Bitcoin Forum

What do you call being forced to provide a standard of living adequate for blah, blah, blah? Slavery. Servitude.

While were at it though, I'd like to declare that cable TV (with HBO) and free beer are also rights. ME, ME, ME!!! MINE, MINE, MINE!!! WAHHHH!!!

Where did this declaration originate from? The UN?

Yes.

Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

What do you call it when 1 guy comes along and insists everyone else give up their medical research, food safety and consumer brands?  Dictatorship.  And thats you!  No thanks.

There are no such things as "rights."

Discuss?

How can arguments be re-formulated without these quasi-metaphysical abstractions? Would such arguments be stronger?

Genuinely curious.

So you're saying that I want to outlaw medical research, food safety and consumer brands?

You want to remove the legal protection for the investment in medical research and consumer brands.  And you want to remove the legal authority of a food inspector to close down a food establishment.  I'm not sure "outlaw" is the right word though.  More like "abolish."

/thread

You get what you defend, end of story.



And since when did moron2cash become Atlas?  He's now adopted the thread crapping post style, leaving these idiotic, increasingly angry and nutty threads all over the board.

Medical research will always exist through charity. American citizens donated around $295 billion dollars to charity in 2006. People want to help each other and themselves. That's why we have those laws in the first place. It can exist in a free market.

Brand names can exist in a limited form. Fraud will always be illegal.


Again, unless the establishment is committing fraud there's no issue. Most people won't jump out of a plane without a parachute. The ones that do, have that right. Most people won't eat food unless it's been inspected by some credible inspection company. The ones that do, have that right.

So, it's not the case that I want to abolish anything. That's your spin on it. I simply want it to be voluntary. Why is that wrong?

Just a heads up - use the ignore button, left side of screen under the username. It is the only effective defense against trolls and angry, shitty people.

But then the board would lose all it's fun.  This place is great for using a bunch of angry, misinformed teenagers as intellectual punching bags.

You want us to take a tried and successful research system using patents and replace it with a hope that charity will step up and save us?  Really?  Charity would have created the x64 computer chip, the ARM that drives an iPhone and Viagra?  Given that we like these things and that we use patents to make sure we are supplied with a stream of such goodies, the benefits of restricting your liberty to make a copy of someone else's work are great. 

Brand names require trademarks.  If anyone can open a restaurant called Pizza Hut or McDonalds with the logos of companies that advertise to create Pizza Hut and McDonalds, then there will be no return on the advertising and thus no brand.  Thats a lot of good stuff we will miss out on - from Intel chips to Wendy burgers.  If the idea is that we are to be restricted from having trademarks because it will improve our lives, I don't see it.

Most people know nothing about food inspection and should not need to.  If there is a free market in inspections, there will be good and bad inspection companies and sadly a lot of people will die for no good reason.  Dying of salmonella is not a great way to advance freedom.

Your ideas are interesting but your ideology will take the good stuff we already have away. 

Slavery was tried and successful. It was also immoral.


Yes.


They wouldn't call it "Pizza Hut". It would be "Pizza Hut*" and the asterisk would specify exactly who's Pizza Hut the advertisement was referring to. It would be impossible to freeride on someone else's reputation without committing fraud. Just like I can't say a product is endorsed by you personally when it's not.


Most people know little about how the Internet works, how TV's work, how cars work, etc. The manage just fine.


People don't ever get sick from foodborne illness already? Let's see what the CDC has to say.


Oh wow, only 1 in 6? That's a stellar track record.

The problem is, government food inspectors don't lose money and go out of business when they make mistakes. If a private company promises that food is safe and it isn't, people stop trusting it and they go out of business. The companies left are necessarily doing a better job. Market forces weed out incompetence. Government agencies don't.

Our posts are getting too long so lets stick to one topic per post :)

You think that charity will provide all the consumer goodies we want?  Really, I can't see myself going door to door asking people to chip in so I can have an iPhone.  I can't see myself wanting to either when there is a perfectly reliable way to get them - the patent system.  Charity is there to cope with the normal vicissitudes of life - there is no way it can be expected to provide consumer goods and  industrial research as well.

We exist as a society and our rules are chosen in order to make the life better.  The patent laws which impose time limited restrictions on the copying of designed goods, are examples of such rules; I think you will find that for the overwhelming majority of people the trade-off is worth it. 

And please don't reply that its slavery if you can't copy someone else's design. Life is very good in Western societies - even our poor have access to luxury items like reliable cars, games consoles, the Internet, superb medical care and the like.  Here we are discussing how to improve things - not how to go back to the 1800s.

[/quote]

No, the CDC and FDA ensure food is safe to eat if it is prepared as per the manufacturers instructions and an hygenic enviroment. As I recall most food poisoning and foodbourne illnesses comes from undercooking food or preparing it in an unhygenic enviroment as opposed to the food itself being contaminated (You can see this for yourself, if canned food was full of bacteria the cans rust and deform due to the bacteria producing acids and gasses). Saying that the CDC and FDA are useless becuase people are too fucking lazy or stupid to ensure chicken is properly cooked, or wiping and cleaning meat juices off their chopping board before preparing a salad is a completely false argument.

I have no way of separating which food-borne illnesses are caused from food prepared at home but here's a sample of cases that were caused by manufacturers.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/22/science/sci-peanut22


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/12/139575236/regulators-grapple-with-outbreaks-as-salmonella-e-coli-illnesses-grow?ps=sh_sthdl

I'm not saying their worthless but they clearly aren't doing as good a job as they could be. Perhaps competing companies would have more incentive for this to never happen. As it stands, the FDA and CDC simply say "Aww shucks, we let a few people die. Oh well, business as usual."

We already have more than enough data about what happens in the absence of the FDA and its non-American equivalents. It's abundantly clear from pre-20th century history. The absence of government standards and inspection for food and beverages didn't give rise to competing private agencies safeguarding public health but with lower costs and more vigilance. It made fraud so easy and pervasive that some commodities were adulterated more often than not. Even when they weren't committing outright fraud, the absence of regulation made it regular practice for manufacturers to use compounds of arsenic, lead, and mercury as food colorants and additives. It wasn't that nobody knew eating lead was bad for you, or that nobody knew many commercial beverages and foods were tainted. The oldest reference to such problems I can quickly find on Google Books is from 1758, in Elements of the theory and practice of chymistry by Pierre Joseph Macquer and Andrew Reid:


In an environment with much less government control, the poor customer got the most poisonous wine. The poor customer also had the least leverage to demand pure food and drink, to contract private analytical services if he suspected the quality of a product, or to get restitution if a product was indeed unsafe.

This and other dangerous and/or fraudulent practices were not greatly curbed in Britain and the US until another ~150 years passed, when governments established and enforced standards for food and beverage purity, safety, and labeling.

That was when information moved a lot slower and the average person knew a lot less.

Lots of average people still get phished for credit cards on the Internet every day.  All they lose is a few nights sleep.  But if the same people make the same level of mistakes with food, their kids will die.  And without a food safety regulator, that will happen a lot.

You seem to object people having the right to trade a small freedom, namely the right to sell food in any old way they choose, with a big freedom, namely the right to eat safely anywhere.  Why?  Its a good trade.  Unless you explicitly want to sell unsafe food, you lose nothing.

Then they are unfit to be parents and their remaining kids should be taken away from them.


You can trade whatever you want. I object to you trading my freedom. It's not up to you to decide who I should trust. Personally, I'd rather trust my safety to free market businesses that have to compete with each other rather than a single bloated agency with a CYA-mentality that's allowed to stagnate.

"Then they are unfit to be parents and their remaining kids should be taken away from them."

Hmmm.  At least you are not kidding yourself about food risks :p

You force me to choose.  A system that saves lives but does not allow you to sell contaminated food.  Or a system that allows you the freedom to sell bad food, causes people to die and forces the rest of the community to take their kids into care.

Its not a hard choice really.  I'll stick with the safe system - you can talk all you want but the loss of the freedom to sell contaminated food doesn't bother me in the least.  I know you will never accept that huge loss but that doesn't bother me. 

