The Government does know more than me about a great many things.

[techs]

So I went to the supermarket to shop. Is it ok to have proplene glycol in my food? and if so, how much?
Thank goodnes the government has experts who regulate food.
Otherwise I would have to spend years learning about food additives and their effects on people. Though without the governments tests, I probably still wouldn't know.

Then I went to fill up my tank. And for some reason the gasoline was lead free. I guess the government knew lead was bad for everyone. So they forced the oil companies to remove it. Well, that saved me another few years of studying fuel additives and lead toxicity.

And when I filled my car with 20 gallons of gas, lo and behold, I got 20 gallons. I guess without the government I would have to buy some device to measure how much gas I was really getting.

And when I went to buy my car, they gave me a loan agreement. Wow was it complicated. I guess without the government I would have to bring just about any financial agreement from a mortgage to a credit card to a health insurance plan to a lawyer and hope he understands it enough to give me a recommendation.

And lucky me, I thought it was ok to do 95 mph on the hiway where near where I live. But the government said do 55. So I was only doing 65 when the guy doing 95 passed me and spun out and died.

Anyway, I have a head ache. I think I will take two aspirin.
I guess its a good thing the government knows some more things than I do. Or else the aspirin might have killed me.



The problem is not that we rely on the government too much, or that we would be better off with less government regulation.
Clearly we need government regulation.
We just need BETTER government.

 

[JD50]

What is the point of this thread?

 

[Farang]

Today I wanted to buy some groceries. I was very hungry. I ran headfirst into the door. It hurt. I tried again but the door stopped me immediately and I fell down. I don't know how long I lay unconscious, but when I came to my head was throbbing with pain. I am still hungry. The government has not yet taught me how to open the door.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would you need the government if everybody carried a gun?

 

[xeemzor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you need the government if everybody carried a gun?

That depends, do you think conditions similar to Somalia would be ideal in the United States?

 

[bamacre]

While techs depends on the government, I depend on knowing the government to be corrupt.

 

[Stunt]

What a terrible argument advocating government; very short sighted.

a) If a company produced food with harmful additives, there'd be legal accountability; if people were harmed, I doubt the company would have many customers.
b) Removal of lead from gasoline is something consumers could have demanded without government intervention. Transfats have been removed from many foods without government regulation.
c) If I was getting scammed at the pump, I wouldn't shop there; again I doubt this company would have many customers when this gets discovered
d) Any company loaning money which doesn't get repaid will not be in business long, it really is too bad people aren't dilligent in understanding the agreements they sign.
e) I can kill myself driving 55 and government didn't prevent the guy from going 95. Safe driving is the responsibility of the individual; government doesn't save lives here.
f) Again, asprin companies wouldn't be in business if their product killed people.

The problem with government is people think we need it to live our lives when in reality it causes more hardache for people than good. Fifty percent of most nation's gross productivity is regulated by the government; a select few of non-experts deciding what's better for us instead of ourselves. I trust my own judgement far more than any other person; especially those funded by special interests and activists.

Without government regulation, I would expect far more 'consumer reports' type companies in business with well documented research and recommendations for people to reference. Today we spend 50% of our livelihood on a bureaucracy that is very ineffective in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

He is tired of getting his ass handed to him on other threads so he had to create this one to justify his love of more government.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

He is tired of getting his ass handed to him on other threads so he had to create this one to justify his love of more government.

If you want to win an argument with a liberal...just ask them what government department is well run and most people are happy with...
Then ask them why should they be given the authority to expand their jurisdiction.

In Canada there is a debate over publicly funded childcare...So you hate the healthcare system, you hate the education system...yet you want another broad government social program because you think it needs government "help"? hah!

 

[ProfJohn]

It is estimated that government regulations cost the economy between $1 and $1.5 trillion a year. That works out to $4000ish per person.

Health care regulations cost us $169 billion a year themselves. A lot of this is due to over regulation caused by knee jerk decisions.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

Satirical smack towards the reduction of government. Against all libertarian/conservative principals.

 

[Stunt]

Obviously without government, companies would only produce items that killed off their customers and source of revenue...
I hope government never leaves or we are all going to die!!

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Stunt
What a terrible argument advocating government; very short sighted.

a) If a company produced food with harmful additives, there'd be legal accountability; if people were harmed, I doubt the company would have many customers.
b) Removal of lead from gasoline is something consumers could have demanded without government intervention. Transfats have been removed from many foods without government regulation.
c) If I was getting scammed at the pump, I wouldn't shop there; again I doubt this company would have many customers when this gets discovered
d) Any company loaning money which doesn't get repaid will not be in business long, it really is too bad people aren't dilligent in understanding the agreements they sign.
e) I can kill myself driving 55 and government didn't prevent the guy from going 95. Safe driving is the responsibility of the individual; government doesn't save lives here.
f) Again, asprin companies wouldn't be in business if their product killed people.

