What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?

I never said I was in favor of seat-belt legislation and i'm not certain where in my post you find this. I said that there is a difference between seat-belt legislation and mandating automobile manufacturers to produce automobiles with certain safety precautions.

The argument is not really logical. It's like saying let drug companies make whatever they want without any oversight - and when 1,000,000 people die because drug x proved to be toxic years later - so be it. When there is a potential for human death there is no litigation that can revive that human being, so the freedom of corporations must be limited to ensure personal liberty.

What you fail to recognize is that mandating auto manufacturers to include seat belts in cars is "seat belt legislation".

We should not set a precedent of allowing the government to control how products are produced. It does not work and it limits liberty.

Cars would have seat belts in them even without the government mandating it. People would realize seat belts are a good idea, one car manufacturer would start including them because there is a market for it, and then almost every other manufacturer will follow suit to retain there market share. We dont need the government to do what the market can do. We need the government to do as little as possible.
 
What you fail to recognize is that mandating auto manufacturers to include seat belts in cars is "seat belt legislation".

We should not set a precedent of allowing the government to control how products are produced. It does not work and it limits liberty.

Cars would have seat belts in them even without the government mandating it. People would realize seat belts are a good idea, one car manufacturer would start including them because there is a market for it, and then almost every other manufacturer will follow suit to retain there market share. We dont need the government to do what the market can do. We need the government to do as little as possible.

This reasoning is fallacious because it contends that the rights of a corporation (which is an unknown entity) equal the rights of an individual. The main concern is the liberty of the individual and to this, the rights of a corporation, are second in nature. We have a product, a free market exchange, and the consumer in a transactions. When this product is found to be detrimental to the consumer, litigation may ensure and the recipient of the product can be reimbursed. The issue arises when the product is of possible harm in either a permanent manner or resulting in death. This situation cannot be rectified and the creator of this product, the corporation, is now to be held liable. This is direct infringement through gross negligence on the liberty of an individual and thus, the reasoning for which the regulation of industry exists. Now, to rectify this situation we may have private testing or we may have government regulation. With the former there is no barring what a corporation can bring to the free market and, subsequently, products that infringe on the liberty of an individual are allowed to enter the market place and thus, gross negligence. This would also be problematic with who would pay for it and why an individual should pay for the protection of another. Another, simpler way is to have government regulations in certain areas that regularly test and verify products are safe for consumption and or use (through a scientifically measurable way). This provides that the whole population is contribution to the safety of all and that items are not issued to the marketplace that infringe on the liberty of individuals.

So, i think the issue is simple and one which requires a certain amount of government regulation to ensure the liberty of the individual is not threatened. The only way a free-market can function is if there is individual liberty and individual liberty triumphs any issue relative to the marketplace.
 
Um

A free market is one without regulations.

As long as the government ENFORCES CONTRACTS and holds drug or other companies responsible for selling bad products then you don't need the regulation! The industry will regulate itself due to self-interest. If it kills 800 thousand people it's not so be it, it's time to shut down the drug company and hold the people responsible for it being put on the market.

If I start selling snake oil and tell everyone it cures everything and everyone buys it but people start getting sick, there is plenty of recourse they can take because my claims were false and I didn't warn them of any side effects. In a free market, consumers make educated choices and it is the self-interest of corporations to regulate themselves.

In other words, I'm not against seatbelts, I wear one every time I drive down the road. What I take issue with is the government's assertion that it can force me to wear one and force auto makers to put them in every car. If I want to put my life at risk, it's my life to risk and it DOES NOT belong to uncle sam!

This is all very easy to understand but you have to let go of your preconceived "the government will look after me and keep me safe" mentality.
 
This reasoning is fallacious because it contends that the rights of a corporation (which is an unknown entity) equal the rights of an individual. The main concern is the liberty of the individual and to this, the rights of a corporation, are second in nature. We have a product, a free market exchange, and the consumer in a transactions. When this product is found to be detrimental to the consumer, litigation may ensure and the recipient of the product can be reimbursed. The issue arises when the product is of possible harm in either a permanent manner or resulting in death. This situation cannot be rectified and the creator of this product, the corporation, is now to be held liable. This is direct infringement through gross negligence on the liberty of an individual and thus, the reasoning for which the regulation of industry exists. Now, to rectify this situation we may have private testing or we may have government regulation. With the former there is no barring what a corporation can bring to the free market and, subsequently, products that infringe on the liberty of an individual are allowed to enter the market place and thus, gross negligence. This would also be problematic with who would pay for it and why an individual should pay for the protection of another. Another, simpler way is to have government regulations in certain areas that regularly test and verify products are safe for consumption and or use (through a scientifically measurable way). This provides that the whole population is contribution to the safety of all and that items are not issued to the marketplace that infringe on the liberty of individuals.

