Ron Paul Wins Alaska and Washington State + Several State GOP Chairman Positions

[all]

[quote=markmax33©]
Is someone using my copyrighted name??[/quote]

My ® beats your ©.

Plus, you’ll lose your © once Dr. P. completes the first ever audit of the U.S. Copyright Office.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]If they go too far someone dies and they just file an insurance claim.[/quote]

And what happens to the USDA inspector if they screw up? Maybe they get fired. I’d say there is even less accountability there.

If people die from something that was inspected by a private company, that company lose the public trust and would be doomed, and criminal charges would not be inappropriate. Suing the federal government, however, is not easy.

[quote=harvey]They may start out that way but eventually power concentrates[/quote]

You want to concentrate it into 1 place – the government agency.

[quote=harvey]The reason that there was a call for government oversight in the past … [/quote]

Just because there is a government agency doesn’t mean that people were clamoring for government oversight. It means some government offical made a power-grab. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

sduuude, thanks for your comments.

I think it would be helpful if there was some more historical facts to backup up what you are proposing. Have we ever had a system like you described that worked? I don’t really think the USDA was a “power grab” I think it came about because there was a real problem that was not being solved by the private sector.

I get the idea that you don’t like paying taxes for services you don’t use but that’s how democracy and society work. I don’t like paying for wars I don’t believe in or roads I never drive on but sometimes we do things collectively. In the food inspection example there are collective benefits to public health. It’s good to know my employees or my kid’s teacher aren’t going to get sick because if they do that impacts me. And that road I never drive on may be used by others in ways that benefit me, like lowering my grocery bill.

As far as concentrating power goes I think there are some pretty big historical examples that show just how bad it can get. In the late 1900s just a few rich guys basically owned huge chunks of the population and were accountable to nobody. Government agencies aren’t an absolute concentration of power, industry still has tremendous power (like I said, watch “Food Inc.”) and companies themselves actually do most of the inspections. The government is just who “watches the watchmen.”

But again, I don’t see much reference to history and the problems that have occurred in the past in your analysis. There are plenty of historical examples in situations like thalidomide, Love Canal, “The Jungle” where the private sector-just screwed people over big time and there was no recourse.

[sdduuuude]

You asked “Have we ever had a system like this that worked ?” I have two answers – the first is – I don’t care. If you require something to have existed before you adopt it, you will never find anything better than anything that has ever existed.

Also, I prefer freedom and some mistakes over government intervention and fewer mistakes, though I’m confident there would be fewer in a free environment.

Second – the answer could be “yes.” I think early America was very much like this. There were problems, but (as long as you weren’t a Native American), there was freedom.

The way I see it is – the worst offenses of the kind you describe are when the government wrongly supports corporations, backs off on punishment, or bails them out. The Liberals always say “see how bad those awful corporations are” and the Conservatives always say “see how horrible the government is” The recent Gulf spill is a clear case where this happened and the bank bailout, of course

So, I agree that we need recourse. At some level, there has to be a body that steps in to do the dirty work to smack-down corporations when they screw up and it doesn’t happen enough. But recourse against mistakes or fraud is different from the government dictating what can and cannot come to market.

Also, putting faith in one government agency can lead to false confidence in the system. I think the SEC is a shining example of an agency that is really messed up. The regulations are wrong and the important ones are not enforced.

People often assume that “no government agency” is synonymous with “no recourse” and “free market” means anyone can do whatever they want. This is not what I’m saying or have ever said.

poorgradstudent said it well earlier – regulated free markets are the right answer. I would say “properly” regulated markets. By that I mean, markets where the transactions between people are regulated to ensure that fraud or deception or property rights violations are punished, but the products or services themselves are unencumbered.

In this light, the USDA inspections and meat-grading are not much of an issue, I suppose because it provides information to consumers, but the requirement of FDA approval for new products is bad stuff. Ask someone in the pharmaceutical industry what they think of the FDA sometime. See what they say.

