ARCHIVES Dr. Ron Paul Casts Only Vote against Ban on Lead in Toys

[ninepointfive]

Link to Article (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/07/31/dr-ron-paul-casts-only-vote-against-lead-in-toys-ban/)


Free markets can't exactly filter out lead in toys right away. Isn't restricting imports based upon health concerns legitimate?

As smart as Libertarians are, the general public isn't as aware of what they purchase or consume. Hell, it is hard to be vigilant ALL the time. Nanny state government is despicable, and laws like this lead to further abuses, but I see no way to really win a debate with a socialist over this one. How should we approach this rationally?

[Kludge]

People believe the government will regulate products for them so that everything is safe.

While the government is educating consumers on the dangers of drunkenness, driving without a seatbelt and Islamo-fascists, people become ill due to unsafe products.

The argument between libertarians and conservatives/liberals is whether or not the gov't (who is obviously failing) should be the one to regulate, or if the duty should be handed over to consumer watch groups - who I doubt the general populace feels is necessary due to Kaducation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1532147&postcount=59).

[Danke]

- who I doubt the general populace feels is necessary due to Kaducation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1532147&postcount=59).

I was wondering when the second (expanded) edition of that dictionary is coming out?

[acptulsa]

I'm a model railroader. I am building a small southwestern town, circa 1952, in my home. It is realistic. There are no toys involved. The little automobiles may look vaguely like Hot Wheels, but they are far more realistic, sized to scale rather than sized to the package, produced in small numbers and often made of a lead alloy as this makes manufacturing easier. They are delicate, not tough, and no child touches them--ever.

Does Congress have a deft enough touch to properly draw the line between models and toys? I think not. Therefore, these will soon be harder to produce, my selection will be reduced and the price increased, and it will all be in the name of protecting the children of effing idiots. Thank you, Congress. You're so kind.

[ninepointfive]

I'm a firm believer in the free market, but am really just wanting someone to help me think about how to debate something like this.

[dannno]

The government sucks at protecting us from things like this.

When the original china toy lead outbreak happened, a lot of people just stopped buying those types of toys, or stuck with toys made in the US.

It is in the best interest of toy companies to keep dangerous components out of their toys. Otherwise they end up on the news as being one of the 10 most dangerous toys for kids and nobody buys them.

[acptulsa]

I'm a firm believer in the free market, but am really just wanting someone to help me think about how to debate something like this.

Lead is also used in model railroad engines so they'll be heavy enough to pull a train--it takes weight to get traction. Are they models or toys? One size fits all laws always restrict safe and moral practices for someone--always!

[BarryDonegan]

Congress does have the power to regulate international trade, but do we want them doing that when they,along with Clinton are the ones who made the foolish trade agreement that shipped manufacture to a slave labor state like China, resulting in these terrible products killing our children?

Maybe the better solution would be to lower our own taxes in such a way that toys could be manufactured here, by americans earning legitimate wages using legitimate materials.

[pdavis]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/15/news/companies/toysafety_update/index.htm


Wal-Mart, Toys 'R' Us unveil new safety rules
Toy sellers want manufacturers to test all toys imported into the U.S. and to significantly cut lead content in coatings.

By Parija B. Kavilanz, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 15 2008: 4:44 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Wal-Mart Stores and Toys "R" Us announced new mandatory safety checks Friday for its toy manufacturers following a wave of recalls that hurt the industry this past holiday season.

The separate announcements came ahead of next week's scheduled statement from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) about new stricter toy safety guidelines for both toymakers and retailers.

Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), the world's largest retailer, said it told its suppliers in January that they would have have to meet enhanced safety standards for new and "reordered toys" that will be sold in its stores this year.

The Toys "R" Us guidelines include third-party testing of each batch of toys that's imported into the United States and calling for a significant reduction in lead content found in paints used for coating toys.

Toys "R" Us - the nation's biggest independent toy retailer - said these new stricter guidelines apply to all manufacturers whose products are shipped to the company on or after March 1.

The retailer said that, by the end of 2008, all infant products sold at its namesake and Babies "R" Us stores in the United States are prohibited from containing any phthalates, chemicals that have been linked to possible reproductive problems and birth defects.

