Who's forcing anyone to buy unlabeled anything? If you want to restrict your purchases to that which is labeled by all means do so. But you again are proposing that government should be involved in the process....that is not libertarianism of any kind.
Personal responsibility is a key component of libertarianism. Say I am personally familiar with someone who makes soap in their kitchen. It's the best soap I've ever used.....hundreds of folks in the area feel so too. We LOVE this soap. I get it for 25 cents a bar (or whatever the market decides is a reasonable amount for a bar of soap.)
Suddenly, the cost of this wonderful soap rises to 40 cents a bar. Why? Because the government has decided that despite the fact that the soap has never harmed anyone, it MUST be labeled with ingredients. So this person has to increase the cost of the soap to cover their overhead. Overhead they didn't have before the government stepped in to keep me safe.
Whoa.....now the price is 60 cents a bar? What? Why? Oh, because now that the maker has revealed themselves to the government there are other unaccountable bureaucracies and their requirements that must be satisfied. My acquaintance now must install exhaust fans, thermometers, maybe make their home handicap accessible and post some "license" and submit to periodic inspections. Pretty soon it's not worth the trouble, the small soap maker goes belly up and big government (with complete and total backing and support of big business) wins!
See what happened? I developed and utilized my very own "informed consent." Government does not trust me, or you, to be able to adequately do so. There are holes in your views of libertarianism.
BTW, why would you want to be Farva? Thorny was the man. Anyway, I digress...
The first big hole in this is that labeling is not going to increase the cost of your product 3 fold. That just isn't realistic.
Second, if someone has a reaction to your soap and needs medical attention, there will be no way to get hold of the maker in an emergency for the ingredients to save someone's life. If people turn up with cancer or other long term dosage ailments, there's no way to diagnose them if the ingredients aren't known.
But the most important point is that you're pretending that labeling product's ingredients puts some undue burden on business, or that it violates their rights in some way. But you haven't really made that case. You're mostly just arguing that people should just avoid anything that doesn't have a label, and that they have no right to know what substances are coming in contact with their bodies. Philosophically, I disagree. And I don't think there's a political element to that disagreement, Libertarian or otherwise.
Not at all. I just know how you people think, you know that I know it, and you can't stand it. Fact is that most of the freedoms that Liberal want to put the kibosh on are done through bureaucratic regulation from a government that is populated by about 90% Democrats and Liberals (that's WHY they go to work for the govt) and the Republicans in Congress can't or won't do anything about it. Which is why Boehner is gone, we're mad at Ryan already, and Trump has at least double the poll ratings of anyone else.
Liberals ---> Republicans anti-abortion = Republicans against all personal freedoms
This is a classic
Strawman argument. You can't refute what I've
ACTUALLY said, so you're going to invent an argument out of whole cloth, attribute it to me, and argue against that. You ignore the points made about conservatives because you can't reconcile their social engineering policies with their claims of "small government". So you bring up some crackpot conspiracy about abortion that's completely irrelevant.
Conservatives are all about
BIG GOVERNMENT when it comes to people's day to day lives. You know this. You believe this. But you can't admit this because it blows your entire world view into a million pieces. So you invent an alternate reality to avert your eyes from the obvious truth.
Pretty much nonsense. "Big government" is only when government goes beyond its role as outlined in the Constitution. Most Democrats believe that key industries such as insurance, banking, health care and manufacturing should have a high degree of government regulation. That is regarded as big government.
Written by someone who has clearly never
ACTUALLY READ the Constitution of the United States. Congress ABSOLUTELY has the right to
Regulate Interstate Commerce. How the **** you can call yourself an American and
NOT know that is beyond me.
It is within the Constitutional scope of the Federal government to protect our borders, provide a military, individual rights etc.... call it "big" if you like but those don't count. A government that can force you to buy health insurance...that counts.
You have it exactly backwards. The government
DOES NOT have the power to regulate individual rights. That's why we have a bill of rights. Specifically, most of the Right's social engineering programs violate either the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and/or 14th Amendments. The left is also famously hostile to the 2nd Amendment. These Amendments are the backbone of American Freedom, and
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO COUNT. That you feel them irrelevant speaks volumes of how Regan's "Shining City on A Hill" became the most incarcerated police state on Earth.
