snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Inboxer Rebellion (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Who says the government can't do anything right? (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=49566)

snopes 16 August 2009 06:30 PM

Who says the government can't do anything right?
 
Comment: Not really a rumor...but it asks for the author...do you know it?
I received this from a friend awake at 3:15 a.m. unable to sleep over
current events. Does anyone know the source of this essay?




This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water
utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see
what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like,
using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the
U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to
the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals
which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back
home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence
because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables, thanks
to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com
and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the
government can't do anything right.

jimmy101_again 16 August 2009 07:03 PM

Like it.

It is interesting that when just about every one of those federal agencies and regulations were proposed somebody complained about infringment upon rights, or socialism, or communism, or cost, or that's not the way we used to do it, or George Washington would be spinnning in his grave, or the nanny state, or the private sector can do it better, or the private sector shouldn't be regulated, or ...

snopes 16 August 2009 07:18 PM

I'm sure the typical response would be that the DOT, FDA, OSHA, etc., are corrupt, repressive bureaucracies that are actually making things worse for freedom-loving citizen-patriots.

Mickey Blue 16 August 2009 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1024722)
I'm sure the typical response would be that the DOT, FDA, OSHA, etc., are corrupt, repressive bureaucracies that are actually making things worse for freedom-loving citizen-patriots.

Actually in my experience when talking to libertarians and the like is that all agencies they like or that would be hard to replace are good and need to be kept around, agencies they don't like or that are not implemented yet are bad.


Oftentimes they don't offer up clear reasons of why, for example why is having a socialized military good but socialized medicine bad*?

I have also noticed that for many the 'socialism' that they are against are the things they don't need (welfare, healthcare, food stamps, etc), and the socialism they are for are the things they need (firefighters, military, police, roads).. I cannot help but wonder if this means something...

-MB

*This doesn't mean mean you cannot be against socialized medicine on specific issues, I'm just arguing from a "the government should stay out of [blank]!" viewpoint.

Chloe 16 August 2009 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1024722)
I'm sure the typical response would be that the DOT, FDA, OSHA, etc., are corrupt, repressive bureaucracies that are actually making things worse for freedom-loving citizen-patriots.

Finally! Why should we all have to drive on the right? Liberty or death, baby! We should totally be able to drive on whatever side of the road we feel like driving on!

lord_feldon 16 August 2009 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1024690)
to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection

That can't be true. Why just last week I heard of a new house that burned down, but I live near an old house that's never burned down. (This is a real argument I heard against building codes once.)

snopes 16 August 2009 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 1024728)
Finally! Why should we all have to drive on the right? Liberty or death, baby! We should totally be able to drive on whatever side of the road we feel like driving on!

Yeah! And why do we need an FDA, anyway? Obviously food and drug companies have no interest in sickening or killing their customers, so regulating them just creates unnecessary burdens. Let the free market sort it out!

Natalie 17 August 2009 01:32 AM

I like it. Reminds me a little bit of the section in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot where Al Franken asks prominent (at the time) conservatives for examples of government programs that were or are successful. They gave a surprising list, including some things I would never have thought of, like rural electrification - also an example of a government program that was abolished when it was no longer needed.

Of course, some of those people listed Social Security as a successful government program, which has become a target of the anti-government set. Makes me wonder what sort of answers Franken would get to that question today.

DawnStorm 18 August 2009 02:48 PM

This is where I disagree with some libertarians out there: I think there is a need for the NIH, FDA, CDC and yes even OSHA. While I don't like to see these or any other agencies micromanage companys' affairs, many companies simply do not do a good job of policing themselves. So no, I have no problem with FDA having approve the meds we take, or the CDC tracking disease outbreaks. Yes, there should be some standards for a safe workplace but that doesn't mean that corners should be bubblewrapped.
Yes there's some programs that IMO should be abolished (on the federal level) because I think they belong on the state level. If that makes me less of a libertarian then so be it.

snopes 18 August 2009 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue (Post 1024725)
Oftentimes they don't offer up clear reasons of why, for example why is having a socialized military good but socialized medicine bad?

That's kind of a no-brainer, innit? It'd be rather difficult to develop an effective global defense strategy if your military comprised a bunch of independent, autonomous, competing units.

Don Enrico 19 August 2009 07:26 AM

Devil's advocate
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1026128)
That's kind of a no-brainer, innit? It'd be rather difficult to develop an effective global defense strategy if your military comprised a bunch of independent, autonomous, competing units.

But wouldn't it be possible - just for the sake of the argument - to have a governmental Federal Strategic Command that does the planning and issueing of strategies, but hires all the soldiers, weapons, vehicles, gear and stuff from independent, autonomous, competing companies?

I wouldn't want that, but it would be possible.

Don Enrico

Eddylizard 19 August 2009 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 1024728)
Finally! Why should we all have to drive on the right? Liberty or death, baby! We should totally be able to drive on whatever side of the road we feel like driving on!

Come to England. After all, alongside Canada we are the poster child for bad socialised healthcare it seems. We drive on the left. If we want to drive on the right, we take the 45 minute trip over to France, which is another evil socialist country apparantly.

Come and join the party Comrade Chloe!

diddy 19 August 2009 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Enrico (Post 1026831)
But wouldn't it be possible - just for the sake of the argument - to have a governmental Federal Strategic Command that does the planning and issueing of strategies, but hires all the soldiers, weapons, vehicles, gear and stuff from independent, autonomous, competing companies?

I wouldn't want that, but it would be possible.

Don Enrico

Possible? Maybe. Practical, almost certainly not.

jimmy101_again 19 August 2009 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1026128)
That's kind of a no-brainer, innit? It'd be rather difficult to develop an effective global defense strategy if your military comprised a bunch of independent, autonomous, competing units.

You mean like the Army, Navy (and marines) and Air Force? That sure sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Or, think how goofy it would be if each state had it's own army? Oh wait, most states do have their own armies, they are called National Guard units. They are, in general, independent of the federal government. They don't, in general, report to the POTUS.

snopes 19 August 2009 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again (Post 1027398)
You mean like the Army, Navy (and marines) and Air Force?

No. Those entities are all under the same chain of command, and they all receive their funding from the same source.

Quote:

Oh wait, most states do have their own armies, they are called National Guard units. They are, in general, independent of the federal government.
Except when they have to actually act as an army, in which case they get federalized.

Barbara 19 August 2009 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 1026128)
It'd be rather difficult to develop an effective global defense strategy if your military comprised a bunch of independent, autonomous, competing units.

Yes, but we wouldn't have autonomous, competing units once that was the case, because one branch of the US military would soon take out all the others.

Floater 20 August 2009 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddy (Post 1027018)
Possible? Maybe. Practical, almost certainly not.

The US does it in Iraq: Blackwater Worldwide.

diddy 20 August 2009 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floater (Post 1027723)
The US does it in Iraq: Blackwater Worldwide.

Yes, and there are real troubles with those guys.

I also disagree with their presence in Iraq as well, but that decision was not made by me.

DesertRat 20 August 2009 01:45 PM

Quote:

Yes, but we wouldn't have autonomous, competing units once that was the case, because one branch of the US military would soon take out all the others.

Yes, we would...


:D

Dondi 20 August 2009 03:03 PM

Quote:

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the
U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

[Nitpick]The U.S. Postal Service is no longer a government entity, but an independent agency, an autonomous public corporation since 1971. The Postmaster General is no longer in line for succession for President. It is the second largest civilian employer with 760,000 employees, topped only by Wal-Mart. But it does operate the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world.[/Nitpick]


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.