Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Is it Socialist that the government regulates pharmaceutical products or makes murder illegal?

If not, why is it Socialist to tell insurance companies how to run or keep banks in check?

Update:

When did I say I'm promoting Socialism? Ps Kathy, it is lack of regulation that has caused prices to inflate so much. The exact same medicines in Canada are 5x lower cost.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yeah, regulating the pharmaceutical industry has been wonderful, hasn't it? Prices are out of control. The industry just keeps cranking out modifications of the SAME drugs, so they can keep gouging the customer after their patents run out. The industry is in bed with the FDA who make concerted efforts to destroy alternative therapies. Yeah, that kind of socialism is exactly what we need (Sarcasm... in case you missed it).

    As to murder... I don't believe anyone against socialism is against LAWS to protect the innocent.

    I mean, come on... Are these the best arguments you have for socialism? If so, you better reexamine your ideology, because it is very screwed up.

    Edit:

    Oh, so the solution is even MORE regulation! I should have guessed.

    No, my naive friend, the problem is that when the government has the power to regulate an industry it also becomes susceptible to influence from power brokers within the industry. Why do you think that so many people on government regulatory agencies go on to get cushy jobs in the very industry they are supposed to be regulating?

    Sorry... The government is the PROBLEM here... Not the solution.

  • 10 years ago

    There is a very big difference between providing physical safety for the population and controlling a privately owned business. Regulations that attempt to make sure that banking is done in an honest way is protection. However, telling a business how much money an employee can make or what kind of businesses they can get into goes well beyond the protection idea. Ownership or control over a business is socialist. In the same vein, bailing out any business is also socialist. Those that fall, should fall. Yes, people will be hurt financially, but unless laws regarding honesty are broken, the government should stay out of it.

  • 10 years ago

    There is nothing Socialist about the Federal Government "making" murder illegal or making the marketing of harmful products illegal. You really do not understand what Socialism is. Things that people agree to contribute to, have controlled by the Government at some level or make laws governing, clearly have nothing to do with Socialism and a lot to do with Representative Democracy.

    Socialism is where the Federal Government actually owns industry, banking, health care, land, housing, energy production, farming and everything else. Socialism is where the Federal Government decides who gets what and when. There is no personal freedom, no unalienable rights, no equal justice, no private property or choice. There is no moral absolute either. Right and wrong are subject to interpretation by the Government.

    When you boil it all down, Socialism is nothing more than a system of rationing. It rations existing wealth until it is ultimately exhausted. That is when it begins to turn really ugly. We are talking starvation level ugly. Killing of the disabled and elderly ugly. As resources become more and more scarce war becomes more and more likely.

    Think about it. Have you ever seen a Free Market Republic declare war on another Free Market Republic? It never happened in the history of the world. Ask the people of Europe what Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union were like. Two forms of Socialism. What were France, Spain and England like when they were monarchies? See what I mean?

    *

  • 10 years ago

    Government can do whatever it wants, whether the people approve or not. BUT, in the USA, our Constitution FORBIDS the federal gov't from doing the things not specifically enumerated. State governments can regulate, and do, but the residents used to have the option of moving to a state where they can live with the lack of freedom. Given enough of a mass exodus, those states would bow to the majority and change their laws. Federal laws that are unconstitutional continue to be overlooked. The general welfare mentioned in the Constitution has to do with the country, not individuals - interstate commerce is a legitimate concern of the federal gov't. Police depts, fire depts are local concerns, and are none of the feds business, there is no federal law enforcement ( FBI and Marshalls are investigative ).

    BTW socialism means the gov't OWNS the means of production, like IBM, or oil wells. Nothing owned or run by the gov't works, or is efficient - except the military, which is conservative.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Is there some reason you need to mix apples and oranges in your questions?

    Why do you seem to link the regulation of pharmaceuticals with murder? Does your side really look better when you demonstrate for the world how you muddy an issue on purpose, simply to make it harder to solve?

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    No

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.