Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Government Intervention In Everything:
A Liberal's Clarion Call
When is it necessary for government to become involved in, and regulate, the business practices of private corporations? What scenarios present themselves which then require that the government - specifically the Federal Government - insert itself?
I read a post at a liberal blog that blamed President Bush for the salmonella outbreak in peanut butter. The writer's logic, you see, is that industrial agriculture company, Con Agra, had contributed large sums of money to the Bush campaigns, therefore Bush looked the other way and allowed Con Agra to ship tainted peanut butter onto grocery store shelves. Brilliant logic, so reasoned in a factual and accurate basis, isn't it? Any proof offered by the writer that his allegations are true? No - but that's what he believes.
Another liberal writer, at a different liberal blog, says she's aghast that there is no law on the books specifying the maximum amount of time an airplane is allowed to sit on the tarmac before it hits the runway. This post, of course, was after Jet Blue's admittedly poor handling and performance of keeping passengers on a plane that never got airbound because of snowfall and blizzard conditions.
Who pays the price when government steps in and regulates or over-regulates private business? The costs of any imposition by government into a private business will be passed onto the customer. When this happens the Liberal Crowd cries that the new cost of the goods or services has risen too high. Then the same Liberal Crowd looks again to the government to "do something" about the high cost. It's a vicious and never-ending circle executed by Liberals who never want to assume any personal responsibility. When Liberals are wronged, it's always the fault of someone or something else.
Are there some customer-business relationships that can be resolved between the customer and the business without the government stepping in to "fix" things? Of course, but not if you drink from the Liberal jug of Kool-Aid.
Medical, dental and health industries obviously need some degree of government involvement. So does anything related to transportation, food and agriculture, construction and communication companies, to name just a few.
OSHA, the FAA, the NTSB, the FCC, the FDA are all good examples - for the most part - of agencies that primarily do good stuff in keeping a majority of people safe. And despite the exaggerated catcalling from the Left over hurricane Katrina, FEMA - overall - has done exemplary work for people affected by disasters. None of these agencies are perfect, not by a long shot. No agency is or ever will be perfect. Humans err and as long as agencies have human involvement and participation, occasionally errors will happen. "That's Life", as Frank Sinatra sings so eloquently.
The Left seems to be calling for the creation of a new federal agency, one that I name "The Department of Never Having To Suffer An Inconvenience". Instead of attempting to work things out on their own with private businesses that will sometimes fail and disappoint the consumer, the Left would prefer that government do it for them. Is this absurd or should we pity the feeble and weak self-willed Lefties who want the government to wet-nurse them from cradle to grave?
©2007
I read a post at a liberal blog that blamed President Bush for the salmonella outbreak in peanut butter. The writer's logic, you see, is that industrial agriculture company, Con Agra, had contributed large sums of money to the Bush campaigns, therefore Bush looked the other way and allowed Con Agra to ship tainted peanut butter onto grocery store shelves. Brilliant logic, so reasoned in a factual and accurate basis, isn't it? Any proof offered by the writer that his allegations are true? No - but that's what he believes.
Another liberal writer, at a different liberal blog, says she's aghast that there is no law on the books specifying the maximum amount of time an airplane is allowed to sit on the tarmac before it hits the runway. This post, of course, was after Jet Blue's admittedly poor handling and performance of keeping passengers on a plane that never got airbound because of snowfall and blizzard conditions.
Who pays the price when government steps in and regulates or over-regulates private business? The costs of any imposition by government into a private business will be passed onto the customer. When this happens the Liberal Crowd cries that the new cost of the goods or services has risen too high. Then the same Liberal Crowd looks again to the government to "do something" about the high cost. It's a vicious and never-ending circle executed by Liberals who never want to assume any personal responsibility. When Liberals are wronged, it's always the fault of someone or something else.
Are there some customer-business relationships that can be resolved between the customer and the business without the government stepping in to "fix" things? Of course, but not if you drink from the Liberal jug of Kool-Aid.
Medical, dental and health industries obviously need some degree of government involvement. So does anything related to transportation, food and agriculture, construction and communication companies, to name just a few.
OSHA, the FAA, the NTSB, the FCC, the FDA are all good examples - for the most part - of agencies that primarily do good stuff in keeping a majority of people safe. And despite the exaggerated catcalling from the Left over hurricane Katrina, FEMA - overall - has done exemplary work for people affected by disasters. None of these agencies are perfect, not by a long shot. No agency is or ever will be perfect. Humans err and as long as agencies have human involvement and participation, occasionally errors will happen. "That's Life", as Frank Sinatra sings so eloquently.
The Left seems to be calling for the creation of a new federal agency, one that I name "The Department of Never Having To Suffer An Inconvenience". Instead of attempting to work things out on their own with private businesses that will sometimes fail and disappoint the consumer, the Left would prefer that government do it for them. Is this absurd or should we pity the feeble and weak self-willed Lefties who want the government to wet-nurse them from cradle to grave?
©2007
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
