[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

For the most part Obama has led from the center and that's been the problem. Had he led from the Left the GOP would have been in a position of forced compromise and taken some ownership over governance the past three years.

Some of his policies may be viewed as "centrist," but there is disagreement as to what the "center" is, or if there even is such a thing. His major accomplishment, the HCB, is very leftist. His putative saving of General Motors and Chrysler was done in a leftist way, by government rather than free market. Don't know what the centrist view is on killing Bin Laden. And his determination to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 regardless what effect it has on the economy, but simply on the basis of "fairness" is pure leftist. What ownership over governance has the GOP not taken or should have taken?


When people claim that we're becoming less free perhaps they should think of what else could be. Remember that regulation tends to be reactive, at times perhaps over-reactive for sure, but it's a response to forces the individual can't defend against.

Regulation by unelected agencies is different than regulation by elected representatives. It is not regulation by the will of the people, and often against that will, and by one-sided "experts" who don't seek a "centrist" solution against supposed forces, but dictate with economic results often contrary to intention. These administrative regulatory agencies are philosophical spawns of progressive political philosophy and legislation that have the good intention of ensuring what progressives called "effective liberty" as opposed to the "legal liberty" garanteed by the Constitution. Rather than leaving the function of liberty to individual effort and desire, which would unfairly advantage some over others, the central government would regulate the sphere of liberties by administrative fiat, defining liberty as that which is granted by government, not an unalienable right granted by nature or a creator. Thus all will be allowed an oxymoronic equalized liberty defined and granted by the government creating a narrowed "effective liberty" for all, not just the broad Constitutionaly legal liberty within which some might not be able to achieve at the same level as others. This becomes a new and more powerful force which the individual cannot defend against.

Sugar...Hasn't it been big business that's infected our food supply with high-fructose corn syrup primarily because it's cheap and leads to larger profits? I'd note that consumer choices here have perhaps led to a few more options but not really modeled the macro behavior of producers. If anything they've just become more skilled at hiding where their profit margins come from.

-spence

It is not out of Constitutional bounds for government agencies to inform the public about the dangers of food additives, and leave it up to individuals how to deal with it.