These people are our future

[Numbr2intheWorld]

So you're against the police force, fire department and military? Or do you have some logical criteria about what the government should protect its people from? Do you feel its optimal that the only way to know if a product is safe is to try it out first yourself? To perform your own safety testing and inspections that the product is what it claims to be, and it won't explode or cause cancer. I don't think you'd want to live in a world without regulation.

In my opinion, the role of the government is to protect its citizens, within the limits of resources and what is practical, from all threats both domestic and foreign, except from themselves. A private citizen and a corporation are not equal in their rights and power, meaning the citizen is not able to protect itself from abuse from them. This is why we need regulations, standards and accountability.

1) I do believe that the government should provide a police force, fire department, and military among other things. We don't need to tax 50% of the rich peoples income to accomplish this. We don't need to have income tax to provide these services, period. If I was unclear, in no way am I saying that we shouldn't have a consumption tax like sales tax. We do need some government and they do need money.

2) In what ways do a private citizen and a corporation not have equal rights and power? I'm not saying that this statement isn't true... I just would like specific examples so I can at least have the ability to counter.

3) The government isn't the only agency that performs safety tests on cars. For $5 a month you can go to consumerreports.com and read about any car on the market and see what they found when they thoroughly tested it for safety.

[boost]

3) The government isn't the only agency that performs safety tests on cars. For $5 a month you can go to consumerreports.com and read about any car on the market and see what they found when they thoroughly tested it for safety.

Afaik, and tell me if I'm wrong, but Consumer Reports does not perform its own crash tests. But instead they use data from the government tests to inform the paying customer on the safety of a given vehicle. Crash testing is massively expensive (since each tests produces a total loss of a vehicle, and there are several tests) and is only done because the government mandates that a certain number of vehicles are given to them by the manufacturer. This price is rolled into the cost of the vehicle and becomes negligible when hundreds of thousands of that vehicle are sold. If it were left to an independent body such as Consumer Reports to do the testing, it would not costs $5 to subscribe as they would be paying tens of millions of dollars annually just to purchase the test vehicles, not to mention the facilities and the added staff of specialist, etc.

[Lyric]

Afaik, and tell me if I'm wrong, but Consumer Reports does not perform its own crash tests. But instead they use data from the government tests to inform the paying customer on the safety of a given vehicle. Crash testing is massively expensive (since each tests produces a total loss of a vehicle, and there are several tests) and is only done because the government mandates that a certain number of vehicles are given to them by the manufacturer. This price is rolled into the cost of the vehicle and becomes negligible when hundreds of thousands of that vehicle are sold. If it were left to an independent body such as Consumer Reports to do the testing, it would not costs $5 to subscribe as they would be paying tens of millions of dollars annually just to purchase the test vehicles, not to mention the facilities and the added staff of specialist, etc.

The best crash tests are done by the IIHS which is a non-profit run by insurance companies. Redundant tests are also done by various governments; a complete waste of our money.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia