It’s not illegal to use real strawberries, it’s just impossible if you don’t wan

[hugolp]

http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/its-not-illegal-to-use-real-strawberries-its-just-impossible-if-you-dont-want-to-do-something-illegal/

So fucked up. The government officials outright recommend not using natural ingredients.

And this is the perfect conclussion:

This case illustrates perfectly how, contrary to the myths espoused by managerial statists, big businesses benefit from regulations at the expense of smaller competitors and the public. The big boys get to either keep out an efficient smaller competitor or make her compete on their terms; she has to either comply or go out of business; and her customers lose the ability to buy a good they want.

[1715591609]

1715591609

[1715591609]

1715591609

[1715591609]

1715591609

[1715591609]

1715591609

[Ookami]

Nice lobbying against regulations, but have you even started to think about the consequences of removing them ?
This might be an example of how the particular regulations are (maybe) not fit for a particular scenario, and maybe they should be adepted.
But the product in question is simply does not match hygiene standards for a product designed to be stored.
I am sure it is fine if served directly by the manufacturer, but as non-pasteurized milk is used and fresh fruit is added it can and will grow dangerous concentrations of bacteria especially fast if transported and stored.

I am not saying you should *trust* regulations, also I don't like overly expensive certification procedures, but without regulations people *will* sell you spoiled food. This *has* happened and lifes are at stake.

[wumpus]

This, combined with the massive amounts of people that are jobless in the current system, makes me think it likely that the grey, unregulated, person-to-person economy will massively increase in the coming decade.

The "wall street economy" (with their government lobbyist and supporters) is effectively starting to exclude a larger and larger part of the population.

Those people either cannot afford the bigco's products anymore because their job was automated away, or want more "real" products which are no longer for sale through official channels; either because they are deemed unhealthy, dangerous, or otherwise "bad" by the government nannies.

[Ookami]

It does not miss the point.
If it happens the damage is already done and without regulations you can defend yourself by saying "that's what the customer wants".
Also a web of trust won't help (or at least will be slow) if you consider there are big b2b vendors that sell tons of food at a time, you as a customer don't even know where say the meat you buy at a super market came from.

You know, I don't think you should not be able to choose the product you want, but to be able to do so you a) have to know the relevant data which only works if they are printed on the package and are easy to understand and b) it must be assured that the product matches said description.
You simply don't have the choice to say "I don't want ice cream that won't survive eating it over the course of a week" if you don't know which product that applies to or you can't trust the information you have because it is from the same company that produces the stuff.
Here in germany food companys have succesfully blocked a law that simply required to print more information onto the package because they fear an informed customer wouldn't buy their stuff if he knows whats he eats... think about it.

[TTBit]

... without regulations people *will* sell you spoiled food ...

That's true, without a doubt, but it misses the point.

I disagree. Regulations don't change the presence of spoiled food.

She should sell her ice cream without regulations and be responsible for it. If you're going to introduce all these regulations and she follows them to the letter, the IHDA (whatever it is) should be responsible for the end product; but of course, the IHDA would never be held accountable.

In a free market, private 'regulators' develop and act as auditors who take responsibility (i.e. pay if sued) for the product after inspection. But with government intervention, you get worse products & higher costs.

[LeFBI]

Nice lobbying against regulations, but have you even started to think about the consequences of removing them ?

It's not lobbying against regulation, the article just says the regulation in this case clearly made to benefit the big industrial players. It doesn't say down with all regulations at all.

But the product in question is simply does not match hygiene standards for a product designed to be stored.

Like when fresh fish, peas or beans get frozen? You can freeze fresh strawberries without a problem...

I am sure it is fine if served directly by the manufacturer, but as non-pasteurized milk is used and fresh fruit is added it can and will grow dangerous concentrations of bacteria especially fast if transported and stored.

Like in a restaurant where you can eat a fresh salad with fresh fruits?
They have to transport it to their restaurant too. Fresh ingredients must be processed and eaten asap, true. No difference in the ice cream case. But this kind of strict regulation is imho Bullshit. In Italy you can get fresh ice cream made with seasonal fresh fruits and raw milk from the local milk farmer in nearly every village. Have you ever heard "Don't eat ice cream in Italy, it will make you sick"? All that people dying every day because they ate ice cream in italy...thousands!!!...it's all over the newz!!!1
I'm much more afraid of not knowing how dirty some restaurant's kitchen is than of fresh ice cream

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

without regulations people *will* sell you spoiled food. This *has* happened and lifes are at stake.

And that *has* happened under severe regulation as well, like that German organic farm which killed tenths of people a couple months ago.

Why is it so hard to see the dramatic difference between violently imposed regulations, what's every government regulation is, and voluntarily chosen regulations, or "certifications"? Isn't it obvious that the latter *will* work better? Since they need producers to choose to get certified, they can't impose arbitrary stupid rules like the ones we commonly see in state regulations, otherwise producers will boycott them. And consumers should be always free to choose between certified producers* or take the chances with non certified ones, or those with "unknown certifications". Why should the lady in this typical example be required to abide to strict rules if she only sells her ice cream locally, to people who know her? And even if somebody who doesn't know her is willing to take a chance, he should be free to do so.

