Redstate

They also advocate for choice about death, too, given their support for euthanasia, either physician assisted suicide or the "mercy killing" of the likes of Terry Schiavo.

Sex and death. There must be a Woody Allen punchline here somewhere.

everyone knows that if you get your partner to take drugs, you're more likely to get SEX. So legalizing drugs is really about SEX too...

I haven't figured out the link between euthanasia and SEX yet, but there must be one. Otherwise the libs would be against it.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

and I am compelled to wonder, do necrophiliacs have a lobby group?

Ugh, this is what happens when you try to get inside the liberal mind.

that angle hadn't occurred to me. I guess I haven't gone THAT deep into the liberal mind. 8*)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

is obvious. The fewer competitors you have for sexual partners, the more likely you will get SEX.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

The regulations are about sex, too!

Banning transfats? Who wants to get jiggy with a fat chick?

Smoking? Who wants to kiss an ashtray?

...there's a reason I call it "tyranny" -- and a reason why I try to distinguish it from the normal tyranny that we all know and hate.

The reason I call it a form of tyranny is because it's being cast as something that we have no choice but to do....or else. These things aren't being cast as good ideas, better ways to live, or merely good for our own health.

No, they're increasingly being cast as social imperatives. It used to be that vegetarianism was merely a good idea for one's health. Now, some vegetarians are standing on the shoulders of those who have pushed the global warming dogma and telling us that, in fact, not being a vegetarian is just as much a Secu-sin as driving a Hummer.

These things are not simply unwise choices for you: they're killing all of us and, as such, must be stopped with a vengeance.

I don't think it's at all hyperbolic to refer to such a worldview as tyrannical -- because what is tyranny but the removal of individual free choice in favor of a compulsory, prescribed pattern of behavior and belief in service of a the tyrant's idea of a greater good?

As I said in the OP, the punishments for deviation from the enforced norm in this kind of tyranny are quite different than they are in a traditional tyranny like, say, Castro's Cuba. They're even different from the frightening picture of Islam painted by the 3 ex-terrorists in Mr. Hinz's report posted elsewhere on RS.

Go read that thread at DU that I linked in the OP. Read the Alternet piece it references and read the guilt-ridden responses from rank-and-file liberals.

I don't think my characterization is unfair at all. The key concept here is the imperative nature of the prescription -- if you don't adhere to it, you are the enemy.

No, they're increasingly being cast as social imperatives.

In much the same way as pro-familiy organization portray defending the sanctity of marriage from homosexuals as a social imperative critical to the foundation of western civilization? In the same way anti-assisted suicide organizations portray that issue as a social imperative, synonymizing it with coerced euthanasia? In the same way that anti-medical marijuana organizations portray that issue as a social imperative?

Everyone has their own set of social imperatives. You and I probably agree that it is some combination of futile, unjust, and counter-productive to legislate for almost all of them. Instead of putting more ill-conceived laws on the books, I'd much rather continue to see impassioned persons advocating their positions and attempting to persuade rather than attempting to coerce through the power of government.

what is tyranny but the removal of individual free choice in favor of a compulsory, prescribed pattern of behavior and belief in service of a the tyrant's idea of a greater good?

Well if you can explain how writing a magazine editorial or a blog post, or how advocating that people stop buying fur coats or drive fuel efficient vehicles is the same as enforcing a "compulsory, prescribed pattern of behavior and belief in service of a the tyrant's idea" then perhaps I'd agree that those exmaples you and Will gave were all valid instances of tyranny.

As I said in the OP, the punishments for deviation from the enforced norm in this kind of tyranny are quite different than they are in a traditional tyranny

And what did you say those punishments were? "guilt and ostracism"? My, how severe! You risk those things everytime you open your mouth and say what you think about any given issue around people whose views may not mirror your own. Why does this feel like listening to liberal victimization-speak?

That sarcasm aside (I do appreciate your many posts), I still think "tyranny" is quite a stretch.

In much the same way as pro-familiy organization portray defending the sanctity of marriage from homosexuals as a social imperative critical to the foundation of western civilization?

Well, frankly, yes. However (and I say this as a card-carrying supporter of the equal marriage rights movement) it is worth pointing out that it is we, and not the "protectors of marriage", who are trying to change the long, long held status quo.

I understand that I'm the radical on that issue, trying to institute change against millenniums of custom and civilization.

Most of my beefs with what I consider the new tyranny of leftism don't have to do with their attempts to protect the status quo (which the broader left is doing on issues like Social Security and education), but rather to replace it with a more restrictive one.

However, you saying that there are similar instances at other places on the ideological spectrum doesn't really refute my point.

Everyone has their own set of social imperatives.

Not everyone. But I do understand what you're saying and don't disagree. However, I don't see too much serious movement on these social bêtes noires anywhere but on the left.

And what did you say those punishments were? "guilt and ostracism"? My, how severe!

Well, it's that way now -- not too many of these things have been codified yet. Some have and I'll be happy to give you an example.

What would happen to me if I decided to get in the plumbing fixture business and sell a toilet that flushes 7 gallons of water with each flush (which was at one time the industry standard)? Because I know there'd be a healthy demand for such a product.

It's an example that may sound a bit unserious. But it's not at all. It's a pretty good example of what ends up happening when people like this end up gaining enough power to move from merely handing out guilt and ostracization to being able to hand out fines or worse.

you saying that there are similar instances at other places on the ideological spectrum doesn't really refute my point.

As long as you consistently define those other instances as "tyranny" as well, then I guess it doesn't.

However, I don't see too much serious movement on these social bêtes noires anywhere but on the left.

I would concur for the sake of argument that (D)'s are more prone to nanny-statism than (R)'s although the present trend is not impressive for the latter. But my observation is that so far, whatever party is in power ends up enacting a spate of coercive measures that - although I still may not designate them as tyrannical - are far more objectionable to me than mere editorials and blog posts. I'm sure we'll see many examples from a (D) controlled congress, but we saw them under the (R)'s as well, e.g. recent focus by the Department of Justice on gambling and pornography (since, I guess, they're all out of work now that the war on terror has been won).

I don't disagree with your toilet example at all, it's not so unserious. I would assume since water costs money, and moreso where water is scarce, that whatever environmental concerns follow from a potentially higher consumption of water would be balanced out by actually not ending up with everyone rushing out for a 7 gallon flusher that will cost them x% more every year.

You're preaching to the choir on the sad slide from guilt tripping to coercion by government force. One day the rabble urges you to use less water (abstain from using sex toys), the next day they ban 7 gallon flushers (sex toys sales). Who knows what's next or which direction it will come from?

just as they have already in the European Union:

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/004767.html

from early Feb. of this year:

Philippe Val, publisher of the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo went on trial this week for publishing the infamous Danish Cartoons.

