GD, you first. Show us how it’s done.
Read the constitution.
Furthermore, a great deal of incarcerated people are there by technicalities and would otherwise not be painted red in states with more freedom and attention to inalienable rights. Guess who they’ll start the programs with; the least resistant. Pot smokers most likely. Maybe the homeless with vagrancy charges. And then predict what will happen. They’ll need more test subjects and the legal peramiters for what constitutes criminal behavior will expand to meet the need of more people to test on. Do you think violent criminals are going to just let the jail guards do this testing on them willingly? Who’s going to be the henchman whom applies the use of force to make this genius idea happen? You? Me?
Like all things, we apply the most basic element of civilized society in order to determine if an idea is worth supporting or not. Is the use of force necessary to implement the idea? If the use of force is necessary, instant fail, it’s a bad idea. Because good ideas are voluntarily adopted by the people because it makes everyones lifes better, not worse. Where as bad ideas require a heavy handed government, expansion of tyranny, in order to become standard. And they only stay present in society with the continued infinite and ever expanding use of force. And that requires government which inevitably changes over to tyranny and socialism, because most people will not voluntarily comply with the concept of being subjected to aggressive principals themselves first. Identifying people whom do not understand basic rights, the need for commonwealth law, or the dangers of big government is also likewise quite simple; They constantly advocate for an expanded use of force by the government.
They’re trying to build a prison, for you and me to live in.
Here is a novel concept; Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware. TORT law. Individual accountability. Should a product cause harm, the individual has redress and the big corporation can’t sweep away malfeasance through a corrupt judicial and bureaucratic nightmare of epic proportions, where regular people can’t afford representation and corporations buy their way out of class action suits as government regulatory bodies are inevitably co opted into self asking regulatory sectors where laws are written by the same companies they supposedly regulate, and regulation is turned into a liability shield on behalf of the corporations. We need a return to TORT law in this country and simple laws anyone can understand and navigate as a primary solution to a runaway system.
Honestly, you have a very poor understanding of what personal rights are, how law works, and how the larger system can not be corrected by asking for an ever expanding government with even more ineffective rules. Policy for sale.
And then we can move on to the religious argument. How this country was formed on Christian and other commonwealth principals, or in a more modern take; the all mighty, a greater force beyond individual man. All men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights. We’re not animals. The animals are set here by the almighty for mans use. The idea that evolution is a myth, which is why we do not treat humans like any other animal.
You’ve just proposed severe violations of peoples individual rights. In turn asking to nullify longstanding constitutional principals that hold the vary basic framework of a civilized society together. Because your bleeding heart sad about animal testing on products that humans use. We can agree that testing of this nature is abhorrent and find meaningful solutions without trashing the constitution in the process.
If you don’t agree with a companies methods, stop buying their products and inform others to not buy their products either. That’s what all those little humane symbols on the back of the hippie soaps and safe dishwasher soaps, all the likes, are meant for. It’s what the non gmo symbol is for. The organic labeling. Everything earthy and natural because we don’t want to put our money towards all the nepharious production methods behind ‘conventional’ products. Personally we have just gotten used to paying a 2x if not 3x or more cost for just about everything. But we pay anyways because the most important vote any of us will ever cast, is cast daily, and it comes from our wallet. The power of the purse. As they say; put your money where your mouth is. It is fully possible right now to join movements, support companies, and be part of groups whom already believe what you believe about animal testing being wrong. And in a voluntary society, it’s each one of our collective individual decisions to support that kind of approach or not.
It’s called the power of contentious consumerism. Honestly, how we got here is the ignorant masses and their insatiable desire for more power, more control, and the bigger government necessary to get there. Big government is a root cause of the problem. As usual; education is key to bettering society for everyone. Over time with enough disclosure education and activism, in a voluntary principal approach, more and more people will join the cause of believing that a certain approach is a better approach. Then one day in the hopefully not to distant future, as there is no financial reward for companies testing in this manner, they will simply adopt more ethical methods or go out of business because they don’t have enough support.
Where as if we rely on the government, the corporations will find ways to protect their interests and secure a steady stream of income from the government, and even if people in society object, the money making machine will stay on auto pilot and it will be more difficult than ever to change behaviors, even if the majority agree we should not be supporting these causes approaches or ideas anymore.
What’s the premise here? Testing on live animals is wrong? Or that we need to continue testing, and should do that on incarcerated humans instead? How about we turn to basic science and organic homeopathic principals and non patented processes instead. Because safe soap and safe medicines and everything else, that knowledge is out there already and they never did need to engage in all that testing in the first place in order to provide simple safe products. It’s just that if everyone was able to buy safe products of this nature or get safe care of this nature, we could not have monolithic corporations and an infinite stream of excessive tax money from consumer product sales, because we could all have access to products locally instead. This is how the problem came to be, centralization, patented process, carving out a proprietary place in the market for eventual market monopolization.
I’ll finish with the constant counter to any argument which runs contrary to the voluntary principal; Central planning never works.
