Bush to Alzheimer's Patients: Maybe You Should Have Stayed Embryos
Bush Vetos Stem Cell BillWASHINGTON - President Bush cast the first veto of his presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research "crosses a moral boundary."
"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.
------------------
I never know what to say about this issue. Bush's position just seems so... wrong. I mean, how can he claim that this research is "taking... innocent human life", when it could potentially save the lives of so many. And how is THIS crossing a moral boundary when abortion has already been legal for so many years?
There are certain types of birth control that routinely flush out cells with the potential of becoming a fetus. These birth controls are hardly even controversial. Why then is stem cell research such an evil thing?
posted by Melissa @ 3:57 PM
25 Comments:
I think the real answer, all moral questions aside and assuming Bush genuinely believes this is wrong, is that this they can stop.
Abortion, at least at this point, is a ship that's sailed.
A lot of the forms of birth control you mention and other scientific advancements have become ingrained parts of the culture.
This they can stop before it starts without having to roll anything back. Hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's gone.
It was proper that the bill was vetoed but not for the reason Bush gave. Stem-cell research in and of itself is not immoral, I don't believe, but it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to fund it. Can you find the clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to fund stem-cell research? It's not there.
While the research itself wouldn't be immoral, it would, however, be immoral for any level of government to fund it because they would be doing so with stolen money.
Umm, yeah... ridiculously libertarian comments aside, at least we knew it was coming. It's not like this was a surprise or anything.
Can you illustrate what is so ridiculous about it, Ryan? I notice you didn't find the clause in the Constitution that empowers Congress to fund stem-cell research.
Joe,
I guess that's what really baffles me. There's all this other science that I would assume is morally "worse," yet something that would actually help people is going to destroy our nation's moral fabric. I mean, where is that reasoning?
Paul,
I agree that we shouldn't be funding it -- I'm nothing if I'm not a fiscal conservative -- but I'm more annoyed by Bush's assertions that the research itself is wrong. For God's sakes, the man paraded 18 families around at a press conference because they had "adopted" extra frozen embryos. He couldn't care less about the funding aspect of it.
Ryan,
I don't like presidential vetos no matter how you look at it. We should have impeached FDR. 635 vetos? Not on my watch.
Paul: That would be Article 1, Section 8 where powers of Congress are laid out. Specifically the line "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the ... general welfare of the United States"
Federal grants are completely constitutional and the nation is better for it.
If stem cells hold the potential to cure Alzheimer's, research will be funded privately. Therapies of this magnitude could be worth billions and there is plenty of VC money chasing after biotech firms these days.
I don't think this veto is going to have any practical effect on research but does anyone know how much $ the government would have begun sending out in grants, if this bill had passed?
Luke,
General welfare. So you think that means that Congress can do anything it wants as long as they deem it to be for the general welfare? So that means they can force every American to exercise at least one hour a day since it would be for our welfare? They can ban alcohol, cigarettes, fast food and junk food, and watching TV for more than an hour a day? They can force you to eat a certain menu of exclusively healthy food every day? Need I go on?
Assuming you're right though, and Congress can do virtually anything it wants, what precisely is the Tenth Amendment supposed to mean? It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
If the federal government is basically all powerful, as you seem to think because of the general-welfare clause, then what powers have not been granted to the feds that therefore belong to the states?
Your interpretation of "general welare" leads to nonsense. The clause isn't a blank check for Congress to do whatever it wants.
I believe what it means is that Congress executing the powers specifically granted to it--raising a military, coining money, etc--is providing for the general welfare.
Melissa,
I'm glad you see the funding aspect my way.
I'm baffled, however, as to why you think the president shouldn't have veto power, especially if a bill is unconstitutional. You don't believe in checks and balances? You think that Congress should pass laws regardless of whether the Constitution allows it?
FDR definitely should have been impeached and removed from office, but I'd say it's because he was a socialist thief, not necessarily because he vetoed bills.
Interesting that he vetoed 635 of them though. I didn't know that. I'll have to find out what they were all about. If he vetoed them, however, they probably couldn't have been all that bad.
If I were president, I'd probably set the record for vetoes within my first two or three months of office, not to mention setting the record for pardons.
