ARCHIVES Dr. Ron Paul Casts Only Vote against Ban on Lead in Toys

[tangent4ronpaul]

Link to Article


Free markets can't exactly filter out lead in toys right away. Isn't restricting imports based upon health concerns legitimate?

As smart as Libertarians are, the general public isn't as aware of what they purchase or consume. Hell, it is hard to be vigilant ALL the time. Nanny state government is despicable, and laws like this lead to further abuses, but I see no way to really win a debate with a socialist over this one. How should we approach this rationally?

Consider this: I hung out in a coffee shop (to remain nameless) and later worked there - this over a period of years. I was not happy to hear later (after they went underground and operated illegally in a basement), that the waitresses dealt coke, that it operated as a fence for stolen goods, and that they paid off the cops and building inspector to ignore the place because, among other things it had lead pipes and should have been condemned. Yes, we are talking the mob. This was years ago... I was an adolescent back then. The building has since been demolished and they have moved, though I suspect they are up to the usual BS. But I DID NOT appreciate their putting my health at risk in the name of profit! (there was also a murder in the name of racism attached to this business. Jewish girl - 16yo, IIRC... stabbed.)

This society is corrupt to it's core, and will become more so the worse the economy gets!

So we have this "regulatory" system - what happens when the regulators and cops are corrupt? Not to mention EMS. It becomes worthless.

I now live outside Baltimore and learned via word of mouth and later first hand that if your car is impounded that the POLICE in the POLICE impound would break into your car and rob you!

I learned that there are after hours clubs, supposedly "protected" by on duty police officers that dealt drugs (club employees and others - not officers- they just looked the other way).

Now some of these issues, like drugs - I don't think the gvmt has any business sticking their nose in - and it just drives the price up! Theft, murder and health concerns - crimes with victims are another matter...

Other areas like poisoning me (lead) and stealing from me or dealing in stolen goods I have A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH!

I could bring up other things, but wont... Point I'm trying to make is that we need to REPLACE the current power structure on up - starting with the DOG CATCHER!

Our system is so corrupt it's not funny!

-n

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

What if somebody wanted to make toys out of lead and sell them as "Lead Toys"? Of course it's absolutely stupid, and they probably wouldn't sell, but the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

What if somebody wants to sit around smoking pot all day? Absolutely stupid, but once again, the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

 

[TastyWheat]

Now some of these issues, like drugs - I don't think the gvmt has any business sticking their nose in - and it just drives the price up! Theft, murder and health concerns - crimes with victims are another matter...

Other areas like poisoning me (lead) and stealing from me or dealing in stolen goods I have A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH!

Well, the problem with regulation is that it applies to everyone in the industry, not just the offenders. So the businesses that didn't do anything wrong are going to pay the price just the same.

It would be much better if the government did something like offer "rewards" for discovering unsafe products. So independent groups could test these products and if they found some to be in violation of safety standards they could get a percentage of the fines collected from the importer/manufacturer.

Still, that's not the way things should work. If businesses sell unsafe products they should be held liable. If I'm on the jury of a lead-painted toy class action lawsuit I'm siding with the consumer.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

What if somebody wanted to make toys out of lead and sell them as "Lead Toys"? Of course it's absolutely stupid, and they probably wouldn't sell, but the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

What if somebody wants to sit around smoking pot all day? Absolutely stupid, but once again, the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

Actually, toy soldiers and musket balls used to be made of lead and are collectors items - as such - cool!, sold to kids, NOT cool!

Where do you draw the line?

-n

 

[acptulsa]

Where do you draw the line?

Where, indeed. Well, they almost always draw the line between some formerly free American and a safe, harmless purpose.

If they weren't squeezing us so hard that parents are almost all working and exhausted, it would be less of an issue.

 

[hypnagogue]

The Free Market runs on information. The only regulation that I think is truly necessary are full disclosure and labeling requirements. If you wanna make toys with lead in them, then there better be a label on the back stating, "Contains Lead." I can assure you no toy store is going to knowingly choose to carry toys which contain lead.

Everyone can still buy their toy trains, they'll just be properly labeled.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I think I was watching Bill Moyer's show, and he had an interesting guest on that was trying to argue in favor of an alliance between libertarian thought and socialist thought through something I think he called fraternal libertarianism.

The idea was basically that instead of enlisting the government to use coercive power and threats to "improve" society, that government could be used to suggest or inform ways to improve society, while still leaving the citizens in charge of making individual choices. So instead of throwing drug users in jail, and that whole apparatus, the state may instead try to provide information about the dangers of drug abuse and try to persuade people to not abuse drugs.

The guest thought this may be an angle that could provide a path for libertarians and those outraged people (socialists) who expect the government to DO SOMETHING all the time to find some kind of common ground.

Personally, I don't see why we need special product safety legislation or regulatory bodies at all. As long as there is a just court system, I should be able to sue a company that poisoned my dog or my kid, and the risk of that liability should be enough to make businesses regard product safety as an extremely important aspect of their business.

So perhaps instead of government being responsible to check imports for safety, maybe a middle ground would be for government funded agencies to study and report upon manufacturing practices, or keep and report statistics on the numbers of people harmed by a manufacturer's products. Basically a role of providing more information to consumers while still leaving the ultimate choices in the hands of the people.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

The idea was basically that instead of enlisting the government to use coercive power and threats to "improve" society, that government could be used to suggest or inform ways to improve society, while still leaving the citizens in charge of making individual choices. So instead of throwing drug users in jail, and that whole apparatus, the state may instead try to provide information about the dangers of drug abuse and try to persuade people to not abuse drugs.

I believe they already did this... (cosponsored by DuPont)

-n

 

[RoamZero]

The problem with such regulation (while good intentioned) is that it stems from corporate personhood laws. If a child dies from lead tainted toys in most cases the only reparations a family can get is a monetary reward if the company is found liable. The people managing the company are thus insulated and no one goes to jail, so corporations can treat such things as expendable risks and essentially externalize much of the responsibility to the government. We wouldn't need such regulations if the people in charge faced potential jail time for such irresponsibility if found guilty.

 

[Kade]

Um.... hello? The Constitution doesn't authorize it. The states need to ban it, not the federal government.

I do side with your point about the states. This is an example of the Desperate House Wives culture... this is what the minions of the democracy want... child proof caps to save their kiddies.

I'm not advocating it... I'm merely pointing out that your view is in opposition to the will of the idiots. Unless you wish to strip the country of democracy, I don't see how you are going to will it into existence.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

More children die in bicycle accidents than die from toy parts. If government forced safety standards on everything sold in stores, children would never be allowed bicycles.

 

[SLSteven]

I do side with your point about the states. This is an example of the Desperate House Wives culture... this is what the minions of the democracy want... child proof caps to save their kiddies.

I'm not advocating it... I'm merely pointing out that your view is in opposition to the will of the idiots. Unless you wish to strip the country of democracy, I don't see how you are going to will it into existence.

We are supposed to be protected from unfettered democtratic rule. Let the states decide!

 

[truthrewards]

Now that everyone is outraged about the new law going into affect

Now that everyone is outraged about the new law going into affect

Ron Paul got it right!!

I hope people will see that Ron Paul and the liberty movement is the our only hope