These are all reasons why i say the FDA causes more harm then good.
People should be free to make their own choices. hell, even if we keep the FDA, people should allowed to use things not approved by the FDA.
But people always look blankly at you if you suggest the FDA doesn't really protect you, and we should get rid of it. (or in slashdot's case, it's mock you or mod you down).
It's a shame that people don't understand what? that they have a choice of a browser? and that all those choices, are for the most part almost identical?
Seriously, it's not a shame, it's people choosing what they do or don't invest their time in.
well what's the bad stuff that's happened? refering to the recent crash? well let's look, fed lowers interest rates (aka prints money and gives it to banks), banks gamble with free money, lose, then federal government buys them out. Who's really at fault here? not to mention we encouraged banks to lend to more people. Bubble created, bubble popped. and not all banks did gamble. we should have let those who were responsible, acquire the assets of those who weren't. but instead, we prop up the irresponsible banks. it's a failure of government intervention. and soon enough, we're gonna pay an even bigger price. And somehow it'll all get magically blamed on the free market, and on deregulation. nevermind we have a shitton of regulation already in place.
like i said, they did infrastructure. but did they make it into the incredible resource it is today? no. And again, the defense is a legitimate function of government.
I said, it was one of the places with the least amount of government involved. Or you think the FCC and patent office help the technology market in some way?
Yes the government provided some of the infrastructure. But it's still been relatively hands off.
I'm also glad governments keep their hands off the software, and don't contribute anything to open source projects, especially well-known security software, or assist software vendors in improving security, because that would be socialism.
Government has legitimate roles, and if they contribute to open source, through those roles, I have no problem. In fact government software, should be public domain by default anyways.
I said with the least amount involved, and was mostly implying regulations/controlling/ownership. Contributing to open source or the other points you made, hardly, imo, would count as government being very involved.
It's naive, because I haven't worked on java apps that had to run on windows, linux, solaris, aix, hp-ux and even z/OS... oh wait I have. No, it doesn't cover every area you may want to touch, as GP pointed out. But the WORA idea has been quite successful, for many projects.
yes. regulations are a form of socialism. aren't they? government control is socialism. regulations are government control. And yes our economy is heavily socialised with all the regulations. Child labor laws are as well, but i do think there's a role for state/local government to make laws regarding children.
Umm libertarianism boils down to people don't have a right to force you to do anything, and so long as you don't force others to do something, you can do whatever you please. It is absolutely the opposite of just about any sort of tyranny. Yes, libertarians generally want some small, limited government, so there is use of force in that regard, but it's pretty minor, and smaller than just about any other political paradigm i'm aware of.
why should businesses even be involved in employee's healthcare? Well, i can't speak for the UK but in the US it's because (shocker) the government. guess who gets tax breaks and who doesn't on insurance? Even if i could negotiate with my employer to give me a raise and not have any medical benefits, it would still cost me a lot more. thus it follows people get their insurance through their employer, thus tying them to their job. And, the fact that there are so many rules on medical insurance, it becomes incredibly hard to shop around for insurance, even if i want to do it as an individual.
socialism = government owned/controlled. if the federal government requires everyone to have healthcare that's socialized healthcare. not as hardcore as them running it, but some bad effects are still there.
yeah, and what causes these problems we have in america? government intervention. These problems didn't exist 50 years ago. going to the doctor's was cheap, people didn't get turned down, it was a much better system.
You know, there's many problems with the other major implementations of universal health care.
Plenty of problems in canada, plenty of problems in UK.
Oh sweden has great medical care? swell, all seven million of them. That really doesn't compare to the 300 million in the US. Not to mention, these types of universal systems, work better in a more homogeneous environment. Which is generally the case when you look at the EU countries.
But really, their systems will end up costing them a lot more, and may at some point collapse entirely. It took communism in the soviet union 70 years to fully collapse. this stuff does not happen over night.
But besides all that. what is health care, it's a good/service. and what method best delivers goods and services? the free market. It delivers all those other things you rely on, cheaply and effectively. medical care is certainly not as essential to life, as food is, but you don't rely on universal healthcare for that.
Not to mention any federal healthcare is illegal. There is certainly no place in the constitution that allows for something like health care.
But don't worry everyone, socialized medical care is coming. and it will suck, and you'll then want more government control, and more. Thanks a lot.
and how is it you'll get great people to manage universal health care? Even if you get 1 guy in there for awhile, you'll have to replace him at somepoint. But it usually doesn't even last that long. You get a bunch of bureaucrats writing these bills, and then people are shocked when it sucks.
Socialism really does not work. At some point, we will really learn this.