Matt Modrow,
Thank you for illustrating the common sense of letting private industry in a free market conduct stem-cell research.
Paul: Your entire reply is the very reason we have the Bill of Rights. And I'm trying to figure out how the 10th amendment (which deals with powers not given to Congress by the Constitution) applies to Article 1, Section 8 (which starts with the phrase "The Congress shall have power to...").
Phil: To steal from Jon Stewart, how are you simultaneously condemning stem cell research--which will end no more than a few hundred (most likely many fewer than that) so called "innocent lives"--and promote the Iraq war--which Bush has admitted has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians? If you're going to go the moral qualm route then you have to stay consistent: why not take the same pacifist stance with both? The diseases we could cure have killed millions more than Saddam or terrorism have ever killed.
Luke,
Where does the Bill of Rights say that Congress can't force you to exercise for an hour a day? Where does it say that Congress can't force you to eat only healthy food? Where does it say they can't stop you from watching TV more than an hour a day?
There is the Ninth Amendment, which says the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others held by the people, but how do you reconcile that with the general-welfare clause, which you seem to think gives Congress virtual unlimited power?
I'm not sure what you're confused about concerning the Tenth Amendment. I.8. does indeed say "Congress shall have the power to..." and then there's a short list of about 17 things they can do. That's all they can do except for a very few other things here and there in the Constitution, such as choosing the times and places of elections for Congress.
Then the Tenth Amendment states that anything not on that list are reserved to the states or the people.
This, ladies and gentleman, is why I refuse to associate myself with the Libertarian party.
Okay Paul, I'll take you through it. First, and I'll say this again, the 10th amendment does not apply to powers GIVEN to Congress, only to powers NOT GIVEN to Congress. Being that we're debating the depth of a power undeniably given to Congress, the 10th amendment has absolutely no application here.
"Where does the Bill of Rights say that Congress can't force you to exercise for an hour a day?" The 13th Amendment.
"Where does it say that Congress can't force you to eat only healthy food? Where does it say they can't stop you from watching TV more than an hour a day?" Those would fall under the 9th Amendment, most likely under an argument for right to privacy.
But really, none of that matters because you're starting off by misreading the line in question.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
It means (as was verified in United States v. Butler) that Congress can provide for the general welfare by taxing and appropriating money. How do federal grants not fall into this category?
LUKE: "Okay Paul, I'll take you through it. First, and I'll say this again, the 10th amendment does not apply to powers GIVEN to Congress, only to powers NOT GIVEN to Congress."
Which is precisely what I said, just in other words.
The Thirteenth Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights.
You're correct, however, that it prohibits Congress from making you exercise an hour a day.
It also prohibits:
1) forcing children to go to school
2) the draft
3) forcing people to serve on juries
4) anti-discrimination laws
5) a whole host of other things
LUKE: "Those would fall under the 9th Amendment, most likely under an argument for right to privacy."
Oh, no. You're wrong, Luke. The general-welfare clause allows them to do those things. If they deem eating only vegetables to be for the general welfare, then they have the authority make you forego meat. It plainly says, after all, that Congress can "provide for the general welfare." What are you missing here?
(Devil's advocacy off)
You're trying to limit the scope of "general welfare," only to what you personally want it to include, Luke. You can't do that. You want to claim the Ninth Amendment protects you from laws you would hate, but if it's a law you personally want passed, such as stem-cell research funding, you claim "general welfare."
"It means (as was verified in United States v. Butler) that Congress can provide for the general welfare by taxing and appropriating money."
Right. Taxing and appropriating money for specific constitutionally authorized purposes, which are found in I.8.
If it makes you feel better, although I hate to admit it, the states do have the power to fund stem-cell research according to the Tenth Amendment. The feds do not according to the Tenth Amendment.
1) forcing children to go to school
Actually the Constitution makes no mention of education, so that falls to the states via the 10th amendment. Because you insist on ignoring the evidence I'm referencing, your response to this would be that Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to do anything. I'll get into that in a second.
2) the draft
There's an argument to be made for that. In fact, that argument was made and shot down in 1918 during WWI (Arver v. United States).