The problem with government is people think we need it to live our lives when in reality it causes more hardache for people than good. Fifty percent of most nation's gross productivity is regulated by the government; a select few of non-experts deciding what's better for us instead of ourselves. I trust my own judgement far more than any other person; especially those funded by special interests and activists.

Without government regulation, I would expect far more 'consumer reports' type companies in business with well documented research and recommendations for people to reference. Today we spend 50% of our livelihood on a bureaucracy that is very ineffective in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

Yeah, this has worked well for China...right?

Chinese companies routinely sell foods that are poisonous to their customers. Look at the recent dog food episode.
Lead paint? Ring any bells?

While I agree with many that too much government regulation is bad, having NO government regulation would be worse, since companies ONLY care about their bottom line, NOT the consumers. Kill a few with faulty products? Settle out of court with non-disclosure agreements.

 

[Jaskalas]

Thank goodness we have experts in government to tell us when to start wars.

Thank goodness we have patriot acts to protect us from fellow Americans.

Thank goodness we have taxes and regulations to sink our economy.

Thank goodness we have government to ENFORCE upon the states and local authorities that no one shall enforce the border and immigration laws.

Originally posted by: techs
The problem is not that we rely on the government too much, or that we would be better off with less government regulation.
Clearly we need government regulation.
We just need BETTER government.

That?s what people said about Kings. We just need a good King to rule over us benevolently. Forget the pesky little fact that bads ones WILL come to power and slaughter the people. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, yay for the authoritarian to rule the sheeple!

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Stunt
What a terrible argument advocating government; very short sighted.

a) If a company produced food with harmful additives, there'd be legal accountability; if people were harmed, I doubt the company would have many customers.
b) Removal of lead from gasoline is something consumers could have demanded without government intervention. Transfats have been removed from many foods without government regulation.
c) If I was getting scammed at the pump, I wouldn't shop there; again I doubt this company would have many customers when this gets discovered
d) Any company loaning money which doesn't get repaid will not be in business long, it really is too bad people aren't dilligent in understanding the agreements they sign.
e) I can kill myself driving 55 and government didn't prevent the guy from going 95. Safe driving is the responsibility of the individual; government doesn't save lives here.
f) Again, asprin companies wouldn't be in business if their product killed people.

The problem with government is people think we need it to live our lives when in reality it causes more hardache for people than good. Fifty percent of most nation's gross productivity is regulated by the government; a select few of non-experts deciding what's better for us instead of ourselves. I trust my own judgement far more than any other person; especially those funded by special interests and activists.

Without government regulation, I would expect far more 'consumer reports' type companies in business with well documented research and recommendations for people to reference. Today we spend 50% of our livelihood on a bureaucracy that is very ineffective in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

Yeah, this has worked well for China...right?

Chinese companies routinely sell foods that are poisonous to their customers. Look at the recent dog food episode.
Lead paint? Ring any bells?

While I agree with many that too much government regulation is bad, having NO government regulation would be worse, since companies ONLY care about their bottom line, NOT the consumers. Kill a few with faulty products? Settle out of court with non-disclosure agreements.

China is a piss poor example; they doesn't allow organized labour, the legal system leaves a lot to be desired, individual rights are not recognized and access/transfer of information is restricted.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

I believe it's in reference to my signature. But the point of the thread is to allow tech's to felate the government pole that he relies on for nourishment.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Stunt
What a terrible argument advocating government; very short sighted.

a) If a company produced food with harmful additives, there'd be legal accountability; if people were harmed, I doubt the company would have many customers.

No government => no courts => no means of recourse except violence or threat of violence.

b) Removal of lead from gasoline is something consumers could have demanded without government intervention. Transfats have been removed from many foods without government regulation.

How would people have known lead in gas was bad w/o government funded studies? Tell me what you personally know about transfats. Where did that knowledge originate?

c) If I was getting scammed at the pump, I wouldn't shop there; again I doubt this company would have many customers when this gets discovered

How would it get discovered? As the OP stated, the only way to figure it out would be to measure the gas yourself every time you fill up. Not a very efficient use of time.

d) Any company loaning money which doesn't get repaid will not be in business long, it really is too bad people aren't dilligent in understanding the agreements they sign.

I agree with you on this one. If you can't understand a contract, don't sign it.

e) I can kill myself driving 55 and government didn't prevent the guy from going 95. Safe driving is the responsibility of the individual; government doesn't save lives here.
f) Again, asprin companies wouldn't be in business if their product killed people.

Tobacco companies do just fine.

The problem with government is people think we need it to live our lives when in reality it causes more hardache for people than good. Fifty percent of most nation's gross productivity is regulated by the government; a select few of non-experts deciding what's better for us instead of ourselves. I trust my own judgement far more than any other person; especially those funded by special interests and activists.