Learn one thing: state regulations are there only to protect established industries against competition. It has nothing to do with protecting consumers.

Every law that slightly harms a large and disperse number of people while intensively benefits a small group of people will be approved. That's the basic rule of public choice, people won't even care to know about regulations that potentially harms them just a little, since the cost of even knowing about them is higher than the cost it imposes on them. It is a rational behavior not to know about these laws being approved. On the other hand, the small number of people which will largely benefit from the law will probably be among those writing it, and lobbying hard ($$$) to get it approved.


* Actually, IMHO in a true free market consumers possibly wouldn't even need to care about certifications, that would be handled before the retail. Consumers would only need to know in which retailers they trust, and good retailers would then require proper certifications from producers they don't fully trust. But maybe there would be consumer-oriented certifications as well, one can't predict that.

[GeniuSxBoY]

[Swanberg] says that a couple of weeks ago a representative from the Illinois Department of Public Health came to Logan Square Kitchen and informed her she’d have to shut down if she did not get something called  ”a dairy license.”

Swanberg and others in her field had operated for years now without ever hearing of such a thing and, indeed, they say, the City’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, to whom they applied for business licenses, never informed them they would need one to operate.

Of course you have to have a dairy license. That's the government's way of being able to stop you if you decide to be a felon and/or cause problems for the community. You have to have a license to prove you are legitimate and it is one notch of insurance that you're willing to be held accountable for your actions in the business. (The license fees stem from costs to keep records and pay salaries, nobody is going to do the job for free)

You saw what happened with Mybitcoin right? The community had trust and trust alone to use his services and they got smacked in their face. Now, had he had a business license, we'd know exactly where to find him and have a lot more leverage over him as a community.




ALSO...


We like to reward the people who take the time, money, and effort to be honest by going through the system. We do this by restricting people who didn't go through the system.

[hugolp]

And that *has* happened under severe regulation as well, like that German organic farm which killed tenths of people a couple months ago.

It never stops amazing me how people are so indoctrinated as to believe the government regulations work and do away with all harm when the proof that they dont work is in front of them. But they learnt when they were kids that without regulations we will be all dying in a waste of chaos, and so we need them. The motto of the government should be: Get them young and profit the rest of your life.

The worse thing is that they really believe that by being violent against this woman for example, they are making a better world.

Of course you have to have a dairy license. That's the government's way of being able to stop you if you decide to be a felon and/or cause problems for the community. You have to have a license to prove you are legitimate and it is one notch of insurance that you're willing to be held accountable for your actions in the business. (The license fees stem from costs to keep records and pay salaries, nobody is going to do the job for free)

You saw what happened with Mybitcoin right? The community had trust and trust alone to use his services and they got smacked in their face. Now, had he had a business license, we'd know exactly where to find him and have a lot more leverage over him as a community.

This is the perfect example of the level at which we have arived. People actually trusted a nobody with huge quantities of money! We are so used to live in this world where theft is either regulated and indoctrinated as normal and any competition in the scam sector is prosecuted, that a lot of us dont know how to take the minimum precautions.

In this sense I think Bitcoin is great because it will teach us a couple of lessons that we desperately need.

[miscreanity]

Indoctrinated - very apropos term!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A business that kills its clients, makes them sick or otherwise harms them won't be in business very long. If Mt. Gox didn't shore up its security, Tradehill would be the primary exchange today.

Self-regulating systems occur naturally. Government interferes.

Government is the problem!

Bitcoin is an answer.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Of course you have to have a dairy license. That's the government's way of being able to stop you if you decide to be a felon and/or cause problems for the community. You have to have a license to prove you are legitimate and it is one notch of insurance that you're willing to be held accountable for your actions in the business. (The license fees stem from costs to keep records and pay salaries, nobody is going to do the job for free)

You saw what happened with Mybitcoin right? The community had trust and trust alone to use his services and they got smacked in their face. Now, had he had a business license, we'd know exactly where to find him and have a lot more leverage over him as a community.

This is the perfect example of the level at which we have arived. People actually trusted a nobody with huge quantities of money! We are so used to live in this world where theft is either regulated and indoctrinated as normal and any competition in the scam sector is prosecuted, that a lot of us dont know how to take the minimum precautions.

In this sense I think Bitcoin is great because it will teach us a couple of lessons that we desperately need.

Well said, Hugo.

And the guy you quoted completely misunderstands what regulations are for. Regulations (even the good, voluntary ones) are not there to make people "reachable" and to make they responsible for their actions. There's no need of regulations for that, you don't need a "license" to be accountable, nor to abide your processes to arbitrary rules. Your customers just need a way to track you down if they feel you might harm them.

Quoted guy, trust me, state regulations exist only to protect established industries and lobbyists, and not only are unnecessary, they are economically harmful and ethically criminal.

[Grinder]

In a free market, private 'regulators' develop and act as auditors who take responsibility (i.e. pay if sued) for the product after inspection. But with government intervention, you get worse products & higher costs.

In some cases that's true, in others it's just wishful thinking. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0112/052_print.html

[kjj]

In a free market, private 'regulators' develop and act as auditors who take responsibility (i.e. pay if sued) for the product after inspection. But with government intervention, you get worse products & higher costs.

