The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to intervene in health matters. Therefore, it is a state prerogative, at least from a legal viewpoint. However, there is the general libertarian objection: the State, whether federal or local, has no business controlling what individuals decide to do with their own bodies. FDA rulings assume that the government owns (has control over) your body and has the power to decide for you what you can do with the body you own. This situation is a classic demonstration of why the FDA should be abolished in the name of individual freedom.

http://laceylibertarian.us/?p=877 Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

597 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 15 years ago by KikiPeepers

Do you agree with the Libertarian view that the Food and Drug Administration should be abolished?
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to intervene in health matters. Therefore, it is a state prerogative, at least from a legal viewpoint. However, there is the general libertarian objection: the State, whether federal or local, has no business controlling what individuals decide to do with their own bodies. FDA rulings assume that the government owns (has control over) your body and has the power to decide for you what you can do with the body you own. This situation is a classic demonstration of why the FDA should be abolished in the name of individual freedom.

http://laceylibertarian.us/?p=877


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 28)

Bottom Last Post

15 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 12/12/06 - 1:57:09 AM EST (GMT-5)
no; if you feel that infringes on your rights you don't have to agree with them. you don't have to wait for their permission to use a product. just because it hasn't passed the fda testing doesn't mean you can't use it. you can still get it. it's just a good ruling by.
15 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 12/12/06 - 4:27:04 AM EST (GMT-5)
Sure, let's allow arsnic in the bread and murcury in the fish...what's a little death, anyway? We can't have a government agency keeping us from getting sick or being killed by our food supply. Freedom is all.

Give me liberty and give me death.

15 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 12/12/06 - 12:40:07 PM EST (GMT-5)
no it should not be abolished then we would lots of people dieing just from the food they ate because it was posion
15 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Thursday 12/28/06 - 2:01:40 AM EST (GMT-5)
Sure it should be abolished...and so should the police, doctors, lawyers and all those other people who try to save us.
15 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Tuesday 1/2/07 - 3:54:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
omg. i never thought people thought that. omg they are so...stupid
15 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Tuesday 1/2/07 - 4:28:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
F*ck Libertarians. If they had their way we would all be dying off.
15 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Wednesday 1/3/07 - 2:29:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
It's stuff like this that keeps me from being a full blown Libertarian. I don't want the government making laws to protect me from myself (like transfat or smoking bans), but the government does have a place in protecting people from things that they cannot easily protect themselves from. I don't see how enforcing quality and purity standards for things like drugs is infringing on my liberties...


15 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Wednesday 1/3/07 - 2:40:21 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 12/12/2006 4:27:05 AM wanderer wrote:
Sure, let's allow arsnic in the bread and murcury in the fish...what's a little death, anyway? We can't have a government agency keeping us from getting sick or being killed by our food supply. Freedom is all. Give me liberty and give me death.

the fda should not prohibit the sale of any product in any form; however, they should require that anything being sold for consumption must list all of it's ingredients and have warnings if it contains anything that would cause harm to a majority of the population. i'd like to see someone sell bread with an arsenic warning on the label.
15 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 2/3/07 - 12:41:36 AM EST (GMT-5)
I want my Cocain-Coca-Cola again! Go for it, Libertarians!
15 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 2/17/07 - 7:40:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
Also, they don't inspect something unless it recieves complaints.
15 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Thursday 3/1/07 - 7:56:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't agree with it, but I can kind of see the reasoning behind it. I like to know the health effects of the drugs I take, however, I don't think they should be able to ban foods or drugs because they deem them unsafe. Just let people decide for themselves.
15 yrs ago, 5 mos ago - Sunday 4/22/07 - 3:23:34 PM EST (GMT-5)
This sounds fake but I don't know if it is or not...I sure wouldn't put anything past the FDA!

FDA Regulators Using Legal Trickery to Kill Alternative Procedures and Products

15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 10:26:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
It should be abolished... why the hell would a company sell food that would kill you... It is also the consumers job to determine what they want to put into their bodies, we don't need to be protected by some group of people. Let people think for themselves for a change in pace... No more regulation...
15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 11:00:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/4/2007 10:26:27 PM Chitin wrote:
why the hell would a company sell food that would kill you...

Naive much? Why do cigarette companies sell products that are proven to have adverse health effects? Maybe because there's profit in it?

On 6/4/2007 10:26:27 PM Chitin wrote:
It is also the consumers job to determine what they want to put into their bodies, we don't need to be protected by some group of people.

Do you have a lab in your basement that can test for poisons and dangerous levels of chemicals? I doubt it. Quit being a dumbass.

15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 11:24:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/4/2007 11:00:45 PM GreyHaven wrote:
On 6/4/2007 10:26:27 PM Chitin wrote: why the hell would a company sell food that would kill you... Naive much? Why do cigarette companies sell products that are proven to have adverse health effects? Maybe because there's profit in it? On 6/4/2007 10:26:27 PM Chitin wrote: It is also the consumers job to determine what they want to put into their bodies, we don't need to be protected by some group of people. Do you have a lab in your basement that can test for poisons and dangerous levels of chemicals? I doubt it. Quit being a dumbass.

Cigs don't kill you fast enough and are addictive... The way these people were talking indicated that food companies would do that...
15 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 11:27:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
and as to the quite being a dumb ass statement, No I do not, but suppose we paid a company to test foods for us... Now wouldn't that be better than having companies robbed to pay for further testing on their product? oh excuse me taxed... The government is the most immoral institution in existence. Learn to think for yourself, and quite being a dumb ass. (learn to spell too dumbass isn't a word.)
15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Sunday 7/1/07 - 3:33:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
how idiotic
15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Thursday 7/26/07 - 11:28:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
Absolutely....it should most definitely be abolished.
they do nothing but outlaw possible helpful medicenes and foods, while letting through those from large companies which are KNOWN to have problems.