Without government regulation, I would expect far more 'consumer reports' type companies in business with well documented research and recommendations for people to reference. Today we spend 50% of our livelihood on a bureaucracy that is very ineffective in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

Why is government ineffective? IMHO, government is effective when politicians want it to be and very ineffective when it suits those same politicians. On the other hand, government inefficiency is the last bastion of freedom.

Consumer reports type organizations are good for covering the obvious (vacuum cleaner A sucked more dirt than B) but who will cough up the money to provide meaningful research/reviews of new drugs and other complex products? It's hard enough to police the FDA and attempt to keep it objective. Imagine trying to figure out which independent reviewers were independent and which were on the take.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is estimated that government regulations cost the economy between $1 and $1.5 trillion a year. That works out to $4000ish per person.

Health care regulations cost us $169 billion a year themselves. A lot of this is due to over regulation caused by knee jerk decisions.

i'd love to see a source for that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt
What a terrible argument advocating government; very short sighted.

a) If a company produced food with harmful additives, there'd be legal accountability; if people were harmed, I doubt the company would have many customers.
b) Removal of lead from gasoline is something consumers could have demanded without government intervention. Transfats have been removed from many foods without government regulation.
c) If I was getting scammed at the pump, I wouldn't shop there; again I doubt this company would have many customers when this gets discovered
d) Any company loaning money which doesn't get repaid will not be in business long, it really is too bad people aren't dilligent in understanding the agreements they sign.
e) I can kill myself driving 55 and government didn't prevent the guy from going 95. Safe driving is the responsibility of the individual; government doesn't save lives here.
f) Again, asprin companies wouldn't be in business if their product killed people.

The problem with government is people think we need it to live our lives when in reality it causes more hardache for people than good. Fifty percent of most nation's gross productivity is regulated by the government; a select few of non-experts deciding what's better for us instead of ourselves. I trust my own judgement far more than any other person; especially those funded by special interests and activists.

Without government regulation, I would expect far more 'consumer reports' type companies in business with well documented research and recommendations for people to reference. Today we spend 50% of our livelihood on a bureaucracy that is very ineffective in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

And your argument is equally silly because you're substituting one extreme for the other. Consumers COULD be very well educated about all the products a company makes and band together to make the appropriate demands, but here's the thing...quite often they don't. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're right that transfats have been removed from many foods because many consumers are educated on this topic. But while consumers COULD have demanded lead free gasoline, they didn't, mostly because the average consumer did NOT have the information necessary to make that decision.

What's stupid here isn't liberal or conservative views, it's the one size fits all mentality that gives rise to extremists on both sides who think the answer to every question of government intervention or not must be answered the same way. "Big government" and "small government" are both ridiculous ideologies because not every situation is the same, and treating them as if they were seems a lot like the guy with just a hammer seeing every problem as something that can be solved by hammering.

Where's the ideology that says we should look at every individual issue and decide if the government can provide a good solution or if it's best left alone? Call me crazy, but that seems like a way better idea if you ask me.

 

[StageLeft]

Thank you, capt obvious!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

He is tired of getting his ass handed to him on other threads so he had to create this one to justify his love of more government.

If you want to win an argument with a liberal...just ask them what government department is well run and most people are happy with...
Then ask them why should they be given the authority to expand their jurisdiction.

...

I think you're confusing being a smart-ass with actually making an intelligent argument. People love to complain about everything they possibly can, asking the average person what government department is well run and they are happy with, you're going to get a dumb answer because the average person has no idea what the government does or how efficiently it does it. It's human nature to complain, but very few people notice things when they just work.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

He is tired of getting his ass handed to him on other threads so he had to create this one to justify his love of more government.

If you want to win an argument with a liberal...just ask them what government department is well run and most people are happy with...
Then ask them why should they be given the authority to expand their jurisdiction.

...

I think you're confusing being a smart-ass with actually making an intelligent argument. People love to complain about everything they possibly can, asking the average person what government department is well run and they are happy with, you're going to get a dumb answer because the average person has no idea what the government does or how efficiently it does it. It's human nature to complain, but very few people notice things when they just work.

I guess most people couldn't be bothered to read the whole post.
The problem is not that we rely on the government too much, or that we would be better off with less government regulation.
Clearly we need government regulation.
We just need BETTER government.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
What a terrible argument advocating government; very short sighted.

a) If a company produced food with harmful additives, there'd be legal accountability; if people were harmed, I doubt the company would have many customers.
b) Removal of lead from gasoline is something consumers could have demanded without government intervention. Transfats have been removed from many foods without government regulation.
c) If I was getting scammed at the pump, I wouldn't shop there; again I doubt this company would have many customers when this gets discovered
d) Any company loaning money which doesn't get repaid will not be in business long, it really is too bad people aren't dilligent in understanding the agreements they sign.
e) I can kill myself driving 55 and government didn't prevent the guy from going 95. Safe driving is the responsibility of the individual; government doesn't save lives here.
f) Again, asprin companies wouldn't be in business if their product killed people.