Toys "R" Us also set a standard of 90 ppm (parts per million) for lead in surface coating versus what the company said is the current standard of 600 ppm for toys made for it.

Wal-Mart's safety guidelines are similar to those issued by Toys "R" Us.

"There needs to be a national standard for all toy manufacturers on product safety," said Laura Phillips, vice president (toy products) with Wal-Mart. "We provided [manufacturers] new guidelines on lead, phthalates and testing last month to move the industry in the right direction, and toward where legislation is moving."

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O'Brien said toys made by its suppliers cannot have more than 0.1% phthalate content.

"We are requiring independent third-party lab testing of all new and reordered toys for chemical content," O'Brien said.

Toys "R" Us also said it has told its manufacturers to "immediately take steps" to eliminate the use of nickel-cadmium batteries from all items manufactured exclusively for the company.

"We continue to look for ways to raise the bar on product safety," said Toys "R" Us CEO Jerry Storch. "As such, we have made it very clear to manufacturers that we need not wait for the finalization of the much-needed tighter federal standards that are currently pending in welcome legislation before the U.S. Congress."

The CPSC has been working with the Toy Industry Association (TIA) over the past few months to hammer out tougher toy safety standards after more than 25 million toys were recalled last year because of lead paint hazards and defective designs.

The CPSC said Friday that it will discuss these new steps on Feb. 18. The timing of the announcement also coincides with the Annual American International Toy Fair, which kicks off this weekend.

[mport1]

Link to Article (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/07/31/dr-ron-paul-casts-only-vote-against-lead-in-toys-ban/)


Free markets can't exactly filter out lead in toys right away. Isn't restricting imports based upon health concerns legitimate?

As smart as Libertarians are, the general public isn't as aware of what they purchase or consume. Hell, it is hard to be vigilant ALL the time. Nanny state government is despicable, and laws like this lead to further abuses, but I see no way to really win a debate with a socialist over this one. How should we approach this rationally?

The government should regulate NOTHING. The free market is far better than the government at this.

[born2drv]

In a purely libertarian sense, rather then regulate the markets you can expand personal liberties. For example, you can make it easier for people to sue corporations that damage their health. This was Ron Paul's argument on property rights and pollution. Rather then the government saying you're allowed to emit X amount of toxins in the air per year, just remove all the barriers that shield polluters from lawsuits and enforce property rights for the individuals, and the polluters will have to answer for their crimes against the citizens, same goes for all companies that manufacturer goods that are unsafe.

[Jeremy]

Um.... hello? The Constitution doesn't authorize it. The states need to ban it, not the federal government.

[Kade]

People believe the government will regulate products for them so that everything is safe.

While the government is educating consumers on the dangers of drunkenness, driving without a seatbelt and Islamo-fascists, people become ill due to unsafe products.

The argument between libertarians and conservatives/liberals is whether or not the gov't (who is obviously failing) should be the one to regulate, or if the duty should be handed over to consumer watch groups - who I doubt the general populace feels is necessary due to Kaducation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1532147&postcount=59).

You've convinced me that we should allow most of us to die before we learn... good stuff. Democracy will ignore the outcrying of parents and wussy moralists.

Kludge, Kludge... your hate for me is greatly misguided.

[Kade]

Besides, watchdog groups are a relatively modern development.

Libertarians lack creativity. Progressive modernity has given you the tools to use these arguments in the first place... like consumer groups. That you can't envision an abuse by profit oriented organizations who have effectively lost the regulations on massively damaging products, if production demands it for short term gain, it will occur... a few lives lost is no big deal.

[TastyWheat]

Aren't all regulations passed in the name of the "greater good"? Who's to say what regulations are REALLY necessary and which one's aren't. In any case, the Constitution gave Congress the power to ensure the freedom of the market (i.e. keep it regular). If you really think the founders wanted Congress to restrict the free market you need to brush up on your history.

[Knightskye]

What archives? That article was written today!


The legislation also would toughen rules for testing children’s products and take steps to give more muscle to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was criticized last year for its feeble handling of a flood of goods from China deemed hazardous to children.

I guess Paul didn't like that part of the bill.

[Jeremy]

This is a Constitutional issue, not a libertarian one... why hasn't Kade replied to my post?