In some cases that's true, in others it's just wishful thinking. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0112/052_print.html

Is that the article you intended to link?  It has nothing to do about regulation.

[GeniuSxBoY]

Well said, Hugo.

And the guy you quoted completely misunderstands what regulations are for. Regulations (even the good, voluntary ones) are not there to make people "reachable" and to make they responsible for their actions. There's no need of regulations for that, you don't need a "license" to be accountable, nor to abide your processes to arbitrary rules. Your customers just need a way to track you down if they feel you might harm them.

Quoted guy, trust me, state regulations exist only to protect established industries and lobbyists, and not only are unnecessary, they are economically harmful and ethically criminal.

Until you own a legitimate business, you're never going to understand. There is a BIG difference between reality and Utopian ideals. There is a BIG difference between businesses that go out of their way to prove their trust (mtgox/tradehill) and people who chose to have a business one day and chose not to have a business the next day (mybitcoin)

You can't have a free system the way you're thinking. Fraud and criminal THOUGHTS exists IN EVERYBODY. Nobody is immune to them and everyone has their breaking point. The only way to keep people honest is to give them incentive to stay honest. There is criminality in EVERY level of every race, age, social class, occupation, and yes, even in the government. It is our job to find and fix the dishonesty at the moment it's discovered in the government. It is the governments job to find and fix the dishonesty at the moment it's discovered in the territory in which it governs.

You don't have to trust me. You can keep thinking whatever you want to think. Just know that "life" will smack you in the face when your wrong. You better be right about what you preach.

[hugolp]

Well said, Hugo.

And the guy you quoted completely misunderstands what regulations are for. Regulations (even the good, voluntary ones) are not there to make people "reachable" and to make they responsible for their actions. There's no need of regulations for that, you don't need a "license" to be accountable, nor to abide your processes to arbitrary rules. Your customers just need a way to track you down if they feel you might harm them.

Quoted guy, trust me, state regulations exist only to protect established industries and lobbyists, and not only are unnecessary, they are economically harmful and ethically criminal.

Until you own a legitimate business, you're never going to understand. There is a BIG difference between reality and Utopian ideals. There is a BIG difference between businesses that go out of their way to prove their trust (mtgox/tradehill) and people who chose to have a business one day and chose not to have a business the next day (mybitcoin)

You can't have a free system the way you're thinking. Fraud and criminal THOUGHTS exists IN EVERYBODY. Nobody is immune to them and everyone has their breaking point. The only way to keep people honest is to give them incentive to stay honest. There is criminality in EVERY level of every race, age, social class, occupation, and yes, even in the government. It is our job to find and fix the dishonesty at the moment it's discovered in the government. It is the governments job to find and fix the dishonesty at the moment it's discovered in the territory in which it governs.

You don't have to trust me. You can keep thinking whatever you want to think. Just know that "life" will smack you in the face when your wrong. You better be right about what you preach.

Whow says he doesnt? Btw, you are using the word utopia to describe something you clearly dont understand. The first rule to criticize something is understand it, you should not criticize something you dont even know about.

Nobody is saying there should be no law or no courts. Let me be clear, nobody is saying there should be no law or no courts. The question is whether the legal system should be a government monopolly. And even if you believe it should be, how long should it reach? Its utopic to give monpollistic power to one institution and trust that it will be controllable like you are claiming. Check history and tell me when that has happened. Only once please, tell me when you utopia has happened.

And btw, more than the 50% of the world trade is done based only on trust, outside of any legal jurisdiction.

As I said the problem is that the people is used to live in a bubble world and have forgotten how to behave.

[Ridi]

Fraud is a definite reality, regulation makers abusing their powers is a definite reality.  Both have involved people getting killed in the past.  I don't see a lesser of two evils here. 

[BubbleBoy]

Pasteurized milk is healthy and safe. Irradiated strawberries are healthy and safe, and they taste and look the same. Should she be allowed to sell an unsafe combination of fresh dairy and contaminated fruit ? Sure, if the customers understand the risks and take full responsibility for the outcome.

As it turns out, the customers don't understand the risk, and choose not to be bothered by the issue by appointing a regulator which, imperfect and inefficient as it may be, does the job acceptably well. So well in fact, that the customer base have grown accustomed to the idea that any food they can purchase over the counter is healthy and safe. What Kris is actually doing is trying to sneak a product that does not pass the regulator's scrutiny directly to the customer base which assumes that it does. The product is thus misrepresented in the market place, and should be removed.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that, after waiving their legal rights and understanding the risks, customers should be allowed to eat anything. Except for extreme cases like depression or cult-induced suicide, your life is your property and you should do what you want. If you have a problem with the notion that all food must be proved safe by default, and a waiver is required when unsafe food is sold, then you can, you know, start your own country where all food is presumed unsafe and it's the customer's responsibility to make sure it's ok - we had that for many centuries, it didn't worked out so well. There are many such countries in fact, no need to start another one. Anything sold in the 3rd world must be boiled and killed with fire before being eaten, and eating improper food is a major death cause there.

[Grinder]

Is that the article you intended to link?  It has nothing to do about regulation.

