Comment: Government is inherently the antithesis of competition.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Are you kidding? (see in situ)

Government is inherently the antithesis of competition.

Yes, local government is better: it is more accountable and has more incentive to be efficient.

However, efficiency is NOT liberty. Liberty is the absence of force, and a government without force is not government at all.

You do realize that the EPA and FDA are separate institutions, right? Your switching back and forth confuses your argument. While one can avoid making a purchase, it is more difficult to avoid some environmental effects, such as air and water pollution. The free market could still probably handle these better than government, but it is less clear-cut.

For the FDA, here are your presented arguments for having it.

-To not have it is silly.
-To not have it is ridiculous.
-Babies derive utility from the FDA.
-Preventative measures are better than reactionary ones.

Your first two arguments are simply ad hominem. I'd rather not address them for this purpose, but if you'd like me to be more elaborate on why "silly" or "ridiculous" are not valid criticisms, feel free to reply and tell me so.

Your second argument is also invalid, although less so. True, babies do not have the capability to make transactions on their own volition. That is the job of their parents. However, to claim that parents, never in history, have ever been liable for the safety of their children, I will borrow your terms and call your argument "silly" and "ridiculous". Parents have always been held responsible for not shaking their infants and not feeding them cleaning supplies. To insinuate that just because OHMYGOODNESSBABIES are involved that this is somehow groundbreaking fails to account for reality.

Your final argument is the most forgivable, if only because it has been pushed by statists for all of human history. Your first inclination should not be "There oughtta be a law!" because it assumes that the government is best capable of apportioning public good. For food and drugs, as suggested here, companies could establish agencies that give some sort of seal of approval to companies that follow certain guidelines.

Pollution is again a bit more difficult to account for, since it extends beyond individuals operating under contract. However, say River Jefferson flows southward, and there are two settlements along it: Pollutiontown in the north and Cleanville in the south. When Pollutiontown dumps toxic waste in the river, it will negatively affect the livelihoods of those in Cleanville, who are all under voluntary contract to not pollute their environment. Under these circumstances, Cleanville is within its rights to retaliate against Pollutiontown because force is justifiable if it is initiated against you.

Your attempt at being didactic has some serious issues, ClydeBarberVotesRP.