How does this crap get modded up? libertarians are racists and homophobes? i'm not really sure how to respond to that, other than to say, the ideal of libertarianism is pretty much against any sort of collectivist thought, so we're by definition about as un racist/homophobic as you can get.
And nutbags? what's so nutty about any of the libertarian positions? if you think about them for half a minute, and don't just knee jerk react to the views, i don't think you'd find they're nutty.
The problem with the idea of smaller government is that the elected officials start believing that getting elected is all there is to doing their job as government, ie. there is no need for expertise within that field. Look at FEMA and New Orleans.
So you cite an example of big government failure, as a reason against small government?
My point is, the government should be solving technical problems. It is chronically incompetent. You seem to be implying that it should, and then if the government reduces itself, it won't be able to do these things. Which would be the point.
FWIW, I know engineers from competing car companies who have analyzed Toyota's cars. They clinic/disassemble them frequently enough to see some of the shenanigans that Toyota has pulled. Nothing was avoided because they all have a code of silence amongst them. Just because you know Toyota is pulling some shit doesn't mean you go running to the public about it. Because Toyota will do the same to you. Government has nothing to do with it.
Government regulates the car industry. People look to the government for the car to be safe. If the government wasn't there, people would look some place else. And if these companies were aware of problems(or should have been) and did nothing, they would not likely remain in business very long, without some changes.
Years of deregulation and resource starvation have strangulated our regulatory agencies to the point where they are unable to act.
What deregulation has happened? there was virtually no deregulation under bush. Under Obama? Under clinton? this is all the fault of reagan somehow?
Greenspan is no libertarian. The system is collapsing because of too much government. Not because of too little. Or the big government attitude of Bush/Obama not enough government for you?
Slashdot Mirror
These are all reasons why i say the FDA causes more harm then good.
People should be free to make their own choices. hell, even if we keep the FDA, people should allowed to use things not approved by the FDA.
But people always look blankly at you if you suggest the FDA doesn't really protect you, and we should get rid of it. (or in slashdot's case, it's mock you or mod you down).
umm no. what's your point? i don't think the government should have any say in the browsers.
It's a shame that people don't understand what? that they have a choice of a browser? and that all those choices, are for the most part almost identical?
Seriously, it's not a shame, it's people choosing what they do or don't invest their time in.
So what you're saying, is the the MS platform is essentially superior to Apple/linux and thus people choose to buy it. Really, sounds fine to me.
it's not necessary at all. You think the milk you drink is fresh and ok because the FDA makes it, or because you wouldn't buy it, if it wasn't?
This is even more ridiculous, because no one's health is at stake. It's a friggin browser, and all of the major ones are available for free anyways.
well what's the bad stuff that's happened? refering to the recent crash? well let's look, fed lowers interest rates (aka prints money and gives it to banks), banks gamble with free money, lose, then federal government buys them out. Who's really at fault here? not to mention we encouraged banks to lend to more people. Bubble created, bubble popped. and not all banks did gamble. we should have let those who were responsible, acquire the assets of those who weren't. but instead, we prop up the irresponsible banks. it's a failure of government intervention. and soon enough, we're gonna pay an even bigger price. And somehow it'll all get magically blamed on the free market, and on deregulation. nevermind we have a shitton of regulation already in place.
like i said, they did infrastructure. but did they make it into the incredible resource it is today? no. And again, the defense is a legitimate function of government.
a legitimate function of the government(defense), contributed to the internet. what's your point? I said it had minimal government involvement.
I said, it was one of the places with the least amount of government involved. Or you think the FCC and patent office help the technology market in some way?
Yes the government provided some of the infrastructure. But it's still been relatively hands off.
I'm also glad governments keep their hands off the software, and don't contribute anything to open source projects, especially well-known security software, or assist software vendors in improving security, because that would be socialism.
Government has legitimate roles, and if they contribute to open source, through those roles, I have no problem. In fact government software, should be public domain by default anyways.
I said with the least amount involved, and was mostly implying regulations/controlling/ownership. Contributing to open source or the other points you made, hardly, imo, would count as government being very involved.
It's naive, because I haven't worked on java apps that had to run on windows, linux, solaris, aix, hp-ux and even z/OS... oh wait I have. No, it doesn't cover every area you may want to touch, as GP pointed out. But the WORA idea has been quite successful, for many projects.
but free markets can work to the advantage of the society, given right conditions. This seems to be one of those cases.
and technology is one of the areas with the least amount of government involved. This is not a coincidence.
yes. regulations are a form of socialism. aren't they? government control is socialism. regulations are government control. And yes our economy is heavily socialised with all the regulations. Child labor laws are as well, but i do think there's a role for state/local government to make laws regarding children.