3) forcing people to serve on juries
Except you're going to run into a problem when you get to the 6th amendment and the part about trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law," not to mention that the 7th amendment also guarantees trial by jury.
4) anti-discrimination laws
Anti-discrimination laws which are extensions of the parts of the Constitution that forbid discrimination...I think you lost me on that one.
Oh, no. You're wrong, Luke. The general-welfare clause allows them to do those things. If they deem eating only vegetables to be for the general welfare, then they have the authority make you forego meat.
So then your response is "You're wrong, I'm right, nah nah nah nah nah"?
Since you so obviously replied without actually reading anything about the case I referenced, I'll explain it to you. In the United States v. Butler, the Supreme Court decided that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was unconstitutional because it attempted to control agricultural production through taxing. Though Congress is allowed to tax, it is not allowed to control agricultural production (even though your stance says that through the general welfare clause Congress should be able to control anything, curious). The court determined that Congress was using its power to tax as a "means to an unconstitutional end" and the law violated the 10th amendment.
Congress can provide for the general welfare by taxing and appropriating funds. It's very clear. Please tell me which part you don't understand.
I'm also curious about what you think that clause actually allows Congress to do.
Huh, I have to admit I worked myself into a trap on this one--the trap of conflating legal "rights" with natural rights. That's what I get for putting on the cloak of statism.
Yes, you're correct, Luke, that the Constitution legalizes the violation of people's rights by saying they may be forced to serve on juries and to have their money stolen from them. The Constitution is an instrument of tyranny, and I never should have tried to use it to defend my rights. I never will again.
The way I should have begun this debate was simply to ask everyone who favors having the government fund stem-cell research why you suppose you have a right to steal my money to accomplish something you desire.
That's really all this is about.
I have to agree that the Constitution is not perfect (hence the amendments and constant judicial review), but it's one of the greatest right-protecting documents that human hands have ever penned.
There is still a problem with your statement, and it's one of the problems I have with the Libertarian party: a general lack of foresight. If you want to raise the argument that jury duty is slavery, how do you suppose we maintain trial by jury? Is there a fairer way to select jurors than randomly from the local population? True, few people want to do it, but few people want to be thrown in prison without due process either.
Hey, Luke. I wouldn't call it so much a lack of foresight on my part as I would call it a matter of sometimes conflating legal "rights" and natural rights due to the dilemma I often face between attempting to argue for limited, constitutional government in order not to appear quite so radical rather than taking the purely principled, consistent stance of denouncing the existence of the state, period.
Since ultimately I denounce the state, it is really pointless for me ever to try to argue about the Constitution. I have a far superior argument than that.
The better way of providing justice would be almost identical to the way it's currently done, only in the absence of a state.
Just as a free market can provide other services, it could provide justice. One way of doing so would be through voluntary governments. You see, I'm not opposed to government; I'm just opposed to a state. The difference, of course, is that the former can be voluntarily consented to, while the latter always rules by force.
In a libertarian world, most people would still choose to live under governments, but everyone would be doing so voluntarily under the governments of their choice. These "governments" would actually be private businesses which would provide security and systems of justice to its clients.
Most people immediately dismiss this suggestion, predicting widespread corruption, etc. The problem is they forget how corrupt the state is and that the state gives people no other options. The state has a monopoly on justice, and monopolies rarely provide good, honest service.
Of course there would still be some corruption within some of these "governments," but there would also be a free market, allowing people to punish the corrupt ones by refusing to do business with them.
The U.S. Constitution may be the best devised thus far, but that in no way means it's the best scenario mankind can create for itself.
All I ask is that you sincerely consider this question: Anytime you force someone to do anything against their will or take their property without their permission or prohibit them from engaging in any activity which harms no one else, how can you consider yourself anything other than a tyrant?
Better yet, consider this statement: People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
I agree completely, but I think most members of the Libertarian party are delusional if they think that modern corporations would be half as honest as they are (that is to say, still completely corrupt) if they did not have governments controlling and limiting them.
It's a difficult choice between George W. Bush and Ken Lay, but I pick Bush.
Hey again, Luke.
