[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Gov't involvment Posted by MJM [Email]  (#872) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from MJM) on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:33:12
In Reply to: Yes, but.., SS, Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:12:40 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
I agree with your points in general, but it's always the details that hang things up. Certainly the government has a role in protecting it's citizenry, that's one of it's prime purposes. For example, I am glad that I don't have to worry about protecting my house from foreign invasion. Your comments on the food industry are a good example of an area where government intervention was beneficial. The question is, where should the line be drawn?
In response to your example of the harried Mom buying an SUV out of ignorance, I disagree that the dealer has a responsibility to make sure she fully understands the vehicle. To take your implication a step further, should her grocery store prevent her from buying hamburger, and persuade her to buy ground turkey instead on the grounds that it's healthier for her children? Where should government intervention stop?
Back in the 50's and early 60's, several car manufacturers had seatbelts available as an option. In some cases the option was discontinued due to lack of sales. In other words, people didn't think they needed to spend the money/take the time to obtain and use the single most effective safety device available. It wasn't until the mid-60's that seatbelts were government mandated. Recall the late 80's when airbags were starting to be introduced? There were several lawsuits from people who'd bought a non-airbag car and were sueing the mfr. for not providing all the safety devices that were available. Were cars of the 50's "unsafe"? We'd say so today, but people back then didn't think so. Are modern cars "unsafe"? Not at all, but still the government legislates more and more safety equipment as "dangers" are discovered and brought to the peoples' attention.
In my opinion, the difference is solely in the peoples' mindset. Back in the 50's, it was one's own responsibility to care for oneself. Now, we expect the government to take care of us, and eliminate all risk. Our government, as typical of a bureaucracy, is more than willing to expand it's realm of control, and take in/spend more money. They will always take a little more then we give them.
Bill Clinton gave a speech in Italy (IIRC) several months ago, where he stated something along the lines of 'the great role that government has in empowering it's people to accomplish'....etc, etc. And we see that attitude all around us, the government tries to nurture, to care for, and to guide the populous. The only problem is that this country was originally founded on the idea that it was the populous that gave power to the government, not the other way around.
Anyway, just my .02, or perhaps .03, but now I've gotten way off Saab-topic.
Mike
, Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:00:55, Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:45:24
, Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:03:59, Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:33:12 <-- Viewing This Message
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
