Dr Ron Paul on Raw Milk Freedom

[BellePlaine]

Ok, if having practical experience means picking regulators from within the industries to be regulated, how do you keep the situation from becoming a big good ol' boys club? Lanval, said that we the citizens need to be the watchers over the regulators. Fine, but then why have regulators if ultimately "we" need to provide the final oversight? Let's skip the middle man the use the free market system.

[Randy in Maine]

As many of you know and some of you can guess, I work for a regulatory state agency, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. I have been here for 17 years. As part of my job, I regulate various solid waste facilities (license them, ensure complaince, and do enforcement work). While I do a lot of work at landfills, waste to engery plants, transfer stations, and solid waste processing facilities, I am also involved in rulemaking, writing reports for the legislature, and resolving citizen complaints. If I had a specialty, it is in writing Benefical Use of Solid Waste licenses that allows companies keep things like tires, shingles, sheetrock, construction/demolition debris, and other stuff like that out of landfills and into a benefical use if they can meet the risk standards we have.

I really only have one rule and that is everybody has to follow the rules. If there was a second rule it would be that if you say you are going to do something, I am going to hold you to it.

A lot of my projects are controversial (as it is solid waste) and I deal a lot with companies and individuals that want to do something to make money. I also deal a lot with people that don't want that same something to happen in their town, neighborhood or state. I have a lot of respect for both sides, but I am not on either side. I really am the guy in the middle.

What I do is to evaluate the proposed project and see if it complies with the rules and go from there. If it complies with the rules and statutes, they get a license. If they don't, they get a denial. If I say "yes" or "no" to an applicant, I have to explain my decision and why I decided that to a series of management levels above me. We at the Department are the decisonmakers. There are vaious ways to appeal a decision by either side and we tell them just how to do that. I have been reversed on appeal once about 15 years ago.

That being said, I work for all of the people of the state, not just the "enviros" and not just the applicants. I tell them all if they want to see any of my files, they do not need to file a Freedom of Information Act request, they can just look through the public records and they can see everything that ever happened on the project and can draw their own conclusions. Some of them change their mind, some do not. I am always willing to listen to a good story and a little enthusiaism to do a good job goes a long way with me. I work hard to do a good job, to evaluate the various proposal/problems/complaints fairly and accurately and I try very to treat everyone fairly and like I wish to be treated. Not everyone treats me that way back though, and when they swear at me, I am not afraid to hang up on them either.

I treat them all with respect, but sometimes I have to "spank" some of them (in an enforcement way), but I explain why and what happens if they do it again. Probably the part of my job I like doing the least, but that is what I do and what I am supposed to do. If someone is not happy with my call (and that does happen), I give them my supervisors number and let them make their case to them. I don't get over ruled very often, but it has been known to happen.

Just my 2¢....

[Velokid1]

You guys are supposed to agree with my every word. IAC Core Group, and all that.

Great food for thought up there and I thank you, but I can't help but feel like (a) Randy, you are obviously an exception to the rule, as is the state of Maine, and (b) it's easy to come up with innocuous examples of how someone with industry experience can go on to serve a vital, useful role at an agency charged with regulating that industry, but it is even easier to come up with examples of agencies, industries, individuals and circumstances where the arrangement is anything but innocuous.

And while those regulatory jobs don't pay well, it is the rare ex-CEO who isn't still receiving a handsome paycheck from some facet of the industry at the same time as they are collecting a modest paycheck from the reg agency.

[Lanval]

Ok, if having practical experience means picking regulators from within the industries to be regulated, how do you keep the situation from becoming a big good ol' boys club? Lanval, said that we the citizens need to be the watchers over the regulators. Fine, but then why have regulators if ultimately "we" need to provide the final oversight? Let's skip the middle man the use the free market system.

Because that is a lot of work; so in order to achieve compliance, we centralize the decision making system. Then we have citizen-available information systems (i.e. the media). Most decisions we don't need to think about. The decision made is correct, various interested parties are made aware of how/why the decision was made. You and I don't need to take time out of day to look things over and go "yup. That's right." ~ we pay a guy to do that. He's called the gov't guy.

Sometimes, though, decisions get made that are problems for one reason or another. Maybe it's something that seems odd, out-of-character, or whatever. Interested parties bring it to our attention via various resources (the media) and we the citizens push for a correction if the decision was sufficiently problematic.