The charge is “publicly slandering a group of people because of their religion” (I have seen several variants of this, so I guess the translation is a bit open to interpretation.) The charge carries a possible six-month prison sentence and a fine of up to €26,800.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

The charge in Texas in 2003 was selling sex toys to consenting adult consumers without posting a sign saying "sold only as novelties"; carries up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

The possible charge in South Carolina if their sex toy sales ban is enacted looks even funner:

If the bill passes selling sex toys would be a felony. The punishment would be five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

That's five years of jailtime for selling a plastic toy to a consenting adult consumer. It would be a felony offense for an activity at the same level of genuine harm (i.e. non-existent) as publishing anti-Islamic cartoons. And what goes on in the EU is supposed to scare me?

Next steps, ok. Well, I'm looking behind me and I can't even see the doorway we went through that got us this far into the nanny state basement.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Good one... in the perfect storm of over-zealous prosecutor meets inane legislation, it would not shock me to hear reports of "Exhibit A: zucchini".

It could be a melon or an Apple Pie.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

the result of their actions in education, which is more than just telling folks how to live their lives. it's forcing beliefs on students by eliminating all non-left arguments from the discussion.

actions that leftists take include:

- hiring only leftists to teach at universities;

- rewriting of history books with a pro-left slant (and i read a lot of these books in public school);

- reacting to reasonable arguments, in and out of the classroom, as if they are pure bigotry (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.);

- dismissing administrators who stand in their way (harvard's ex-president is only the most egregious example);

- insisting on teaching certifications at the K-12 level, which keeps out those who are sensible and often those who are conservative (not always the same thing, despite my conservative bias);

and so on

the result is that the average citizen of the country has a very skewed view of our nation and of morality, and often reacts with indignation to differing arguments.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

...there certainly is such a thing as a moralist wing of the conservative movement (although I think I'll stick up for them on the Janet Jackson thing...that wasn't about keeping you from seeing anything, it was about unexpected and unadvertised nudity on a sports broadcast intended for people of all ages. There are certainly plenty of instances where people are trying to prevent you and I from being able to view material they find objectionable. That wasn't one of them, though).

There are some similarities here. A devout moralist will tell you that vibrant societies of world history have died off because of breakdowns in sexual morality and, as such, we need to maintain a moral code lest we face our society similarly dying off. That argument does sound a lot like the common environmental arguments that we're killing the planet and arguments that wealth disparity leads to social revolution. I personally don't buy any of them (at least in the way they're typically forwarded).

However, you can't say that there are any serious efforts afoot to outlaw homosexuality or pornography. There are serious efforts afoot to restrict guns, restrict greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

And, moreover, SoCons are frequently viewed (by the media, entertainment world, etc.) as restrictionists -- and, often, fairly so. But few people on the left are ever viewed that way.

They should be.

Nothing in my comment had anything to do with sex. And I suppose you could call it unadvertised and unexpected nudity if you like, but the response has been far out of proportion to the rather brief "nudity". The reality is that a small group of people (The Parents Television Council) is using the FCC to impose a vague, inconsistent, and arbitrary "standards" on broadcasters who violate their own view of what should be permitted on television. The fines in question are rather steep. Someone should let these people know about the button that changes the channel and the one that turns the TV off.

And there are plenty of places that have outlawed booze--I live in a dry county.

I do find leftwing puritans at least as obnoxious as right wing kinds. I like eating baby animals--veal and lamb taste good.

You're saying now that the punishment didn't fit the crime. Before, it seemed to me you were saying that there shouldn't have been any punishment at all for such a thing.

Relax, though. Because I do know what you're saying. There are simply much better examples than the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. I don't blame anybody for getting bent out of shape about that.

It's one thing if you knowingly tune into a program expecting to see a woman's nipple -- Lord knows I've done it plenty of times myself. But if you take your kids on the living room sofa to watch a football game and are then fed something you weren't asking for, that's a different story.

There was an adult bookstore/truck stop that was recently closed down not far from me. The county government had been trying to shut it down because it conflicted with the "family friendly" image they're trying to portray.

Of course this is another example of somebody trying to force their own view of morality on other people. The point that I'm trying to get across is that, without frequently being called out for it, the modern left looks more and more like these same sorts of people....just with different bugaboos.

However, you can't say that there are any serious efforts afoot to outlaw homosexuality or pornography. There are serious efforts afoot to restrict guns, restrict greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

Homosexuality itself can't be restricted, but the Right has certainly been restricting the rights of homosexuals. The Left has, if anything, been trending libertarian with respect to guns. You don't hear liberals even talking about gun control these days, at least not at the federal level. That leaves us with greenhouse gases. Controlling CO2 emissions won't bring the end of the SUV any more than the introduction of catalytic converters. Fuel efficiency requirements might lead to SUVs having hybrid engines, but that hardly sounds tyrannical.

You don't get to assume universal agreement on the first sentence and then boldly forge ahead. Doing so has been a disaster for, example, gay marriage supporters (of which I am one) on the State level, and we're one court case away from it being a disaster on the Federal level as well.

IOW, 'certainly' is contested. To put it mildly; and the people who are contesting it are the ones winning the debates.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I don't know what it is you disagree with on the first sentence. Has it not been the Right behind blocking gay marriage, civil unions, adoptions, open service in the military, etc.? I used the term "gay rights" loosely, using the typical vernacular, to describe those issues for which gays are not treated the same as everyone else under the law.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Homosexuals have no Constitutional right to have their unions receive public recognition. More specificially, if the state chooses to recognize traditional marriages, then the Constitution in no way requires the state to do the same for homosexuals relationships. The idea that it does is absurd, and the only way one can think it does is if they buy into the equally absurd 'living Constitution'.

As to gun control at the federal level; just wait! The Democrats are understandably reluctant to indulge their anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment tendencies because so many of the newly-elected Democrats come from conservative or center-right districts and/or states. Many of these Democrats actually do believe in Second Amendment rights, and those that don't are most likely smart enough to avoid showing their true colors before they really gain the power of incumbency. But if the Democrats maintain the majority long enough, then its a safe bet that aggressive federal gun control will return to their agenda.

But limiting their choices is still their freedom of action.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

One thing all non-leftists should be able to agree on is that the Constitution in no way requires the state to offer the same (or any) recognition to gay couples that it chooses to offer to traditional marriages. If you reject the ludicrous 'living Constitution', then that part is easy.

So if the courts were removed from the equation (as they should be), then the matter goes to the people and/or their elected state legislators (and Congress for federal purposes) for resolution. That is where you should take your case and make your arguments.

