or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Marco Rubio--not fit for public office
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marco Rubio--not fit for public office - Page 3

post #81 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I would imagine that private road operators would have rules about driving while impaired if it represented a safety concern to their customers.

Ah yes, the private road operators.  Another barrier against the mobility of the poor. But hey, **** you I've got mine, right MJ?  Hmm, that should have an initialism.  FUGM.  **** you, got mine. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #82 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Don't worry, I don't want to be like you.  I prefer not living in a fantasy world.

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I want to minimize taxes.  I want taxes to be as low as possible and government as efficient as possible to provide all services that I believe are necessary.  I don't want to tax a penny more than is necessary to provide all those things tonton discussed earlier.  

 

Clever.

 

Anyway, I've had enough of you authoritarian statist coercivists for the day.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #83 of 121
Immorality is letting people die, when it could have been avoided through regulation. That is sickeningly immoral.

Your philosophy calls for people to die first, then "the market will correct itself". That's immoral.
post #84 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

authoritarian statist coercivists

 

 

p8L4w.gif

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #85 of 121
How exactly would those private road operators enforce an anti-drunk driving bylaw?
post #86 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Immorality is letting people die, when it could have been avoided through regulation. That is sickeningly immoral.
Your philosophy calls for people to die first, then "the market will correct itself". That's immoral.

Ah, but they will die free and meet Jesus.  I wonder if these selfish-as-all-**** Christian anti-government nutters don't feel so bad about the deaths they advocate for because they think there's an eternity of consciousness after death.  Like, well, sucks that person died, but now they are with Sky Daddy so it's all cool.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #87 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your philosophy calls for people to die first...

 

Stop lying. Statements like that make you look foolish.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your philosophy calls for people to die first...

Stop lying. Statements like that make you look foolish.

So how exactly do you keep baby formula companies from using melamine?
post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So how exactly do you keep baby formula companies from using melamine?

 

Would you buy baby formula (or anything else) unless you had some assurance it was safe?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #90 of 121
You know the peanut butter salmonella poisonings? That wouldn't have happened with proper regulation.

Oh, but the company went out of business (and the executives went on to form other companies). The market corrected itself!
post #91 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So how exactly do you keep baby formula companies from using melamine?

Would you buy baby formula (or anything else) unless you had some assurance it was safe?
Lots of people would.
post #92 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lots of people would.

 

Why do you assume that? And why do you assume that most or any companies would go into business for the purpose of killing or sickening their customers?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #93 of 121
So let's say there's a (private) testing company that tests products for safety. What if the baby formula company simply says, "our products are safe, and we pass the savings of not testing on to the consumer with lower prices!"

They now have the lowest prices. Do you honestly think a huge number of people won't be willing to take the chance?
post #94 of 121
Il doppio
post #95 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You know the peanut butter salmonella poisonings? That wouldn't have happened with proper regulation.

 

Bullshit. There were already regulations and inspections in place. People (unwisely) trusted the state to do this and it failed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So let's say there's a (private) testing company that tests products for safety. What if the baby formula company simply says, "our products are safe, and we pass the savings of not testing on to the consumer with lower prices!"
They now have the lowest prices. Do you honestly think a huge number of people won't be willing to take the chance?

 

I don't know. They might. I'm not sure I would. Would you?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You know the peanut butter salmonella poisonings? That wouldn't have happened with proper regulation.

Bullshit. There were already regulations and inspections in place. People (unwisely) trusted the state to do this and it failed.
That's just it. The regulations were not enforced.
post #98 of 121

What do you go for the rare exceptions and assume it is the rule?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #99 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So let's say there's a (private) testing company that tests products for safety. What if the baby formula company simply says, "our products are safe, and we pass the savings of not testing on to the consumer with lower prices!"

They now have the lowest prices. Do you honestly think a huge number of people won't be willing to take the chance?

I don't know. They might. I'm not sure I would. Would you?
And there you have it. MJ's version of morality goes like this: if people are foolish and die by trusting business, then let them die, it's their own damn fault. Oh, and the market will correct itself.
post #100 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's just it. The regulations were not enforced.

 

So people trusted the state who said it would take care of them, and it failed to.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #101 of 121
What happens when the testing company cuts corners?
post #102 of 121
Who tests the testing company?
post #103 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And there you have it. MJ's version of morality goes like this: if people are foolish and die by trusting business, then let them die, it's their own damn fault. Oh, and the market will correct itself.