But it has everything to do with lawsuits, which is what TTBit claims makes everything so much cheaper. There are few regulations and lots of lawsuits, and that's adding a 30% overhead to the price of the product.

I realise most of you with just rationalise this away and say that the market just isn't free enough (that's always the problem). It's the same excuse as the communist use. When things don't work out as you expected the problem is always that the implementation of the ideology hasn't been taken far enough.

[Xephan]

But it has everything to do with lawsuits, which is what TTBit claims makes everything so much cheaper. There are few regulations and lots of lawsuits, and that's adding a 30% overhead to the price of the product.

The problem is the frivolous litigation environment in the States isn't it? Take out the incentive and convenience for people to sue over the most stupid of things and related costs will drop significantly. Of course it would also put a lot of lawyers out of job

[LeFBI]

Pasteurized milk is healthy and safe. Irradiated strawberries are healthy and safe, and they taste and look the same. Should she be allowed to sell an unsafe combination of fresh dairy and contaminated fruit ?

Have you ever even tried fresh strawberries or drank fresh raw milk? No? You should try it, it won't kill you. We are omnivorous animals and our stomach is made for fresh stuff. You can even eat fresh raw meat or steaks that were rotting for months to get mold on them.
In Italy you can get fresh ice cream made with seasonal fresh fruits and raw milk from the local milk farmer in nearly every village. Have you ever heard "Don't eat ice cream in Italy, it will make you sick"? In Vietnam you can buy fresh meat from small stalls at the roadside, and they don't use fridges. Ice cream with fresh fruits is nothing special. As long as fresh ingredients get processed and eaten asap it's no problem at all. It's not like they wait a month before they freeze the strawberries and milk.

[Cluster2k]

A business that kills its clients, makes them sick or otherwise harms them won't be in business very long. If Mt. Gox didn't shore up its security, Tradehill would be the primary exchange today.

That business wouldn't survive... unless it serves tourists who transit the area and get sick later on.  The business wouldn't care if they served contaminated food to a tourist who will be gone within hours or even minutes.  The tourist will be in another town or country by the time they get sick.  The bad business would gets to stay and keep serving bad food to the next batch of tourists.

Self-regulating systems occur naturally. Government interferes.

Self regulation would be a handy system for the pharmaceutical industry.  The corporation gets to declare which treatment works and set their own prices for people who can't live without the treatment.  Treatment doesn't work and the patient dies?  The patient doesn't get to complain.  Can't afford it?  They didn't really need it anyway.

Government is the problem!

If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

[mobodick]

Isn't it obvious that the latter *will* work better?

This is SUCH a dangerous assumption.
Imagine a certificate based situation.
Producer A produces milk, but his farm is in the neigborhood of Fukushima.
The milk is radioactive and he cannot sell it as a certified product.
He goes on to sell it to producer B that produces uncertified icecreams from it.
Producer B goes on to sell his icecreams in Europe and noone knows his milk came from next door to Fukushima.
Altho the customers know the icecream is uncertified they don't think it tastes spoiled and is much cheaper than certified ice cream and so they go ahead and consume the radioactive icecream en masse.

This is what you will get with a voluntarily certificate program.
It just won't work itself out in an economy where most people don't have enough money to pay for everything that they are made to beliefe they need.

There will always be a pretty hefty pressure om making products cheaper and consumers will let themselfs get poisoned or killed for buying the wrong products.
It is just the world we live in and it is just the outcome of human nature as it applies to our current civilization.

Yes, people need (want! demand!) to be taken care of because as an individual you have little influence over most aspects of society.
If you had to choose between a party that wants to make money off of you by selling food and the government then i know what i would choose to decide what is healthy.
That is why we need the regulations and that is why we have them,.

Now to get back to the story. It is a shame that the regulations turned out to be bad for that business. But these same regulations prevent the big ciompanies from selling poison.
And these big companies produce so much that there are a lot more people involved.
If they produced poisonous foodstuff then there will be a much bigger problem than this lady having to give up her icecream store.
So it's not so black and white as the article makes it out to be.

Another thing is that you can't over specify the law.
Too many exceptions and it will become unmanageable.
So, altho theoretically an exception in the law coul work for this case, there will be many more similar but unique cases, all of which will require their own exception to the law.

Remember that these kinds of laws about regulations were written up over the past decenia exactly because hygene became a problem as people started consuming more.
It is a direct consequence of our consumption habbits.
The lady in question should deal with it and so should all other people in the western world.
But of course, as stated above by someone else, we should look critically at all regulations and see if they are still usefull instruments to our society.

[hugolp]

Self regulation would be a handy system for the pharmaceutical industry.  The corporation gets to declare which treatment works and set their own prices for people who can't live without the treatment.  Treatment doesn't work and the patient dies?  The patient doesn't get to complain.  Can't afford it?  They didn't really need it anyway.

It seems to me you are describing the present situation (government regulations).

[kjj]

A business that kills its clients, makes them sick or otherwise harms them won't be in business very long. If Mt. Gox didn't shore up its security, Tradehill would be the primary exchange today.

That business wouldn't survive... unless it serves tourists who transit the area and get sick later on.  The business wouldn't care if they served contaminated food to a tourist who will be gone within hours or even minutes.  The tourist will be in another town or country by the time they get sick.  The bad business would gets to stay and keep serving bad food to the next batch of tourists.