If you agree with me that people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else, then how can you support having the government steal people's money from them, thus not allowing them to do what they wish with their money?
And how can you possibly prefer Bush, who is at least partially responsible for the murders of tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people, as well as the theft of billions, possibly trillions of dollars, as well as all kinds of other crimes, to Ken Lay, who merely (relatively speaking) stole millions of dollars?
Lay's crimes dwarf in comparison to Bush's. I can't imagine you thinking otherwise.
Besides, a free market would "govern" corporate corruption and seriously mitigate and even correct it. Corporate corruption in a world where people are free to solve problems in their own way couldn't dream of living up to the type of corruption created by the state, which monopolizes "justice."
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims." --Ayn Rand
Phil:If I am wrong, could you not also argue that because thousands of innocent German civilians died in carpet bombings during the Second World War, and that I support the Allied actions therein, that it is equally justafiable for me to take an anti-abortion stance?
You both dodged the question and missed my point. Nice.
You, not I, have stated that you believe the deaths of innocents is the more important than the good that can come from those deaths ("if the stem cells were proved to be innocent human life beyond the shadow of a doubt, would you be supportive of the research?"). Going logically from that statement (and just assuming that stem cells qualify as human), we have to assume that you also oppose the war in Iraq, and the Allies' actions in WWII, because of the deaths of innocents.
There is no greater good or comparing injustices with what you have brought up. If the innocent lives lost in WWII are acceptable because of the greater good of not having the Nazis rule the world, then you have to admit that losing a few innocent lives for medical research is worth saving thousands upon thousands of human lives yearly.
Paul:If you agree with me that people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else, then how can you support having the government steal people's money from them, thus not allowing them to do what they wish with their money?
Again, if by stealing you mean taxing, I'm not sure what you're going to do with you money when A) there is no one to print it B) there are no cops to stop people from robbing you C)and none of that matters because we have no military and either another country owns us now or Muslims have destroyed us all. Taxes pay for a lot of things you're taking for granted.
Lay's crimes dwarf in comparison to Bush's. I can't imagine you thinking otherwise.
Just because Lay governed a smaller entity does not make him less of a criminal. If Enron was bigger, he would have stolen more. If he had an army, I can only imagine.
Besides, a free market would "govern" corporate corruption and seriously mitigate and even correct it.
Please explain how corporations that are corrupt now will be less corrupt with less oversight. Think of how without government regulation corporations would just dump pollutants when they could, and how they still do when they can get away with it. Think of what drugs we would get pushed on us in a fake label without the FDA and goverment regulation. What's in that hamburger you're eating? Ever read The Jungle? It seems that the corrupt history (and present) of capitalism argues against your stance at every turn.
The only protection the average person has from corporations is the government. They have a "monopoly" on justice because there is a standard of justice, and they are the only ones granted the power to enforce it by the American voters. Should we have different standards of justice for different people? A company running the judges in one city and a different company and set of laws in the next? How does this all actually work?
I'm not saying that it will never come to pass, but everytime I speak with a libertarian about how things would actually work in a libertarian society everything seems to get sort of vague. It seems to me that a truly free market solves all problems in the same way that simply implementing communism or any other political/economic system would solve all problems, meaning that it wouldn't.
Luke,
Why do you think only a state can create money?
Why do think only a state can provide security forces?
Why do you think only a state can organize defense?
You have the common mistaken mindset that certain people called state employees have some sort of superpowers that other people do not; that by simple virtue of the fact that they're employed by a state, they have the ability to 1) design and print a currency 2) hold a gun in their hands and 3) organize a system of defense.
It's impossible for anyone else to do that, huh? Right now, I couldn't possibly print some money, but have the state call me their employee, and suddenly I'm vested with this magical power to do so.
Consider the silliness of such thinking.
Taxes pay mostly for a lot of things I don't want, and the few things I do want I can buy from someone else.
Just because Lay governed a smaller entity does not make him less of a criminal. If Enron was bigger, he would have stolen more. If he had an army, I can only imagine.
Jeez, Luke. Consider the obvious fallacy of this thinking. You might as well have said:
"Call it Enron, and I'm opposed to it. Call it the state, and not only do I support it, but it's a good thing and absolutely necessary."
