This issue became a bone of contention during a segment involving Ron Paul and the host that got out of control today on the Ed Schultz show. This gets unusually contentious in the last minute or 2.

.

.

.

.

.

The host never did give Dr. Paul a chance there to state his full position. Does anybody know if it's Libertarian Party policy to do away with the DOA in it's entirity? Even if you manage to hypothetically strip it to the bone of waste, fraud, and duplicity.....does the party platform actually call for the elimination of the agency in it's entirity? If so, what agency of goverment would provide for food safety, security, etc.? The FDA maybe? But that's not in the Constitution either so is that also verboten by Party platform. State level control? Local level control? Color me confused :blink: . Or, if not goverment supervised, how to provide for food safety, security, etc.?

I dont know about the Department of Agriculture, but the Department of Education has been on the chopping block for decades now in the eyes of Republicans and Libertarians.

The last four paragraphs of your long post are the only ones relevant to answering pierremvp's directed question.

 

Finally, we do not need a highly centralized, bureaucratic entity to be the definitive answer to the safety of an array of products, not only including food. The FDA like any of these other regulators (USDA or the EPA) are prone to industrial biases, which really does not do anyone a great service. These entities could be replaced with a multitude of competing, private testing agencies using and compiling data from scientists across the globe (not just those handpicked for government research) to provide varying levels of certification in assisting consumers make educated decisions. This would restore the credibility that the FDA does not have.

 

 

Sounds to me like this is a long way of saying remove all regulations and punishments, and allow private entities to issue warning, then hope then let the free market do its thing. I absolutely disagree with this. This is one of the most flawed libertarial principles out there and would return us to the era of the snake oil salesman. The average consumer does not possess the level of understanding, patience, time, or money to be able to make an educated choice on each and every single food and drug purchase being made. Companies actively decieve and distort in order to sell products, and the ONLY thing that keeps them in check is the regulations and punishments that come with attempts to sell dangerous or improper products. Companies also actively place false information into the knowledgebase, so they would do everything they can continue deception.

 

Great example: recently I searched online for the whole "make lots of money selling google ads thing. I searched for "google ad scam." The first thing that comes up is one of the ever entities that runs the scam putting up a false webpage that pretends to be "Chris Hansen" providing information on how this specific company is actually legit, even though other ones are not.

http://www.adsensegu...sense-scams.php

 

 

Also, where would these private testing agencies get their income? What assurances would we have that they would not be compromised by the private sector through financial grants and incentives? What assurances do we have they they aren't even a subdivision of the companies themselves?

 

Both the drug and food industry look to the bottom line, and they would do everythign the could to preserve that bottom line of the FDA and DOA did not exist. They might not be ideal in doing their jobs, but they are a hell of a lot better than what you suggest. At the end of the day, with the government, there is a much stronger wall of protection in that active attempts to influence can step into criminality, and political change can create one important check.

 

 

 

Of course, state and local governments would be integral in penalizing offending parties to the fullest extent of the law. I am, of course, referring to the criminalization of offending parties that create products that damage life and property. Right now the status quo provides an amount of legal grey area because products deemed safe by the FDA (in case of error or overturned decision) provide loopholes for the offending party.

 

By their nature, state and local governments do not have the resources to do what you are asking them to do.

 

In addition, this would create a nightmare of varying degrees and types of regulations and enforcement. It would enormously undermine uniformity. Any company can just go to the weakest link. A Chinese drug company that is selling a weight loss pill that it knows has a high death rate, but does not want to reveal said fact, can produce and sell that product in libertarian state or corrupt state, such as Alaska or Louisiana, and then what can then ship that product to other states, thereby causing severe harm. States like Maine or Wyoming don't have the resources to go after massive corporations who will swamp and stiffle them at every turn. How would a local government be effective at regulating the shipment or implementation of agriculture from other countries? You would leave San Francisco, by itself and with no federal assistance, to police our ports and inspect food shipments that could poison our children or devestate our crops ?

 

Your last point is also flawed. State and local governments would follow the same administrative process the FDA does. So that would just expand the "gray area."