—

If we don’t like paying for wars we don’t want why do we ? We just live with it because that is the way it has always been. Again – I see complacency. But, if you think about it, we revolted against England for exactly that reason – taxation w/o representation. I suppose you could say we have representation now – certainly more than English citizens in the 1700s – but that representation has broken down remarkably in the last 100 years. A tiny percentage of the population support the $700 billion bank bailout, yet it was approved. To me, this is taxation without representation.

We just accept the fact that the gov can take our money and do whatever they want with it, even if it is flies in the face of our ethics, morals, or interests. It is a true sheeple mentality.

Ron Paul isn’t very flashy, but calling his campaign the Ron Paul “Revolution” is extremely clever and appropriate, because today’s conditions are reminiscent of England in the 1700s and I’m surprised and pleased with how today’s youth understand his message. It’s a good one and the right one.

—

By the way, have you even looked at that blue line on the redfin chart ? It’s amazing.

[markmax33]

[quote=harvey]sduuude, thanks for your comments.

I think it would be helpful if there was some more historical facts to backup up what you are proposing. Have we ever had a system like you described that worked? I don’t really think the USDA was a “power grab” I think it came about because there was a real problem that was not being solved by the private sector.

I get the idea that you don’t like paying taxes for services you don’t use but that’s how democracy and society work. I don’t like paying for wars I don’t believe in or roads I never drive on but sometimes we do things collectively. In the food inspection example there are collective benefits to public health. It’s good to know my employees or my kid’s teacher aren’t going to get sick because if they do that impacts me. And that road I never drive on may be used by others in ways that benefit me, like lowering my grocery bill.

As far as concentrating power goes I think there are some pretty big historical examples that show just how bad it can get. In the late 1900s just a few rich guys basically owned huge chunks of the population and were accountable to nobody. Government agencies aren’t an absolute concentration of power, industry still has tremendous power (like I said, watch “Food Inc.”) and companies themselves actually do most of the inspections. The government is just who “watches the watchmen.”

But again, I don’t see much reference to history and the problems that have occurred in the past in your analysis. There are plenty of historical examples in situations like thalidomide, Love Canal, “The Jungle” where the private sector-just screwed people over big time and there was no recourse.[/quote]

One of the biggest problems with the GOV taking over an industry is they have no exit plan. There are services that may have been required in the 1900s that aren’t required because the free market can adjust. Look at the post office for instance. With FEDEX and UPS do you really think we need the USPS’s monopoly on our mailbox? The USPS is getting destroyed by the private mail delivery people but we gaurenteed jobs and the GOV can’t cut them. The impact of the exit plan is never considered when entering a market.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I guess I’m more of an “ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure” kinda guy.

As for the FDA, I mentioned thalidomide before and that’s a very powerful example that carries more weight with me than someone who is simply frustrated with the FDA because they can’t sell their product that hasn’t even been tested. The FDA protects millions of people every day and that massively outweighs the tiny number of people with incurable diseases who are so desperate they will try anything because they have little to lose.

I do think you are making some extreme generalizations and being a bit judgmental that just because people don’t want to completely rework government and implement some untested system that they are being complacent. Certainly not everybody “just lives” with stuff like wars. Again there has been lots of historical examples where the public has ended wars, Vietnam was a huge example and Iraq and Afghanistan also ended mainly due to public pressure.

I actually care a lot about government policy and make an effort to change things, just because people don’t want to change every single thing doesn’t mean that we don’t care.

It seems odd to say you don’t care if an idea works but just want to try it out. We have a thousand years of history where just about everything has been tried. My point is many of these ideas have been tried and shown to fail, we already have a clue as to how a systems will work so we don’t have to resort to blind trial and error.

But that seems to be the nature of Ron Paul, lots of odd contradictions like glorifying some version of the past and nostalgia for old fashioned ideas without actually looking at the specific history and the problems that occurred.