Now we have food safety done, we are still left with patents and trademarks.  Your proposal is that instead of relying on the free market supported by patent law to produce Blackberries, Ford, Intel, medical research and other such good things, we should rely on charity. I can't see it - we have a working system that gives us all we want and more.  If anything, the present system spoils us with its abundance of nice things you can buy.  You may think it a restriction of your freedom that you can't make your own car parts and call them "Ford Car Parts" or you can't make your own fizzy drink and call it "Coca-Cola."  But I like being able to buy reliable car parts and wherever I go in the world, I liek being able to buy a Heineken beer and know exactly what I am getting.  The loss of my freedom to have these things exceeds the value of the loss of your freedom to make knock-off copies.

In short, you are not offering an improvement.  If you have your way, my standard of living will fall. Why bother?

People already die. Your ideal system is broken and has no mechanism to punish people for these deaths. It's business as usual so why would you expect it to get better?


Competition, not charity.


No, it won't. You should bother because it's immoral to interfere between two consent adults, no matter what they want to do.

Actually if their behaviour affects other people, its perfectly OK to interfere.

Everything "affects" everyone else. If I buy BTC for a really high price, it raises the price for other people that want to buy BTC. Do we outlaw that too? No, of course not. All that matters is that your rights aren't violated. You have the right not to have you or your property touched without permission unless in self-defense. You don't have the right to brand names. Sorry.

You don't have the right to stop people organising society, even if its only to make sure they have access to Coca-Cola.  And I'm not sorry - you are imposing too bleak and pointlessly austere a regime.

At root what you are proposing is an authoritarian society where people can't regulate for the improvement of their lives.  You're perfectly welcome to that fantasy but there is no democratic way you will get your way.  Even if there were a dictatorship, I don't see how something as extreme as you propose could be imposed.  There is only so far you can push people before they'd revolt.

Interesting ideas but sadly for you, totally impractical.  It will never happen.

I actually half-agree with the implications of your post. I think that in the modern age the FDA's most important role is not punishing fraud and dangerous practices (the fines they issue, when they issue them, are usually trivial compared to the company's profits) but in revealing such practices so that they can be confronted with civil suits, bad publicity, and marketplace shunning. The information is disseminated rapidly and widely through private channels, and people pay attention to it, after the initial disclosure. I don't think that this information would be efficiently disclosed in the absence of government action, though.

For a modern example look at the nutritional supplements market, where the FDA has very limited regulatory authority. Independent academic testing has revealed wide quality variance between brands and even different batches of the same brand's product in the case of (e.g.) probiotic supplements. Nutritional supplements are also often promoted with scientifically dubious claims of pharmaceutical-like action that would not pass muster if they were regulated as pharmaceuticals. Private for-profit agencies are not providing the transparency and verification that the government has eschewed in this largely unregulated area. Quackery also doesn't seem to be effectively punished by marketplace discrimination. I am all for consenting and informed adults taking any sort of risk they like, but I won't defend the right of sellers to peddle nonsense and the right of buyers to be fooled by it.

You can organize how ever you want. Just don't force me to be part of it. Why don't I have the right not to be forced into some organization?


Fighting for my freedom to do everything except injure other people or their property is proposing an authoritarian society? How do you go from "maximizing personal freedom" to the exact opposite?

For the umpteenth time, you're not forced to be a part of this society.  You can freely leave whenever you choose.

It's adorable that you think life is that simple, AyeYo.  Some day you'll learn that things aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are.  No man is an island, we have to live and function in a society because we are inherently social beings.  When someone points out immoral stances in society you simply tell them to leave.  Where to?  The moon?  An island? 

Oh, the irony!

He does not think that. FirstAscent/AyeYo is just a troll.

Funny that you can post this and still think a goddamn thing bitcoin2cash says makes any sense

Don't think of it as being forced to provide a standard of living, think of it as being forced to give a fraction back to the society that has given you so much.

Love the insinuation that asking to provide health care, food, water, and housing means that beer and HBO are required too.

I'm sorry, but I missed the proclamation where it said that bitcointalk is a libertarian club and anyone who attempts to point out the glaring omissions in the typical libertarian's knowledge with regard to the complexity of the biosphere, the environment, and ecosystems (among other things) gets labeled a troll. If you want a specific example (among many), search for lobster on this site.

And if you wish to simultaneously accuse me and AyeYo of being trolls, here is the correct grammar:


Your speculation regarding our sameness is amusing, but considering you're a moderator, I think your speculation needs to be held to a higher standard. As for the claim that we are trolls, perhaps you should consider that we have different opinions from you, and find some posts to be ironic, based on their accusations and choice of words. As an example, if you wish, you're welcome to do a search on AyeYo's posts, looking for a post which contains an image of the globe in black and white, and see where AyeYo has used it in reference to how bitcoin2cash views the world.

Do you have evidence indicating that they are the same person? 

Its not posible to prove. I dont have access to the IP register and even in that case it proves nothing, since its very easy to access from different IP's.

But both nicks appear always during the same period and dont post during the same periods (Im sure it will change from now on). Also they have the same way of being disrespectful and troll style.

I haven't had a discussion with bitcoin2cash so I can't speak to all his positions.  I can say I agree with at least some of his points based on reading his discussions with other people.  I tend to disagree with his presentation, but I'm not him.  To each their own.

What I don't understand is people who attack libertarianism on the basis that it ignores reality and analyzes man outside of society.  The libertarian authors I read analyze man in the context of society.  As it should be done.  The significance of libertarianism is that it starts with the individual as the basic component of society and then analyzes the individual in the context of the broader society.  

You should be careful about making claims you cannot clearly prove.  Perhaps you are actually bitcoin2cash?  Or maybe I am AyeYo?  ;)

Also, I am fairly new to internet forums, but I've learned that the word "troll" is subjective and almost meaningless.

Everyone both is and isn't a troll on these forums at any one time. Trust no one

Go find your favorite libertarian think tank websites. Then check their stance on climate change, among other things. You'll find that they are almost always skeptical of climate change. Now, without even getting into whether climate change is real or not, ask yourself why you wouldn't find about half of the libertarian think tanks to be pro climate change, and about half to be anti climate change.

My analysis is that libertarians value freedom from any type of regulation with regard to their property over in depth studies of civilization's ever increasing impact on the biosphere. Consider the following statement:


In other words, where do you see libertarians unifying themselves to address the point made by Ehrlich? I'm not seeing it at all, but instead seeing a near blanket wide denial of the problem, or a claim that the untested theory of property rights will solve it.

More to the point, I'm seeing in libertarians a naivete that is hardly aware of the complexities of the biosphere. As an example, are you aware of any of the following terms and their significance?

• Edge effects
• Umbrella species
• Trophic cascades

You may or may not be, but regardless, in a libertarian society, your knowledge of such topics does you little good if your neighbors don't care to know their significance.

The fact that they only appear together gives them up. But its quite clear that a big part of the new people around here are trolls. Even if you are new to the internet you just have to see the mood that there was at the beggining and the mood that there is now. Some months ago there were discussions even with communists in a civilized manner. Now its all personal attacks with little substance. A troll (like for example Jeffk) will keep giving you the roundabout when you discuss with him, then will turn around and say the contrary of what its telling you in another thread, then it will repeat arguments you have already refuted in other threads, will tend to attack personally, etc...


Yes, exactly like in a democracy. Your point being?

I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand you are attacking them for their consistency.  Wouldn't you expect a logically consistent ideology to have consistency among its think tanks?


Climate change is the kind of topic I generally avoid because the research is so polarized and the debates endlessly polemic.  However it is probably time I start looking into it.  Perhaps you can refer me to some resources?

I don't see how a political ideology should bias the interpretation of scientific data. It logically follows that if a political ideology is not biasing one's interpretation of scientific data, then there would not be such a consistent belief among the members of that political ideology that the scientific data should be interpreted such that it just happily coincides with the libertarian's view that nobody should suffer regulation.


