The case against Dr. Paul

[Oliver]

If you are saying that I am wrong, show it.

He is clearly using the federal government to impose a view.

It means I am in the middle between socialism and libertarianism.

Okay - let's pick this apart:

"(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

Means: State-Level - not federal level. And yes,
amending it on federal level to further the State's
influence isn't a contradiction since the Constitution
and every extending Bill based on it is clarifying
the state- or federal responsibility.

No contradiction here.

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph

Clearly no racial or sexual distinction here.

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

• `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
  `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
  • `(A) the performance of abortions; or
    `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

So the supreme Court shouldn't be involved in those
issues? Mhmm, how federal is those decision if even
the supreme court shouldn't decide about it?

... and still no contradiction whatsoever.

[Should be added to the current law:]
`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

Mhmm, limitation of jurisdiction - how Libertarian
and Constitutional is that crazy limitation of Government?

... still no contradiction ...

Seriously - what's the contradicting point here?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Translation: It's enough for you to know that I contradict you. You needn't be bothered with the content of that contradiction or with any attempt to rebut it.

Au contraire

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This changes the status for everyone from citizen of a State to citizen of The United States.


You must be aware that the civil war was about forcing States to relinquish sovereignty to the Federal through the medium of war.

 

[WildCat]

Natural selection?

If Ron Paul had his way, you'd never know which drugs actually work and which ones don't. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, because the average consumer would have no way whatsoever to know whether or not the claims made by drug or supplement manufacturers were accurate.

This is the point where you will claim that private firms could be trusted to be 100% honest in their testing of drugs, which puts you at odds with your fellow Ron Paul supporter HereticHulk, who claims "Big Pharma already has plenty of drugs that claim to do this and that and actually do not help or have more side effects worse than the actual (if any) benefit claimed."

So the argument for deregulating drugs is that private firms lie about the efficacy of the drug, therefore private firms should be allowed to regulate themselves.

The Ron Paul forum is the only place you see such thinking outside of the Conspiracy Theories forum!

 

[Oliver]

If Ron Paul had his way, you'd never know which drugs actually work and which ones don't. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, because the average consumer would have no way whatsoever to know whether or not the claims made by drug or supplement manufacturers were accurate.

This is the point where you will claim that private firms could be trusted to be 100% honest in their testing of drugs, which puts you at odds with your fellow Ron Paul supporter HereticHulk, who claims "Big Pharma already has plenty of drugs that claim to do this and that and actually do not help or have more side effects worse than the actual (if any) benefit claimed."

So the argument for deregulating drugs is that private firms lie about the efficacy of the drug, therefore private firms should be allowed to regulate themselves.

The Ron Paul forum is the only place you see such thinking outside of the Conspiracy Theories forum!

I have to agree that I don't agree with Ron's stance
on a market which is able to provide the best choices
for the consumers - and Fox-"News" actually is the
best scapegoat of this kind of unregulated free
markets. But maybe Paul thinks otherwise about
the Media itself since they have to obey to the
licenses they agree on.

But in any way - to think that the market will treat
the consumers in the best way, sounds pretty naive
to me as well - even if I agree that this probably might
be the solution concerning the health-care mess.

But I admit that I didn't hear all of Dr. Paul's Ideas
about all the Issues that would be part of the
deregulation.

There still should be some kind of consumer-protection
to be able to make corporations responsible if they
produce BS or harm people.

I'm sure that Dr. Paul has Ideas about that as well,
but I missed them so far...

 

[HereticHulk]

If Ron Paul had his way, you'd never know which drugs actually work and which ones don't. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, because the average consumer would have no way whatsoever to know whether or not the claims made by drug or supplement manufacturers were accurate.

These things are already happening! Ron Paul's policies would give people more choice, thats about all that would change for the average consumer.

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.

This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron6.htm

Like I said you have a strawman of an argument!

I never said the FDA was holding Big Pharma back?

 

[ZenFountain]

The FDA has made plenty of bad calls on the drugs they push during . Big Pharma already has plenty of drugs that claim to do this and that and actually do not help or have more side effects worse than the actual (if any) benefit.

Big Pharma, who spends more on advertising than research and these drugs that are rubber-stamped by the FDA.

As with any government institution, the FDA can either work or not work depending who's in power. To say it's not working and therefore, if it were removed the system would work correctly is illogical. Perhaps there is a bit of a moral hazard, in that citizens feel insulated from risk if food and drug is "FDA approved" but in general they have done a good job safeguarding our health. Before T. Roosevelt pushed through the Pure Food and Drug Act there was no guarantee of any kind that food and drug was safe, clean or worked as prescribed to any degree. Try to imagine going to a drug store and not literally not knowing if a drug would kill you or cure you. I believe if there's a problem with a system, you fix the problem.

 

[Oliver]

These things are already happening! Ron Paul's policies would give people more choice, thats about all that would change for the average consumer.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron6.htm

If I should sum up Ron Paul's philosophy, I would say
that he wants to shrink the government to safe the
Tax-Payers money and to get the power back to the
people.