You keep forgetting that whatever corruption you can predict within a corporation also happens within the government and on a much larger scale. The government is far more dangerous because you can't choose not to do business with them, whereas you can always choose not to do business with Enron. Furthermore, governments legalize their corruption. Then on top of that, they make it illegal for anyone to stop their wrongdoings, and they back up their decisions with their guns.
You're right that at times some corporations may seek power through private armies and so forth, but that would usually be prevented by the free market and people voting with their feet. When occasionally someone would be successful in creating a serious threat, however, that's when everyone would have to retaliate and remove the threat, possibly with violence.
Don't think that I'm claiming war and violence and crime would disappear in a liberatarian world. I'm not claiming that, and I never have. It will always be with us. But in a libertarian world, everyone would be free to deal with it as they see fit rather than having all of their decisions made for them by the state, which is the source of most corruption in the first place. I do, however, believe that there would be significantly less crime, violence, and war in a libertarian world.
Please explain how corporations that are corrupt now will be less corrupt with less oversight.
Well, first of all, I can't see the good of having a corrupt state be the overseers.
Secondly, there wouldn't be less oversight but more. A free market would provide a host of auditing services and private consumer-protection services and security services. Any who would engage in corrupt practices would ultimately lose out because they're not providing the best services and products.
Think of how without government regulation corporations would just dump pollutants when they could, and how they still do when they can get away with it.
This statement is so rich. First you assume that all corporations are irresponsible and have no regard for their customers and, namely, that it is only law which compels people to respect others. If the law against murder were repealed today, would you just start going around killing people? If rape were decriminalized today, would you just start going around raping women? No, you wouldn't, because you generally respect people's rights and are a good person overall.
A few people would, but they would soon be corrected by people who wouldn't tolerate it.
The same applies to the crime of pollution and any other crime you can think of. Generally, corporations are especially apt to make sure they're not hurting their customers because to whom would they sell their product if they kill off all of their customers through rancid meat or polluted water?
Sure, there will always be some people who will sell dangerous products such as rancid meat or mislabeled drugs, but they won't stay in business long.
Furthermore, competition in a free market among private groups who do the FDA's job would be far superior to the FDA, whose existence and funding is guaranteed regardless of how poor a job they may do. Again, don't fall into the fallacy of believing that FDA employees have some magical power that other people do not.
The only protection the average person has from corporations is the government.
That is utterly false, as I've largely demonstrated above. The average person has full power not to buy their products and to convince others not to as well.
They have a "monopoly" on justice because there is a standard of justice, and they are the only ones granted the power to enforce it by the American voters.
I'm not sure what you intended to accomplish with the second half of this sentence. The fact that a certain group of people imposes their will on others is the whole problem.
Secondly, I'm not sure there is a standard of justice. Some people think justice is simply putting a thief in prison and having him sit there all day long doing nothing. Others think justice is forcing the thief to repay his victim. I'm of the latter opinion. If anyone else for some reason believes the former, however, and they want to live voluntarily under a justice system that imposes that particular penalty for theft, then I think they should be free to do so. Just don't force me to live under it and pay for it.
Should we have different standards of justice for different people?
Let's ask a better question: Should we all be forced to live under a single system? No!
A company running the judges in one city and a different company and set of laws in the next? How does this all actually work?
A nation/state running the judges in one place and a different nation/state and set of laws in the next? How does this all actually work?
I'm not saying that it will never come to pass, but everytime I speak with a libertarian about how things would actually work in a libertarian society everything seems to get sort of vague.
Since people have never been truly free, it is indeed hard to come up with fully comprehensive answers to every single question. But here's the thing: we don't have to.
The nature of a free market is that it provides solutions to people's problems. It does so by having the freedom to explore new options and experiment with them. When people want security, it will find a way to provide it. When people want justice, it will find a way to provide it.
Unfortunately and sadly, with the state, that's not possible. There's only one way things are allowed to be done, and therefore there's little to no room for innovation.
It seems to me that a truly free market solves all problems...