Do you not see how silly this is?  What is the business going to do?  Refuse to sell to locals?  Wear disguises the following day when the dead guy's family comes back?

Self-regulating systems occur naturally. Government interferes.

Self regulation would be a handy system for the pharmaceutical industry.  The corporation gets to declare which treatment works and set their own prices for people who can't live without the treatment.  Treatment doesn't work and the patient dies?  The patient doesn't get to complain.  Can't afford it?  They didn't really need it anyway.

LOL.  I don't even know where to start.

[KeyserSoze]

If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

Absolutely all of us will die.

[kjj]

If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

Absolutely all of us will die.

The evidence in support of your position isn't very good.  While 100% of all dead people have died at some point, the percentage of all people that ever lived that have died is far less than 100%.

[mobodick]

If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

Absolutely all of us will die.

The evidence in support of your position isn't very good.  While 100% of all dead people have died at some point, the percentage of all people that ever lived that have died is far less than 100%.

Not true.
In fact, the only people that haven't got a 100% chance to die are the once that are alive at this moment.
The rest is certified 100% pure death.
Unless, of course, you want to talk vampires or zombies, but that would become a highly technical discussion i'm afraid...

[hugolp]

If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

Absolutely all of us will die.

Prove it.

Btw, if absolutes dont exists, what can we say about sentences that say that absolutes dont exist?

[cbeast]

When it comes to business, Rodney Dangerfield said it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

[KeyserSoze]

If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

Absolutely all of us will die.

Prove it.

Give me enough time and I will prove it to you.
I suppose that isn't true either, since when everyone alive now has died we won't have the consciousness required for me to turn to you and say "see?"

And there's always the case for robotics, which are slowly replacing various human organs and limbs until we get to the point where our entire internal systems are mechanized plus a CPU for a brain. Then we'll never die, we'll only ever be in "need of repair."

How would you like to be a part of that generation when it arrives? The generation that gets to make the leap from human bodies to full machine; from human frailty to eternal life (as long as Japan keeps making the replacement parts)? Then how will we reconcile our treatment of robots up until then, that we previously never felt robots were our equal? That we only ever assigned them to some trivial manual labour task like picking strawberries for ice cream?

[hugolp]

Give me enough time and I will prove it to you.
I suppose that isn't true either, since when everyone alive now has died we won't have the consciousness required for me to turn to you and say "see?"

And there's always the case for robotics, which are slowly replacing various human organs and limbs until we get to the point where our entire internal systems are mechanized plus a CPU for a brain. Then we'll never die, we'll only ever be in "need of repair."

How would you like to be a part of that generation when it arrives? The generation that gets to make the leap from human bodies to full machine; from human frailty to eternal life (as long as Japan keeps making the replacement parts)? Then how will we reconcile our treatment of robots up until then, that we previously never felt robots were our equal? That we only ever assigned them to some trivial manual labour task like picking strawberries for ice cream?

Its the problem with the limit of knowledge.

Btw, you could still kill a synthetic "live" form. If you wipe out all its data and there is no copy of it, you have killed that synthetic.

[Cluster2k]

A business that kills its clients, makes them sick or otherwise harms them won't be in business very long. If Mt. Gox didn't shore up its security, Tradehill would be the primary exchange today.

That business wouldn't survive... unless it serves tourists who transit the area and get sick later on.  The business wouldn't care if they served contaminated food to a tourist who will be gone within hours or even minutes.  The tourist will be in another town or country by the time they get sick.  The bad business would gets to stay and keep serving bad food to the next batch of tourists.

Do you not see how silly this is?  What is the business going to do?  Refuse to sell to locals?  Wear disguises the following day when the dead guy's family comes back?

Have you ever become sick from food you ate during your travels?  I have, in Thailand.  It wasn't pretty.  No, I didn't die but at the time it felt almost as bad (for 7 days...).  What recourse do I have to the Thai vendor that sold me the food?  I was flying out to Singapore by the time the bug hit.  But I guess regulations (otherwise known as standards) are bad.  Anything should be allowed.  Let the free market decide.

Before anyone starts about only foreigners getting sick because the local population is 'used to it', the Thai tour guide was the first person to get ill from street food during the trip.  He asked me for anti diarrhea tablets!  Food borne diseases are a major cause of death in some Asian countries.  Also through pesky government intervention Singapore managed to get rid of Dengue Fever by making it illegal to keep standing water outside.  Yes, it's a criminal offense.  Harsh?  Yes.  Effective?  Just ask Malaysia.

Self-regulating systems occur naturally. Government interferes.

Self regulation would be a handy system for the pharmaceutical industry.  The corporation gets to declare which treatment works and set their own prices for people who can't live without the treatment.  Treatment doesn't work and the patient dies?  The patient doesn't get to complain.  Can't afford it?  They didn't really need it anyway.

LOL.  I don't even know where to start.

I realise the system I described above is akin to what happens in the USA.  Some other countries have subsidised medicines and bulk negotiated contracts for the supply of pharmaceuticals so that desperately sick people can afford them.  There's that nasty government intervention at work again.