[Anonymous]

for markmax:

the post office is in the constitution, so I don’t know how anyone could say it is not the business of the government, especially Ron Paul who likes to use the constitution as the basis for a lot of claims. Government didn’t take over the post office, they started it (Ben Franklin, actually.) This is another example of the Ron Paul folks not understanding history, which concerns me.

[markmax33]

[quote=harvey]for markmax:

the post office is in the constitution, so I don’t know how anyone could say it is not the business of the government, especially Ron Paul who likes to use the constitution as the basis for a lot of claims. Government didn’t take over the post office, they started it (Ben Franklin, actually.) This is another example of the Ron Paul folks not understanding history, which concerns me.[/quote]

Absolutely not true. The Constitution could be amended at any time. The problem is there is no exit plan once they get into a business. I don’t care how it was written into the law there is a way to legally change it.

Is it okay for tax payer to lose billions because it was written into law 200+ years ago? No…this is the problem with Ron Paul detractors, they disregard common sense and the rule of law.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]It seems odd to say you don’t care if an idea works but just want to try it out. We have a thousand years of history where just about everything has been tried.[/quote]

The US wouldn’t even exist in its current form if the founding fathers had decided to not try something that had never been tried before.

[quote=harvey] … thalidomide before and that’s a very powerful example that carries more weight with me than someone who is simply frustrated with the FDA because they can’t sell their product that hasn’t even been tested. [/quote]

It isn’t a matter of frustration. It can be a matter if life or death. Have you noticed that the cost of drugs is a little out of hand lately? The cost to the taxpayers of the FDA may not be overwhelming, but the cost to the manufacturers who have to deal with them is massive.

Seems to me there are millions of poor people who would be willing to live with less rigourous testing standards if they could just get their medicine at a lower price. You may be happy that someone is testing your products, but why should your standards be forced onto others who may not be able to afford drugs that require the kind of overhead associated with FDA testing. So you and the government dictate the market to be such that a certain class of people suffer because you want to control their lives and tell them what they can and can’t buy.

Thalidomide didn’t prove that the FDA was needed. It proved that better testing was needed.

So, the answer is – appropriate recourse for mistakes, not government dictating what can and cannot come to market.

[Anonymous]

The founding fathers put a lot of careful consideration into the structure of their new model for government, they did study lots of history. Madison was a huge student of what we would today call political science and he studied a lot of ancient civilizations to understand the tradeoffs. Sure, some of their ideas were novel but they weren’t just trying stuff and replacing something that worked well just for the sake of change. They were also working from a unique context as they had somewhat of a blank slate to work with. Most of us believe the US is the most successful government in history so it should be the default going forward and the burden of proof is on those who want to change it.

The cost of new drugs are expensive but not established ones, the price goes down. The drug companies are still innovating and making lots of money so once again you are proposing a radical solution when there really is no problem.

As for your ideas about testing drugs on poor people, that’s more than a little bit twisted from an ethics viewpoint. Sounds you like trial and error but don’t understand the cost of failure or just want others to pay that cost.

markmax may not be the best spokesperson for Ron Paul, but I don’t know if you are either. You are certainly not selling me. I have yet to hear a Ron Paul supporter that can explain his platform in a way that doesn’t end up sounding like some sort of throwback to the robber barron days where the rich own the poor.

[markmax33]

[quote=harvey]The founding fathers put a lot of careful consideration into the structure of their new model for government, they did study lots of history. Madison was a huge student of what we would today call political science and he studied a lot of ancient civilizations to understand the tradeoffs. Sure, some of their ideas were novel but they weren’t just trying stuff and replacing something that worked well just for the sake of change. They were also working from a unique context as they had somewhat of a blank slate to work with. Most of us believe the US is the most successful government in history so it should be the default going forward and the burden of proof is on those who want to change it.

The cost of new drugs are expensive but not established ones, the price goes down. The drug companies are still innovating and making lots of money so once again you are proposing a radical solution when there really is no problem.