 

Thomas Paine was mostly correct when he had the audacity to say that the government that governs the least governs the best. Mr. Ed would have made a stronger case if he actually displayed some knowledge of what the duties of these agencies entailed. Too bad he did not give Dr. Paul to educate him beyond his apparent hypocrisy in regard to upholding the Constitution.

 

Thomas Paine lived in another time period, in another century. The complexities of technology, production, and the enormously faster pace our society moves in today demands a government that governs, not one that says "let the chaos go free." Thomas Paine did not have the internet, he did not have 50 states, he did not have a the degree of global interaction that exists today.

Also, where would these private testing agencies get their income? What assurances would we have that they would not be compromised by the private sector through financial grants and incentives? What assurances do we have they they aren't even a subdivision of the companies themselves?

 

Probably by the companies they'd grade. Hey it worked for the credit ratings agencies. :thumbup

Penguino, I'm at a bit of a loss on how to respond to your simple answer of "NO".

.

.

The question was Does anybody know if it's Libertarian Party policy to do away with the DOA in it's entirity?[/b] Even if you manage to hypothetically strip it to the bone of waste, fraud, and duplicity.....does the party platform actually call for the elimination of the agency in it's entirity?

.

.

So, when you answer NO, that leads to the conclusion that the Libertarian platform does NOT call for the elimination of the these "unconstitutional" agencies in their entirity. Hypothetically strip away all the waste and fraud, just leave the food safety/security issue. Yet the rest of your answer leads to the impression that the Libertarian platform would call for the elimination in their entirety, thus making the answer YES to my direct question. I'll wait for your clarification before proceeding much further.

.

.

When you say, "I cannot identify with the mentality that these entities should not be scrutinized for efficiency just because they seem to provide services desired by the citizenry". .....this is something I agree with. Who's calling for not scrutinizing and rooting out inefficiencies? That's vastly different than giving them a 100% ax.

.

Flying Mollusk raises many of the issues that I'd have with the "elimination in entirity" policy. Beyond many of the valid points he raises, I'd add in the practical implications of axing all these agencies overnite(if that is the platform). I'm not arguing that these agencies aren't bloated, but to add millions to the unemployment rolls right now(or ever) is not good policy, imo. More practical, if it would be done, would be to do it slowly, and allow the free market the time to absorb this vast new influx of former beauracrats.

I don't think any party platform is that explicit to the point where it has a stated policy in regard to a department on the scale of the USDA. So I guess I don't know the answer. That's why I provided my explication consistent with my own libertarian ideology. I would imagine that most of the people holding the same general views and have read the same texts would mostly agree.

 

 

 

I appreciate the direct answer to my question.

As far as stated policy on this point, I think it's similar for both Republicans and Democrats in that they're both "working to make these agencies more efficient" .....If the Libertarian party has some similar ambiguous platform to the point where you're left to guess....then they fail to really distinguish themselves from the others, imo. Leaves too much room to maneuver once in power, just like the rest. I suspect that you're right in what you and others like-minded would agree on, but I wouldn't be willing to vote based on this faith. I believe that to gather more members at this time(which is ideal in that there's a void on the conservative end of the spectrum), the Libert's need to have a more concrete policy. The party won't attract anything beyond the fringe, unless they spell out their long-term goals, imo. What's perceived by the majority of mainstream voters as wacko needs to be explained in a more definite way. And likely, if you expect the party to become a realistic player in the political discourse, there needs to be some concessions made. Otherwise, imo it's not palatable enough to make more of a difference than they've made already.

.

.

As for what your explication? is, that's another subject. One that I'll be happy to address, but I'll leave it for flying mollusk to rebut first, as it was his questions you were answering. I'll be back with my own subsequent rebuttals, which are numerous.

.

.

I've tried to keep this issue to the point of what the Libertarian platform is, not what your divination of the platform is.

That's a false flag to claim that I'm calling for specificity to the point where we have "War & Peace". That's obviously an unrealistic expectation from any party.