Then whatever happens...so be it. But to have a few arrogant, elitist, power-usurping judges settle it on ridiculous and insulting constitutional grounds is not acceptable.

the Right has certainly been restricting the rights of homosexuals.

I just don't agree with this. Homosexuals are trying to gain rights they haven't had (and, no, I don't buy the phony argument that they can still get married...but to somebody of the opposite sex).

The right is certainly the chief stumbling block to that...although, because of polling numbers, the Democrats have been awfully ginger about appearing to be in favor of gay marriage themselves. But I don't think it's either fair or accurate to say that this is a restriction of rights. It's a resistance to attaining new rights -- but their argument comes from a direction of the institution of marriage itself.

And you do have to remember that marriage is not merely a governmental thing. Many private interests use marriage to determine their own policies -- and instituting gay marriage would necessarily force these interests to recognize something that may well be in contravention with their belief system.

And peoples' belief systems, even if you don't like them, should hold a sacred place.

That's the chief difficulty with the issue. As much of a proponent as I am of equal marriage rights, I strongly supported the Boy Scouts in their legal tussle with the gay rights movement several years back. There's a difference between demanding equality of the law and demanding the acceptance of others in society.

You don't hear liberals even talking about gun control these days, at least not at the federal level.

Well, I agree to a certain extent. But, as others here will tell you, Rep. McCarthy of New York is pushing some of the most restrictive gun legislation to come along in our nation's history in the House right now. And it does have a fair amount of support.

And, moreover, guns are but one issue in my list of gripes. You have political correctness, you have all the environmental garbage, you have Social Security (and perhaps soon mandatory government healthcare), you have the public education status quo, you have the public smoking bans. The list, really, goes on and on.

Fuel efficiency requirements might lead to SUVs having hybrid engines, but that hardly sounds tyrannical.

I beg to differ. For one thing, do you honestly think it would stop there? And, even if it did, what if I wanted to buy a non-hybrid SUV and I found a carmaker who wanted to sell me one?

Justice Louis Brandeis, a man of the left BTW, famously said "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

He could very well have been talking about the same people I'm talking about. You seem to cast aside these encroachments as minimal. And, in some respects, you're right.

But, in other respects, you aren't -- because history seems to suggest that any restriction of liberty, no matter how minimal, is generally followed by more once the earlier restriction gains enough acceptance.

Homosexuals are trying to gain rights they haven't had

....so were blacks in the 60's. This is a classic distinction without a difference.

sexual habits?

Or do you have some support for the idea that homosexuals are really heterosexuals who get confused after a drink or two?

I wasn't comparing them. I was pointing out the whole in his argument. Withholding a right that others enjoy (like the right to vote) isn't any less disgraceful than taking away a right previously held.

Capiche?

There is no marriage discrimination except by age. Anyone of the required age and suitable ancestral distance (except in certain states) can enter into wedded union. If they are sufficiently addlebrained they may even believe themselves happy.

What you can't do is enter into union with someone who is a blood relative, multiple people, outside of the human species or the same sex. Thats the right. There is no except for Homosexuals, women, men, pick your minority.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Do you think the courts are justified in imposing gay marriage/civil unions? Do you think the Sup Court should impose them on the entire nation?

When slavery was abolished in the constitution it necessarily was a declaration that black people were in fact people, since they were all now free-men (it had essentially been decided that slaves were not people since they were counted as 3/5 of a person in the censi, etc.). Thus that amendment granted them all the same rights everyone else was granted by the constitution. However, through Jim Crow laws, etc. those rights were UNCONSTITUTIONALLY denied them.

Thus, in the 1960s, blacks were actually fighting for rights they had possessed for some time but had been unable to exercise due to unconstitutional abridgment of those rights.

The closer comparison would have been to the fight to abolish slavery, or to the fight for women's suffrage. However, there is some distinction even from those fights. Abolition of slavery was essentially a call to recognize that the inalienable right to liberty, enumerated in the declaration of independence, was being denied to slaves. Women's suffrage was essentially a call to recognize that women members of the human race (i.e. men, in the general sense of the word) and thus deserving of the same rights as men.

Since marriage is not actually a right given by the constitution, but a social institution which developed from religious beliefs, it should not be something which can be granted to ANYONE by the government. Thus, it is an instance of "nanny-statism" that the government is involved in marriage at all.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

courts gave blacks rights when the majority wouldn't. A super majority fo whites passed the civil war amendments, and then judges refuse to enforce them until Brown.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks cups hurl
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

they are always called persons in the constitution. always. and the word slavery doesn't appear. they went out of their way to make sure no legitimacy was given to slavery.

the 3/5ths clause relates only to representation - not to whether slaves are persons.

and no one ever argued in the constitutional convention that slaves weren't persons, either.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

If slavery isn't mentioned in the constitution (which it isn't) then it can be assumed to apply to ALL men/women. However, since slavery was continually practiced in the US from that time until the civil war, it must be assumed that those rights were not considered to apply to slaves. Thus slaves were not considered human in the legal sense. Also, if you count someone as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation, you are saying that they are not a person - that they are actually 3/5 of a person. Clearly 3/5 is less than 1, thus slaves were considered less than human - or individually, less than a person.

Note: I am not saying that this was a CORRECT view, only that it was the LEGAL view at the time.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

So do you think the courts should impose gay marriage/civil unions on states and eventually the entire nation?

...is that they're conservatives/libertarians.

Riiiiiight.

Moe

PS: Before I forget: I need a clarification on what, precisely, you meant by this. This is a moderator asking, so let's have the long answer this time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

PS: Before I forget: I need a clarification on what, precisely, you meant by this. This is a moderator asking, so let's have the long answer this time.

Do I answer here or there? I'm confused. Did I miss someone asking me for clarification?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Many "liberals" fall into the trap that "voting with their dollar" is more important than...well...voting.

Specifically, to explain what you meant by this. I suggest that you get cracking.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

You guys ARE right-wingers. I meant that "yes" AIPAC has reached into the Democratic Party and the media.

Is that better?

To be clear, did I break a rule with a short answer?

All I have to do is wait long enough with your crowd and at least one of you'll start going off on the Jews. That and depleted uranium.

You really thought that we were going to buy that "The Fifth Column Strikes Again / Why are politicians still going to AIPAC meetings after we caught them spying on us?" was supposed to be attacking the Democrats? How stupid do you think we are?

Blam, nudnik.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I think you're just saying that it's common and not nefarious.

Let me respond to a few of your comments specifically:

Educating one's children and, in many places, not smoking in restaurants are compulsory because they're the law.