In addition, not everyone wants to pay attention to every regulatory agency. I don't. I pay attention to what matters to me. There are others like me. We form a group. We pay more attention than most. The vast majority of society sleeps better knowing: 1. The gov't guy is probably trying to do a good job; 2. There's a two-tier system for bring complaints/problems public: within the agency (complaint) and without (public media scrutiny); 3. There is a group of people who care vehemently about the regulatory agency, and watch it closely, alerting us/the media when things look screwy.

The reason we don't eliminate the "middle man" is that he (i.e. the gov't agency) is invested with the cumulative authority of the people. None of us have that; we all act as individuals, and lack the ability to punish or even affect larger groups who operate outside of the realm of ethics. Let's say you walk by a construction site, and you see people dumping chemicals/waste in a nearby creek. You walk over and tell them "stop". They reply, "Fuck you." What are you going to do? Pull a gun? Write them a ticket? Run and tell your Dad?

No; in an ideal world, you would go to town, raise the people's awareness, and march back en masse and show the company in question the cumulative will of the people. But we don't live in that world, do we? Are you going to leave work every time an emergency comes up? How can we function as a society if we run from place to place, putting out fires?

To follow on that metaphor, why not get rid of fireman? We don't really need trained professionals ~ I know, because fire departments are a recent development... why not get rid of the middleman there too? Why give anyone authority over anything? Answer: Without a central authority invested with the will of the people, you get first: chaos. Second: strong-arm monarchy and feudalism. Third: democracy. We've already arrived at the third point (if there's a fourth or more points, it's unclear now, though a number of people have argued that supra-national corporate entities will eventually replace nation-states as an organizing principle for society) and that third point hinges upon relatively expert members of society working to regulate the daily life of the vast portion of the people. And frankly, if you compare the US to most other countries, the system works pretty well.

Mike

/edit/ Just after writing this, I saw a perfect example of why deregulation/libertarian individuality won't work:

"Franklin County, Ohio Judge Julie Lynch is advising people in dresses to avoid the glass-bottomed staircase in the middle of a new $105 million courthouse that opened Monday. From CNN:

She speculates that men, who didn’t take half the population into account, designed the stairs.
Attorney Lori Johnson was startled by the transparent stairs. She worries not only about stares, but also how many cell phones have cameras attached.

“The next thing you know, you’re on the internet,” Johnson said, according to 10TV. “It sounds like a lawsuit in the making.”

While security guards warn women about taking the stairs, it seems most are just hoping people will be mature about the situation.

"They hope people will be mature? That's not a solution," Lynch said to 10TV. "If we had mature people that didn't violate the law, we wouldn't have this building.""

There's the link: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/gl ... &hpt=hp_c2

[steve74baywin]

Ok, if having practical experience means picking regulators from within the industries to be regulated, how do you keep the situation from becoming a big good ol' boys club? Lanval, said that we the citizens need to be the watchers over the regulators. Fine, but then why have regulators if ultimately "we" need to provide the final oversight? Let's skip the middle man the use the free market system.

Exactly, What has been done is we keep giving all the power to those who love to abuse power. It is real simple logic. Only a few people in society want to control others against there will. Where do those types go? To the groups we give the monopoly to. It's that simple, most of us want to be driving our VW's, living our life, whatever is our interest. But, those who are greedy will work and use the system for their game. As long as we keep this giant gov stuff up, the more we will keep having these problems.

[BellePlaine]

There is a lot here to chew on; I agree with the points about the media, (now with facebook and twitter) serving as the alarm to the people. This is a very good thing, especially to a free society. I want what I believe that you want in a regulator, I want them to alert us to problems. But that's it. I don't want them making rules to say you can't sell raw milk to a willing buyer off of your farm, or at a farmer's market. I want my regulators to check up on the sellers of goods to let us know what exactly is in the products they are selling. I want it labeled that your milk contains growth hormones, and then let's allow you to decide if this is important to you.


In this example...

The reason we don't eliminate the "middle man" is that he (i.e. the gov't agency) is invested with the cumulative authority of the people. None of us have that; we all act as individuals, and lack the ability to punish or even affect larger groups who operate outside of the realm of ethics. Let's say you walk by a construction site, and you see people dumping chemicals/waste in a nearby creek. You walk over and tell them "stop". They reply, "Fuck you." What are you going to do? Pull a gun? Write them a ticket? Run and tell your Dad?