From what I see in the Media and in here, that isn't
a sound Idea and people have a hard time to grasp
what it means to have the power back.

Sad ... but that's what I see ...

 

[WildCat]

Ron Paul's policies would give people more choice, thats about all that would change for the average consumer.

Of course they'd have more choice. They could still choose drugs that do work, and also choose a bunch of quack products that don't. And they'll have no way of knowing which one is which!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Of course they'd have more choice. They could still choose drugs that do work, and also choose a bunch of quack products that don't. And they'll have no way of knowing which one is which!

How do you know which computer to buy?

Do you wait for the government to tell you?

 

[HereticHulk]

Of course they'd have more choice. They could still choose drugs that do work, and also choose a bunch of quack products that don't. And they'll have no way of knowing which one is which!

Says who? What are you talking about? Do really, really think that would happen?

 

[Oliver]

How do you know which computer to buy?

Do you wait for the government to tell you?

I'm surprised but WildCat actually has a point here.
I have the same concern about the deregulations - and
Dr. Paul didn't clarify those points so far - thanks to
asking questions about if he's electable or not...

But the point is valid. The cooperations could tell you
that Gene-Manipulated food is harmless - and just spread
it into the system - no matter if a majority of people is
opposed to it or not - or if scientists are concerned or
not.

So I personally think that too much power concerning
cooperations wouldn't be a literally healthy idea - especially
concerning drugs.

 

[ZenFountain]

How do you know which computer to buy?

Do you wait for the government to tell you?

Computers and health care, great analogy.

 

[Oliver]

How do you know which computer to buy?

Do you wait for the government to tell you?

Well, my argument would be that the Government
punishes people who rip off uninformed people,
especially elderly ones who don't know what Bit
and Ram is all about.

So there should be some kind of consumer protection.
Do you know about Dr. Paul's stance concerning
those things?

 

[WildCat]

How do you know which computer to buy?

Do you wait for the government to tell you?

If there is a safety issue with them (such as the faulty laptop batteries a while back) the government can and will order a recall if the company won't do it "voluntarily".

The government already regulates the safety of every product sold - apparently you and Ron Paul want to make an exception for drugs.

And btw, I've never bought a computer off the shelf. I build my own.

 

[Oliver]

Computers and health care, great analogy.

Dr. Paul's argument about health care insurance
makes sense to me since the insurers should
compete with each other to come to a balanced
and fair price for their insurances. But computers
are a whole different issue - it's a little-bit more
complicated than that since both fields don't have
much in common.

 

[HereticHulk]

If there is a safety issue with them (such as the faulty laptop batteries a while back) the government can and will order a recall if the company won't do it "voluntarily".

The government already regulates the safety of every product sold - apparently you and Ron Paul want to make an exception for drugs.

And btw, I've never bought a computer off the shelf. I build my own.

FDA approved drugs kill people as well!

A company that puts out a faulty product would still liable in civil/criminal court.

Besides that, in a free market would you peddle a product that kills people en mass, while trying to become a successful business in acompetitive free market?

And Besides that, do you think a medical Dr. Paul administration would be that shortsighted as to not have safeguards?

 

[HereticHulk]

dp

 

[ZenFountain]

FDA approved drugs kill people as well!

A company that puts out a faulty product would still liable in civil/criminal court.

Besides that, in a free market would you peddle a product that kills people en mass, while trying to become a successful business in acompetitive free market?

And Besides that, do you think a medical Dr. Paul administration would be that shortsighted as to not have safeguards?

The harmful effects of drugs may not be known for years, possibly even decades after they hit the market. The idea that a "competitive market" would weed out unsafe drugs is idiotic beyond all belief, it's hard to be a consumer advocate when you're dead. I often wonder if what's developing as the Ron Paul cheerleeding triumvirate (Oliver, Jerome and HereticHulk) thinks before the collective it post.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay - let's pick this apart:




Means: State-Level - not federal level. And yes,
amending it on federal level to further the State's
influence isn't a contradiction since the Constitution
and every extending Bill based on it is clarifying
the state- or federal responsibility.

No contradiction here.




Clearly no racial or sexual distinction here.




So the supreme Court shouldn't be involved in those
issues? Mhmm, how federal is those decision if even
the supreme court shouldn't decide about it?

... and still no contradiction whatsoever.




Mhmm, limitation of jurisdiction - how Libertarian
and Constitutional is that crazy limitation of Government?

... still no contradiction ...

Seriously - what's the contradicting point here?

He is imposing his view of what constitutes a "person" using the federal government, i.e. a person begins at conception.

He is also removing certain, specific, religious constitutional issues from the court review. You don't see the problem? We would still have sodomy laws if the courts didn't have the powers that he is removing from them.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Au contraire




This changes the status for everyone from citizen of a State to citizen of The United States.

Read the rest:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.