When Australia was negotiating the free trade agreement with the USA a decade ago the USA wanted the AU government to scrap bulk discount negotiation for pharmaceuticals.  Who was pushing for that?  The US pharmaceutical industry.  Fortunately the AU government held firm and didn't cave in to free market pressure.  Who is more effective at negotiating a lower price?  The government, on behalf of 20 million potential customers, or the sick individual who needs the medicine and has no choice? 

[hugolp]

That business wouldn't survive... unless it serves tourists who transit the area and get sick later on.  The business wouldn't care if they served contaminated food to a tourist who will be gone within hours or even minutes.  The tourist will be in another town or country by the time they get sick.  The bad business would gets to stay and keep serving bad food to the next batch of tourists.

Do you not see how silly this is?  What is the business going to do?  Refuse to sell to locals?  Wear disguises the following day when the dead guy's family comes back?
[/quote]

Have you ever become sick from food you ate during your travels?  I have, in Thailand.  It wasn't pretty.  No, I didn't die but at the time it felt almost as bad (for 7 days...).  What recourse do I have to the Thai vendor that sold me the food?  I was flying out to Singapore by the time the bug hit.  But I guess regulations (otherwise known as standards) are bad.  Anything should be allowed.  Let the free market decide.[/quote]

1. Are you saying Thailand is a free market?

2. I have gotten ill by eating food I bought from a european supermarket. My little anectode is supposed to be the deffinitive prove that regulations dont work?

Honestly, no shit they treat us like if we are stupid. Sometimes I think we are.

[mobodick]

Honestly, no shit they treat us like if we are stupid. Sometimes I think we are.

Generally speaking, i think you're right,.

[Fakeman]

What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?

[hugolp]

What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?

Thats not accetable because then she could compete with the big business and then what would that regulation be good for?

[mobodick]

What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?

That may work in this individual case.
But think of all the exceptions that will have to be made to accommodate other situations as well.
It would be impossible to manage that.
And allowing this one case would be unfair to all the others that would benefit from such increased resolution of regulations.
It will make the laws even more hellish than they are now and they will propably provide more work for lawyers for a long time to come.

[Fakeman]

What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?

That may work in this individual case.
But think of all the exceptions that will have to be made to accommodate other situations as well.
It would be impossible to manage that.
And allowing this one case would be unfair to all the others that would benefit from such increased resolution of regulations.
It will make the laws even more hellish than they are now and they will propably provide more work for lawyers for a long time to come.

I'm not talking about an exception for this one person, I'm suggesting an alternate regulatory scheme where you could essentially sell whatever you wanted as long as it met certain labeling standards.

[kjj]

What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?

That may work in this individual case.
But think of all the exceptions that will have to be made to accommodate other situations as well.
It would be impossible to manage that.
And allowing this one case would be unfair to all the others that would benefit from such increased resolution of regulations.
It will make the laws even more hellish than they are now and they will propably provide more work for lawyers for a long time to come.

I'm not talking about an exception for this one person, I'm suggesting an alternate regulatory scheme where you could essentially sell whatever you wanted as long as it met certain labeling standards.

+1

Snake oil salesmen should be allowed, provided that the bottle actually contains 100% snake oil.

[Anonymous]

You don't need government-enforced labeling standards either. I could easily start a grocery store with said standards for products and people would shop with me over the others for protection. It would be a perfect opportunity.

[mobodick]

What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?

That may work in this individual case.
But think of all the exceptions that will have to be made to accommodate other situations as well.
It would be impossible to manage that.
And allowing this one case would be unfair to all the others that would benefit from such increased resolution of regulations.
It will make the laws even more hellish than they are now and they will propably provide more work for lawyers for a long time to come.

I'm not talking about an exception for this one person, I'm suggesting an alternate regulatory scheme where you could essentially sell whatever you wanted as long as it met certain labeling standards.

I admit i've taken this from wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States ), but:
"This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."

I don't think an elaborate labeling scheme will work out so well...

[Anonymous]

Well, there's only one way to make them learn.

[3phase]

Do you think that the number of food-related regulations worldwide has actually served to decrease food-related diseases?

People get sick from regulated groceries and restaurants every day in every country of the world, whilst the number of regulations is increasing and, I think, will finally converge with the number of all people alive on earth.

I had some health troubles 10 years ago, and went through homeopathic treatment for months which solved all my problems. My takeaway was not simply the effectiveness of the treatment but a much more valuable thing which was:

Learning to monitor my health every day in relation to what I do, eat, secrete or think (yes, think!). Asking my natural detection systems to tell me what is going on with the system and if something is wrong. And let me tell you, I am getting answers.

Example: You may laugh at this, and feel free to be cynical about it, but I do watch every morning my feces in the toilet before flushing, and check that they are normal. If not, I will think of what I did eat yesterday or the day before that might have affected me. I will try changing my food habits and monitor the differences in the smell of urine or sweat.

The opening posts reaffirms for me what I already had found out: That we are becoming separated from our natural knowledge about our own health, and we tend to consider something safe by reading the label on the packaging (I still read the labels by the way, but I also know better than this).