Gosh, there's circular logic if I've ever seen it. That's like saying that prostitution is illegal because it's the law -- which entirely avoids the question of whether or not it ought to be and, if so, upon what basis it should.

But the smoking bans in restaurants are a fine example of what I'm talking about.

We've all decided that cigarette smoke is bad for the smoker's health -- and some assert that it's also bad for the health of those around the smoker. And most non-smokers are annoyed at having to be around smokers, particularly while eating.

So...voila -- we have a perfect situation where we can say that it's a good thing to remove another man's freedom (I'm talking about the restaurant owner, not the smoker) and get 75% support for it among the general public.

The truth of the matter is, it is better for my health not to smoke, eat fattening foods, or view pornography. It also is better for the environment if I drive a more fuel-efficient car.

There are a lot of things that we all should do -- but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good argument to be made that they should be compulsory in any way. I'm not saying that there aren't any arguments to be made along these lines. You mention educating your children. I think you could make a perfectly good argument there, because you're talking about the welfare of a separate person and a minor.

Driving a hybrid and subsisting on organic celery are not, and regardless how much someone may try to guilt you into following their example, you are entirely free to ignore them, a profound difference.

Beg to differ. In this very thread we have somebody speculating that, in the future, we will be forced to drive hybrids. And I don't think that's implausible. This poster thinks it's no major sacrifice -- and, as I told him, in some sense he's right. But he's missing the forest for the trees.

I'm forced to have an undersized toilet because of environmental nonsense. I'm forced to drive a particular car today thanks to CAFE standards. We've had a lot of these kinds of things already and we're only going to see more.

I'm just glad it's all for the good of myself, my family, and my fellow man.

Not circular, simply the definition of illegality. That which violates the law is illegal. That's entirely separate from the forms of valuation such as ethics, morality, and cost-benefit analysis that lead us to propose and enact legislation. One of the failings of our society is how often we hear people defending immoral or unethical actions as being "perfectly legal". These issues are separate.

You're also forced to get a license to drive that car and punished if you pour nuclear waste down that toilet. As a society, we object to unlicensed drivers and deadly plumbing, so by consensus we've tried to frustrate these behaviors through law and enforcement.

You may find CAFE standards ridiculous, but a critical mass of others don't, and they're the result of our desire for energy conservation percolating through our consensus politics. If there's a popular consensus on benefits vs. costs, you may well be required to drive a hybrid, just as you're compelled to do or not do a wide range of things that for better or worse are concluded to be in our common interest. That's the price of living in a society.

Decades ago, elimination of lead in household paints and gasoline could have been derided as "environmental nonsense" and costly market intervention, but today we (and especially our children) are healthier and likely literally smarter for having levels of this toxin reduced in our surroundings. And I say hooray.

If there's a popular consensus on benefits vs. costs, you may well be required to drive a hybrid, just as you're compelled to do or not do a wide range of things that for better or worse are concluded to be in our common interest. That's the price of living in a society.

Society or tyranny?

Guess if you want to go through your entire life meekly kowtowing to the current zeitgeist like a good little clone, Oh well, But some of us can think for ourselves and are going to fight it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

So if by democratic consensus we decided to drive hybrid cars, that would somehow constitute devolution to a tyranny?

If you want to fight it, go right ahead...that's our democratic process. As others have capably pointed out, neither voices pro nor con in such a debate constitute "tyranny", it's simply the policy-making process. Join in, speak out, maybe even listen, and, shockingly, you might discover that even those that disagree with you can "think for themselves". It isn't craven to think through an issue and arrive at a position in agreement with the "zeitgeist", any more than it's inherently heroic to oppose it.

as "the tyranny of the majority." That is why we have constitutional rights designed to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority of Americans ever decide that it is in their best interest to pass a law requiring everyone to attend church every Sunday morning that doesn't mean that wouldn't be a tyrannical law...it just means that it would be democratic - oh, and by the way, an unconstitutional violation of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

...but they'd have to amend the Constitution to permit what I'd emphatically agree would otherwise be an unconstitutional act violating our supreme law. And the chance of the American people agreeing to do so is virtually nill. This is why it's possible but very difficult for even a majority to change the highest law of our land.

But I don't recall the Constitution enumerating my rights to a particular form of combustion engine, and I think it trivializes our fundamental freedoms to imply that whether one drives a hybrid car is on a par with, say, freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

Folks, if anyone would like to lead the drive (no pun intended) to turn one aspect of what's currently a highly regulated privilege that we grant to qualified adults into a constitutional amendment, go for it, but don't be surprised if you're not taken very seriously.

All rights not ennumerated to congress are reserved by the states or the people.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If people started to read the constitution as its written you'd have to get rid of all those nice helpful people who commute into the capitol.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So being able to buy a gas guzzling vehicle is now a right?

Talk about your penumbras.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I suppose restrictions on the amount of fuel individual Americans are allowed to purchase and burn from independent companies in America are covered under the interstate commerce clause.

Only in liberal land.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

that isn't as a matter of positive law NOT a right. It's that "reserved to the people and the States" stuff and, you know, inalienable and all that.

In Vino Veritas

the Right to Privacy certainly is a right. Certainly there is much clearer language to support that right in the Constitution than the right to buy whatever type of car you would like.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I love it when people come to a gunfight with a knife.

First you make the common uninformed liberal mistake of looking to the US Constitution as an articulation of rights. It is not; it is an agreed upon covenant between the ratifying states as to what powers they would grant their agent, the United States, and what restraints they would impose on that agent. The Bill of Rights does articulate some rights, but the Constitution is not the source of those rights, they stem from the sovereignty of the People and the States, and the BOR articulates restraints on the United States in limiting those rights. (There is no reason to reach incorporation here, it only clouds the discussion.)

As to privacy, some states, mine is one, have an articulated, express right to privacy. However, that right can be pierced in a narrowly tailored manner to carry out a compelling State interest. Even absent express Constitutional articulation, there exists some right to privacy the source of which may be expressed as an endowment from our Creator, or as Natural Law, or societal understanding, or whatever your personal view of IS is; it just is. However, a republican democracy can express its interest in piercing your privacy in some manner tailored to serve that interest. Leaving aside moral considerations upon which opinions may differ, you in a natural state have the right to kill anyone that you are strong or clever enough to kill, but societies almost universally have decided that it is not in their interest to tolerate killing of other human beings except in the most limited circumstances. So, your private act, even right, of killing someone that you think needs killing invokes the power of the state to pierce your privacy, your sovereignty, if you will, by entering your home with a warrant supported by probable cause and arresting you for murder. This is, of course, not an untrammelled power of society or the state; in addition to the aforementioned warrant, your personal sovereignty is protected by your right to a trial by a jury of your peers and of access to counsel, and a protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Democratic society has also consented to, and the state enforces, your right to assert an affirmative defense to the charge of murder; that you acted in self-defense. Thus, even if it is incontrovertible that you killed another human being, it is not an offense against the peace and dignity of society if you did so in self-defense.