 

In summary, you believe:

 

a) Businesses go into business to kill, injure or sicken their customers,

b) Everyone else is dumber than you and would trust businesses without having some assurance of their product's safety.

 

Is that it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #104 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's just it. The regulations were not enforced.

So people trusted the state who said it would take care of them, and it failed to.
And business is more trustworthy than the state. Got it. Despite the millions of examples of businesses cheating people, we're supposed to trust them more than a body which is elected and whom we can vote out.
post #105 of 121

OK. I get it tonton...in your dystopian view of business...they're all out to kill us.

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

I really can't go any further against this wall of irrationality.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #106 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And there you have it. MJ's version of morality goes like this: if people are foolish and die by trusting business, then let them die, it's their own damn fault. Oh, and the market will correct itself.

In summary, you believe:

a) Businesses go into business to kill, injure or sicken their customers,
b) Everyone else is dumber than you and would trust businesses without having some assurance of their product's safety.

Is that it?
Stop lying.
post #107 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And business is more trustworthy than the state. Got it. Despite the millions of examples of businesses cheating people, we're supposed to trust them more than a body which is elected and whom we can vote out.

 

Millions of examples? Millions?

 

Shit, I dare say that the states of this world have killed more people, lied to more people and cheated more people than all of the businesses in the history of the world combined.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 121
Business operate to make money. Sometimes they cut corners. And they are almost never accountable for that. At least the government is accountable when mistakes are made.
post #109 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Stop lying.

 

This is your clear implication. Your view is clearly that businesses are evil and that these things you're bringing up are not corner cases, exceptions, the unusual example rather than the norm. 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #110 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Business operate to make money. Sometimes they cut corners. And they are almost never accountable for that. At least the government is accountable when mistakes are made.

 

Bullshit.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #111 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

This is your clear implication. Your view is clearly that businesses are evil and that these things you're bringing up are not corner cases, exceptions, the unusual example rather than the norm. 

 

 

 

7sXfy.gifwMi9h.gif7sXfy.gif

 

 

Congratulations!  It's Political Outsider's...

 

1,000,000th STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!  

 

Tell them what's he's won!

 

MJ wins the scorn and ridicule of those who wish to live in an evidence-based reality and don't put our full faith in the market correcting itself (after people have died).

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #112 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!

 

Really? Well, all I'm hearing is how businesses will cut corners and sell products that harm their customers and are never held accountable as if these are not unusual and exceptional cases but rather frequently occurring cases...plus that everyone else is dumber than you or tonton and unable to look out for themselves in any way so the state must do it. The implication is that this is happening all the time and would be happening with frightening regularity absent the state. Not only that but that the state will essentially be our almighty protector and savior who rarely makes mistakes and if it does, is quickly and clearly held accountable.


Edited by MJ1970 - 12/6/12 at 9:35pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #113 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And business is more trustworthy than the state. Got it. Despite the millions of examples of businesses cheating people, we're supposed to trust them more than a body which is elected and whom we can vote out.

Millions of examples? Millions?

Shit, I dare say that the states of this world have killed more people, lied to more people and cheated more people than all of the businesses in the history of the world combined.
Of course millions, are you kidding? Besides the peanut butter and milk powder, there have been multiple poisonings related to things like cheese, vegetables, meat, eggs... And them there have been the mining disasters, the gulf oil disaster, schools collapsing in Taiwan and china because they've been filled with newspaper instead of reinforced concrete, a housing development collapsing in shanghai because the piling wasn't deep enough, sticky accelerators in cars, and that's just in recent memory off the top of my head. You'll no doubt blame government on every single one of those, but they all had one thing in common. Businesses cutting corners for profit. It's human nature, and your entire philosophy denies that.
post #114 of 121
Of course the milk powder manufacturer didn't want to kill any babies. The peanut butter executives didn't want to poison anyone. They weighed the risks and they thought the risk to their profit was of greater importance than the risk to the public. The execs in both cases probably knew people might get sick but didn't think it would get back to them. That doesn't mean I believe all businesses (or even some businesses) are set up to hurt people. They just want to make money, and if they think they can get away with it, they take calculated risks with people's lives. You're naive if you think that this scenario doesn't happen, or that the market will correct itself, eventually making people safer when it does. That's bull.
post #115 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course millions, are you kidding? Besides the peanut butter and milk powder, there have been multiple poisonings related to things like cheese, vegetables, meat, eggs... .