As for your ideas about testing drugs on poor people, that’s more than a little bit twisted from an ethics viewpoint. Sounds you like trial and error but don’t understand the cost of failure or just want others to pay that cost.

markmax may not be the best spokesperson for Ron Paul, but I don’t know if you are either. You are certainly not selling me. I have yet to hear a Ron Paul supporter that can explain his platform in a way that doesn’t end up sounding like some sort of throwback to the robber barron days where the rich own the poor.[/quote]

Isn’t the middle class shrinking right now? Aren’t the ultra rich getting richer?

Not only that the Democrats and Republicans are illegally changing the Constitution on a daily basis! Here are the powers of Congress set forth by the constitution. I don’t read anything about the FDA and they had drugs back then too.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

If you are pointing to history about the Constitution then you really are a Ron Paul supporter.

[sdduuuude]

They own the poor now. The rich are dictating, for example, that drug prices be out of their reach because the rich insist on expensive testing that only they can afford and disallow poor people from buying less expensive products because it doesn’t meet the standards of the rich. Poor people have to go to Mexico and to get affordable drugs that work for them. And, if they get caught bringing it across the border, they are considered criminals. I’m not seeing the love there.

There is no ethical problem with “testing” these products on poor people because it isn’t your decision. It is their decision. If they are so poor that they can only afford untesed drugs, and they want to make that choice, I find it unethical to stop them.

It is about freedom, harvey. Nothing more. You have every right to be careful about what you buy, and you have every right to only buy things that are fully tested. But, you don’t have the right to tell people what they can and cannot buy.

Look up some of Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on banks and see if you don’t think we have strayed a bit from his thoughts on freedom.

—

I’m not necessarily trying to sell you. Just trying to present a point without being defensive, abrasive or fanatical. I think we have both done that.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]The founding fathers put a lot of careful consideration into the structure of their new model for government, they did study lots of history. [/quote]

There has been alot of study on this concept of freedom. Plenty to read there. It isn’t like I’m making it up myself.

My favorite piece is this one ” the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Not “happiness”, but “the pursuit of happiness”. Not “liberty to only buy stuff the government says I can buy” but “liberty”

[briansd1]

[quote=markmax33]Look at the post office for instance. With FEDEX and UPS do you really think we need the USPS’s monopoly on our mailbox? The USPS is getting destroyed by the private mail delivery people but we gaurenteed jobs and the GOV can’t cut them. The impact of the exit plan is never considered when entering a market.[/quote]

I’m OK with letting the post office operate like a private business and cutting off government funding.

That means that the rednecks in the rural red areas won’t get any mail. They’ll get what they deserve.

As a matter of fact, we should get rid of telecom regulations also. Allow telecom and utilities companies to operate as they see fit. If it’s not cost effective to provide services, the companies could simply terminate services. It’s all about freedom.

[Anonymous]

Ok, we won’t get anywhere when all we have is links to the constitution text as supporting evidence. The constitution gives the power to regulate commerce so I don’t see how that would not give them the power to tell people what they can and cannot buy. What would “regulate commerce” mean if didn’t mean control what is bought and sold?

The rich don’t own the poor today, certainly not like the slave labor conditions that existed in the late 19th century. In all the Ron Paul arguments I hear they always avoid discussing that time period in history as if it never happened.

Today we may have bank bailouts but back then the coal mining company or steel company or textile factory which was often the only place you could work in a town could kill you and get away with it. Also there were company stores and that was the only place where anyone could buy stuff. Just labeling it “freedom” isn’t enough when just a few rich guys can control everyone to the point where they don’t have any real choices.

The rich are getting richer today but I don’t see how Ron Paul’s policies would reverse that trend. In fact history teaches us that it would accelerate it.

I’m sure there were very few real medicinal drugs in 1789. There were a few different remedies sold under various names but they were mostly just alcohol in different forms. Which thankfully is no longer banned by the constitution.

[Author]

Posts