Also, what about the fact that I have no problem drinking unprocessed milk from the goat of my neighbor (I would only boil it of course), but someone else who has never drunk anything but supermarket milk might get sick from it, because they might not have antibodies for everything contained. Should the regulation be (forcefully I would add) applied to me as well, although I don't have any problem with it? Or should there be more regulations that enforce people to do a blood analysis before they are allowed to buy and drink this milk? And then should I carry this paper with me whenever I want to drink this milk? ("Our goat milk is not served or sold to people without the necessary blood test credentials, which should be at most 6 months old, and signed by an authorized lab director")

Food regulation should be simple in a world where people actually care about their own health more than any government could ever care about them. This should solve the majority of the current problems. The rest can be left to laconic regulation.

[mobodick]

Do you think that the number of food-related regulations worldwide has actually served to decrease food-related diseases?

People get sick from regulated groceries and restaurants every day in every country of the world, whilst the number of regulations is increasing and, I think, will finally converge with the number of all people alive on earth.

I had some health troubles 10 years ago, and went through homeopathic treatment for months which solved all my problems. My takeaway was not simply the effectiveness of the treatment but a much more valuable thing which was:

Learning to monitor my health every day in relation to what I do, eat, secrete or think (yes, think!). Asking my natural detection systems to tell me what is going on with the system and if something is wrong. And let me tell you, I am getting answers.

Example: You may laugh at this, and feel free to be cynical about it, but I do watch every morning my feces in the toilet before flushing, and check that they are normal. If not, I will think of what I did eat yesterday or the day before that might have affected me. I will try changing my food habits and monitor the differences in the smell of urine or sweat.

The opening posts reaffirms for me what I already had found out: That we are becoming separated from our natural knowledge about our own health, and we tend to consider something safe by reading the label on the packaging (I still read the labels by the way, but I also know better than this).

Also, what about the fact that I have no problem drinking unprocessed milk from the goat of my neighbor (I would only boil it of course), but someone else who has never drunk anything but supermarket milk might get sick from it, because they might not have antibodies for everything contained. Should the regulation be (forcefully I would add) applied to me as well, although I don't have any problem with it? Or should there be more regulations that enforce people to do a blood analysis before they are allowed to buy and drink this milk? And then should I carry this paper with me whenever I want to drink this milk? ("Our goat milk is not served or sold to people without the necessary blood test credentials, which should be at most 6 months old, and signed by an authorized lab director")

Food regulation should be simple in a world where people actually care about their own health more than any government could ever care about them. This should solve the majority of the current problems. The rest can be left to laconic regulation.

Most people in our western world don't have a neighbour with a goat.
Most people live in cities and have never been in contact with certain microorganisms.
Why would it be a good thing to have enveryone do a bloodtest for the few cases of drinking unprocessed milk?
And btw, if you realy cook the milk then you have effectively pasturized or even sterilized it.
Noone should get sick from that, antibodies or not.
And about homeopathics, it's nonsense.
A good doctor could have told you how to listen to your body, without the placebo effect.
But as you say, most people are too far away from their nature, including doctors.
I just think that the people that filled this gap are crap too, most of the time.
I'm from the netherlands and there was an interesting case here some time ago.
We have a famous psychic here called Jomanda.
And she did private sessions with some duch tv stars etc.
One of those clients was a female presenter that had breast cancer.
Jomanda told her that through careful thought she could make the cancer go away.
Unfortunately, some time later the presenter died of the cancer.

People are gullible (often *want* to be gullible) and without any regulations you'd be creating a whole field where such quacks *will* thrive.
For a good example of how gullible people are just look at the recent outbursts of creationism in the US.
These people are disputing 150 years of research, libraries full of books on the subject.
This is what people are, i'm afraid.

[Fakeman]

I admit i've taken this from wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States ), but:
"This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."

I don't think an elaborate labeling scheme will work out so well...

Nothing in life is really idiot proof, but there is already mandatory food labeling in the US anyway as in many other places. As an adult you are free to do many stupid things, e.g. eating a pound of chewing tobacco and washing it down with large amounts of high-proof rum. Mandatory labeling can't prevent every potentially dangerous activity and nobody with any sense expects it to. In spite of that it can still serve a purpose.

[3phase]

People are gullible (often *want* to be gullible) and without any regulations you'd be creating a whole field where such quacks *will* thrive.
For a good example of how gullible people are just look at the recent outbursts of creationism in the US.
These people are disputing 150 years of research, libraries full of books on the subject.
This is what people are, i'm afraid.

How about educating people to get to know at least the salient points of these admittedly extensive years of research?

Leaving out of course the "sponsored"/"results to order" research?

How about teaching our children the eagerness to want to find out what the hell is going on inside their body 24 hours a day?  

Very true, we have nowadays so much available knowledge on how our system works, ready to use any time, and yet, we do not use it.

And, to be sure, I only spoke about myself, I am not speaking of others, and I am not suggesting that goat's milk is good for everyone   Indicative stories and quotes about other cases, are just a quick note for me, nothing to take home, as I firstly care about what's applicable to myself.

Mobo, what you say about the majority is also true. Only if the regulations prove inadequate to protect us in the future, will the majority be FORCED to take care of themselves, each to their own, otherwise they will risk their survival.

