Jahcub: The government agencies that regulate agriculture and so called medicine are full of fuckery. To tell InI that the government regulates the medical system the same way it regulates the agriculture industry is true and it's fucked up! They poisoned the food and the medicine, destroying the planet and the people; all for money and power. Babylon be working backwards, their food and medicine make the people sick. Hotta Fyah!
When you say they poison... It isn't the government that comes to your farm and adds poison to your crops. It's the farmer believing that his pesticides are safe because of a commercial for Roundup. How would he know Roundup has chemicals that cause cancer? The company that owned Roundup was Monsanto.
Monsanto was acquired by Bayer for $63 billion, creating the world's largest seed and agrochemical company.
Recent to this article in the Washington Post, a California couple won $2 billion in a lawsuit blaming Roundup. Bayer shares dropped as a result. Another California man won $80 million and another jury awarded another man $289 million which was reduced to $78.5 million by the judge.
Now Bayer maintains that glyphosate isn't carcinogenic. They have invested more than $5.6 billion into weedkiller research as a result of the courts. Without government, you don't have the courts so you don't have any pressure to force companies to do anything. If you leave these companies to their own devices they will simply sell products at the lowest cost to them in order to maximize profits.
So the government not only provides the recourse for individuals to seek justice and compensation but also provides the mechanisms to enforce those verdicts. So we have to maintain a strong government that can be a check and balance against corporations that otherwise lobby in order to control individual politicians and that's why they donate so much money to campaigns because they want to buy politicians to weaken government oversight and regulation; the things that actually protect consumers. It is a WEAK government that allows corporations to do do whatever they want. So if individual politicians are corrupt, it is also a provision of the government that we can get rid of them by having elections. If we don't use these processes to create a strong government then what we'll get is a weak government that works for the corporations instead of for the people. And for the agencies that regulate, they can only regulate where there is LAW. Congress has to make those laws and the people have to tell their representatives what laws they want. All these things don't happen by magic. They only happen when the population engages in the process of government. Some people are much more involved than others and that's why their communities often get the biggest benefits of that participation. And that's why they're worried about immigration because if they lose their majority then they know eventually the power will go with it.
Jahcub: Science may not care about right and wrong, however science gets used for both right and wrong. It is in how the science is applied that is right or wrong. And when it comes to Babylonian governments (which is most if not all of them today) they use the science for much and many wrongs. Cancer and other disease causing chemicals in and for your food/medicine.
This is true. Science does get used for right and wrong the same way that fictional super powers do. A weak government doesn't get involved when profiteers (because the reality is that its all about money whether good or evil) want to use science in different ways. A strong government regulates science and what kind of testing you can do, etc. The FDA has very strict guidelines and if it were not so we would be a much sicker society because a lot of products fail in the process before they are even allowed to come to market. So we can only judge the things that escape the process. That doesn't mean the process is a failure. It simply means the process isn't perfect. But we shouldn't demonize the process. We should simply look for ways to improve it. But you have to look, with a critical eye, on who is actually doing what because I feel like you're blaming the government for production which it is not (At least in the US) involved in. The US isn't communist so it doesn't control the means of production. It simply regulates. And if you had more of an interest in fixing regulations in a particular field there are positions you can apply for because all these things are simply the ideas of various people who have either been elected or appointed to act with greater authority. But they're still people and fallible as such.
Jahcub: These Babylonian governments will even subsidise these wrong doings of the agriculture and medical industries. Polytricksters sold out to the lobbyists. More money, more control, more power. Some evils at work. They don't care about the health of the people. They subsidise the poisoning of food and medicine so they can put that lobbyist money in their fat pockets.
This is slightly inaccurate. Government do subsidize different crops, but again, they don't control the means of production so they can't force anyone to sell poison. Because the government doesn't produce anything it also cannot produce an alternative to what private individuals or companies are producing. But in order to protect the industry, they will subsidize it to make it more competitively priced versus other countries. This way all of the production of that crop doesn't simply move to a foreign country where everyone then would be dependent on that country for food. That would violate national security.
So I hear what you're saying, but you're arguing against things that has to be done to protect the population. Perhaps this other country has a drought or production shortage and so who will they prioritize? If their exports drop below a certain level then we would starve. So when I'm critical of the government, which I am and think everyone should be, I also have to keep in mind what is the alternative.
The government doesn't make money directly off of what's produced. They make money off taxing the companies on the production side and taxing consumers through sales tax. But it is hard to say that those who are appointed (and therefore cannot directly be lobbied because they aren't politicians) from positions in the healthcare industry to public service, that they don't care about people's health. I believe they do care but that their power is limited because they are not the ones who control the means of production. And the more money it takes for a company to put out a better product, the more expensive the product becomes and the more the government would have to subsidize it so that people buy the safer product rather than the cheap knock off that has no such protections whatsoever.
Jahcub: There are better ways. Better agriculture and medicine. Permaculture for agriculture industry and herbal/traditional medicines for medical industry. Better ways. Higher ways.
Do these better ways scale? Please explain an example or two. And how can you trust anyone involved in this to create and maintain this without greed without the need for government regulations, courts, etc.? Because the thing is, imho, the more money someone stands to make the more you need regulations and a strong government to keep their greed somewhat in check to protect people. If there was no government or courts and you couldn't sue, I believe these companies would completely annihilate the consumers and simply sell us medications to deal with their own poisons. And the only customers that would survive are those that can afford all the medications... for the medications... for the medications. You see my point?