So, now to turn this discussion to abortion, which is where I'm sure you wanted to go. Historically, our society has viewed an unborn child as just that, a human child, and prohibited killing that child as it prohibited killing any other human being in any but the most limited circumstances. Opinion polls indicate that this view remains the societal consensus. My view is that the people of a state could form a majority to either permit or prohibit abortion subject to the constraints of being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Even where abortion might be prohibited it is likewise subject to the same affirmative defense, self-defense, were the life of the mother at issue. However, the United States has invented through a web of penumbras and emanations a federal right to privacy that serves exclusively to shield a woman's womb from an expression of society's interest. In other words, if a woman kills her doctor in her office, society can express its interest in preventing and punishing murder by getting a warrant and prosecuting and convicting her. If that woman kills her baby in that doctor's office, the USSC has held that society is prohibited from expressing an interest in that act, at least in the first trimester of pregnancy; Roe is not nearly so clear thereafter. My issue with Roe in addition to the almost undisputed fact that it is horrendously badly wrought, is that it arrogates to the United States a power not delegated to it by the People and the States.

Abortion is a simple issue to me. I believe it to be wrong. I'm not religious enough to put it in terms of a mortal sin, but in my value system it is close and indistinguishable from killing any other human being. That said, it is a private and legal act in my state. Had one of my daughters had an unintended pregnancy while still dependent on me, I would have done my best to have her abort it; the only thing more likely to totally screw up a young woman's life than an unwanted child is a felony conviction. I could then take that decision up with God.

In Vino Veritas

A brief comment to thank you for your many insightful posts and ability to convey your thoughts. Bravo...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

You went well beyond what I was trying to point out.

First of all I wasn't suggesting that the Constitution was an articulation of our rights. However you guys are the ones talking about rights, not me.

If you think that we have a right to buy whatever SUV we choose, free of government regulation, tell me where you derive this right. Natural rights are all well and good but we live in a structured society that supersedes natural rights. So if our society laws(IE auto sale regulations) dictate that we cannot buy unsafe vehicles, how is this a violation of our rights any more than laws against murder are a violation of our natural rights.

As for abortion, I am making no claims regarding the morality or legality of abortion or Roe. I was simply making a comparison.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

No. The government exists in order to preserve natural rights. Society does not supersede natural rights. We are an individualistic people in the USA, to assume that society has some bizarre right or rights that are more important than individuals' natural rights is to say we are a collectivist people. Laws against murder were created to protect the natural right of life. Various auto sale regulations can be explained as protections of the natural right of life and/or property.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

So if by democratic consensus we decided to drive hybrid cars, that would somehow constitute devolution to a tyranny?

Damn right -- IF it's mandated BY LAW.

What you mean "we" paleface?

Is it tyrannical that automakers are required to meet certain safety standards?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You could just as well ask: is it tyrannical if automakers are required to offer every car they sell in puke green?

The answer there, likewise, would be yes. Because the government is placing its own judgment and consideration above that of both the buyer and the seller of the automobile.

The only difference between the puke green paint and the "safety standards" is that safety standards sounds good and puke green paint doesn't.

What if a particular safety standard is something I'm not interested in paying for? It's my life, after all. It's not the government's life.

The difference -- subtle though it may be -- between what the government does have cause to compel and what, IMO, it doesn't is whether it's designed to protect me from me or to protect others from me.

Now, I do think it's important, one way or another, that a buyer be in possession of sufficient information to make their purchasing decisions. I think we can debate about whether this is a role best served by government or by private-sector watchdogs like UL and Consumer Reports.

You could just as well ask: is it tyrannical if automakers are required to offer every car they sell in puke green?

If all Americans wanted every car maker to sell their cars in puse green then how would it be tyrannical to pass laws to require them to do so?

You keep throwing around the word tyranny without really understanding what it means. Using your definition ALL LAWS that limit actions are tyrannical because someone will find them oppressive.

Because the government is placing its own judgment and consideration above that of both the buyer and the seller of the automobile.

You refer to the government as if it is some autonomous being that is arbitrarily making edicts about how we live. That simply isn't the case. Of all the nations in the world the United States probably is the least susceptible to superfluous laws that limit our actions because our system rejects them by design.

The only difference between the puke green paint and the "safety standards" is that safety standards sounds good and puke green paint doesn't.

Well that and the fact that safety standards provide a very real and material benefit to consumers whereas demanding a specific color of paint does not.

What if a particular safety standard is something I'm not interested in paying for? It's my life, after all. It's not the government's life.

That would be fine provided you had perfect or near perfect knowledge of the risks associated with with not buying a particular safety standard. But what if you don't really understand the risks? And of course you know that this would almost certainly ensure that the poor, who already have lower life expectancies, would see their exposure to unsafe products expand dramatically as they would falsely assume that the potential risk was less than the perceived cost savings.

Now, I do think it's important, one way or another, that a buyer be in possession of sufficient information to make their purchasing decisions. I think we can debate about whether this is a role best served by government or by private-sector watchdogs like UL and Consumer Reports.

But the reason we have the government do this is because the government serves ALL OF US and not simply those people how have the resources and ability to study every purchase they make.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

And thus we reach the difference between liberals and conservatives. Protect me from myself and my own stupidity. The fact that all Americans can't be protected by the same thing means nothing to the libs.

If all Americans wanted every car maker to sell their cars in puse green then how would it be tyrannical to pass laws to require them to do so?

No, not if all Americans did. But what about when 75% of Americans do. Do the rest of us just have to suck it up and live with it? And yes, when the majority tries to run my life, it is tyranny by the majority.

You refer to the government as if it is some autonomous being that is arbitrarily making edicts about how we live. That simply isn't the case. Of all the nations in the world the United States probably is the least susceptible to superfluous laws that limit our actions because our system rejects them by design.

It does not reject them by design. Granted, they are a little slow to get on the bandwagon, but our elected reps are more than willing to crawl up when it looks like a whole bunch of the population will allow it. Particularly when someone is greasing their palms. Hence we get stupid rules about milk prices, toilet restrictions and air bags, along with thousands of others.

Well that and the fact that safety standards provide a very real and material benefit to consumers whereas demanding a specific color of paint does not.