No; in an ideal world, you would go to town, raise the people's awareness, and march back en masse and show the company in question the cumulative will of the people. But we don't live in that world, do we? Are you going to leave work every time an emergency comes up? How can we function as a society if we run from place to place, putting out fires?

... a libertarian believes that we should have liberty to do what we like, just as long as someone's actions are ethical and do not interfere with someone else's ability to do the same. If you damage the creek because you dumped your chemicals, you are liable to those who own property downstream. There is no need for society to run around putting out fires, because those effected from the offense use the courts to correct the action. Neat, clean, and efficient.

We need firemen. If those glass stairs are code, then it's up to the owner of the building (provided that it's privately owned) to decide what to do about them.

[Lanval]

We need firemen.

The problem with this is that you're picking and choosing which regulatory/gov't agencies you like/dislike on an irrational basis: The ones you think we need. It doesn't work that way. Fire code, building code, food code, restaurant code ~ it's all gov't agencies. You don't get to pick ones you like, while telling other people to go jump in a lake. It's a democracy; if the majority agree it's a good idea, we do it.

FWIW, there's a recent news story about a guy who had to watch his house burn while the FD protected his neighbor's house. That's because they have a Libertarian type system in some areas. You pay for fire protection; you don't want to pay, you don't have to; BUT the FD won't stop your house from burning down. Guess what? Mr. Libertarian "I don't want to pay for services I don't use" got to watch his house burn because he forgot to pay. Guess that whole "responsibility thing doesn't work so well. His son actually got angry, because they offered to pay the fee to the FD. Of course, the FD chief said, "No. If we did that, NO ONE would pay until their house was on fire. Then we wouldn't have the money to buy fire engines, pay fire fighters, etc."

Here's the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-fami ... d=11806407

Double bonus: report on how raw milk is dangerous with e coli, and represents a threat similar to what Europe is experiencing now. Author has a Ph.D. in Microbiology; I'd guess he knows whereof he speaks.

Excerpt: "In April, the FDA cracked down on an Amish raw milk producer for selling its product across state lines without proper labeling, both of which are in violation of federal law. This predictably led to cries of "big government" telling people what they can and cannot eat. But given the effects of the deadly microbe that has been creeping across Europe's food supply, the FDA's decision is looking very responsible."

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/10/b ... google_cnn


And finally, another discussion about this sort of problem via BoingBoing.net. A restaurant in SF was selling cricket tacos (blech!) which they were importing from Mexico. They weren't approved or checked, and some people thought that's another example of gov't getting in the way of business. Since, however, we routinely find high levels of lead in Mexican produced candy (i.e. stuff we're supposed to be able to eat), I don't exactly trust the crickets to be pesticide free. Your suggestion is to let them sell it, and caveat emptor. OK ~ are you going to be the one telling some guy in the ER that we're not going to let his kid die because he chose to feed the kid dangerous foods in spite of clear warnings that it was dangerous? I don't want to do that. I suspect you don't either.

/edit/ forgot the grasshopper taco link; enjoy *nods grimly*
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... hpt=us_bn7

The issue with absolute freedom (or individual liberty) is that we live in a world where we expect others to help us out (see: Guy watching his house burn); since we expect others to help, we have to agree to work within a system that makes this sort of help possible. That means paying taxes, so you don't 'forget' or otherwise try to avoid responsibility.

Almost my entire critique of Libertarian ideology and practice could be boiled down that point: Libertarians believe that people will operate ethically and take personal responsibility for what they do? When has that ever happened, in the history of the US? Of the world? Never. Some people do, maybe more than half; but the other half? Man, they are cheating, planning scheming, stealing and abusing like it's their job. Which in a sense it is, because if you can steal from others, that's how you get money.

Libertarians are idealists, not pragmatists. It's beautiful, but it's not real, and won't work, unless you can change how people function.

Mike

[steve74baywin]

The problem with this is that you're picking and choosing which regulatory/gov't agencies you like/dislike on an irrational basis: The ones you think we need. It doesn't work that way. Fire code, building code, food code, restaurant code ~ it's all gov't agencies. You don't get to pick ones you like, while telling other people to go jump in a lake. It's a democracy; if the majority agree it's a good idea, we do it.

