Thursday, July 29, 2010

Would Glibertarians lie for their agenda?

Why... YES! Forbes columnist Lenore Skenazy's nose grew another six inches longer on this one, when she blames the Consumer Product Safety Commission for canceling a sale of rocks to a school district.

So, did the CPSC have anything to do with canceling the sale of rocks? Let's go back a few weeks before Ms. Glibertard's hyperventilating screed about the evils of government, and look at the source of her information: an article in USA Today about the law that requires products sold for use by young children to be lead-free. In that article, we find out that the school district asked if the rocks had been tested for lead as required by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a law passed in the aftermath of an outbreak of lead-contaminated Chinese toys hitting the U.S. market. American Educational Products replied that no, the rocks, intended for grade school science classes where they would be handled by young children, had not been tested for lead. The school district asked if they would be tested for lead, and AEP said "Nope." The school district then cancelled the purchase.

In short, the school district wanted unleaded rocks, and AEP refused to sell them unleaded rocks. The CPSC had nothing to do with this, it was all about AEP not wishing to sell the school district the product (unleaded rocks) that the school district wanted to buy. It was, indeed, the kind of market transaction that glibertarians should be pointing to with glee as they gloat "see? The CPSC isn't necessary, buyers and sellers will self-regulate because sellers who don't meet buyers' safety criteria will not make sales!" Instead, the glibertards appear to be using what is essentially a glibertarian transaction in the marketplace to prove that a government body that wasn't even involved in the transaction is evil and should be eliminated. But hey, nobody ever accused glibertarians of making sense... these are the same people who claim that government isn't needed in order to have good highways, for example, despite the fact that no civilization anywhere on the face of the planet has ever had good highways without government being involved big-time. Reality ain't exactly their thing, heh.

-- Badtux the Reality-based Penguin


  1. I grabbed this quote a while back and no longer have the provenance but it speaks to your point.

    "One difference between liberals and conservatives is, liberals correct their mistakes to reflect reality while conservatives correct their reality to reflect their mistakes."

  2. I arrived at the conclusion of Montag's quote quite independently. It's fairly obvious actually. To a regressive (I choke on the word "conservative" these days) anyone who modifies his view point in the face of new data is a flip-flopper.

    Elections are won and lost on bull shit like this.

    Just one of the many reasons why

  3. Actually, if you generalize a little, regressives of all stripes lie for their agenda, because they really have no choice. Truth and reality really are not compatible with their pre-concieved notions.

    As an example, who's full of shit here, Alex, or me?



Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.

WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.