You've been suckered. I'll focus for a moment on air bags. Some people certainly benefit. My husband, for one, refuses to wear a seat belt and he is over 6' tall and 250 pounds. The air bag is a benefit to him. On the other hand, my mother-in-law always wears her seat belt (which negates any benefit of the air bag completely and totally) but she is only 4'10" tall, making her extremely vulnerable to the thing killing her.

Hence the problem with government edicts. One size does not fit all, though the gov't acts like it does.

That would be fine provided you had perfect or near perfect knowledge of the risks associated with with not buying a particular safety standard. But what if you don't really understand the risks? And of course you know that this would almost certainly ensure that the poor, who already have lower life expectancies, would see their exposure to unsafe products expand dramatically as they would falsely assume that the potential risk was less than the perceived cost savings.

Is your contention that the gov't understands all the risks perfectly? For all the people in the US? The air bag example shows it does not.

Additionally, for people with chronic pain who have problems with GI bleeding, Vioxx literally saved their lives. No, it was not safe for everyone, but it was the safest alternative for thousands of Americans. As a matter of fact, more chronic pain sufferers die from GI bleeding, which was prevented by Vioxx, than those killed by heart attacks related to Vioxx.

Hence the gov't sentenced some people to death by removing the only drug that was safe for them to take, just because it was unsafe for others.

But the reason we have the government do this is because the government serves ALL OF US and not simply those people how have the resources and ability to study every purchase they make.

They try to serve all of us, but since all of us are not the same as the others of us, some of us are SCROOD.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

No, not if all Americans did. But what about when 75% of Americans do. Do the rest of us just have to suck it up and live with it? And yes, when the majority tries to run my life, it is tyranny by the majority.

So where is the dividing line between will of the people and tyranny? Apparently 75% isn't good enough. 80%? 90%? 99%? 100%? We live in a Democratic society where the will of the people, which is loosely defined as the majority with some limitations, decides what laws we must abide by.

I'll focus for a moment on air bags. Some people certainly benefit. My husband, for one, refuses to wear a seat belt and he is over 6' tall and 250 pounds. The air bag is a benefit to him. On the other hand, my mother-in-law always wears her seat belt (which negates any benefit of the air bag completely and totally) but she is only 4'10" tall, making her extremely vulnerable to the thing killing her

And I'll focus on seat belts and outlawing leaded gasoline. The former has saved countless lives and was still considered an unnecessary expense in many vehicles, particularly cheaper ones, until it was required by law. Leaded gasoline, as with most leaded products, caused all sorts of nasty stuff to us and the only value it offered was it reduced in engines that could have been easily built to not knock without it except the manufacturers had no incentive to do so. What were the downsides to those laws.

Is your contention that the gov't understands all the risks perfectly? For all the people in the US? The air bag example shows it does not.

What federal law requires air bags in cars? While I certainly do not believe that the government understands all risks perfectly and oftentimes they don't understand some risks at all. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the only entity that can protect from risks that most people are unaware of or do not understand.

Hence the gov't sentenced some people to death by removing the only drug that was safe for them to take, just because it was unsafe for others.

Public health choices can often lead to some people suffering to save many more. It is unfortunate but unless you have a way to protect both groups I don't know what we can do about that.

They try to serve all of us, but since all of us are not the same as the others of us, some of us are SCROOD.

And the vast majority of safety laws are a great benefit to us. The fact that some are not does not invalidate the good ones.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I won't address your whole post because I can see that we fundamentally disagree on how much the majority should be allowed to dictate behavior to the minority in a free society. Besides we are approaching haiku territory.

I will say that not all regulation is bad; for example unleaded gas, as it is reasonably certain that there have been clear societal benefits in terms of less lead in the environment due to that change.

I won't look up the cite, but passive restraint (air bags) are required by the feds, though it may be by regulation rather than legislation. If you want to look it up, Liddy Dole was the Sec. of Transportation when it all came down.

As for the rest, as people don't always understand risks perfectly, but are in a position to best find out and adjust their lives for any risks they face, and as gov't does not understand risks perfectly, and is in a poor position to adjust our lives for the risks we face, I vote in favor of leaving it up to us poor dumb slobs to muddle through as best we can.

The gov't should only get involved if society as a whole is affected, and should feel free to encourage and disseminate any information that our illustrious leaders believe we should consider. YMMV.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

If all Americans wanted every car maker to sell their cars in puse green then how would it be tyrannical to pass laws to require them to do so?

First, if ALL Americans wanted every car maker to sell their cars only in "puse green" then there would be no need to pass laws requiring it. The law of supply and demand would cause the car makers to provide "puse green" cars of their own free will. But it would still be tyrannical to codify a law requiring the sale of "puse green" cars because the tastes of Americans may change. Eventually someone may decide that instead of "puse green" they want a red car. Unfortunately, their freedom to choose a red car has been restricted by the state, without a compelling state interest to back it up. Thus the law requiring only "puse green" cars would be tyrannical.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

First, I don't know how it's not circular logic to say that something is illegal because it's against the law. But anyway...

One of the failings of our society is how often we hear people defending immoral or unethical actions as being "perfectly legal". These issues are separate.

Well, of course. But we're talking about the law here. I've no problem with anybody making moral judgments, in general. But there's a reason the issues are separate.

You're also forced to get a license to drive that car and punished if you pour nuclear waste down that toilet.

Er, so? I'm no anarchist. I just object to most laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves or otherwise take the place of our own individual judgment. You're describing things here that are designed to protect one man from another.

As such, these have nothing to do with the kinds of things I'm talking about where it's simply a case of collective judgment taking the place of individual judgment.

It may well be the case that trans fats are bad for me -- that doesn't mean the government should be the one to decide whether I eat/sell them or not.

You may find CAFE standards ridiculous, but a critical mass of others don't

Again, so? A critical mass of others don't think gays should enjoy the benefits of marriage. A critical mass of others supported, among other things, slavery and prohibition.

That, in itself, is not much of an argument in the cases of the things I'm talking about. If you got together in your neighborhood meeting and they took a vote on whether or not all members of the association got a key to your garage to use your gas can, and you got outvoted 10-1, you think it would be just?

Didn't think so.

You think CAFE standards are good for society and Charles Keating thinks keeping Hustler Magazine off the shelves is good for society.

not about CAFE standards.

An adult reading pornography or smoking marijuana in his own home, by itself, does not violate anyone else's right not to be physically harmed / aggressed against. We have no right to use the coercive power of government to interfere and punish them for those choices.

-----------

By contrast, every time I drive, my vehicle emits exhaust that pollutes the air to a certain extent. This is inevitable, to a certain degree, if we wish to have a widespread, effective, convenient, private transportation -- which greatly enhances modern long-distance commerce and, in its own way, individual freedom & privacy.