Umm libertarianism boils down to people don't have a right to force you to do anything, and so long as you don't force others to do something, you can do whatever you please. It is absolutely the opposite of just about any sort of tyranny. Yes, libertarians generally want some small, limited government, so there is use of force in that regard, but it's pretty minor, and smaller than just about any other political paradigm i'm aware of.
why should businesses even be involved in employee's healthcare? Well, i can't speak for the UK but in the US it's because (shocker) the government. guess who gets tax breaks and who doesn't on insurance? Even if i could negotiate with my employer to give me a raise and not have any medical benefits, it would still cost me a lot more. thus it follows people get their insurance through their employer, thus tying them to their job. And, the fact that there are so many rules on medical insurance, it becomes incredibly hard to shop around for insurance, even if i want to do it as an individual.
do you mind when people profit off your food purchases?
I know right, the idea that people can decide for themselves what to do in their life, really nutty.
that people can do what they want with there body, and it's no business of the government. What nuttiness.
that free markets bring you the stuff you enjoy and need better than any socialized system could, and history has shown this time and time again.
STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!!!!!
socialism = government owned/controlled. if the federal government requires everyone to have healthcare that's socialized healthcare. not as hardcore as them running it, but some bad effects are still there.
yeah, and what causes these problems we have in america? government intervention. These problems didn't exist 50 years ago. going to the doctor's was cheap, people didn't get turned down, it was a much better system.
You know, there's many problems with the other major implementations of universal health care.
Plenty of problems in canada, plenty of problems in UK.
Oh sweden has great medical care? swell, all seven million of them. That really doesn't compare to the 300 million in the US. Not to mention, these types of universal systems, work better in a more homogeneous environment. Which is generally the case when you look at the EU countries.
But really, their systems will end up costing them a lot more, and may at some point collapse entirely. It took communism in the soviet union 70 years to fully collapse. this stuff does not happen over night.
But besides all that. what is health care, it's a good/service. and what method best delivers goods and services? the free market. It delivers all those other things you rely on, cheaply and effectively. medical care is certainly not as essential to life, as food is, but you don't rely on universal healthcare for that.
Not to mention any federal healthcare is illegal. There is certainly no place in the constitution that allows for something like health care.
But don't worry everyone, socialized medical care is coming. and it will suck, and you'll then want more government control, and more. Thanks a lot.
OK then, go. what's selfish about it.
and how is it you'll get great people to manage universal health care? Even if you get 1 guy in there for awhile, you'll have to replace him at somepoint. But it usually doesn't even last that long. You get a bunch of bureaucrats writing these bills, and then people are shocked when it sucks.
Socialism really does not work. At some point, we will really learn this.
How does this crap get modded up? libertarians are racists and homophobes? i'm not really sure how to respond to that, other than to say, the ideal of libertarianism is pretty much against any sort of collectivist thought, so we're by definition about as un racist/homophobic as you can get.
And nutbags? what's so nutty about any of the libertarian positions? if you think about them for half a minute, and don't just knee jerk react to the views, i don't think you'd find they're nutty.
The problem with the idea of smaller government is that the elected officials start believing that getting elected is all there is to doing their job as government, ie. there is no need for expertise within that field. Look at FEMA and New Orleans.
So you cite an example of big government failure, as a reason against small government?
My point is, the government should be solving technical problems. It is chronically incompetent. You seem to be implying that it should, and then if the government reduces itself, it won't be able to do these things. Which would be the point.
FWIW, I know engineers from competing car companies who have analyzed Toyota's cars. They clinic/disassemble them frequently enough to see some of the shenanigans that Toyota has pulled. Nothing was avoided because they all have a code of silence amongst them. Just because you know Toyota is pulling some shit doesn't mean you go running to the public about it. Because Toyota will do the same to you. Government has nothing to do with it.
Government regulates the car industry. People look to the government for the car to be safe. If the government wasn't there, people would look some place else. And if these companies were aware of problems(or should have been) and did nothing, they would not likely remain in business very long, without some changes.
well gee, you sure showed me, and educated whoever is reading this. I bow to your intellectual superiority.
Years of deregulation and resource starvation have strangulated our regulatory agencies to the point where they are unable to act.
What deregulation has happened? there was virtually no deregulation under bush. Under Obama? Under clinton? this is all the fault of reagan somehow?
Greenspan is no libertarian. The system is collapsing because of too much government. Not because of too little. Or the big government attitude of Bush/Obama not enough government for you?