This is why I’m a big fan of Rand Paul.
If it is something like lights, where there is a real replacement, I’d say that is fine. But the toilets where everything needs to be refitted can cost a lot and I see the argument better there, plus I see the argument where the government comes in and basically tells people what to buy or not buy which is wrong.
Not to rain on the Rand Paul parade or anything, but I dare say it wouldn’t be very hard to come up with cases where even Rand Paul agrees that a particular product should be prohibited. Lead paint? Diazinon? The Atomic Energy Lab for kids that contained actual uranium ore? Leaded gasoline? Asbestos?
My point: Any reasonable person admits that the “Nanny State” is not altogether undesirable. Indeed, there are cases where it is, and has been, beneficial. However, it needs to be balanced carefully vis-a-vis individual liberty. And this little rant from Rand Paul is not a good example of careful balancing.
I guess there’s also the logical incongruity of a man ranting against a woman for not being consistently pro-choice on both the issues of abortion and consumer choice, while he himself is inconsistent between the two. But that seems pretty obvious.
And, I might add, further demonstrates the need for finding balance, rather than staking out absolutist positions.
LB, that stuff is dangerous….. where in are the dangers of toilets or light bulbs. i agree with you, but you cant use that as your argument because you are comparing hazardous chemicals versus electric waste.
I understand your objection, but not all of the examples I gave were outlawed because they were dangerous. Lead gasoline was prohibited because it was environmentally unsound, and diazinon because it killed birds.
That having been said, you are correct, that most often products are banned because they are dangerous. I’m a little busy right now, or I would provide a better list.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Powered by WordPress and K2
Entries Feed and Comments Feed
29 queries. 0.496 seconds.