Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas have been tried failed

The idea of little or no regulations have been tried in our nation's history. It was a colossal failure.

Most people want to know that when you fly on a plane it's been inspected according to regulations. Most people want to know that when you eat food it's been inspected and held up to a certain standard.

Most people like our nation having a system of interstate highways to make transportation possible.

Most people like the idea that rural homes and areas should have electricity.

Most people don't think children should be forced to work at all.

Most people believe that their work should be held to certain safety standards.

Most people believe that when they are treated by doctors, given medicine, stay at a hospital that the medical treatment meets certain standards.

Most people are against monopolies.

Paul and libertarians are on the wrong side of all of those things, and we know that competition alone wouldn't fix the problems involved because we've had those policies in place before, and the results were horrible.

In addition many of the things that are great about our nation such as rural electrification, the hoover dam, an interstate highway system would not be possible without the federal govt. having powers that Paul and libertarians would not allow the govt. to have.

There are some areas where I agree with Paul and Libertarians. I believe Paul is sincere and mostly honest in what he says. However history has shown us that many of his policy ideas are detrimental.

If people have a different idea about the Libertarian ideals then please enlighten me. I'd be happy to discuss them.

 

Libertarians want no govt. regulation of businesses, they don't want the govt. to have powers that do things like rural electrification, build the hoover dam, build the interstate system, because somehow private enterprise would supposedly take care of that.

They don't like the FDA which inspects our food and keeps us safe as well as drugs that are safe.

They are against regulations which keep children from working, workers from working in overly hazardous environments, airplanes regulated for safety by the FAA, etc. The list goes on and on.

If you know of libertarians that favor those kinds of regulations and powers of the Federal govt. please let me know about it.

 

There are mistakes made all the time, and I'll believe it's possible that banning OTC inhalers was one, but getting rid of the FDA because of it is a silly solution.

It's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

The local government isn't capable of things like in interstate system rural electrification etc.

If you'd willingly go back to the way food was spoiled, rotten, and deadly before the FDA, because you need a prescription for an inhaler then that's part of the problem.

 

Thank you for your response, it's along the lines of what I was hoping for. I don't mind being wrong, but I'd like someone to point it out.

Before the FDA people died from bad food, and it happened all the time. Like I said the conditions you talked about existed before and the results were not that the public was able to stop buying bad meats, the result was that people died.

The same is true of child labor. Children were forced to work in dangerous factories for pennies a day. No states stopped trading with corporations that did this. The same goes for work conditions for adults. They were unsafe but the public wasn't able to be informed enough to stop buying from them. Those exact conditions existed before and the public suffered. The unions and government regulation were required to put an end to it.

States weren't able to stop the abuses and injuries from happening.

As far as libertarianism not being on the side I'm on, then libertarians are OK with the federal government making a new system of transportation and spending tax dollars on that?

Libertarians are OK with spending federal money on bringing new energy forms to remote areas across state lines?

 

But the Libertarians don't seem to be in favor of money to developing solar energy.

I guess we disagree about regulations concerning child labor, food safety etc. At best it would present a system where after something catastrophic happens then consumers could choose not to be customers of that company. That means catastrophic things will happen, where as with regulation we prevent them from ever happening ideally. That's the best case scenario.

I think it's more likely that like today even with media, mass communication and regulations, not many people know the safety record of meat deliveries, production factories, pharmaceuticals etc.

As far as transportation being handled by the state alone, we had that and we never had an interstate system until Ike used Federal money to build one. The same goes for the Hoover Dam etc. We also would have never gone to the moon, or many of the things that made our nation great.

 

Wrong. By any plans Democrats have proposed you are free to work and prosper from your work. If you have a plan that is different from Democrats then please link it.

Otherwise stop making up crap.

 

Exactly. But to act like because govt. regulations and the FDA aren't 100% effective at stopping contamination and deaths from bad food that there should be no regulation. It's an asinine logic.

By having the CDC and FDA it makes it more possible to track things like listeria and then let the consumers exercise their right to not buy certain foods or whatever.

No system will be perfect, but because a system is only 95% effective instead of 100% is no reason to do away with the system.