But the research is not polarized at all! It's the non researchers, the 'think tanks' which are funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil and advocate zero regulation, who publish officious sounding newsletters masquerading as real science who are the ones making a lot of noise trying to make the uninformed public think that the scientific community is polarized. The Oregon Institute petition is a classic example.

As for recommending material on climate change, would not the simplest and most honest source material be peer reviewed scientific literature? Nature (http://www.nature.com/) and Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/) are no brainers. But if you want less technical material, Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/) is an excellent magazine.

There is no single article that can sway your viewpoint one way or another. Rather, I have found that over time, and after having read numerous articles which detail the scientific methods, discuss the studies, the correlations between core samples and satellite data, and the correlations between tree rings and soil deposition, and by learning about glacier calvings or weather patterns, that ultimately, the idea that anthropogenic global warming is happening is both convincing and equally important, interesting. That last point is important. The real science is interesting, not the brownlash material which really is driven by a political agenda. Also read the online Seed Magazine (http://seedmagazine.com/). Trust me. These publications aren't out to pull the wool over your eyes and deceive you. But you might find it refreshing to go from being enlightened via a libertarian view to simply being humbled about the complexity of our world and the real problems that we face.

But if you really want to read the brownlash material, driven by a political agenda which is really all about property rights and anti-regulation, (and funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil), then you can read any number of 'documents' and newsletters, such as Environment & Climate News, put out by the Heartland Institute, and edited by a property rights advocate, as opposed to someone who has any type of scientific credentials, let alone a scientific degree related to climatology or ecology.

Choose your source material wisely.

If you want to learn about edge effects, umbrella species, wildlife corridors, and conservation in general, or the importance of biodiversity, then read John Terborgh, Tim Flannery, or Dave Foreman. And of course, read Paul Ehrlich's The Dominant Animal. He's taken a lot of flak for some predictions he's made, but you should read his recent book before making any judgements.

Is there fraud taking place? If so, why aren't these companies being sued out of business? Fraud is and should be illegal. If there is no fraud taking place then what exactly are you complaining about? It's your responsibility to learn about a product before you buy it. Also, vitamins aren't prescribed by a doctor. Comparing how doctors recommend medication vs. the average joe shopping at GNC doesn't really work. A few people being irresponsible is not an excuse to deny the rest of us our personal freedoms. That's the argument from principle. If that doesn't convince you then here's the argument from consequences.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/mary-ruwart-deadly-secrets-behind-soaring-pharmaceutical-prices/

Watch the video in that link. The doctor estimates that 4.7 million people have died from delays by the FDA of drugs that were eventually declared safe. She estimates that another 4 to 16 million people were killed by not being allowed access to drugs that are safe but couldn't be jumped through the FDA's hoops. How many lives has the FDA saved? She says about 7,000 and even says that if that number is off by a factor of 100 that 700,000 people is still a lot less than 4.7 million people if you only count the delays. Some people will die either way. The way you're proposing makes drugs cost more, makes healthcare have to be rationed sparingly and kills even more people.

I'll pass over your being OK that if stupid people make the wrong buying decisions, they die.  We already covered that when you added that their kids should be taken off them too :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart

Dr. Mary Ruwart's personal website is frustratingly short of material - its one of those "Buy my book" sites.  Google just comes up with videos of interviews.  If you know of a link to something she wrote with sources, it might be good.

She is 1 person with her own agenda.  As such, she has to be put in the context of 100s of 1000s of researchers that take a different view.

That's every person's right though. If they want you to be their savior then let them ask for your help. Why do you feel that you have the right to force it on them? Even if they do want your help, what right do you have to force it on the rest of us that emphatically don't want your help?


You might want to check it again. Her book is listed there as available for download.

Here's the relevant chapter: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap6.html

Here's the the bibliography page: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/references.html

If you have other references that contradict hers, please link them. It won't do to just say "she's biased and there are thousands of other researchers that take a different view". Show me.

Although you have me on ignore, I reply to you for the benefit of other readers. I think my last two posts in this thread do an excellent job of illustrating the difference between peer reviewed science and scientific consensus, vs. organizations which are motivated by political agendas. Everyone is invited to read or reread what I said.

There is a big difference between scientists who allow scientific results to influence their political agenda and those who allow their political agenda to influence their interpretation of scientific data.

Thanks - I assumed I had to go to Amazon.

Chapter 6 is a horror story of people dying for no good reason when they took drugs their doctors prescribed. 

"Brand name loyalty rewarded the drug manufacturer who always gave the customer what was promised."  Thats an IP dependency.  You don't believe in brand names being protected so that logic doesn't apply to your case.

"Careful consumers could choose to buy only approved products." - I know you don't care about stupid people dying but really, most of us do.

That's unfair. I care about people dying and I also wouldn't call them stupid. Some people just don't have the same values that you and I do. Ultimately, their lives are in their hands. They are free to ask for help or they are free to go their own ways. I don't want to treat other people like I'm better than them or like they're my children. They are my equals with just as much right to decide their own fate as I have to decide mine. If they don't want to take the time to find a trusted approved product then that's their choice and I have no right to force my values on them. Unless they are committing aggression against me or my property, I have no right to force them to do anything.

If you are aware that one course of action will result in a lot of dead people and another avoids, and there is no cost to you personally, why not take the course that saves lives? 

Yes, there is fraud taking place. Products with at least some substance to them, like amino acids, herbal extracts, and tailored bacterial cultures, are being sold with wide variations in composition yet the same labeling. Pure quack products (like homeopathic flu remedies) are making zany medical claims for products that would never make it through the clinical trials required of mainstream drugs. It's not just affecting a few people; each year millions of Americans buy overpriced sugar pills in a futile attempt to treat viral infections. I won't speculate on the reasons that the companies aren't sued into oblivion or driven out of the market by private product evaluation agencies, other than to say it reminds me of the old joke about economists:

An economist and his friend are walking down the street when the friend sees a ten dollar bill on the sidewalk.

“Look,” he says, “it’s a ten dollar bill”.

“Nonsense,” says the economist. “If that was a ten dollar bill, someone would have picked it up by now.”

To be clear: I think that companies should be allowed to sell vitamins, herbal extracts, and all the other stuff you find at the health food store. I even think that homeopathic junk should be legal, so long as full disclosure is in place. If the product isn't consistent in composition, that information should be disclosed on the label in statistical terms. The FDA should ensure that the products' labels contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If companies are going to pimp their homeopathic junk with a study or two about beneficial effects, they should also be required to mention, with equal prominence, the far more numerous studies that fail to show any benefit of homeopathy over placebo. For that matter, I'd like to see the FDA crack down on nonsense claims for (e.g.) shampoos that "nourish hair cells" -- your hair is made of dead cells, and nothing can nourish dead cells! I don't want to outlaw products. Philosophically I think that people should be allowed to make informed choices for themselves, even harmful ones, and pragmatically prohibition often creates more problems than it solves. I only want to see them compelled to engage in full disclosure of any relevant facts. I want to ensure that buyers and users have no excuse for being uninformed, rather than giving the sellers free reign and placing the burden on end users to hire private analytical chemists, biologists, doctors, and statisticians.

If it's fraud then it's illegal now and would still be illegal in a libertarian society. The fact that nobody cares to sue these companies means that nobody cares. If they don't care, why bother wasting resources to force people to care? Where exactly is the problem? The people have already spoken, by not speaking.


That's what you want. Nobody else seems to care. Why should everyone else be forced to bend to your will? It's one thing to demand that your person and your property not have aggression committed against them. It's another thing to demand that everyone have the same values that you have.

I think you'll find most people care.  You are inverting aggression; refusing to take label the contents of the good takes away people's change to evaluate the product.  Since we want to encourage people to evaluate products, we are entitled to insist on accurate labels.  Its bad enough that you are OK with people who are stupid being poisoned; now you want to take away the obligation to tell of the risk as well?  You do realise, it could be a semi-literate chef in a hotel where you are eating and it might be your food gets poisoned.  Even if only for your own safety, this is a good idea.