[Kludge]

You've convinced me that we should allow most of us to die before we learn... good stuff. Democracy will ignore the outcrying of parents and wussy moralists.

Kludge, Kludge... your hate for me is greatly misguided.

Hate? I enjoy your posts. As for you as a person... I don't know much about you.

A parent crying that their child died because they didn't bother to research what they were buying deserves to be sterilized...


Besides, watchdog groups are a relatively modern development.

Libertarians lack creativity. Progressive modernity has given you the tools to use these arguments in the first place... like consumer groups. That you can't envision an abuse by profit oriented organizations who have effectively lost the regulations on massively damaging products, if production demands it for short term gain, it will occur... a few lives lost is no big deal.

A few lost lives is no big deal if they choose to kill themselves.

There is no such thing as luck, only statistical probability. Greed is what drives a company to deliver a better product at a lower price, because if they don't - others will.

[mport1]

This is a Constitutional issue, not a libertarian one... why hasn't Kade replied to my post?

Its both. These regulations regulation are unconstitutional, infringe on property rights, and create bad effects for consumers.

[acptulsa]

Getting what you wanted, 9.5? It may only infringe on the lives of a few of us, but it sure is part of the creeping morass.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Link to Article (http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/07/31/dr-ron-paul-casts-only-vote-against-lead-in-toys-ban/)


Free markets can't exactly filter out lead in toys right away. Isn't restricting imports based upon health concerns legitimate?

As smart as Libertarians are, the general public isn't as aware of what they purchase or consume. Hell, it is hard to be vigilant ALL the time. Nanny state government is despicable, and laws like this lead to further abuses, but I see no way to really win a debate with a socialist over this one. How should we approach this rationally?

Consider this: I hung out in a coffee shop (to remain nameless) and later worked there - this over a period of years. I was not happy to hear later (after they went underground and operated illegally in a basement), that the waitresses dealt coke, that it operated as a fence for stolen goods, and that they paid off the cops and building inspector to ignore the place because, among other things it had lead pipes and should have been condemned. Yes, we are talking the mob. This was years ago... I was an adolescent back then. The building has since been demolished and they have moved, though I suspect they are up to the usual BS. But I DID NOT appreciate their putting my health at risk in the name of profit! (there was also a murder in the name of racism attached to this business. Jewish girl - 16yo, IIRC... stabbed.)

This society is corrupt to it's core, and will become more so the worse the economy gets!

So we have this "regulatory" system - what happens when the regulators and cops are corrupt? Not to mention EMS. It becomes worthless.

I now live outside Baltimore and learned via word of mouth and later first hand that if your car is impounded that the POLICE in the POLICE impound would break into your car and rob you!

I learned that there are after hours clubs, supposedly "protected" by on duty police officers that dealt drugs (club employees and others - not officers- they just looked the other way).

Now some of these issues, like drugs - I don't think the gvmt has any business sticking their nose in - and it just drives the price up! Theft, murder and health concerns - crimes with victims are another matter...

Other areas like poisoning me (lead) and stealing from me or dealing in stolen goods I have A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH!

I could bring up other things, but wont... Point I'm trying to make is that we need to REPLACE the current power structure on up - starting with the DOG CATCHER!

Our system is so corrupt it's not funny!

-n

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

What if somebody wanted to make toys out of lead and sell them as "Lead Toys"? Of course it's absolutely stupid, and they probably wouldn't sell, but the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

What if somebody wants to sit around smoking pot all day? Absolutely stupid, but once again, the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

[TastyWheat]

Now some of these issues, like drugs - I don't think the gvmt has any business sticking their nose in - and it just drives the price up! Theft, murder and health concerns - crimes with victims are another matter...

Other areas like poisoning me (lead) and stealing from me or dealing in stolen goods I have A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH!
Well, the problem with regulation is that it applies to everyone in the industry, not just the offenders. So the businesses that didn't do anything wrong are going to pay the price just the same.

It would be much better if the government did something like offer "rewards" for discovering unsafe products. So independent groups could test these products and if they found some to be in violation of safety standards they could get a percentage of the fines collected from the importer/manufacturer.

Still, that's not the way things should work. If businesses sell unsafe products they should be held liable. If I'm on the jury of a lead-painted toy class action lawsuit I'm siding with the consumer.

