- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,043
- 8,742
- 136
I just saw this post by Jaskalas in an OT thread about warning lables on peanuts. Apparently, it wasn't about the comic strip at all! ()
I typed out the following response, then thought better of it, so I'm posting it here, where I hope (against hope and sad experience) that a productive discussion on political philosophy, which would have semi-sidetracked that thread, might here ensue.
Here's to reckless optimism!
To me, putting warning labels on food products is a legitimate function of our government, as described by our Founding Fathers quite explicitly in their detailed explanatory preamble to our Constitution:
It's also why I believe we need a single payer, national health care system as well, as our current one spends twice as much per capita as any other industrialized nation, with some successes but also measurably worse results across a broad range of metrics, for instance.
But with that example, I don't mean to digress from my basic question, which expressed in one way would be, "How do you interpret "promote the general welfare?"
I am not calling out Jaskalas here. I really do tend to respect him far more than many other posters here, both from the left and the right. But I also really do want to know how a self-professed Libertarian can seem to support food warning labels while also presumably being in favor of radically limited government.
I typed out the following response, then thought better of it, so I'm posting it here, where I hope (against hope and sad experience) that a productive discussion on political philosophy, which would have semi-sidetracked that thread, might here ensue.
Here's to reckless optimism!
With fatal consequences, is it not better safe than sorry?
Sorry for the P&N interlude, but your answer necessitates my question. You have described yourself as a radical right Libertarian, saying, just recently, "It's us radical right who are Libertarians that despise Romney."
Fair enough! :thumbsup:
So, how do you reconcile your seeming support of this with your limited government, Libertarian ideals?
Where in the constitution does it specifically enumerate putting warning labels on foodstuffs as a function of government?
I'm really not trying to unfairly yank your chain here, J. We don't often agree politically, but I respect you even when we don't.
To me, putting warning labels on food products is a legitimate function of our government, as described by our Founding Fathers quite explicitly in their detailed explanatory preamble to our Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's also why I believe we need a single payer, national health care system as well, as our current one spends twice as much per capita as any other industrialized nation, with some successes but also measurably worse results across a broad range of metrics, for instance.
But with that example, I don't mean to digress from my basic question, which expressed in one way would be, "How do you interpret "promote the general welfare?"
I am not calling out Jaskalas here. I really do tend to respect him far more than many other posters here, both from the left and the right. But I also really do want to know how a self-professed Libertarian can seem to support food warning labels while also presumably being in favor of radically limited government.