 

Most of those were discovered by the companies themselves, weren't they?  Having something go wrong doesn't mean there is a lack of regulation or interest in protecting the public.  

 

Quote:
And them there have been the mining disasters,

 

Mining is a dangerous business, though I agree we need regulation of the industry.  And we have it.  

 

 

Quote:
 the gulf oil disaster,

 

Not sure where you're going with that one.  We had regulations in place, but those regulations were often waived.  

 

 

Quote:
schools collapsing in Taiwan and china because they've been filled with newspaper instead of reinforced concrete, a housing development collapsing in shanghai because the piling wasn't deep enough,

 

Was this from lack of regulation in China and Taiwan?  I honestly don't know what their buildings codes/enforcement is like.  

 

Quote:
 sticky accelerators in cars,

 

A problem Toyota became aware of and fixed.  Should we have a No Sticky Pedal law?  This one example really goes to MJ's point:  Toyota acted quickly and with great urgency to fix this isolated problem.  They were concerned, obviously, about their brand.  The one danger I see in over-regulation (just in safety terms) is that it can create a culture where all safety concerns become the government's, not the company's.  We see this now in public sentiment..."they wouldn't be allowed to sell it if it was unsafe, right?"   I've heard that a million times.  It shifts responsibility to an entity that hasn't exactly shown it can run many things well.  

 

Quote:
 and that's just in recent memory off the top of my head. You'll no doubt blame government on every single one of those, but they all had one thing in common. Businesses cutting corners for profit. It's human nature, and your entire philosophy denies that

 

They do, but they also have to be worried about staying in business, which is what I think MJ's point is.  If word gets out that Apple computers blow up 1/4 of the time when exposed to temperatures of 70 degrees Fahrenheit, they wouldn't be in business very long.  The market does ensure that sales of any unreliable or unsafe item tend to plummet and hurt the company.  Good behavior in terms of keeping things safe is rewarded.  

 

Now I should be clear that the above is not an argument for no regulation.  I still support food safety requirements, inspection, building codes and enforcement, etc. Some companies will be irresponsible no matter what, just as the profit motive may cause them to cut corners (though I wouldn't equate "cutting corners" with a wanton disregard for safety).  Additionally, some of these problems may be hidden (such as in construction) and only revealed once a disaster happens, often with the construction company being out of business by that time.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course the milk powder manufacturer didn't want to kill any babies. The peanut butter executives didn't want to poison anyone. They weighed the risks and they thought the risk to their profit was of greater importance than the risk to the public. The execs in both cases probably knew people might get sick but didn't think it would get back to them. That doesn't mean I believe all businesses (or even some businesses) are set up to hurt people. They just want to make money, and if they think they can get away with it, they take calculated risks with people's lives. You're naive if you think that this scenario doesn't happen, or that the market will correct itself, eventually making people safer when it does. That's bull.

 

There is probably some truth to that.  My point is is that over-regulation can actually (I think) cause them to have a "screw it, it's legal, so why not" mentality with regards to safety.  I also don't think the vast, vast majority of executives think as you describe.  I don't think it's a question of them thinking "hmm.  Well if we use ingredient X, it might kill people...but it's worth the risk because of the profit margin."  There might be some like that, of course.  But I think it's more that errors and omissions happen.  It could be carelessness, or negligence among certain employees, or just something that occurs beyond a company's control (remember the Taco Bell contaminated onions thing?  Or the contaminated lettuce and tomato thing?  These weren't Taco Bell and/or Mcdonald's fault, but both acted quickly without the threat of government action). 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course millions, are you kidding? Besides the peanut butter and milk powder, there have been multiple poisonings related to things like cheese, vegetables, meat, eggs... .

 

Most of those were discovered by the companies themselves, weren't they?  Having something go wrong doesn't mean there is a lack of regulation or interest in protecting the public.  

 

Quote:
And them there have been the mining disasters,

 

Mining is a dangerous business, though I agree we need regulation of the industry.  And we have it.  

