Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
Nope. Not even close. Most things are not rights, most of them are liberties. It can be legitimate to limit liberties. Until you stop thinking rights and liberties are the same thing you will always be wrong on this, they are not, and the only way they ever will be is by weakening the definition of the word "right". Which is of course exactly what the left is trying to accomplish by making everything a right. If there's a right to take vitamins then obviously rights aren't that cool, in which case it's just as legitimate to restrict that "right" as it is to restrict a real right like speech.
That's the whole goal of making everything rights, to turn around and eliminate them and every other right we have.
Still wrong. Still treating right and liberty as synonyms.
flip flop bumpkin
Manufacturer
Seller
Buyer
Actually with most modern transactions there's even more. There's usually a distributor that sold to the seller and a wholesaler that sold to the distributor and frequently at least 1 delivery company and possibly as many as there are transferances (a shipper to get from manufacturer to wholesaler, another to get to the distributor, another to get to the seller, and another to get to the buyer). And then if it's something complicated made of multiple parts by multiple manufacturers and assembled by ANOTHER manufacturer... Ever look inside a Dell and seen how many logos of how many different companies are in there, a standard mass market computer usually represents at least 2 dozen seperate transferances of ownership. The simple process of purchasing something is a lot more complicated than most people think.
But you said the government could go after them because it's fraud. The disclaimer makes it legally not fraud, that means the government CAN'T go after them, regardless of how morally reprehensible you and I think they are.
In that case... caveat emptor.
Yeah that attitude works all the way up until people start dieing. Eventually the suppliment industry is going to wind up under control of some level of the government. Probably the illegitimate FDA, unless we manage to actually trim the fed back to where it should be by then. But regulation of the industry WILL happen one way or the other, and they'll only have themselves to blame, too much worthless crap in that industry not enough responsible business practices.
People die from hyponatremia. Does that mean we should ban water? Using your logic, we would HAVE to.
There you go again giving me a position I don't have. Where did I say ban? I didn't. You'd do much better to stop putting people in boxes, you're not good at it and constantly assign people positions they haven't taken.
I'm glad you liked it - I aim to please. ;^)
This would clearly give the government first a power to regulate, then to regulate out of existance, the enitre industry. Think it won't happen? Ask a gun manufacturer.
No it's not. Regulation is simply a matter of applying minimum standards to things. Do you think requiring safety belts in cars is the first step to banning them?
Restriction is just a matter of applying minimum standards to purchasers and use. Do you think that requiring peole using explosives to have have proven their ability to do so safely and licensing them is the first step to banning them?
Sometimes regulation leads to banning but it's very rare. Much more often restriction leads to banning but even then it's a minority of the time. Regulation, restriction and even banning ARE legitimate actions of government WHEN the product in question meets certain needs.
We're not regulating gun manufacturers out of business, we need them to supply the Army.
Until you stop thinking rights and liberties are the same thing
Clearly I'm not.
Still treating right and liberty as synonyms.
Clearly I'm not.
Actually with most modern transactions there's even more. There's usually a distributor that sold to the seller and a wholesaler that sold to the distributor and frequently at least 1 delivery company and possibly as many as there are transferances (a shipper to get from manufacturer to wholesaler, another to get to the distributor, another to get to the seller, and another to get to the buyer).
Which of these parties other than the buyer is harmed by the fraud we're discussing?
you said the government could go after them because it's fraud.
No, I said "government is within its legitimate authority to punish fraud."
I had it yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150834/posts?page=49#49
it just means it's not in the thankfully small list of stuff the fed should be messing with as listed in the Constitution.
Learn to read before you insult people. Now really BUZZ OFF, I want nothing to do with insulting people who can't even read a post.
You treat them the same in the end, clearly you are.
-- the difference between liberties and rights. Liberties can be regulated.
So can our rights. We very carefully delegate that power to our governments in our constitutions.
Owning a home is a liberty,
Yep you have an inalienable right to buy/build a house, under our rule of law.
if you can't build a home that doesn't pass inspection or violates local zoning regulations.
Reasonable regulations on buying & building houses are Constitutional. No one here is arguing that point.
Rights are immutable, liberties sometimes need direction so they don't screw up other people's rights and liberties.
You are belaboring a non-issue. Our rights/liberties are one and the same.
I treat Macintosh and Jonathan apples the same, but that doesn't mean I think they are identical.
Could be anybody after the manufacturer. If the seller believed them and the buyer stops going to that store because the vitamins he bought were junk the seller is harmed. If the seller stops buying from the distributor because the vitamins the distributor is giving him to sell are junk then he's harmed. If the distributor stops buying from the wholesaler because the stuff is junk then he's harmed. This loss of products moving around harms all of the shipping companies involved. All because the manufacturer lied on the box of his product.
So since we both agree this is fraud, even if it the disclaimer gives them immunity from prosecution, would it not be a legitimate function of government to ban suppliments that have no data supporting their claims about what the product does? Is that not punishing fraud?
But they're still apples. Liberties and rights aren't different breeds of apple. They are apples and oranges. One it can be legitimate for a government to restrict, the other it is never legitimate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.