Way off Mike, sorry. This is a major twist of things.
First of all, you call his method irrational, I actually think most of your post is irrational. What is wrong with him picking what agencies he wants to contribute to? Did you ever hear of freedom? And, let's step out of doublethink, every agency in place and every action they are doing IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE MAJORITY. You yourself said in another post that when guys like Obama get in they find out others know more. Please don't try to build and back your case with lies. I am going to call you out on it.

FWIW, there's a recent news story about a guy who had to watch his house burn while the FD protected his neighbor's house. That's because they have a Libertarian type system in some areas. You pay for fire protection; you don't want to pay, you don't have to; BUT the FD won't stop your house from burning down. Guess what? Mr. Libertarian "I don't want to pay for services I don't use" got to watch his house burn because he forgot to pay. Guess that whole "responsibility thing doesn't work so well.

How on earth is that an example of the "responsibility thing not working". And, remember, we aren't promising a tooth fairy or Santa, we never said everything would be 100% perfect. What will it take for you to stop attempting to knock Libertarianism by finding any little thing that didn't come out perfect in your mind?

Excerpt: "In April, the FDA cracked down on an Amish raw milk producer for selling its product across state lines without proper labeling, both of which are in violation of federal law. This predictably led to cries of "big government" telling people what they can and cannot eat. But given the effects of the deadly microbe that has been creeping across Europe's food supply, the FDA's decision is looking very responsible."

There are times when people have gotten harmed by the FDA's decision. Just because some people somewhere may actually be helped by it, is no justification to remove freedoms from people and to subjugated us back to a gov. So the people don't get to play god with there life, the government does instead? Where on earth do you get this stuff from?

And finally, another discussion about this sort of problem via BoingBoing.net. A restaurant in SF was selling cricket tacos (blech!) which they were importing from Mexico. They weren't approved or checked, and some people thought that's another example of gov't getting in the way of business. Since, however, we routinely find high levels of lead in Mexican produced candy (i.e. stuff we're supposed to be able to eat), I don't exactly trust the crickets to be pesticide free. Your suggestion is to let them sell it, and caveat emptor. OK ~ are you going to be the one telling some guy in the ER that we're not going to let his kid die because he chose to feed the kid dangerous foods in spite of clear warnings that it was dangerous? I don't want to do that. I suspect you don't either.

Again, same thing. Hey, some kids have gotten sick from mercury in shots the FDA approves of. Not 100% perfect, everyone in the gov must be arrested?? Why do you use things like that as basis for freedom being taking away just because there was A instance of imperfection? Sorry dude, the world ain't perfect, try again for the reason I can't be in charge of my life?

Almost my entire critique of Libertarian ideology and practice could be boiled down that point: Libertarians believe that people will operate ethically and take personal responsibility for what they do? When has that ever happened, in the history of the US? Of the world? Never. Some people do, maybe more than half; but the other half? Man, they are cheating, planning scheming, stealing and abusing like it's their job. Which in a sense it is, because if you can steal from others, that's how you get money.

Libertarians are idealists, not pragmatists. It's beautiful, but it's not real, and won't work, unless you can change how people function.

Mike

Practically the opposite, your view thinks gov will always know best, and will always act best, yet you also tells us the gov is made up of us people, people you say do not do the right thing. But you want to give the monopoly of power to people? Instead of us being in charge of things like what food we eat, you want to turn it over to people who have power? Have you thought about that much?
When has people taken personal responsibility? Each and everyday, it is all around us. It happens over, over, and over again. All day long people do this when there is no law enforcement in site, people take personal responsibility for there actions and act ethnically. Now I see alot of corruption in government? Oh, that's right, government is people too.

If you would have addressed the question I brought up the last time you tried a similar argument maybe it would have saved some typing.
Your belief's why it is better, in fact your basis for what is better, seems to bring up questions. I asked them before, you never replied. Here is an example. There are plenty of birds outside, and, you know what, I don't intervene with them much at all, and my neighbor doesn't either, except for the variety called chickens. He has built a coup, and he is constantly making decisions for them, how to keep them healthy, etc, etc. Why is it he feels he needs to intervene? Is there a goal? In other words, he wants eggs from them, he considers them his, he is making all these decisions for them because he wants to gain from them, he has a plan, a vision, a mission. When you speak and attempt to explain things, it would make sense, if we were considered someones property, or if someone had an endgame, a desired outcome. So I ask you, What is plan? What is the vision? Why is it someone must take away our freedoms to reach something? What are we trying to reach? Whose set the goal?
You constantly compare systems based upon which one has achieved better. Well, better in whose vision of the world?