 

 

Quote:
 the gulf oil disaster,

 

Not sure where you're going with that one.  We had regulations in place, but those regulations were often waived.  

 

 

Quote:
schools collapsing in Taiwan and china because they've been filled with newspaper instead of reinforced concrete, a housing development collapsing in shanghai because the piling wasn't deep enough,

 

Was this from lack of regulation in China and Taiwan?  I honestly don't know what their buildings codes/enforcement is like.  

 

Quote:
 sticky accelerators in cars,

 

A problem Toyota became aware of and fixed.  Should we have a No Sticky Pedal law?  This one example really goes to MJ's point:  Toyota acted quickly and with great urgency to fix this isolated problem.  They were concerned, obviously, about their brand.  The one danger I see in over-regulation (just in safety terms) is that it can create a culture where all safety concerns become the government's, not the company's.  We see this now in public sentiment..."they wouldn't be allowed to sell it if it was unsafe, right?"   I've heard that a million times.  It shifts responsibility to an entity that hasn't exactly shown it can run many things well.  

 

Quote:
 and that's just in recent memory off the top of my head. You'll no doubt blame government on every single one of those, but they all had one thing in common. Businesses cutting corners for profit. It's human nature, and your entire philosophy denies that

 

They do, but they also have to be worried about staying in business, which is what I think MJ's point is.  If word gets out that Apple computers blow up 1/4 of the time when exposed to temperatures of 70 degrees Fahrenheit, they wouldn't be in business very long.  The market does ensure that sales of any unreliable or unsafe item tend to plummet and hurt the company.  Good behavior in terms of keeping things safe is rewarded.  

 

Now I should be clear that the above is not an argument for no regulation.  I still support food safety requirements, inspection, building codes and enforcement, etc. Some companies will be irresponsible no matter what, just as the profit motive may cause them to cut corners (though I wouldn't equate "cutting corners" with a wanton disregard for safety).  Additionally, some of these problems may be hidden (such as in construction) and only revealed once a disaster happens, often with the construction company being out of business by that time.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course the milk powder manufacturer didn't want to kill any babies. The peanut butter executives didn't want to poison anyone. They weighed the risks and they thought the risk to their profit was of greater importance than the risk to the public. The execs in both cases probably knew people might get sick but didn't think it would get back to them. That doesn't mean I believe all businesses (or even some businesses) are set up to hurt people. They just want to make money, and if they think they can get away with it, they take calculated risks with people's lives. You're naive if you think that this scenario doesn't happen, or that the market will correct itself, eventually making people safer when it does. That's bull.

 

There is probably some truth to that.  My point is is that over-regulation can actually (I think) cause them to have a "screw it, it's legal, so why not" mentality with regards to safety.  I also don't think the vast, vast majority of executives think as you describe.  I don't think it's a question of them thinking "hmm.  Well if we use ingredient X, it might kill people...but it's worth the risk because of the profit margin."  There might be some like that, of course.  But I think it's more that errors and omissions happen.  It could be carelessness, or negligence among certain employees, or just something that occurs beyond a company's control (remember the Taco Bell contaminated onions thing?  Or the contaminated lettuce and tomato thing?  These weren't Taco Bell and/or Mcdonald's fault, but both acted quickly without the threat of government action). 

 

Thank you for the honest engagement.

 

My whole point is not against moderation of regulation. It's against elimination of regulation, which is what MJ is calling for.

post #117 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 

Thank you for the honest engagement.

 

My whole point is not against moderation of regulation. It's against elimination of regulation, which is what MJ is calling for.

 

Yeah, that's where he and I differ.  I generally favor less regulation and government involvement, but think we still need it to an extent.  The same applies to government "services" (roads, police, fire, schools, etc.).  He tends to favor almost no regulation of any kind.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #118 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He tends to favor almost no regulation of any kind.  

 

Government regulation. There are other kinds of regulation, are there not?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #119 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Government regulation. There are other kinds of regulation, are there not?

 

That's a good point.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 121
And how is that regulation enforced?

Now, you mentioned the Mafia. That's exactly what I'm talking about. In a free market system with private security, how do we avoid the protection racket? You'll notice that there is almost no problem with protection rackets in today's society. That improvement wouldn't have been possible without government police action.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Marco Rubio--not fit for public office