CDC fails at Texas A&M -- more Federal Government failure

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

No, that's not the point of your thread, the point of your thread is that it took private interests to expose government failure. The title of your thread says it all - your libertarian ideals show easily in this thread..the better the light you can cast on private organizations and the worse you can show government, the better your ideology looks, but I fail to see how your ideology would of done any better, it may even do worse.

Libertarians talk constantly about how private watchdogs and private oversight organizations do a better and more efficient job whistle-blowing on companies breaking rules and regulations. This is proof positive that, at least as related to the CDC's oversight ability, this is entirely accurate. And embarrassingly for the CDC, not only did this private group expose conditions at A&M in direct violation of the regulations, but they also exposed that the CDC knew about them and hadn't bothered to do anything about it (and worse in some situations, didn't do the tiny amount of investigative legwork required to uncover other violations).

It is a failure of Federal government that could have been on par with the failure of FEMA following Katrina, possibly worse. Thankfully an epidemic outbreak didn't occur, but by failing to enforce regulations with power of fines/shut-downs the CDC put thousands of people at risk. It took a private group to expose it.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

Libertarians talk constantly about how private watchdogs and private oversight organizations do a better and more efficient job whistle-blowing on companies breaking rules and regulations. This is proof positive that, at least as related to the CDC's oversight ability, this is entirely accurate. And embarrassingly for the CDC, not only did this private group expose conditions at A&M in direct violation of the regulations, but they also exposed that the CDC knew about them and hadn't bothered to do anything about it (and worse in some situations, didn't do the tiny amount of investigative legwork required to uncover other violations).

It is a failure of Federal government that could have been on par with the failure of FEMA following Katrina, possibly worse. Thankfully an epidemic outbreak didn't occur, but by failing to enforce regulations with power of fines/shut-downs the CDC put thousands of people at risk. It took a private group to expose it.

Yes in this case, but every case is different, that certainly does not justify a libertarian society. Replacing one flawed ideology with another does not solve a thing and could make things worse for the reasons I've said in other threads.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yes in this case, but every case is different, that certainly does not justify a libertarian society. Replacing one flawed ideology with another does not solve a thing and could make things worse for the reasons I've said in other threads.

So what is your solution? There are numerous instances that show that the libertarian model of private oversight groups works (this, Consumer Index, etc.), and numerous instances that show government oversight is a failure. Give me your solution, because based on the scores I've seen the libertarian model is beating out the current model.

You bash libertarianism quite a bit, yet from what I've seen you haven't offered an alternative that is better than the libertarian alternative AND addresses the obvious and mounting failings of the current system.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

So what is your solution? There are numerous instances that show that the libertarian model of private oversight groups works (this, Consumer Index, etc.), and numerous instances that show government oversight is a failure. Give me your solution, because based on the scores I've seen the libertarian model is beating out the current model.

You bash libertarianism quite a bit, yet from what I've seen you haven't offered an alternative that is better than the libertarian alternative AND addresses the obvious and mounting failings of the current system.

That is NOT a libertarian model, do not try to hijack good old grassroots activism, our right to assembly etc to it. It was there before their was any such ideology it will be there after. And libertarianism is NOT what founders set out to do or intended.

It is, as all ideologies, a set of ideals that claim to be what the founders intended and claim to be as close to a perfect society as possible - ALL have been proven wrong once they gained power. Libertarianism is no different is just that right now it has no power so there is no need for you guys to prove it out yet, this allows you to stay on you high horse and criticize other ideals.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

That is NOT a libertarian model, do not try to hijack good old grassroots activism, our right to assembly etc to it. It was there before their was any such ideology it will be there after. And libertarianism is NOT what founders set out to do or intended.

It is, as all ideologies, a set of ideals that claim to be what the founders intended and claim to be as close to a perfect society as possible - ALL have been proven wrong once they gained power. Libertarianism is no different is just that right now it has no power so there is no need for you guys to prove it out yet, this allows you to stay on you high horse and criticize other ideals.

I seriously think you do not understand libertarianism. The founders didn't base their ideology on libertarianism, and no one suggests that. Libertarians didn't really exist until republicans began straying from classic conservatism, just as Republicans didn't exist until Democrats strayed from classic liberalism. It's a cycle.

[Ardentfrost]

Oh, additionally, privatized consumer groups being the eyes and ears of the people for industry is EXACTLY what the libertarian model supports.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I seriously think you do not understand libertarianism. The founders didn't base their ideology on libertarianism, and no one suggests that. Libertarians didn't really exist until republicans began straying from classic conservatism, just as Republicans didn't exist until Democrats strayed from classic liberalism. It's a cycle.

Umm yea Dumpy tried to claim that on numerous threads..so yea there are libertarians who try to claim that (he was not the only one), so my point stands

[David Octavius]

And if you read my posts in the other thread - which I know you haven't - you would know what I meant by that post

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Umm yea Dumpy tried to claim that on numerous threads..so yea there are libertarians who try to claim that (he was not the only one), so my point stands

I'm sure he was claiming that the ideals have the same basis. Libertarianism (the word) didn't exist back then. It was called "liberalism" (now called classic liberalism) which was only a theory until the US was created. It was the opposite of mercantilism which promoted state intervention into the market and protectionism. Those (classic liberalism) are the principles of libertarianism, it's just that we can't use the word liberal, it's already taken Libertarianism didn't really exist before Austrian and Chicago school economics brought classic liberalism back. The resulting movement needed a name, and out came libertarian, mostly a version of republicans at that time, but now a lot more independent from the Republican Party.

PS. This has very little to do with this thread. I think if you want to discuss the origin of libertarianism and what libertarians believe (and why), we should start a new thread

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There are plenty of private organizations who have failed to police themselves just the same. This is not something that is peculiar to the government.

translation == I was wrong, so now I'm changing my argument instead of admitting it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

translation == I was wrong, so now I'm changing my argument instead of admitting it.

ok there chief.