But the pollution is not just arguably "offensive" or "bad for society" (as some people think of marijuana or porngraphy) -- rather, it directly, PHYSICALLY, tangibly affects other people's bodies.

At a certain point, we must say that the level of toxins that are ejected into other people's bodies (via air pollution) is an unacceptable infringement on their right to be free of aggression.

Reasonable people can argue about where that line should be drawn. And we must be cognizant of the costs imposed by making the CAFE standards tougher. But mandating a minimum average fuel-economy is one reasonable way to draw that line.

-----------------------

I, for one, support a steady increase in the required CAFE, both on individual-rights grounds (enforce our right not to have other people's vehicles force toxins into our bodies through the air) and national-security grounds (reduce dependence on hostile foreign oil exporters).

I'm coming a bit late to the party(just got back from skiing in Utah).

Nargin has done an admirable job of pointing out the flaws in your entire premise. So I won't reinvent the wheel on some of the points but I will respond to these....

Gosh, there's circular logic if I've ever seen it. That's like saying that prostitution is illegal because it's the law -- which entirely avoids the question of whether or not it ought to be and, if so, upon what basis it should.

Is this what you are talking about? Laws that you don't like are tyranny? The basis is rather simple. A vast majority of Americans believe that school should be legally compulsory. That's how our system works. How is this indicative of Liberal tyranny?

So...voila -- we have a perfect situation where we can say that it's a good thing to remove another man's freedom (I'm talking about the restaurant owner, not the smoker) and get 75% support for it among the general public.

So you agree that 75% of Americans support smoking bans but you wish to claim this is a "Liberal" issue? Are 75% of Americans liberals? And to be clear the restaurant owners has all sorts of restrictions on what he can and can't do if he wants to sell his goods to the public. He must meet local health code laws. He can't discriminate. He can't allow illegal activities to occur at his establishment. This is just one more.

Beg to differ. In this very thread we have somebody speculating that, in the future, we will be forced to drive hybrids

You are almost certainly right just like we were, at one time, faced with the prospect of all cars having seat belts or removing lead from gasoline. As the technology improves and the costs for hybrids goes down they will become the de facto standard for automobiles, unless some other kind of engines take the infernal combustion engine's place.

I'm forced to have an undersized toilet because of environmental nonsense. I'm forced to drive a particular car today thanks to CAFE standards. We've had a lot of these kinds of things already and we're only going to see more

And you're forced to eat non-deadly food. And you're forced to take drugs that have been tested so that they won't kill you. And you are forced to show that your car is safe to drive.

You speak of Liberals as being naive but you pine for a wholly unrealistic Libertarian world in which the consumer can make their choices based on perfect, or near perfect, knowledge. The world doesn't work that way. And as such we must put some safety mechanisms into our laws to protect ourselves and to protect others from us.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

1st Thalidomide, the raison d'etre for the agencies current power was never approved for use in this country to begin with. It was one of those classic bad things are happening to children.

2nd Ask any product liability lawyer. FDA approval is not the same as having your product vetted safe.

3rd It turns drug development into a higher risk game where big pharma has to make block buster profits.

On the food side most of the improvement in quality was from rising wealth and better tech. If you want someone to approve your lunch EAT KOSHER.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

1. Bad things were happening to children and it was the FDA that prevented it from happening to a lot of American children.

2. Why would I care what a product liability lawyer has to say about food safety? Having FDA approval means that your drug has gone through fairly rigorous testing. It certainly does not mean that your drug is certain to be safe and only a fool would believe such a thing.

3. That is an utterly ridiculous argument to make. Even if it is true, which it isn't, so what? FDA laws aren't in place to control pharma profits.

So you think that FDA food testing and regulation does nothing and that our nearly impeccable food safety system is purely the product of businesses that care with better technology?

Are you guys really that determined to deny that government can EVER be beneficial?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

1. Bad things were happening in germany and europe not the US. The solution was to adjust german and european laws

2. You wouldn't the people producing do. Given the costs to get in the game its a considerable risk

3. Look up cost of drug approval. Its ridiculous to assert that profitability doesn't affect new drug production.

Let me finish with this, What if FDA approval were voluntary but going through it eliminated negligence penalties ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

1. Europe has always had looser regulations on drugs than the US. Given the 1000s of babies that suffered from thalomide I fail to see how this backs up your assertion.

2. That is a business risk. All businesses have them. Why is this one special?

3. I didn't say that profitability didn't affect new drug production. I said it that the FDA doesn't force pharmas to make huge profits. Consumer demand for drugs drives the pharmas huge profits.

So anyone should be allowed to sell whatever they want and make whatever claims they want and they should only worry about FDA approval if they are looking for a liability shield? Sounds great.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Thalidomide was already not approved for sale in this country the expansion of power of the fda was not needed.

2. Its a rapidly self regulating risk

3. The cost for getting a drug to market means that drugs that can't make huge profits don't get to market. Capiche ?

Did you look at the nutritional supplement law ? Just remember that the next time you buy vitamins
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Who do you think prevented Thalomide from being sold in the United States? Richardson-Merrell applied to the FDA to be able to sell Thalomide but was rejected due to concerns by the FDA of serious side effects...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

y 1960, Grünenthal was selling thalidomide tablets all over the world – except in the United States. A Cincinnati, Ohio company called Richardson-Merrell tried to change that in September 1960, when it applied for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to sell thalidomide in the United States under the brand name of Kevadon. The company wanted to begin sales of Kevadon in early 1961. This approval was not expected to be controversial, and the case was given to the agency's newest reviewer, Frances Oldham Kelsey, who had joined the FDA only one month before.

At the time, the prevailing US law was the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which required proof of safety be sent to the FDA before a medication could be approved for sale in the United States. The law did not require demonstration of efficacy for approval. It also allowed "investigational" or "experimental" use of a drug while approval for its sale was being sought, meaning that a medication could be widely distributed before it was approved.[6] The law gave the FDA 60 days to review a drug application. If the FDA reviewer told a drug company that its application for a particular medication was incomplete, it was considered withdrawn and the company would have to submit more data when it resubmitted the application. With each resubmission, the 60 days started all over again.[1]

2. Lots of things could happen. Let's focus on what IS happening.

3. And do you think that legal costs would go up or down without the FDA? We could perhaps streamline the FDA but R&D and liability costs go with the territory of drug sales and unless we completely shield pharmas from negligence and poor testing errors, they will incur them one way or the other. At least with the FDA fewer people will die from bad drugs.

I'm not sure what your point about supplement laws is.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Thalidomide wasn't allowed to be sold in this country and wouldn't have been caught under the laws expanding the power of the agency anyway.

http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight_indarchive.php?i...