[BellePlaine]

The issue with absolute freedom (or individual liberty) is that we live in a world where we expect others to help us out (see: Guy watching his house burn); since we expect others to help, we have to agree to work within a system that makes this sort of help possible. That means paying taxes, so you don't 'forget' or otherwise try to avoid responsibility.

Almost my entire critique of Libertarian ideology and practice could be boiled down that point: Libertarians believe that people will operate ethically and take personal responsibility for what they do? When has that ever happened, in the history of the US? Of the world? Never. Some people do, maybe more than half; but the other half? Man, they are cheating, planning scheming, stealing and abusing like it's their job. Which in a sense it is, because if you can steal from others, that's how you get money.

Libertarians are idealists, not pragmatists. It's beautiful, but it's not real, and won't work, unless you can change how people function.

Mike

Again, you've provided a lot of meat to chew on, which is fine but please allow me to focus on this point for now since it seems to be at the crux of our augment.

First off, there is a difference between "expecting" to be helped out, and to borrow a motif from Steve, being "forced" to help out. If assistance is not guaranteed, a libertarian might more carefully weigh the risks of taking an action or not. He might think harder before eating a Mexican cricket taco, forgetting to pay the fire department, or buying a home with zero down and a variable rate mortgage. Yes, I will pick and choose in certain instances. Kids cannot enter into contracts. Roads, the military, FBI, congress, courts, the executive branch... those are all worthwhile services to financed by the people because they benefit everyone on a basic level. I know that I did not explain myself clearly above when I suggested that we cut out regulator middleman. We indeed need regulators and whistle blowers because we need to know the risks assocated with the products we buy and consume. I think, armed with that information, the market can take it from there.

To Lanval's critique of libertarianism's ideology; that many people are not ethical. Consider this, Mr. BellePlaine will not risk more then he can afford to lose. Get a lot of BellePlaines making risks that they can afford and that's natural regulation right there for you. The beauty of it is that it's neutral. If people can be unethical, so can regulators (our good own RandyInMaine not withstanding). A group of people working independently, liable for their own actions but working towards their own benefit, cannot allow a system of cronyism to exist.

[Lanval]

A group of people working independently, liable for their own actions but working towards their own benefit, cannot allow a system of cronyism to exist.

This statement is the birth of all cronyism. Cronyism benefits some individuals at the expense of others. Unless you've figured out a way to make people care more about other people than about themselves, greed will out. Please explain to me how a group of individuals can prevent the concerted efforts of a few to subvert the system for their own game.

The underlying logic of this single point is what I will return to over and over. The reason is that the question I pose: "How to protect my individual rights from those who would work to limit my rights for their own profit" is the same question society has posed to itself from the beginnings of our records of society itself. Over and over, the answer has been a representative gov't of the people which is allowed authority to act in the greater good. The 'demos' of Athens, the Roman Republic, the constitutional monarchy and now democracy. The only that has emerged in all those thousands of years and thousands of gov'ts is the value of the many; generally, more representation = more good.

Note that the Constitution encodes my question in its structure. The reason for the "system of checks and balances" as constructed in the powers of the people split among three separate groups who have overlapping functions is that the Founding Fathers understood that the system, like any tool, is only as good as the man who runs/wields it. Our gov't operates on the assumption that people can't really be trusted.

Everything I hear on this board regarding Libertarian beliefs always ends up similar to your statement; somehow, people will just be more ethical. Well, they won't. They never have, and as the Founding Fathers argued, any system predicated on the ethic of the individual is doomed to failure if it doesn't provide a way to check the power of the individual.

All which is to say what I tried to get from Steve, before he started calling me names: How do we solve the "people" problem? How do we ensure that "a group of people" (i.e. cronyism) won't operate against the rights of the many individuals? That's what I can't see...

Mike

[Lanval]

/edit/ Double post ~ but I'll add:

I'm not being contrarian for the sake of it; though I think this country does a great job of the things it set out to do, there's always room for improvement. If I laid out my beliefs, people here would probably be surprised at how conservative/libertarian-esque I can be. But before we toss out the old system, I'd like to figure out how the new one would work. Not in the big, "theory" way, but in the little, "what happens when my neighbor throws his dog poop in my yard" way.