You've missed a large excluded middle between "nobody cares" and "private action would have already solved the problem if the problem were real." I see libertarianism as laudable insofar as it promotes a greater spectrum of possibilities for most people -- enhanced freedom of personal choice, maximized to the extent that it doesn't excessively intrude on others' freedom. I don't see it as laudable if it's just an exercise in getting rid of shepherds so that clever wolves can exploit unwary sheep without interference. If people buy products that they otherwise wouldn't due to misleading or incomplete information, that doesn't promote a utility-maximizing market or personal freedom any more than waiting until people are drunk to ask them to sign contracts.

It doesn't make sense to claim that people care about something when they appear to be apathetic when it comes to doing anything about it. Since we're using analogies, it would be like me claiming that I love my girlfriend yet I never call or visit her.

You expect far too much from people and are comfortable with them dying if they fail to make the grade.  Its sad if people are careless but that is no reason to let them buy poisons.  If a chef is stupid and takes a cheap load of vegetables, is it OK that his customers get sick and die?  And is suing the chef really going to make any difference?  Better to forbid selling contaminated food.

I think people can read labels. You seem to think that either everyone has to have their own food safety lab or the government has to do it all. Where's the middle ground? Don't you think that it's possible for independent food safety agencies to exist? Don't you think that if you're an honest food manufacturer you would welcome these agencies to check out your operation? If some food is for sale but has no rating on it, only people that want untested food will buy it.


If a restaurant doesn't have some sort of rating where it has well known practices and independent verification of those practices, would the average person eat there?

I did some more research trying to figure out why homeopathic product manufacturers haven't been pummeled by private action in the courts. I found a high profile action from 2003, where the defendants successfully argued that only the FDA, not the courts, can regulate homeopathic products (http://www.bolenreport.com/archives/filed_7.htm). Since the FDA enforces no standards for efficacy on homeopathic products, vendors have free reign for fraud. Additionally, the defendants successfully recovered lawsuit costs from the suit initiators under anti-SLAPP law, arguing that their baseless medical claims were protected commercial speech. In the absence of government regulation, medical fraud is easy and profitable while fighting fraud is difficult and unprofitable. You can find hundreds of web pages by quacks and their supporters cheering this ruling: "our products still don't need any evidence for their claims, hooray for freedom!"

So, you present evidence that the FDA is ineffective and public courts aren't enforcing laws against fraud and this is supposed to instill confidence in the government? You want more of that?

+100

I want the FDA to enforce complete and truthful labeling for homeopathic remedies and other products intended for human consumption. If I point out instances of effective FDA regulation, you say that private entities could do the job. If I point out areas that the FDA doesn't effectively regulate, where private entities aren't doing the job either, you use those failings to argue that the FDA can't be trusted and ignore the absence of competing private agencies that you earlier claimed would materialize if government didn't regulate. I guess that less regulation is always the answer, no matter what the question at hand or the evidence.

I think it would be more accurate to say that if the FDA was an organization that freely associated, and that their purpose was to root out fraud (of the medical kind, I presume), and they asked either for donations or advertised and offered their services for a fee, then there would be nothing wrong with the organization.

I, were I inclined, should also be able to do the same, and compete (as in a free market) with the FDA. If my services were in some way more improved, more efficient, more inexpensive, or more serviceable such that I drove the FDA out of business, then that's that. Or we could coexist.

That is not the current incarnation that the FDA is today. It is an organization who forces all within its jurisdiction to bend to it's will. Can we avoid that scenario?

To wit, I want all medical fraud investigators (i.e. FDA and others), their would-be victims, and their members to make their case before an unbiased court to air their grievances.

Honestly this undermines your whole position.  Private interests are trying to sue companies for fraud but failing because the government has given a monopoly on food and drug regulation to the FDA which isn't adequately handling the situation.  Why is your conclusion that we have to expand the government's power to solve this?  If the FDA isn't adequate why would you want to increase it's power?  Why not break up the government monopoly which caused the problem in the first place?

You want the FDA to act out of self-less, altruistic motives to fairly and honestly regulate food and drugs.  You want humans to act outside of their nature which is inherently self-interested.  The absence of competing private agencies is because the FDA has a coercive monopoly on food and drug regulation and no (or very little) accountability to the people.  To prevent human greed from being a force for evil there has to be checks and balances.  What is the check and balance to the FDA?  Why is the answer more regulation and more power to government monopolies no matter what the question at hand or the evidence?

Let's examine the hypocrisy of bitcoin2cash's remark here.

It's been stated above that the FDA has chosen to not regulate homepathic products. Bitcoin2cash is apparently implying that that is undesirable based on his statement: "You want more of that?" Emphasis his. Yet, bitcoin2cash's stance is always an argument against regulation. Furthermore, in the absence of regulation of homepathic products by the FDA, it would appear that this would be the perfect opportunity for the free market to analyze, rate and publicize the efficacy and safety of homeopathic products, which is something that bitcoin2cash constantly states would be the natural and efficient state of things if the government would just step out of the way. Clearly, the government has stepped out of the way in this instance, and bitcoin2cash hypocritically implies incompetence because of that, yet simultaneously, fails to note that his idealistic market model has failed in the same instance.

You fail to understand.

People always tend to use resources to their more basic needs and then go up the scale. When the government takes the money using violence or thread of violence from the people and uses it in a determined way, those resources are not available for the people anymore. Therefore, if you tax people you are taking resources from them and they will have it way harder to create the institutions they would if they had all the resources.

But even more important, when the government creates a monopolistic agency that has all the resources and could destroy your competing company, you can not expect anyone to take the risk to create such competing company. Specially when the governments have been proved to be very expeditive about destroying (by changing laws f.e.) competing systems that are providing good service to the people and therefore start to grow and attack the government monopolly.

The only hypocrite here is you that promote the use of violence to leave the people without resources to auto-organize and then come here to ask why is people not auto-organizing.

Have you read the book Bitcoin2Cash linked?  It describes a horrifying situation prior to the FDA where people were being killed by bad drugs.  The FDA wasn't created to make work - it was created in response to an unacceptable loss of life.  We've had the same conversation about food safety; it infringes free trade but it saves lives.  In all these cases, saving life is more important than free trade so a balance is taken by regulating the life threatening aspects of that trade.

Of course the implementation may be flawed; all human institutions are.  But the concept is basically sound.

The hard part about this, Hawker, is we don't see the negative affects caused by the FDA.  It could be killing many people in horrible ways by being too slow and bureaucratic to release life-saving drugs on the market, but you will not see those deaths.  The deaths that stand out are the ones you see caused by bad drugs and impure food.  Economics is the art of the unseen as much as the seen, which makes it tricky.

I agree.  Another hard part is regulatory capture - the people doing the regulation often guaranteed nice jobs in the regulated industry with huge salary packages as soon as they quit the regulator.  Does that affect the quality of regulation?  Of course.  Does it affect self-regulated industries as much as state ones?  Yes; or at least in the UK its a definite yes.

Luckily we live in an age where its harder and harder to hide this kind of thing.  "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."  It may be that exposure in itself forces change.  If not, it will be interesting to see what else is tried and if it works.

I think you are right, and I certainly hope so, but on the other hand the information media are just as adept at spreading misinformation as real information.  It will certainly be interesting to see how the internet shapes politics and society in the next couple decades.  I'm not looking forward to trying to explain to my kids what life was like before the advent of the internet.  Heck, I can barely remember myself.

The issue I have with the FDA is with regards to it's regulation. The definition of regulate is to control or direct. That isn't what you want. You just want to expose fraud and connect the actors with the evidence, decide who's at fault and then finally to provide for a reasoned method of restitution.

The FDA directs people on how to do their business. It's similar to the way we have gun control laws. You should have laws for the criminal act itself, not the type, possession or utility of the gun itself.