In 1958, Merrell, an American company, licensed thalidomide from its German manufacturer for distribution in the United States. Merrell submitted an NDA in November 1960. FDA examiner Dr. Frances Kelsey deliberated far longer than usual, during which period thalidomide's side effects became known. The case is still widely cited as the grounds for an "all-powerful" FDA. However, the FDA never "caught" thalidomide, nor were its harmful effects identified in a clinical trial.

Thalidomide's problems were identified by an Australian physician who reported his suspicions in the British Medical Journal after observing a rapid increase in malformed babies in his hospital. The FDA's Dr. Kelsey was concerned about reports from Europe that the drug caused nerve damage to pregnant women, not their fetuses. The NDA trials did not catch the problem because they were done on rats, which metabolize the drug differently than humans. After thalidomide's effects had already been identified in the community, they were confirmed experimentally with rabbits and monkeys. Nevertheless, the drive for a more powerful FDA got a huge boost.

The 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments required affirmative, pre-market approval. Drug makers now had to demonstrate that a new medicine was effective as well as safe. These amendments fundamentally changed pharmaceutical research by increasing the costs of regulation. Research output collapsed, as measured by the number of applications to begin clinical testing for new chemical entities (NCEs).

Emphasis mine.

2. Yes lets. If you need Vioxx you can't get it.

3. See above quote. Its exactly what you would expect from changing the rules of the game.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What you are arguing about since each one of your comments is incongruous with mine.

1. Let me say it again. Thalomide was not allowed to be sold in the United States BECAUSE of the FDA. What is so hard to understand about this?

2. Vioxx has a lot of very bad side effects. There are other drugs out there that do the same thing without them. And since consumers cannot be expected to have complete knowledge of all drugs, the FDA is needed to filter out the dangerous ones. This is a perfect example.

3. While there may have been a short drop in research output you would have to be blind to suggest that is still the case. Pharma is one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the country.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The FDA pre 1962 is not the FDA post 1962

Some argue that the amendment has had a detrimental effects such as causing higher drug prices and delaying drug approval resulting in more lives lost than saved. Nobel economist Gary S. Becker has written that FDA regulations make drug development so costly that "drug companies must charge high prices during the limited period when they enjoy patent protection against generic competitors" to recover their outlays. He says that a major step to reduce drug prices would be to eliminate the regulations introduced in 1972 which raised the cost of bringing drugs to market and artifically slowed the process.[1] A report from the Heartland Institute, a conservative public-policy think tank, argued that regulations passed in 1962 (namely the Kefauver-Harris Amendments) are responsible for more than 80% of the cost of today's drugs.[2] According to the libertarian Independent Institute, before passage of the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962, the average time from the filing of an IND to approval was seven months. By 1967 it had risen to thirty months. By 1998, it took an average of 7.3 years from the date of filing to approval.[3] In contrast, drugs are usually approved more quickly in Europe where regulations are not as stringent. According to a 1984 doctoral dissertation by D. H. Gieringer, cited by the Independent Institute, the more lengthy approval process has not correlated with safer drugs. Rather, when comparing the U.S. and Europe, Gieringer calculated that "the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives [lost] per decade."

1. Thalidomide was not allowed in this country pre the FDA expansion of power. The current testing regime would not have caught it. It would have been sold anyway.

2. Vioxx has a lot of very bad side effects. FOR SOME PEOPLE for those that need it, not having it means being condemned to pain. Hey we wouldn't condemn people to pain when they could otherwise make a choice ?

3. See 1
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefauver_Harris_Amendment#_note-1
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Whether you think that the FDA was better before 1962 or after is a matter of degree. I am not suggesting that the FDA, as currently constructed, is ideal. However the Agency itself is most certainly a necessary organization and even before 1962 it had more stringent restrictions than their European counterparts.

Well given the fact that you don't know whether those side effects will affect you until it is too late, I'm not sure how the consumer can make an intelligent decision on the matter.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

...including the FDA, but that doesn't invalidate the worth of the agency.

I emphatically like knowing that products I put in my body that make specific claims have to go through a clinical trial process to substantiate said claims. I also like being able to educate myself on herbs and dietary supplements from which some folks have received benefits but are clearly labelled as not being validated by the same process. The system isn't perfect, but like food labels, this information helps me make better choices as a consumer.

If the drug approval process is cumbersome and too expensive, I'd say that's symptomatic of our overactive legal system; let's reform the process and limit liability rather than dispense with it. The FDA has implemented a special approval track to accelerate certain drugs, which is a good start.

Remember the country before the FDA? No? Me neither, thankfully, and I've no desire to turn the clock back. Recall that in the Spanish-American War, we lost more soldiers to food poisoning from tins of rotten meat than actual combat deaths. Imagine the outrage and demand for regulation that would happen today if the bulk of our casualties in Iraq were from bad MRE's. It wasn't just a matter of technology, even back then; manufacturers knew how to preserve a tin of food (heat plus pressure), but doing so properly cost more than they cared to expend without someone leaning on them as a result of public outrage. Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt!

seeing as it was formed in 1927.
btw meat etc is regulated by the USDA I'd wager there is no one who remembers the country pre Dept of Agriculture.

Let me answer your argument with questions.

Do you really feel that any large food producer could either get insurance or raise capital by acting negligently ?

If you were buying provisions for the army wouldn't you inspect them ? So in the spanish american war the problem was ?

What is the process like if you call your drug a nutritional supplement ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

While we are remembering
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Since the FDA was created to make us safe, I tend to feel that once a drug is approved by the FDA, the drug manufacturer should be immune to liability suits. And the FDA should assume full responsibility for the safety of the drug. After all isn't that why the FDA exists in the first place?

And maybe we can hold the SEC accountable for illegal trading activities and the NRC responsible for incompetent management of nuclear power plants.

Not sure what this would achieve other than remove any and all responsibility from businesses.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Seeing as they are involved in the oversight and operation. The Sec is merely a law enforcement arm. Entirely different entities.

Seeing as the FDA mandates an elaborate and Expensive process of testing yes removing manufacturer liability would be a good idea.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

compulsory because they're the law. Driving a hybrid and subsisting on organic celery are not,

not yet,

Why is it hard to believe that legislation won't be forthcoming if the left gets its way?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

that's not how our country works. The beauty of our form of government is the more radical the idea the less likely it is to pass and most major legislation that gets passed in this country is popular on BOTH sides of the aisle.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

we NEVER had any stupid, immoral, or counter productive laws passed by congress now have we?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

What really is the difference between banning transfats in foods and requiring people to eat only organic foods?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.