproves that argument. That was easy.

Once again (third time now) in any business there is cost on the negative side and profit on the positive. Customers dying off because your product gave them lung cancer is a cost. If that cost overrode the profit level, the product would cease to exist. Obviously it doesn't. What does this tell us? That the objective is profit, not public health.

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, we were all clear on that. The problem is you're not actually responding to anything, and making two opposite arguments. You say profits are the objective, but then argue that they're willing to accept these costs and don't care about them. You can't have it both ways.

There IS only one way in that point. What part of it are you not getting?

Well I'm not sure what you're saying in that bolded portion there, but I'll simply reiterate that only caring about profits and not caring about costs are mutually exclusive positions. Either you only care about profits, and will do whatever is necessary to eliminate costs (Your consumers dying), or you don't care about profits and are willing to let your costs mount up.

 

[Pogo]

All meaningless buzz words.

"General Welfare" and "the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity" are from the Constitution. The public trust emanates from that. And that same document provides for governmental instruments to regulate that commerce in accordance with the General Welfare. Remembering also that any corporation exists at the pleasure of We the People, not at the pleasure of itself.

Hey -- come up with a world where an intervening hand on the market isn't necessary and invent your own new government. Be sure to break it here first.

Yes, and very nice poetry they are. Unfortunately that's all they are. They don't mean anything specific. And you're partly right that corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, meaning the people that they serve and who pay them for that service.

No -- meaning they have a public charter giving them the right to exist in the first place. We give them that; they don't just pluck it out of thin air. And that means they're going to play by our rules, not by anarchy.

Again, the challenge is open... invent a world where dangerous food additives and bogus drugs curb themselves off the market without intervention. Oh wait, we tried that, and we had snake oil and toxic foods, and that begat the FDA.

So come up with a way to do it and then we can get rid of it. But until that happens, ain't gonna happen. We the People won't stand for it.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, you keep repeating yourself, we were all clear on that. The problem is you're not actually responding to anything, and making two opposite arguments. You say profits are the objective, but then argue that they're willing to accept these costs and don't care about them. You can't have it both ways.

There IS only one way in that point. What part of it are you not getting?

Well I'm not sure what you're saying in that bolded portion there, but I'll simply reiterate that only caring about profits and not caring about costs are mutually exclusive positions. Either you only care about profits, and will do whatever is necessary to eliminate costs (Your consumers dying), or you don't care about profits and are willing to let your costs mount up.

You're inserting your own strawman here. I never said they "didn't care about costs". I said they didn't care that those costs involved public health. If you have to reinvent your adversary's argument to counter it, you're not making an argument.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"General Welfare" and "the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity" are from the Constitution. The public trust emanates from that. And that same document provides for governmental instruments to regulate that commerce in accordance with the General Welfare. Remembering also that any corporation exists at the pleasure of We the People, not at the pleasure of itself.

Hey -- come up with a world where an intervening hand on the market isn't necessary and invent your own new government. Be sure to break it here first.

Yes, and very nice poetry they are. Unfortunately that's all they are. They don't mean anything specific. And you're partly right that corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, meaning the people that they serve and who pay them for that service.

No -- meaning they have a public charter giving them the right to exist in the first place. We give them that; they don't just pluck it out of thin air. And that means they're going to play by our rules, not by anarchy.

Again, the challenge is open... invent a world where dangerous food additives and bogus drugs curb themselves off the market without intervention. Oh wait, we tried that, and we had snake oil and toxic foods, and that begat the FDA.

So come up with a way to do it and then we can get rid of it. But until that happens, ain't gonna happen. We the People won't stand for it.

No, they have their justly acquired property giving them the right to exist.

I am not God. I don't invent worlds. I'm sure you think that you're being witty, but you're not making any sense.