[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by GRH

This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.

Bad products are bad for business. The "exploding" gas tank on a Ford Pinto is a good example as well as Olestra potato chips. I am not against some gov. regulations; I am against overly stict regulations that stifle productivity in order to make someone feel good. Your Robin Hood-esque attitude of "Steal from the rich to give from the poor" overlooks the fact that Robin Hood was reclaiming money stolen from the people through taxes and other less than reputable means by the existing government entity at the time i.e. Prince John (The Monarchy) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (The Local Law Enforcement and Military Body).

You are correct that many libertarians are anti-government. Governments always become despotic and oppressive and will use every tool in the book to expand their power including appealing to the "working man" to get their way. Lenin and his Bullshitvik party along with the thought process of Karl Marx appealed to the "working man" to gain control, even though they were a bunch of acedemic buddy fuckers who had never done a days work in their life and look how having a government that provided everything a person needed worked out for them.

I am for limited government GRH, not living in China. Do not confuse the two.

Originally Posted by Sallust

Every bad precedent started out as a justifiable measure