.

.

Penguino, I wouldn't have wasted my time or your's or anybody else's if it was as easy as going to lp.com or ronpaul.com to find an answer to my question. I've been to those and 20 other sites, at least, and in the end I'm left guessing....just like you.

Pierre, given the wording of the thread title and the fact that you posted a link to a video on this topic as well, could you please answer the same question I am asking of Mollusk?

 

Why do we need the Department of Agriculture if its role (according to the information available for the FY 2008 budget) is foremost to promote agricultural subsidies and protectionist tariffs?

 

No, I am not trying to change the subject. This is the thread title you selected, so it is certainly relevant. I'd like to hear your answers to this because it relates to the video you posted.

 

It's another false flag to digress into a discussion of the title.

But, as you've asked...it was picked because that was the subject title on the show where the video interview came from.

.

.

On the issue of subsidies and protectionist tariffs, I would tend to strongly agree with your opinion. I'm generally against them. I'm probably with you on 50-90% of what you advocate for trimming the fat and changing policy at the DOA. It's that other 10%(at least) where you lose me. That and the timing.

I think I've had my question answered. If the party platform is that inflexible, while that is commendable, I'd just have to disagree with it. That's just my opinion. I think that in many areas, the centralized approach serves the public good in protecting their right to pursuit of happiness more efficiently. A spoonful of Federalism, if you will. It's a conundrum imo for growth in the party. I don't see any signifigant influx of new blood flowing to what's in my opinion too extreme. But, well see.

.

.

 

On a side note, as you digress into a smear of MSNBC...you should watch this video first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDR0OxVdsAo

RP looked bad on the Schultz show. But, he looked and sounded very well and vigorous in the Maddow interview. And I use that interview term loosely. She basically lobed him a cotton puff, and then sat back smiling while she let the Dr. pontificate for 5 minutes. More of a paid political commercial than an interview. Lets' keep in mind that Maddow, Schultz, O'Reilly, Olberman, Limbaugh, etc. are nothing but entertainers. If you want to throw them into the realm of commentator, or professional journalist of some sort, then in all honesty Maddow committed the greater sin.

I don't see how a more flexible platform serves any benefit If libertarians begin to soften on issues of civil liberties, economics, and foreign policy, they no longer remain the voice of reason in criticizing the detrimental policies of both the Republicans and Democrats.

 

I trimmed your post a bit down to the question at hand in this thread. I could have really given the post more of a haircut, but I wanted to discuss this issue, and if I cut out everything that's irrelevant, your post would look like Fredi's head. You bring up civil liberties, economics, and foreign policy. But you avoid the issue of public safety, and protecting the citizens right to pursuit of happiness most efficiently and effectively. As I stated I believe that I already have my answer about what the party platform is. So, we're now digressing into what your personal viewpoint is.

As for the future of the party, I never said and I don't think it's realistic to achieve a third party victory. Even inclusion into the national debates is probably an unattainable goal. What is possible for the party, imo, is more inclusion into the Republican Party platform, through some growth in the party ranks. Get a solid 8%+ and the Republicans will take you into the fold and incorporate libertarian ideals into their platform(though they'll likely reneg on this promise if elected). Especially right now, when there's an empty void as the GOP tries to regain it's footing. But I opine that getting that 8% requires a concession on the public safety issue. There's just not enough people who are strict libertarians, to the point where they'd agree with the platform on this point. And that's problematic, as these people would agree with the party's stance on civil liberties, economics, and foreign policy. It really does all boil down to Federalism. And I contend that a spoonful of Federalism on the public safety issue is what's needed for the party to grow. A more telegenic and vigorous spokesperson couldn't hurt either, for those swayed by these superficial things, which as much as we'd like to think ideally is nobody, we know in reality is almost everybody.

I really didn't insult you. In all fairness, that's something that we've both been guilty of in the past. Let's hope that it remains in the past. In any case, I'm complimenting you now on your last post. Let it be the final one for this thread. I think that we both added a bit to our thoughts, and that's what's most important in an Internet forum.