Best,

Mike

[steve74baywin]

How do we solve the "people" problem? How do we ensure that "a group of people" (i.e. cronyism) won't operate against the rights of the many individuals? That's what I can't see...

Mike

BTW, I apologize for any insulting, degrading (i'm good a that) that I may have done.

Part of what I tried to explain to you is this. Maybe we don't and never will solve the people problem 100%.
I tried to explain to you that the way to pick a system maybe isn't which one does this or that better, but instead which one is Freedom for the People.
I also did explain how if anything mine could be better, but still, that is not the basis.
What if I could come up with a plan that runs your house and life better, does that mean that is the one you must go with? Better in whose eyes?

Your question about how to protect your rights from the bigger stronger guys.
The small limited gov we set up will be set up for such task. I know I have said that before.
Will there be a 1000% guarantee? No, there isn't one now either.
Guy throws poop in your yard. Well, if you can't deal with it and it is a problem, there will be an agency you can go to. Your yard is your property. Your rights our derived from that property. You can take him to court over him throwing poop in your yard if that concerns you.
I got to admit, it seems the answers to all these concerns seem so simple for me.
There really has to be something we are missing? In other words, it is like we are not talking the same language or something.
All the problems and fears you have, I just don't see them increasing so much, and I have said at least 5 times now we would still have police and courts. (limited gov is for something). Even though we have all these gov agencies and police, they aren't hovering 100%, many crimes could be done right now, to any of us.
If we start undoing what I say are the wrongs, slowly, we all will still be here. The people you see everyday, you probably will still see. We are changing the system of gov, not all humans, we are not changing the people. We won't all of a sudden find the worst of thugs around, and the people you normally see won't be sent to mars.

[steve74baywin]

how a group of individuals can prevent the concerted efforts of a few to subvert the system for their own game.


How do we ensure that "a group of people" (i.e. cronyism) won't operate against the rights of the many individuals? That's what I can't see...

Mike

What system are you concerned with? Gov system or support such systems like food?
Give me some examples.

[BellePlaine]

Everything I hear on this board regarding Libertarian beliefs always ends up similar to your statement; somehow, people will just be more ethical. Well, they won't. They never have, anas the Founding Fathers argued, any system predicated on the ethic of the individual is doomed to failure if it doesn't provide a way to check the power of the individual.

How do we solve the "people" problem? How do we ensure that "a group of people" (i.e. cronyism) won't operate against the rights of the many individuals? That's what I can't see...

Mike

I hope the energy for this thread hasn't completely dissipated after taking the weekend off from the forum. I'd like to add to it not to change anyone's mind (I couldn't), but to challenge my own beliefs. Let me see if I can address Lanval's good question.

How do libertarians level the playing field? Fight the cronies? Control our greed? Handle the "people" problem? I believe that we can do all of these things through neutrality. I agree that people are greedy; is that a humanistic trait, I don't know. Is there any form of government: socialist, moderate, or libertarian that can remove that ugly urge? One can only change one's self, no government can change a person's will. So how do we roll with it?

Of course both liberals and libertarians recognize the "people" problem. The difference being that liberals (and I use the term "liberals" for lack of a better term. I don't mean it sound "us vs them", but anyway) "liberals" might prefer government regulations to keep the system in check while libertarians prefer to keep themselves in check which in turn keeps the system balanced. Now, you might be thinking, "yeah, right. "...keep themselves in check" is idealistic. Well, I don't think that it is idealistic if the Federal safety net is taken away. If the government regulates something, then they are in a way protecting something. It could be a specific group of people, an industry, a market, or whatever. It is making rules and it's liable for the risk. Enter the cronies, the group of people benefiting (Edit: "taking advantage") from the government's rules and risk taking. The skeptic in me feels like this is less ethical/fair then if the government was neutral towards any specific group of people, industry, or market. A neutral government won't bail you out, so the risk you take is for you to fall or fly on your own. That's how we level the playing field.

Side note to all of this, everything above (in my belief) applies to the federal government vs the state/local governments. I think that it is important to point out that local governments could be different in their social benefits/regulations because they are governing a small community of people. I can elaborate more on that if anyone likes, but I think that it's important to note the roles of local governments within the context of limited powers of the federal government.