The problem with government is people think we need it to live our lives when in reality it causes more hardache for people than good. Fifty percent of most nation's gross productivity is regulated by the government; a select few of non-experts deciding what's better for us instead of ourselves. I trust my own judgement far more than any other person; especially those funded by special interests and activists.

Without government regulation, I would expect far more 'consumer reports' type companies in business with well documented research and recommendations for people to reference. Today we spend 50% of our livelihood on a bureaucracy that is very ineffective in the jurisdictions in which it operates.

And your argument is equally silly because you're substituting one extreme for the other. Consumers COULD be very well educated about all the products a company makes and band together to make the appropriate demands, but here's the thing...quite often they don't. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're right that transfats have been removed from many foods because many consumers are educated on this topic. But while consumers COULD have demanded lead free gasoline, they didn't, mostly because the average consumer did NOT have the information necessary to make that decision.

What's stupid here isn't liberal or conservative views, it's the one size fits all mentality that gives rise to extremists on both sides who think the answer to every question of government intervention or not must be answered the same way. "Big government" and "small government" are both ridiculous ideologies because not every situation is the same, and treating them as if they were seems a lot like the guy with just a hammer seeing every problem as something that can be solved by hammering.

Where's the ideology that says we should look at every individual issue and decide if the government can provide a good solution or if it's best left alone? Call me crazy, but that seems like a way better idea if you ask me.

Perhaps it would force people to be more informed on the decisions they make on a day to day basis. Most are hesitant to support the small government way of life because they've come to rely on government for everything.

Government is involved in so many things around the world it's ridiculous; in quebec all electricity is owned and sold by government, in ontario all liquor and beer is owned and sold by government, in BC all insurance is owned and sold by the government. When people are born, they accept past traditions without clearly understanding or debating the reasons for these institutions. If you ask most Canadians, they will tell you that healthcare is something the state should administer and nobody else because that's what we've been born into. Nobody challenges it or makes significant efforts to reform it because that would be politically unpopular. This mindset prevents improvement and fails all people who are forced to use the system. Where does one draw the line with an institution that can be infinite in size! Techs has in effect advocated no limit in government's size, jurisdiction and intervention; a horrible situation to say the least!

The three essentials for life are food, clothing and shelter...all are minimally regulated industries (relative to healthcare/security) and all do quite well in servicing their respective consumers. I don't advocate the elimination of government, I do see some value in regulation (rules and enforcement), but government is many times larger than its own good. A regulatory body should consume no more than 5% of an economy...the animal we have represents 50-60% of our productivity...it's astonishing.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

He is tired of getting his ass handed to him on other threads so he had to create this one to justify his love of more government.

If you want to win an argument with a liberal...just ask them what government department is well run and most people are happy with...
Then ask them why should they be given the authority to expand their jurisdiction.
...

I think you're confusing being a smart-ass with actually making an intelligent argument. People love to complain about everything they possibly can, asking the average person what government department is well run and they are happy with, you're going to get a dumb answer because the average person has no idea what the government does or how efficiently it does it. It's human nature to complain, but very few people notice things when they just work.

I guess most people couldn't be bothered to read the whole post.
The problem is not that we rely on the government too much, or that we would be better off with less government regulation.
Clearly we need government regulation.
We just need BETTER government.

There's no checks and balances in place to force government to improve and adapt as you advocate. In the private sector there's competition, consumers who are given the choice between products, investors who can reduce an entity to nothing. With government you don't get this accountability and this will never change in any significant way.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JD50
What is the point of this thread?

He is tired of getting his ass handed to him on other threads so he had to create this one to justify his love of more government.

If you want to win an argument with a liberal...just ask them what government department is well run and most people are happy with...
Then ask them why should they be given the authority to expand their jurisdiction.

...

I think you're confusing being a smart-ass with actually making an intelligent argument. People love to complain about everything they possibly can, asking the average person what government department is well run and they are happy with, you're going to get a dumb answer because the average person has no idea what the government does or how efficiently it does it. It's human nature to complain, but very few people notice things when they just work.

I guess most people couldn't be bothered to read the whole post.
The problem is not that we rely on the government too much, or that we would be better off with less government regulation.
Clearly we need government regulation.
We just need BETTER government.

So where do we go for better government? All you can do Techs is complain and make useless threads all day. You are a typical liberal moron, all you can do is bitch and come up with ZERO solutions.

Are we supposed to outsource our government to another country with honest people? cause guess what mammas boy, the government is made up of AMERICANS that YOU voted in.