NO--they are WaY beyond their purview and need to be stopped.
LET PEOPLE do what they want with their bodies...
you only have yourself to blame, and you should research what you do.

Letting a paper pusher in washington outlaw things available everywhere just makes everything more expensive for us here.

BE GONE I SAY!
next please.

15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/27/07 - 12:12:31 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/4/2007 11:24:30 PM Chitin wrote:
Cigs don't kill you fast enough and are addictive... The way these people were talking indicated that food companies would do that...

I could kill someone by giving them a poison which takes days to work or I could shoot them in the back of the head. Both have the same effect.

15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Friday 7/27/07 - 12:12:44 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/4/2007 11:27:17 PM Chitin wrote:
but suppose we paid a company to test foods for us... Now wouldn't that be better than having companies robbed to pay for further testing on their product? oh excuse me taxed... The government is the most immoral institution in existence. Learn to think for yourself, and quite being a dumb ass. (learn to spell too dumbass isn't a word.)

Bwahahahaha! Taxes are robbery, are they? So I take it you'd be fine with eliminating all government programs and services? You know, fire departments, police, soldiers, all the things which keep the country from becoming chaos.
DUMBASS.

We could pay a company to test foods for us or we could tax the company to ensure that their food is not unhealthy to us. We would pay for both.
DUMBASS.

Thinking for myself is being a dumbass? If you're going to critque my spelling you're going to have to improve your grammar, DUMBASS.

15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Sunday 7/29/07 - 6:33:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 7/27/2007 12:12:45 AM GreyHaven wrote:
Bwahahahaha! Taxes are robbery, are they? So I take it you'd be fine with eliminating all government programs and services? You know, fire departments, police, soldiers, all the things which keep the country from becoming chaos. DUMBASS. We could pay a company to test foods for us or we could tax the company to ensure that their food is not unhealthy to us. We would pay for both. DUMBASS. Thinking for myself is being a dumbass? If you're going to critque my spelling you're going to have to improve your grammar, DUMBASS.

What an ignorant Putze---
attend and learn yee of feeble brain...
#1 Taxes are Robbery---go look it up, go look at how it started, what is was "promised" to be and how it has grown....
And you eliminate the government PROVIDING the service, you PRIVATIZE the service---privatized services are delivered by people who WANT TO KEEP their jobs, and have to compete to keep it...PAID FOR BY THE
15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Sunday 7/29/07 - 6:37:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
The only thing the government is supposed to be doing is protecting international trade and national defense....
EVERYTHING ELSE Could and should be handled locally and the TAXES stolen left in the hands of the people who pay the best provider for that service...
#2--or BUYERS could choose to buy whatever they want---and they could look for think like the UL or "tested by sams" brand...instead we have bureaucrats in pockets of drug companies---THAT is a DUMBASS approach--insect brain.

Correct your thinking, who gives a rat's Arse about your spelling.
Turn in your voting card until you learn how the world works and the impacts on this and any nation when entitlements have become the NORM and not the exception...

clean up your language

next please

15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Sunday 7/29/07 - 6:38:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
OH---and Libertarians have no desire to have everyone die off...

Just those who think that the rest of society should be supporting them so they can spend their life NOT working...
the Libertarians do think they are welcome to die off---

You disagree??
You one of those maybe?

next please

15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Sunday 7/29/07 - 7:55:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
"Paid for by the... ?" Someone has to pay the these "private services" and if the government isn't going to do it, it will come from someone's else's pocket- the companies, apparently.

On 7/29/2007 6:37:16 PM typeatme wrote:
The only thing the government is supposed to be doing is protecting international trade and national defense.... EVERYTHING ELSE Could and should be handled locally and the TAXES stolen left in the hands of the people who pay the best provider for that service...

15 yrs ago, 2 mos ago - Sunday 7/29/07 - 7:56:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
...While leaving the people to fend for themselves cut off from any support. Doing everything at the local level is a sure path to anarchy and chaos. We did not spend centuries developing a support infrastructure to return to an almost Medieval way of life. A strictly local level of operation lacks the money and resources for any significant community improvement. I'm only scratching the surface, though. Under Reagan and his small government ideals, thousands of mental patients were abandoned to the streets and now are the 'bag ladies' and other unfortunates. Where are your proposed 'local services' there? You seem to have this extremely naive idea that if left to their own devices, people will naturally look after each other. This is FALSE, especially in modern times. In short, without an infrastructure in place to provide order and support, society as we know it would collapse, which I strongly suspect you and all Libertarians want. (continued)

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 28)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Ladies: Would you be interested in using these reusable, washable pads/pantyliners during your period?

2 Pixies or Sonic Youth?

3 Will you play a game of spades with me, please?

4 Do you have a NalgeneĀ® bottle?

5 What is the most times you`ve seen the same movie in a theatre: more or less than 5 times?

6 Do you prefer plain or peanut M&M`s?

7 Should Australia make its outback a nuclear waste dumping ground for the world?

8 When the aliens come to rescue us from the pole shift on December 21st, will they only take world leaders and their families?

9 Is it fair that this woman got away with purposefully miscarrying her two babies?

10 Are sexually transmitted diseases a turn-off?

More Questions
 
Edit