[tangent4ronpaul]

What if somebody wanted to make toys out of lead and sell them as "Lead Toys"? Of course it's absolutely stupid, and they probably wouldn't sell, but the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

What if somebody wants to sit around smoking pot all day? Absolutely stupid, but once again, the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to stop people from doing stupid things.

Actually, toy soldiers and musket balls used to be made of lead and are collectors items - as such - cool!, sold to kids, NOT cool!

Where do you draw the line?

-n

[acptulsa]

Where do you draw the line?

Where, indeed. Well, they almost always draw the line between some formerly free American and a safe, harmless purpose.

If they weren't squeezing us so hard that parents are almost all working and exhausted, it would be less of an issue.

[hypnagogue]

The Free Market runs on information. The only regulation that I think is truly necessary are full disclosure and labeling requirements. If you wanna make toys with lead in them, then there better be a label on the back stating, "Contains Lead." I can assure you no toy store is going to knowingly choose to carry toys which contain lead.

Everyone can still buy their toy trains, they'll just be properly labeled.

[SeanEdwards]

I think I was watching Bill Moyer's show, and he had an interesting guest on that was trying to argue in favor of an alliance between libertarian thought and socialist thought through something I think he called fraternal libertarianism.

The idea was basically that instead of enlisting the government to use coercive power and threats to "improve" society, that government could be used to suggest or inform ways to improve society, while still leaving the citizens in charge of making individual choices. So instead of throwing drug users in jail, and that whole apparatus, the state may instead try to provide information about the dangers of drug abuse and try to persuade people to not abuse drugs.

The guest thought this may be an angle that could provide a path for libertarians and those outraged people (socialists) who expect the government to DO SOMETHING all the time to find some kind of common ground.

Personally, I don't see why we need special product safety legislation or regulatory bodies at all. As long as there is a just court system, I should be able to sue a company that poisoned my dog or my kid, and the risk of that liability should be enough to make businesses regard product safety as an extremely important aspect of their business.

So perhaps instead of government being responsible to check imports for safety, maybe a middle ground would be for government funded agencies to study and report upon manufacturing practices, or keep and report statistics on the numbers of people harmed by a manufacturer's products. Basically a role of providing more information to consumers while still leaving the ultimate choices in the hands of the people.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The idea was basically that instead of enlisting the government to use coercive power and threats to "improve" society, that government could be used to suggest or inform ways to improve society, while still leaving the citizens in charge of making individual choices. So instead of throwing drug users in jail, and that whole apparatus, the state may instead try to provide information about the dangers of drug abuse and try to persuade people to not abuse drugs.



I believe they already did this... (cosponsored by DuPont)

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/reefer-madness.jpg

-n

[RoamZero]

The problem with such regulation (while good intentioned) is that it stems from corporate personhood laws. If a child dies from lead tainted toys in most cases the only reparations a family can get is a monetary reward if the company is found liable. The people managing the company are thus insulated and no one goes to jail, so corporations can treat such things as expendable risks and essentially externalize much of the responsibility to the government. We wouldn't need such regulations if the people in charge faced potential jail time for such irresponsibility if found guilty.

[Kade]

Um.... hello? The Constitution doesn't authorize it. The states need to ban it, not the federal government.

I do side with your point about the states. This is an example of the Desperate House Wives culture... this is what the minions of the democracy want... child proof caps to save their kiddies.

I'm not advocating it... I'm merely pointing out that your view is in opposition to the will of the idiots. Unless you wish to strip the country of democracy, I don't see how you are going to will it into existence.

[Trance Dance Master]

More children die in bicycle accidents than die from toy parts. If government forced safety standards on everything sold in stores, children would never be allowed bicycles.

[SLSteven]

I do side with your point about the states. This is an example of the Desperate House Wives culture... this is what the minions of the democracy want... child proof caps to save their kiddies.

I'm not advocating it... I'm merely pointing out that your view is in opposition to the will of the idiots. Unless you wish to strip the country of democracy, I don't see how you are going to will it into existence.

We are supposed to be protected from unfettered democtratic rule. Let the states decide!

[truthrewards]

Now that everyone is outraged about the new law going into affect

Ron Paul got it right!!

I hope people will see that Ron Paul and the liberty movement is the our only hope