If the FDA wants to release reports on specific drugs to the public regarding their efficacy and safety, that's great. Prohibiting anybody from willingly participating in human trials, using delay tactics with respect to the release of drugs or constraining innovation is not okay. An informed public is the best way.

If the drug is poisonous or ineffective, report that. It would seem reasonably obvious that any company that wants to stay in business wouldn't intentionally kill its customers. I'm not aware of too many companies which were formed for the sole purpose of supporting and encouraging serial killer scientists.

Do you stand behind that position with regard to all regulation, in all its forms, as applied to all industries and entities?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say yes. I'm sure you'll find some edge case that will make me think twice about that position, but hey, why not. That's what were in this forum for, debate, right?

Read  Bitcoin2cash's links to account of drug companies killing people and pretty much getting away with it as once a person is dead they can't really sue.  http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap6.html Its written by a libertarian so you will like the philosophy at least.

For the same commercial logic applied to selling poisonous food, read this: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/death-in-the-pot.php?page=all

Really, you have a touching faith in the goodness of your fellow man and I like that.  But there are genuinely evil people who do harm out of psychopathic indifference and genuinely stupid people who do harm because they don't know any better.  Society has legitimately chosen to intervene BEFORE the harm occurs.

As I've already pointed out, the FDA has killed 4.7 million people by delaying safe and effective drugs and have saved around 7,000 by prohibiting dangerous drugs. Do the math.


In our current legal system, their next of kin can sue. There are also arguments that anyone that wants to take the case should be allowed to sue on behalf of a dead person.


You're talking about issues over a century ago. Do you really think that kind of logic applies today? I don't. There will be independent rating agencies. People will not eat food that hasn't been rated. People will not be able to buy health insurance if they eat unrated food. There are so many reasons why regulations aren't needed that you are ignoring.


That's irrelevant. Society once deemed it legal to own another human being as property. Just because the majority wants something, doesn't make it right.

The reason I linked to a century ago is the problem was solved by regulation.  There are still issues with food production, specially with new bugs that evolve, and its an issue that will never go away.  But the "how" of how to manage the problems is already in place in most decent countries

I don't think what I would present would be an edge case, but rather fundamental. I don't think its appropriate that libertarians (or a large portion of them), choose to solve the problems by arguing the problems do not exist. That is not a solution, but a politically motivated decision to ignore science when it's apparent that addressing the problem would in fact require regulation if the problem existed.

Let's assume two possible scenarios:

1. The scientific data is correct, and the problems are real. I am not just speaking of climate change, here.
2. The scientific data is incorrect, and the problems are not real.

When a political ideology is in direct opposition to something such as regulation, you will typically find them to denounce scenario 1, and instead promote scenario 2, even using underhanded tactics to do so (see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0 ). However, data is independent of political beliefs. Given that, there is no correlation between what the science says and what your political ideology promotes. In other words, scenario 2 does not necessarily manifest itself because it is more convenient for those who believe in a certain political ideology.

You can argue that your political ideology addresses scenario 2 all you want, but that hardly demonstrates the robustness of your political ideology. To truly demonstrate the robustness of your political ideology, assume for argument's sake, that scenario 1 is correct, and then proceed to show how your political ideology addresses it.

Regarding what you might think as an edge case, and what I am quite certain is the fundamental foundation upon which mankind depends, bear in mind that there are complexities, synergies, and pathways that the average joe is not aware of, nor will he necessarily ever be aware of. We can be certain that 13,000 years ago, nobody would've necessarily been aware of any of those complexities, but the impact of 10,000 individuals on a continent is negligible, as compared to today's population, so one can argue that back then, knowledge wasn't necessary. Note however, that there is compelling evidence that those 10,000, actually initially estimated to be 300, did in fact have a drastic effect - it is called the overkill hypothesis, and I would be happy to debate you on that topic  as well if you wish.

But back to the main point, and that is scenario 1. Are property rights, which are the premise of libertarians, robust enough to address scenario 1? Or is extensive regulation necessary?

I'm glad we're being realistic. No particular system will be able to get rid of the problem. The best we can do is make sure that the system in place actually rewards excellence and punishes incompetence. That's what a competitive free market does and a government agency does not do.

The above is flawed logic and short sighted. The reward of what the consumer deems excellent, and in the short term, is often irreversibly detrimental in the long term.

Whose asshole do you pull this stuff out of?

I'm not an advocate of ignoring anything, good bad or indifferent, or for that matter, their existence. However, some solutions do require less, not more intervention. Science, or more specifically physics and politics are different animals. The ability to observe, express and describe one's environment is not the same as why we think one type of action over another is necessarily bad or good or somewhere in between. Those are mere attitudes and emotions irrespective of their physical characteristics. Science doesn't require regulation, it just is.


Given those two variables you have 4 combinations. 1) data is correct, problems are real; 2) data is incorrect, problems are real; 3)data is correct, problems aren't real; and finally 4)data is incorrect, and problems aren't real. Just saying.


I'm not sure if any political ideology would necessarily produce such a belief outcome. That, at least, is not how I see it. I don't subscribe to the belief that if regulation is unnecessary that scenario 2 is what I believe. My version of regulation and where it applies is when an individual or group of individuals has initiated aggression against me sans provocation. Given that outcome, the aggression towards me requires some "regulation" of the aggressor(s). For all intents and purposes, don't initiate "regulation" against/towards me if I haven't aggressed you first. No carte blanche regulation should ever be applied to all. That violates the premise of Liberty, private property, and life; those things we hold near and dear.


No one can see the future, but we can all speculate based on examples in the past. We should be able to address most of the current issues of the day given enough evidence; and if we can't then, we take a wait and see stance. Probability and statistics aside, I do think there are some things we do as humans that we don' t understand very well, and we should take extra caution to reduce our negative footprint on society, but until such time as we have better measuring capabilities or predictive skills we shouldn't be forcing society as a whole into any particular direction, so aggressive regulation is a no-go, in my opinion.

I'm going to have to call you out on this. What you wrote is mostly nonsense. I'll be happy to give you the opportunity to mold it into something which says something, though. It is nonsense because it is irrelevant that science does not require regulation as pertaining to this discussion. It is relevant that the implications of scientific study and the data it has produced may or may not require regulation of actions which are committed by individuals and businesses.


There's truth to what you're saying here, but as it applies to the real world, it is much less relevant. However, as applicable to climate change, and loss of biodiversity, and the extinction of species, I will give you the opportunity to show credible and significant science that falls in line with your point number 3, or credible and significant science which counters point number 1, thus demonstrating your point number 4.


If you do not subscribe to the logical implication which states that the belief that if regulation is unnecessary that scenario 2 is what you believe, then what do you believe?

1. The data is incorrect (or absent), therefore regulation is unnecessary.
2. The data is correct, but regulation is still unnecessary.
3. Regulation is unnecessary, therefore I will claim that the data is incorrect.

You're obviously denying statement 3, but in reading your post, I can't help but think that you do indeed subscribe to statement 3. However, since you're denying it, that leaves 1 and 2. You seem to be claiming 1. Are you claiming it based on the fact that you have willfully ignored educating yourself on the scientific data, or based on the fact that you have indeed educated yourself on the matters? If the latter, please share the relevant literature which backs up your belief. If the former, which I suspect, just admit it.


And this only serves to underscore a point I have been making, which is to say, if you are ignorant of scientific data, either willfully or simply because you have not been exposed to the data, then you are neither qualified to influence policy nor can your actions on your land go unregulated.

Furthermore, you have completely failed to address a very important question that I asked you, and I will not let you ignore it. Perhaps your ignoring of it was by design? Tell me, if the scientific data is correct, demonstrate how property rights is a complete and robust solution in of itself, without regulation.

I would have to agree, if you're ignorant of the scientific data, you shouldn't be influencing policy.