I never said it would solve all problems. Please don't continue to suggest that I've ever said so. What it will do is solve more problems with better solutions.
It's impossible for anyone else to do that, huh?
Impossible to do it without the consent of the governed.
The average person has full power not to buy their products and to convince others not to as well.
What the average person doesn't know about the average corporation would kill them were it not for government control.
Not to go off of a rant, but it's simple common sense that businesses are generally interested in the bottom line. They're there for a reason: money. What's the probability of failure on these tires? How many toxic part can we get away with? Make it cost effective. Make it cost effective. Make it cost effective. I don't need to go into this heavily, and I wouldn't even need to address it if you would provide me with an answer to this: what is protecting the customers from getting screwed in as many ways as the nightly news tells us about? Were it not for the US government, wouldn't Ken Lay still be CEO of Enron (up until he died at least)?
First you assume that all corporations are irresponsible and have no regard for their customers...
Actually I think you first assumed that all government is evil. I merely pointed out that businessmen will, sometimes, go about things by any means they can get away with. If all these "vote with your feet" ideas really worked then we wouldn't need government intervention with modern corporations in the first place, would we?
Let's ask a better question: Should we all be forced to live under a single system? No!
We're not, actually. With your logic, you don't have to live under this system; you're free to leave the country. So then, aside from boycotting, what options are you going to bring to the table? Is there any oversight other than refusing to buy a certain line of products? Is there a way to buy other products when one company has gathered a monopoly in your area and you don't have the means to pick up your life, family and belongings and move?
"They have a "monopoly" on justice because there is a standard of justice, and they are the only ones granted the power to enforce it by the American voters."
I'm not sure what you intended to accomplish with the second half of this sentence.
Our government has its power because the people gave it to them. It's called democracy, they aren't tyrants, they don't even fit the definition, and I thought it was obvious.
You said: The nature of a free market is that it provides solutions to people's problems.
And then you said: I never said it would solve all problems. Please don't continue to suggest that I've ever said so.
And I'm a little confused about this: Unfortunately and sadly, with the state, that's not possible. There's only one way things are allowed to be done, and therefore there's little to no room for innovation. Being that this started on the topic of amendments to the Constitution and changes due to court decisions (i.e. changing the way things are done), I've got no clue what you're talking about.
I consider myself a libertarian, but I draw the line at philosophy and not party affiliation. I think the government should have a minimal but very neccesary role in taxing and regulating business, and outside of police and military forces they shouldn't be doing too much. And I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the free market, but you seem to be using it as a cure-all and completely removing the state. What you're talking about isn't libertarianism, it's anarchy.
But, answer me this (and answer doesn't mean deflect the question with a question): who will protect the customer from an ill-minded corporation when that customer doesn't have the power to protect himself? It seems to be a perfect reason as to why we have government, protecting those who can't protect themselves. Without government regulation, how long is it until people are under a corporate monopoly that they can't get out of? The people don't even have the power to stop Microsoft or Wal-Mart right now, it takes the government to control these giants.
When the same company employs you, provides your police force, and then steals from you, who are you going to turn to? There's no one, because you've removed the government and its power to enforce the law. You can try to come back with an argument that the government can be just as horribly corrupt, but the American government isn't and you know that. Where are the checks and balances in your system? Who protects the customers when they can't protect themselves?
When occasionally someone would be successful in creating a serious threat, however, that's when everyone would have to retaliate and remove the threat, possibly with violence.
Who is everyone? You got rid of everyone (since the only other cops were employed by the government you also mostly got rid of), there is no everyone. At this point you have to be referring to mob justice, and that is just crazy.
Impossible to do it without the consent of the governed.
How do you figure that's impossible? They're doing those things without my consent right now.
What the average person doesn't know about the average corporation would kill them were it not for government control.
I don't think we disagree on this point as much as you seem to think. All I'm asking is that things such as restaurant sanitation grading and financial auditing be done exclusively by private consumer advocacy groups rather than the state. Restaurants, for instance, would pay to have these groups review their sanitation practices. The cost of doing so would be passed along to the restaurants' customers. The benefit of this is that I would be voluntarily paying for these services only at the restaurants I patronize rather than having to pay for every friggin' restaurant's sanitation review in the whole state. It's only fair and sensible.
