On 1/17/2013 9:34 PM, Pete C. wrote:

> The key thing here is "free country" (for now) vs. "nanny state".

Nanny state? Isn't that just code for "no industry should have their
profits limited by the damage it can do to the customer"?

> I for one...

One among many on talk radio...

> ...will make my own decisions on what foods I will eat, and I do indeed
> pay attention to what is in them.

I think that's code for "industries shouldn't have their profits
limited by the potential negative press that were honest about the
negative aspects of their products". If there's something bad about the
product we have to find out on your own. Hire your own investigative
team!

> People need to wake up, pay attention and think for themselves rather
> than surrendering more and more rights to an out of control government.

I PAY them to protect me! Imagine saying that about lawyers: "People
should pay attention and defend themselves in court rather than
surrending more and more rights to their
lawyers/doctors/accountants/grocers/plumbers/auto-mechanics."

Take responsibility for all the things you're paying others to take
responsibility for!

When it comes to defending the populace against industries that make
products or by-products that hurt the populace, the government acts *on
my behalf* to defend me against them. Certainly it's better for
industry if each and every citizen worked separately and ineffectively
to ensure products weren't hurting them. But we have agencies DEDICATED
to that task. There is a reason: efficiency and power. Individuals
have neither; industries and loads.

There is, after all, another reason to vote for candidates other than
our desire for them to protect industry profit from the customers
meddling.