I'm not sure what I'm ignoring. We are speaking in generalizations, so I'm not sure exactly under what circumstances your question applies to regulation. Everybody's experience or interaction with their environment, including their neighbor, will be unique. I really don't like the cast-a-wide-net type of regulation, any more than I like treating every murderer the same way, despite the fact that dead is dead. However, if the scientific data you're referring to indicates some sort of measurable annoyance, then that specific type of interaction could be regulated (I prefer the word prosecuted).

To be very crystal clear, if by regulation you mean to define what types of property I can own or who I can trade it with (i.e. you tell me I can't own coal because it could pollute) then I don't agree with your version of regulation. On the other hand, if the coal I burn pollutes the property you possess, then that action you could possibly regulate (the unconstrained emissions). All actions require at least two actors to determine crime. I believe there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

To wit, you could regulate the actions and actors depending on the severity they impart to the other properties in their vicinity, but you shouldn't regulate the material itself. Neither could your regulations disproportionately impose greater harm to the violator than the original crime. The greater the crime, the greater the time (i.e., pickpockets are different than murderers).

To regulate another man's property implies you are a part owner in their possessions. A fun little example would be cocaine. If I, as a citizen, possess cocaine, I'm a criminal. However if you're a DEA agent, and you confiscate the cocaine, you're now in possession of it. Wouldn't that, by the law (assuming equity application) make you the criminal now? Talk about a hot potato! No one could possess cocaine since the law is no respecter of persons.

When I read your responses, I see an intelligent person, but one who is willfully stubborn when it comes to clinging to a political ideology, as opposed to reevaluating his world view. We are in agreement regarding what types of things require regulation, to some extent. I refer to the latter type of regulation you have mentioned above. But I am in disagreement over your proposed method of enforcement.

I could write plenty here, but to get the ball back in your court, here's the short response.

Regulation by prosecution from neighbors assumes the following:

• The neighbor has a high level knowledge
• The neighbor is not engaging in similar activities
• The neighbor understands the damage you are causing
• The local court understands the case
• The effects you are causing are guaranteed to be noticed by at least one party willing to successfully prosecute
• The effects you are causing can be reversed by the time you are prosecuted

With the world's current population, we cannot assume that there are enough neighbors who can understand the synergistic effects of trophic cascades, edge effects, riparian zones, extirpation, pollination, HIPPO, OPPIH, etc., etc., etc.

Your model may look good from your current base of knowledge. Read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life (http://www.amazon.com/Future-Life-Edward-Wilson/dp/0679768114/) and then get back to me with your world view.

I will remain stubborn in my beliefs until you demonstrate good reasoning to lead me to believe otherwise. Provide an example, don't "reference" entire books. I'm not, at this moment in time, going to go purchase a book just so I can further extend this conversation. Don't get me wrong, I like to learn new things, but I'd like to see you supply a specific scenario you have in mind and then we could argue the finer points of regulatory implementation and methodologies.

I understand there are complexities beyond my knowledge and experience. This is true. Can you provide a scenario which would demonstrate the legitimacy of your position?

FirstAscent, you misunderstand Frederic.  We established in the IP thread that he works on the basis that only ideas matter and the real world consequences are immaterial.  He uses phrases like "factual ownership" as if the there were some other more important kind of ownership.  So pointing out that something is impractical achieves nothing as he doesn't care.  All that matters to him is his ideas.  And it is his ideas only.

Frederic - you'll remember this from our conversation about who owns lands in Eastern Turkey, Israel and northern Cyprus.

Complex systems (i.e. the Earth) are not subjects to be summarized in a paragraph. It takes a sustained interest level (months to years) which allows an individual to absorb lots of articles and books. Any single item, evaluated out of context, won't go very far.

Do you really believe that debating snippets is a substitute for genuine learning? Before the end of the day, I will post a set of books that I earnestly recommend, as well as some PDFs or HTML articles, which won't cost you any money. Please don't pretend that my offer is anything other than what it is, which is to allow you to have a greater understanding of the complexities of our world, which in turn, might affect the political views you value.

An idea, being intangible, is only within the confines of the mind of the man who believes it, regardless of its truthfulness. So, your ideas are yours, and my ideas are mine. Okay...? Only your ideas matter to you, and they are only your ideas too.

If we're describing tangible things, it matters not what our attitudes towards them are, as that would not change their composition. My attitude toward how gravity works doesn't change the effects of gravity any more than your attitudes and ideas towards it, changes them either.

I remember our conversations about the Turks, Israelies and Cypriots. Given specific instances and evidences regarding who owned what and when, and why who took what away from whom, could resolve the issues of ownership. The enforcement of that could get messy, but nobody was disputing that wouldn't be the case. The argument you were positing was the fact that mere enforcement determines ownership, which isn't true (assuming rightful ownership justifications), it only indicates current possession. Ownership is a concept wherein just one of the components would be the defense of said property.

FredericBastiat, was that a long way of saying that ownership in the legal real world sense is not enough?  Thats what you said last time.  If so, thats fine.  You have your ideas and they are lovely.  If not, then you really need to make yourself clear.

True, debating complex subjects in snippet form is no substitute for learning. But neither is assuming one man, or even an army of supposed knowledgeable men should be directing and controlling the rest of the world based on speculative data, especially when it involves a lot of guessing (probabilities and statistics). That's what we affectionately call hubris.

My take on it is this: the more obvious the affect (man's inputs) the more direct the approach and the more "hands on". The less obvious the affect, or limited the understanding is, or the data is of questionable interpretation or origins, the less direct, and therefore less intervention, is advisable.

Don't guess, don't surmise, don't purport, don't assume, don't speculate, just prove or disprove then direct your actions in accordance.

If I were to compose a scale, this is what it would look like:

(Less understanding/intervention) 0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  (More understanding/intervention).

I've never said ownership in the real-world "legal" sense was not enough, if anything it's excessively complicated and contradictory. In addition to that, it also depends on what country, what part of said country, what jurisdiction and what judge you have. My take on ownership and property is quite concise. It was your version that's convoluted. Who needs to make themselves more clear here? Not me.

My treatise on "The Law" is what I believe. I would assume that isn't too hard a read.

So help me understand you by making your position clear.  Let me repeat the question:

If you go to eastern Turkey, Israel or northern Cyprus, you see property that is owned and cared for by its owners.  Try to take it and they have a legal system that will punish you.  Dispute their ownership and they will product title deeds. 

If you go across the borders, you will meet Armenians, Arabs and Greek Cypriots who will tell you of rape, massacres and people running for their lives from the same properties.  They have title deeds to those properties and if you go to court in Armenia, the West Bank or southern Cyprus, the court will tell you these people are the legal owners.  In the Palestinian and Cypriots' cases, they often still have the doorkeys from the houses they fled from.

Who is the real owner of those houses?  The Turks and Israelis that live in them or the Armenians/Arabs/Greek Cypriots?

Given the conditions and circumstances you stated, the Turks and Israelis are the occupiers of the land/houses. The Cypriots are the rightful owners. Your question is one of is-ought.

Then we differ.  In my world, the people who are on the land with legal title are the owners.  Their right comes from the society they are in and unless you destroy their society their ownership won't change.  Trust me, I have been to eastern Turkey and they would actively defend their land if you tried to interfere.

As I said earlier, you don't want to look at the real world consequences of your ideas and you have no interest in accepting other people's ideas.  It makes debate circular.  If someone is concerned about food poisoning, your logic is "My list of rules says food safety rules are a breach of my property rights so its all wrong and who cares about people dying."  Would it not be better if you did consider the real world instead of just ideas?  

Please back up your claim that the scientific data available is flimsy and can only be interpreted as speculative. I would say you're the one speculating. No, even worse, you're simply choosing to be unaware of how in depth the scientific studies are, and how damning the data is. I've offered you reading material, but it seems it's more convenient for you to be blissfully unaware.

The assumption was that the data (whatever it's origins) was speculative. I wasn't starting with global anthropogenic climate change data per se. It was a broad stroke assumption about complex descriptions and interactions involving tens or hundreds of variables with varying degrees of influence. Piecing that together may be construed as second guessing. It could lead to false assumptions or improper conclusions with partial or ineffective solutions. Lots of what-ifs and wherefores. Not impossible to solve, but any solutions may also be just as difficult to produce as is their efficacy and outcomes. Unless were just going to go back to being cave men...