Not to go off of a rant, but it's simple common sense that businesses are generally interested in the bottom line. They're there for a reason: money. What's the probability of failure on these tires? How many toxic part can we get away with? Make it cost effective. Make it cost effective. Make it cost effective. I don't need to go into this heavily, and I wouldn't even need to address it if you would provide me with an answer to this: what is protecting the customers from getting screwed in as many ways as the nightly news tells us about? Were it not for the US government, wouldn't Ken Lay still be CEO of Enron (up until he died at least)?
The worst part about this point is that the government engages in fraud in the exact same ways but to do much more evil things, and they don't even try to make it cost effective. They essentially have an unlimited supply of money, and they have absolutely no incentive to use it wisely, because it's not their money, they didn't have to work for it, and they can always raise taxes and/or print more of it.
And again, as I've said, this fraud is obvious, but there's absolutely nothing I can do it about it. They've made it illegal for me to do so. What is protecting me from that?
But I've already answered your question. As I've said, private consumer advocacy groups are not a perfect solution. There is no perfect solution. But they would be far better than a state because people would have more control over who they do business with.
Actually I think you first assumed that all government is evil.
I meant that a state is by definition evil, for it exists by force (at least over some people), not by consent of the governed.
I may consent to certain governments, however, as long as they guaranteed certain things. Of course, those guarantees may end up being useless in the end, but that's a chance I would be taking, and I would have to remain ever vigilant in the meantime and have a backup plan.
If all these "vote with your feet" ideas really worked then we wouldn't need government intervention with modern corporations in the first place, would we?
You're looking at this backwards. It's not the case that a true libertarian world has ever been tried and then failed, and then everyone said, "Gosh, we need the state." There has never been an absence of a state in human society. No, we don't need the state; we don't need slavery. It always makes me shudder to realize that people say we need slavery.
We're not, actually. With your logic, you don't have to live under this system; you're free to leave the country.
In other words, if someone broke into your house and robbed you several times and you got tired of it, it would be incumbent upon you to move somewhere else to try to avoid being robbed rather than it being the case that you have a right to stop them from robbing you.
So then, aside from boycotting, what options are you going to bring to the table? Is there any oversight other than refusing to buy a certain line of products? Is there a way to buy other products when one company has gathered a monopoly in your area and you don't have the means to pick up your life, family and belongings and move?
The great irony of your argument is that you're afraid of possible monopolies with which you're free to disassociate, and your solution is to implement a certain monopoly with which you're not free to disassociate.
But in answer to your question, in a libertarian world, you would be free to deal with any possible monopolies in any way you see fit. Besides boycotting them, you can enter into competition against them. If they try to stop you from competing with them, you're free to retaliate against them, with physical force if necessary. You do have a right to defend yourself, after all. And it's not as if you would be alone. If you're seriously disgruntled with someone, then many other people will be as well, and you can work together to achieve your goals.
The beauty of it would be that you're free to attempt to solve your problems however you wish rather than hoping a corrupt state will provide you with justice.
Our government has its power because the people gave it to them.
I don't give them any power.
It's called democracy, they aren't tyrants...
Democracy is tyranny. It gives one group of people absolute power over others.
they don't even fit the definition, and I thought it was obvious.
A tyrant is anyone who initiates force against another person, which is what the state is all about.
You said: The nature of a free market is that it provides solutions to people's problems.
And then you said: I never said it would solve all problems. Please don't continue to suggest that I've ever said so.
Right. In the second sentence, I said that it won't solve all problems. In other words, I've never said that free markets and the absence of the state would create a perfect utopia. But it will solve a lot of problems and mitigate others.
And I'm a little confused about this: Unfortunately and sadly, with the state, that's not possible. There's only one way things are allowed to be done, and therefore there's little to no room for innovation. Being that this started on the topic of amendments to the Constitution and changes due to court decisions (i.e. changing the way things are done), I've got no clue what you're talking about.
The state can change its dictates all it wants, but at any given time, certain dictates are in place which prevent the full potential of freedom.