So, i think the issue is simple and one which requires a certain amount of government regulation to ensure the liberty of the individual is not threatened. The only way a free-market can function is if there is individual liberty and individual liberty triumphs any issue relative to the marketplace.


You obviously don't understand what a free market is.

Individual liberty and rights of corporations are very closely related. This issue we are talking about effects individual liberty as well.

When the government makes a law saying all cars produced must have seatlbelts, it infringes on the rights of the car-munfacturer to make the car how they want, and it infringed on the right of an individual to buy a car without a seat belt.
 
Just about sums it up.:D

vomit.jpg

ditto.

nader's a tool and he knows it (and that's what pisses me off).
 
Yeah...I just don't have the energy for this particular debate. Thankfully, even under a Ron Paul presidency, common sense sense will win out and seat belt laws will stay as they are. This way people like you will always have something to bitch about.:D

lol There's a Ron speech on youtube where he praises New Hampshire for not having seatbelt laws. I think it might be from when the whole family went to NH to go door-to-door.
 
Nader is a shill.

He got his start by an out of court settlement from GM of $400,000.00

He is a dictator who has refused to mentor any successor to his 'cause'.

The free market (research Tucker, who had many safety features included in his auto) would improve automobile efficiency and safety. Unfortunately, we don't have a free market in the US. We have Rockefeller monopolies that have squeezed out, bought out and/or destroyed people like Tucker.

In over 100 years of the automobile, the average MPG hasn't changed at all. Seatbelts may be a good thing but guys like Tucker had them in the late forties, along with safety glass, pop-out windows, a padded dash and disc brakes...all in one model, not spread out over decades.

Just look at GM's role in the death of the zero emissions vehicle. They bought the innovative battery technology company and later sold it to Texaco, where it languishes on a shelf.

Meanwhile, the small handful of innovative zero emissions vehicle companies in the US lay starving for investment capital, which will keep the delivery times and prices unacceptably high.

In Ralph Nader, whom they financed with a tax-free out of court (and tidy) sum of cash, they have the token consumer advocate to give the appearance of a balance between the monopoly and consumer protection...a giant crock of BS, IMO.

Ron Paul will move to finally end the corporate political muscle and welfare for Exxon and GM that has kept us in a time loop for a century, during which we have gone from horse and buggy to Windows. :mad::rolleyes::confused:

The all new GM cars!!! 4 rubber tires, an internal combustion gasoline driven engine with a steering wheel and everything, averaging 20.3 MPG. That's a huge leap of technological advance for only 100 years, eh?

I'm just sayin'...NADER...NO.

Bosso
 
Seatbelts are a great idea. Keeps the taxpayers from having to pay hundreds of million of dollars towards cleaning your blood & brains off the street each year.

Nader is a bad idea.
Yes, which is why the market would have taken care of it. If it was what people wanted in a car, manufacturers would have put them in. We don't need the government telling companies how they must manufacture their products. If you have a better product - say, a car that comes with seat belts - and it's what consumers want, you will win in the marketplace.
 
Perry wrote:

I WAS KIDDING!

I don't doubt you.

But you have to understand, I'm more than a little punchy, after a year into this campaign, and others like them, the constant drumbeat of, "'yer a kook, a nazi, a pinko, a liberal, a right wing nutjob, a tinfoil hat conspiracy wacko" and every other name in the book, has put me in the "fight mode". Especially coming from a user friendly site.

That being said, you will never convince me that forcing people to do what is considered good for them, through force of law, is ever a good idea.
 
Jamesmadison wrote:

I'm sorry, but when the constitution was written there were no automobiles.

Neither were there autoloading rifles and high speed internet links.

I'm assuming you think these need to be regulated for the common good as well?
 
What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?
If people don't stop day dreaming about the Presidency and actually start focusing on doing what it takes to win (canvassing, donating and getting delegates) my thoughts are that this election run will be lost because we were not able as a grassroots to stay focused on the job and got distracted with hypotheticals about the prize.
 
"What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?"

Worst idea I have ever heard. I once said that the Kucinich VP idea was the worst. But nope, this beats that one.

Every single idea Nader espouses entails a greater removal of our liberties than the entire Bush tenure. Just his minimum wage hike would be a far more egregious offense against our freedoms than 10 Patriot Acts.
 
Back
Top