I considered all of the ideas and options, looked at the past and determined that the position or ideology I side with would be the least damning. To wit, I do care if people get poisoned or not. I want no one to get hurt. Can I prevent all of it, both criminal and accidental? Nope, nobody can do that. I always consider the real world in all of my responses, if anything, I try to be as careful as possible to introduce the least amount of injury and external influence to everyone. That is the goal and mission of the laws and justice. The least harm and the most freedoms and liberties, right?

The real world is only what you make it. It merely depends on the actors. Some societal laws are okay, others are absolutely draconian.

But I made no such assumption.

In reference to an earlier post that you made, according to the linear scale you provided (quoted below), you've indicated that if the data is convincing, intervention is acceptable, even necessary.


Now, with regard to specific issues such as anthropogenic global warming, species extinction, deforestation, edge effects, wildlife corridors, water tables, soil sustainability (the list goes on), I'm asking you a rather simple question:

Do you have solid and credible reasons to believe that the scientific data on those subjects is flimsy and speculative? If you have not at least taken the time to read the relevant literature on the subject, then I'd venture a guess that you are not qualified to make any type of statement claiming the data is flimsy or speculative. If, on the other hand, you have made an effort to stay abreast of the issues and scientific studies, then I'd at least like to hear your reasons why you believe the data is speculative. Assuming the former, shouldn't you concede to the experts in the field, and given the linear scale you provided, submit to regulation/intervention? If the latter, I'm asking you for your analysis.

Maybe we can easily agree then :)  If its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers?

Make your case. I'm all ears.

It was a question.  If its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers?

I asked him a question along similar lines in my most recent post here. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Except on a case-by-case basis, no. You should prove that any method of food preparation has, or is about to, imminently bring harm to an unsuspecting victim. It would seem to overstep the bounds of proper jurisprudence to direct the specific actions and materials a food preparer incorporates without cause.

As a simple example: You could buy a sample of food from a suspected food establishment that was prepared in a manner you deem dangerous and then examine if the food has chemicals or biologics in it that would cause physical harm to the customer. If it does, you prosecute for food poisoning and sue for damages, if any.

Like Bitcoin2Cash, you are an extreme libertarian.  You will never allow inspectors to walk in and close down an establishment.  Your ideal freedom is more important than the reality that people will die.   Are you sure of that position? 

Likewise as with food preparation, any emissions or effusions that emanate forth from a property you should first determine the extent of damage or trespass it imposes upon their neighbors. If said pollution causes damages, then determine with specificity what restitution should be made. This should be done on a case-by-case basis.

You have cause when you can prove damages.

By damages, you mean when people die.  And you are OK with this?  Or are you prepared to allow inspectors in to close the place down before people die?

I take issue with your proposed solution. First of all, your solution is only addressing local effects, and requires the neighbor to be intelligent and knowledgeable with regard to the effects. Furthermore, your thinking is too local and short term. This only supports my theory that long term ecological management is neither something libertarians are concerned about, nor even aware of.

I have offered you the chance to educate yourself on these matters by recommending reading material. Are you earnestly interested, or would you rather restrain your existing knowledge on these subjects - subscribing to the theory that what you don't know won't hurt your ideas?

It would seem likely, that if said establishment was preparing food that was known to be causing physical discomfort, perhaps up to and including death, the likelyhood that that establishment could stay in business would be very short.

If I had an imagination, I might see this possible scenario playing out: First it is made known the food prepared has caused harm. Second, customers who have been harmed (or their agents acting on their behalf) bring charges against the proprietors. The proprietors are found guilty. The restitution wouldn't be cheap. If something more sinister is afoot, the proprietors would go to jail for their crimes. There is nobody to run the place, and nobody dares associate themselves with said establishment due to their shaky track record. The establishment goes out of business.

That's if I had an imagination, but I don't. Maybe you could help me out with that...?

Imagination doesn't matter.  We are talking about basic principles.  I asked you if its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers?  Your answer is no - people have to die first and then their agents can sue. 

As I said, when you first posted "The Law", you leave out society.  To you it doesn't matter if your ideas mean people will die.  That's fine; its good to be clear where you stand and what type of society you want to live in. 

That's just an appeal to emotions. People already die under the current system. So, by your logic, since you are defending the status quo, you consider it alright that people die. The only difference between you and I is that I want a system in place that directly punishes rating agencies that allow through unsafe food with market forces whereas you don't. You'd rather have a system with little to no feedback mechanism where unsafe food still kills people every year but the food rating agencies don't feel any pressure from it. Let one of these peanut butter companies produce contaminated food under a free market and see how long they last with a self-interested rating agency that's trying to do the best possible job thereby maximizing profits. I want people to have safe food almost as much as I want them to be free to make their own choices.

You try to make it freedom vs. safe food but that's a false dichotomy. We can have both and are more likely to have both under libertarianism.

Maybe but the point is that if you have to choose between freedom and safe food, you will choose freedom.  So will Frederic.  In your case, you'd even take the children of people who are victims of unsafe food off them :o 

It good to be clear what people stand for.

Not having any imagination of my own, but something more rudimentary, I propose the following: If I suspected my neighbor was emitting foul substances, or I watched the tele' and I saw somebody I thought had some knowledge in said emissions, I then do one of two things. First, I educate myself. If it is determined that my understanding is clear and evident that said emissions cause harm, I bring charges against my neighbor.

Alternatively, if I don't want to educate myself, I call the pollution expert over to my place and have him do a proper investigation. If there is anything of merit, then we sue, if not, we don't.

I lied. There's a third option. I rally all of my neighbors, both far and wide. We do a long term analysis with global reach, investigating every plausible scenario and combination of interaction. If it can be determined with some degree of accuracy that the pollution did me harm, I sue for damages for that part of that contribution my neighbor made to the overall pollution of my environment. I then assist those neighbors who have experienced the same issues, and then ask them to sue, or they allow me to sue on their behalf. A class action lawsuit could work here. Rinse and repeat.

See how long the polluter stays in business if he doesn't change his ways. Of course, everybody emits some amount of pollution to some effect upon his neighbors, so now everybody's a target.

This is about to get very interesting... Of course, I haven't much of an imagination, so maybe you could help me out with that...?

As I said, we are talking about basic principles.  I asked you if its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers?  Your answer is no - people have to die first and then their agents can sue.

No one is stopping your god damned rating agencies from existing. And the market is in place for the public to punish poorly performing rating agencies by not subscribing to them. If there is such a vacuum of rating agencies, then it stands to reason that it would be filled and your utopian idea would work. And in truth, the rating agencies are in place, both large and small. The small being blogs and social networking.

What you fail to recognize, among many things, is with zero regulation, starting a business is much simpler, and so businesses would start up right and left. There would always be another new business on the block, with little track record. The ones with poor supply chains, food, etc. would fail right and left as well, as their customers get sick (or die).

What you are proposing is an increased failure rate due to questionable supply chains, and that means increased sickness or death.

I need a time machine. If you have one of those, then you have the answers and you're just holding out on us. Do tell, what proof do you have that your food regulation would be any better than my specific criminal prosecution methods?

Now I'm asking you a question and I expect an answer.

Yes, I can. Because you keep thinking that pollution is the only negative effect. If you'd use your imagination, you'd realize that there are other damages in addition to pollution. Things you can't even imagine without learning more. Furthermore, a class action lawsuit cannot exist until damage is done. We're at a stage in our civilization where we want to prevent more damage from happening proactively. That means regulation.

I suggest you suspend any further speculation on how your ideas might work until you've taken the time to better understand all the issues that are at stake here.

It appears we as humans have very little faith in each other to do anything remotely fair, just, or safe. What are we? Just a bunch of animals? Sheesh!

