An Argument Against Augmentation

Paul Anderson makes a broad case for the imminent disaster of Ron Paul's policies.  He essentially argues that cuts would cause a shock to the system and have an impact on the economy in a damaging way: 

The FDA, the EPA, and the CDC will face cuts of 40%, 30%, and 20% respectively. At best, this would lead to massive delays in project approval or drug approval. At worst, this would directly lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If we destroy the FDA, thousands of children could be poisoned by unsafe food. If we eliminate FEMA, thousands will suffer after national disasters.



Ron Paul will cause the world to blow up...just you wait.

 (and so on, and so on...)

Factors Mr. Anderson did not mention is time and degree.  Mr. Anderson's concerns are valid: good roads, strong economy and safe foods etc. 

Ron Paul focusing on what is right, true and good leaves him open to criticism since our society is more interested in me, myself and I.  Regardless, basing policy on personal freedom according to the original constitution (fundamentally, that rights come from God, not man) will not necessarily come with a 'shock and awe' change that destroys 100's of thousands of US citizens.  Cuts will come in degrees over time, which gives the free market time to adjust.  For example, Maple Leaf Foods is restructuring manufacturing plants to enhance food safety.  The free market will find producers who care about food safety, transparency and quality and elevate them to a more prominent status.  There is no necessary connection between government oversight and actual safety. Food safety should be a focus for the free market: to gain trust through integrity and quality of product and process.  If the government backed off, it would force a better relationship with producer and consumer (heaven forbid).  There would not be mass death in the streets.  We don't need an intermediary to babysit and us Mr. Anderson.  If we cite corrupt companies who exploit their customers, then how long will they last?  Not as long if the government stepped out! They would be gone due to responsibility being on the consumer to only buy from who they trust.  Scamers would be bankrupt or in jail if laws are broken...not doing business, paying fines and arguing with bureaucracy. 

With respect to the economy, the massive cuts will have likely create a contraction with GDP, but why is this a bad thing?  Why is it often deemed a good thing to have massive consumer debt drive bubbles (like housing) and massive government debt drive inflation all in the name of 'growth'?  We have a contracting manufacturing industry in N. America as a result of such policies.  It is more logical to let the free market be free, end massive government debts and spending (in area's they have no jurisdiction anyway) and thus the immediate negative contraction in the economy will come with major benefits like:
-business hiring, expanding, investing
-more transparent relationships between company and consumer
-more personal responsibility and consideration before buying products (if the government is not there to hand-hold, it's up to the 2 parties to agree on the exchange and the consequences thereof)
-economic growth comes from innovation, hard work, personal responsibility driving choices...not government increasing and debt
-lower national debt increases dollar value (cost of bread is cheaper...which helps the middle and lower class)

Government expansion and debt created growth is a bubble that will Greece.  Sorry, pop; the bubble will pop.  I would rather it come via contractions in GDP via strategically implemented (over time) polices that increases personal freedoms which expands the free market rather then watch riots in the street when we realize our credit cards are maxed.
We are not entitled to entitlements; we happen to have them.  We are entitled to our personal freedoms: spread the word and fight for them.