I consider myself a libertarian, but I draw the line at philosophy and not party affiliation.
I do too. I work with the Libertarian Party because it's currently the best chance for liberty, not because I have any blind devotion to it. It does, after all, call for a state, which I oppose. But I'm willing to work toward the limited constitutional Republic that the LP calls for as an incremental step towards complete abolishment of the state.
I think the government should have a minimal but very neccesary role in taxing and regulating business, and outside of police and military forces they shouldn't be doing too much.
That's kind of where I was two years ago. I was of the contradictory mindset that 1) initiating force against others is wrong and 2) we need a limited state to protect people's rights.
Then I realized that number 2, forcing people to submit to a certain legal system, violated number 1, and I realized that a state, however limited it may be, is by definition evil and a violation of people's rights.
And I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the free market, but you seem to be using it as a cure-all and completely removing the state. What you're talking about isn't libertarianism, it's anarchy.
Precisely. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that anarchy is a bad thing. Most people think "chaos" when the think "anarchy," but there's no reason for it. Government would still exist under anarchy--self-government. Morality would still exist in the absence of the state. As I said in my last post, if the state suddenly dissolved right now, it's not as if you would suddenly be inclined to go around murdering, raping, stealing etc. A few people would, but they would be corrected by those who wouldn't tolerate it.
But, answer me this (and answer doesn't mean deflect the question with a question): who will protect the customer from an ill-minded corporation when that customer doesn't have the power to protect himself? It seems to be a perfect reason as to why we have government, protecting those who can't protect themselves. Without government regulation, how long is it until people are under a corporate monopoly that they can't get out of? The people don't even have the power to stop Microsoft or Wal-Mart right now, it takes the government to control these giants.
I've already answered this a few times as far as I can tell, but let me try another approach, which I think may be better than what I've tried so far.
As I said before, I don't I think we disagree as much as you think. I agree with you that we'll all be better off if there are overseers of some kind to make sure the products we buy are safe, etc.
But here's the kicker. Forget everything else for a minute and just focus on this:
Please respect my right to hire whomever I wish to provide these services for me. Please respect my right to purchase only the services I desire rather than taking my money and imposing a whole package of services upon me that I do not want. In return, I'll respect your rights.
Now we're both happy. I get everything I want (that I can obtain honestly) and only what I want, and you get everything you want (that you can obtain honestly) and only what you want.
When the same company employs you, provides your police force, and then steals from you, who are you going to turn to? There's no one, because you've removed the government and its power to enforce the law.
I would turn to whoever would be willing to help me, which in all likelihood would be all of the company's other clients because they don't want the same thing to happen to them.
You can try to come back with an argument that the government can be just as horribly corrupt, but the American government isn't and you know that.
No, I don't know that. Any government that murders, tortures, steals, and enslaves is corrupt.
Who is everyone? You got rid of everyone (since the only other cops were employed by the government you also mostly got rid of), there is no everyone.
Everyone is whoever is being oppressed, which apparently would be most people according to the scenario you're talking about.
At this point you have to be referring to mob justice, and that is just crazy.
Ha ha. That's the most ironic statement you've made so far. Mob rule is the very essence of everything you're defending in this entire debate.
That's precisely what democracy is--mob rule.
To take this back to the very beginning of this debate, you're advocating that a mob (majority) of people (voters) steal (tax) my money to fund a pet project of yours.
(Taking a cue from Ed Cone) Best of luck, Paul.
Luke,
I hope you'll be willing to pick this back up sometime. I understand that debating is very tiring and frustrating sometimes, especially written debates such as these, which take a lot of time. Perhaps you're frustrated because I didn't answer some of your questions. I tried to answer all of your questions, and I may very well have missed some, but it's easy to miss things sometimes due to the limits imposed by written debates.
Essentially, I'm asking only one question in this debate, however:
Why do you suppose you have a right to impose your will upon me in order to attempt to solve your problems?
All of the problems you refer to are real and must be dealt with. But all I ask is that you not enslave me in your attempt to solve them.
And by the way, I wouldn't use Ed Cone as a model. Cone refuses to answer a simple question I put to him. At least you tried. I appreciate that.
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home