Oh wait, yeah I forgot. There are the perfect and righteous humans (I'm speaking to Hawker) and the evil wicked people (that would be me and bitcoins2cash presumably).

I bow down to my most benevolent overlords...

Actually, it is the humans who have turned the world into a shit hole. The rest of the animals were doing just fine.

Absolutely not.  I'm all for people being clear what they stand for.  I don't agree with you but that doesn't make you evil.

I've met 1 evil person in my life - I'm 100% sure you don't fall into the same category. 

Of course there's always something else. I just thought I'd tackle one issue at a time. The world is a big place, and a lot is going on in it. It would be presumptuous of me to think I know everything. Eat the proverbial elephant one bite at a time...

Wouldn't you be more credible if you took it upon yourself to learn as best as you are able the deeper interactions of the Earth's ecosystems, and what has occurred up until this point, before advocating your own ideas of policy?

Here's a little nugget of data for you: the average rate of species extinction over the lifetime of life on Earth is one per million per year. That number has been arrived at through independent methods. Today, the average rate of species extinction is 1,000 to 10,000 per million per year. In other words, species are going extinct today at a rate that is 1,000 to 10,000 times the normal rate. This all ties into biodiversity, which is a huge subject that deals with how the Earth self regulates itself.

Frederic has said he doesn't care if his idea would mean people dying.  Why do you think he would care about other species?  It really doesn't matter to him.

This is how I would see food regulatory/rating agencies as operating:

You foodies out there think there are some safe ways and not so safe ways for preparing food. Start a charter, organization or association of like minded individuals. Write a treatise on food safety and preparation. Publicize it. Have dues-paying members support it. Get creative. I'm sure you'll find a way to support yourselves (an insurance company maybe???).

Once you've got a decent following, you advertise to the local pubs and restaurants that you'd like them to submit to inspections so that they can be rated as safe by your criteria. If they don't want to join you or submit to your inspections, then the public will know this as you'll report that fact.

The public will then know that said establishment doesn't wish to be reviewed and that the buyer should beware.

However, if the establishment does prescribe to inspections, that fact would also be made known and John/Jane Q. public would be informed and be more likely to frequent said establishment.

See the difference? I'm sure that's just one of many similar arrangements that could work without being forceful.

You are OK if people die so it doesn't' matter how the restaurant is set up.  If you don't care about the outcome, why do you care about the process?

I'll give it more thought. In the meantime, I'll refrain from engaging in biodiversity policies and regulatory conversations referring to such things. Consider my contribution to that subject matter as superficial and cursory. However and notwithstanding that, I also suggest you take great care when infringing on the freedoms and liberties of others, even despite their ignorance.

A parting quote:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it." --George Washington

Your commentary is a bit laughable. When did I ever say it was OK if people die? I invite you to find anything remotely close to that sort of rubbish. The process does matter, which is why I made a suggestion. What don't you get from what I wrote?

These conversations are deteriorating into childish rants it seems. I'm trying my best to be logical and your comeback is that I want people to die. Stupid.

The question I asked was simple; if its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers?

Your answer was no.  Given the choice, you will let people die.  Its OK for you.  You may not want them to die, you may even actively hope they will live but there is no way you will accept proactive intervention to save their lives.

Have I misunderstood your logic?  Feel free to tell me if you will accept that society has a right to intervene and prevent those deaths.

It's possible we will have to choose one or the other. It's also possible everyone will kill themselves tomorrow. What happened to dealing with the real world? Both of those are unlikely.

As long as I have your ear, here's an interesting dynamic interplay of nature that is interesting. Please take a moment to digest this, as I think you will find it interesting, given the fact that I do believe you are intelligent. The first paragraph is some history, and the second is about some science.

First, in the interest of business (ranching and land development), the following megafauna exterminations (among others) occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the US: Between 1850 and 1900, two million wolves were poisoned, shot or trapped. In 1880, the Gray Wolf was gone from the Great Plains. By 1920, the Texas Gray Wolf and Mexican Gray Wolf were exterminated. in 1926, the Great Plains Lobo Wolf, in 1940 the Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf, and in 1950 the Cascade Mountains Brown Wolf.

Now, onto the concept of trophic cascades. Ripple and Beschta (paper cited below) have shown that wolves increase and/or preserve biodiversity. How? Riparian environments are the areas on both sides of a creek or stream. Herbivore populations (i.e elk, etc.), in the absence of predation, will browse everywhere. But when wolves are present, they will not browse in areas where their escape routes are hindered, such as near cliffs or creeks. By not browsing in such areas, various and diverse vegetation is allowed to flourish, which in turn provides an environment for further organisms. This in turn has an effect on downstream water quality, which furthers the cascading effect.

PDF: Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic cascades in the upper Gallatin Range of Southwestern Montana, USA (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cof.orst.edu%2Fleopold%2Fpapers%2FWolveselkandwillowspatten.pdf&rct=j&q=ripple%20wolf%20montana%20filetype%3Apdf&ei=EVdmTsexCoarsAK0yayjCg&usg=AFQjCNFLL6d3v2qz9GlFJlO-AaY1j-wLDA&cad=rja)

The point here, is the way nature self regulates, and the necessity of enforcing policy to allow it to do so. This requires knowledge, which cannot be counted upon to be possessed by every self interested land or business owner.

Two books related to the subject matter:

The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity (http://www.amazon.com/Wolfs-Tooth-Keystone-Predators-Biodiversity/dp/1597263982/)

Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Trophic-Cascades-Predators-Changing-Dynamics/dp/1597264873/)

The choice goes to the heart of the kind of politics and society you want to create.  There is little point in my looking at Frederic's idea for chefs that write treatises if he himself doesn't' care about the outcome. 

My beliefs or the implementations thereof do not directly result in the deaths of other people. That's a non sequitur. It's also a strawman argument.

A good example of intervening to prevent a death would be equivalent to a man who has drawn his gun and is about to shoot another. Sure, go ahead and intercede. Hopefully, nobody dies. Can the same be said for food poisoning? That appears to be a little more difficult to effectuate it seems, but that doesn't give you the right to make food regulations to possibly, maybe, or hopefully prevent an accidental poisoning death.

Were that the case, it would logically follow that you could insert yourself and your "do-gooders" into my home and inspect and regulate all of the ways I prepare my food in my own home. Are you going there? Because if you are, I will oppose you with every fiber of my being.

Actually it does.  As we discussed with property rights, any right you have to sell food comes from the society.  If society does not want you to poison people, it can insist on food hygiene as part of the license to sell food.  You may feel strongly that the right to sell poisoned food is somehow inherent in your humanity but you don't really.  Bluntly, you can oppose all you want but you don't have a right to sell food from an unhygienic kitchen.

Consider that logical fallacy your last as far as I'm concerned. I am at this point, no longer interested in correcting you on your logic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

Ciao.

Bye :)  Do come again - its been fun.

Fallacies aside, I was hoping you would address or at least acknowledge my last post.

What is society?

Why? It sounds like you're saying might makes right. Which is also what FirstAscent has put forward. Such a belief is clearly false. You can't give anyone the right to do what you yourself cannot do. You don't get any extra rights just because you talked it over with your friends.

Puhleeze, name one libertarian 'dictator'.

You can't, because they're all regulators.

False. There is no guarantee that any or all will regulate, hence the unpredictable nature of such a system. Furthermore, some problems benefit from a uniform, consistent and continuous application of policy, otherwise continued degradation will occur, at the expense of the entire population, as well as future generations. The environment is such an example.

I'm saying its nothing to do with right.  As a matter of empirical fact, we can do things in communities that we cannot do as individuals.  One of those things is create property rights.  And as part of that, we can decide if we want food regulation.  Now we know we can do it, then we have to decide if its right or not.  In your case, you don't really care about food safety so you will say its not right.  However, most people who have looked at this have decided food safety is a good idea and that regulation is needed.  The form of regulation is that you are told to have a clean kitchen in order to sell food.  You have a right to disagree but provided you don't actually sell food from a tainted kitchen, it doesn't really matter if you agree or not.