But it's the same story all over the place. Such as, only if Greece goes bankrupt will we as a nation find a way to develop without getting in debt up to our eyeballs, because no one will lend to us then.

There is a pattern...

[onesalt]

I don't know about you but I'm kinda glad when I buy food from a shop I don't need insider knowledge of the company and the stores policies to know it's safe to eat because of government health and safety regulations.

[3phase]

I don't know about you but I'm kinda glad when I buy food from a shop I don't need insider knowledge of the company and the stores policies to know it's safe to eat because of government health and safety regulations.

Well, if you had insider knowledge of the ways and means with which regulations are instituted and enforced, you would probably decide to grow your own...

And I am not talking moral-based decision, I'm talking safety-first decision.

And yes, I know, trusting the regulations and the authorities takes a lot less work and the probabilities look good. I am tempted and often give in myself. I am not pretending to be a self-sufficient wacko.

But, do we have something to do more valuable and more important than taking good care of our human complex? What could this thing be? Because if we do not do this first, how can we claim to care about anything else? How will we be able to help others? How can we offer something of value to humanity?

[hugolp]

I don't know about you but I'm kinda glad when I buy food from a shop I don't need insider knowledge of the company and the stores policies to know it's safe to eat because of government health and safety regulations.

Are you? You are very trusting of the burocrats.

[onesalt]

I don't know about you but I'm kinda glad when I buy food from a shop I don't need insider knowledge of the company and the stores policies to know it's safe to eat because of government health and safety regulations.

Are you? You are very trusting of the burocrats.

Do you drink tapwater or do you think the government spikes it with mind control nanobots?

[Anonymous]

Actually the fluoride and chlorine they put in the water can be very damaging. It ruined my brother's teeth and irritates his skin. We had to install a filter for the whole house. He's not the only one that has these issues. It's not natural what they are doing to our water. I can only imagine what it is doing to us internally. I would prefer the government to stay the fuck out and let us pay for water we don't have to go through the trouble of filtering.

I don't think a democratic proposal suffices in this case. Some people would like fluoride others do not. In a free market, both people would get their desires met.

[BitPorium]

Actually the fluoride and chlorine they put in the water can be very damaging. It ruined my brother's teeth and irritates his skin. We had to install a filter for the whole house. He's not the only one that has these issues. It's not natural what they are doing to our water. I can only imagine what it is doing to us internally. I would prefer the government to stay the fuck out and let us pay for water we don't have to go through the trouble of filtering.

You sure your brother didnt contribute to the problem? I agree all the chemicals can cause issues. But, Me and my family have been drinking NYC Tap all our lives and we all still have teeth in good health. Also, the chemicals add that distinct flavor i love. Its like, Hard Lemonade but, Water instead

[Anonymous]

Actually the fluoride and chlorine they put in the water can be very damaging. It ruined my brother's teeth and irritates his skin. We had to install a filter for the whole house. He's not the only one that has these issues. It's not natural what they are doing to our water. I can only imagine what it is doing to us internally. I would prefer the government to stay the fuck out and let us pay for water we don't have to go through the trouble of filtering.

You sure your brother didnt contribute to the problem? I agree all the chemicals can cause issues. But, Me and my family have been drinking NYC Tap all our lives and we all still have teeth in good health. Also, the chemicals add that distinct flavor i love. Its like, Hard Lemonade but, Water instead

I don't think my brother can cause himself to have the confirmed allergies he has. The doctor has said it's because of the water and he hates it too. He's seen too many patients whose bodies don't agree with it.

[BitPorium]

Actually the fluoride and chlorine they put in the water can be very damaging. It ruined my brother's teeth and irritates his skin. We had to install a filter for the whole house. He's not the only one that has these issues. It's not natural what they are doing to our water. I can only imagine what it is doing to us internally. I would prefer the government to stay the fuck out and let us pay for water we don't have to go through the trouble of filtering.

You sure your brother didnt contribute to the problem? I agree all the chemicals can cause issues. But, Me and my family have been drinking NYC Tap all our lives and we all still have teeth in good health. Also, the chemicals add that distinct flavor i love. Its like, Hard Lemonade but, Water instead

I don't think my brother can cause himself to have the confirmed allergies he has. The doctor has said it's because of the water and he hates it too. He's seen too many patients whose bodies don't agree with it.

Interesting. Sucks to be allergic to the chemicals in the water supply. Must have a nice filtration system

[onesalt]

Actually the fluoride and chlorine they put in the water can be very damaging. It ruined my brother's teeth and irritates his skin. We had to install a filter for the whole house. He's not the only one that has these issues. It's not natural what they are doing to our water. I can only imagine what it is doing to us internally. I would prefer the government to stay the fuck out and let us pay for water we don't have to go through the trouble of filtering.

You sure your brother didnt contribute to the problem? I agree all the chemicals can cause issues. But, Me and my family have been drinking NYC Tap all our lives and we all still have teeth in good health. Also, the chemicals add that distinct flavor i love. Its like, Hard Lemonade but, Water instead

I don't think my brother can cause himself to have the confirmed allergies he has. The doctor has said it's because of the water and he hates it too. He's seen too many patients whose bodies don't agree with it.

Actually you're thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquadynia, or similar, which is caused by water itself rather than the minute traces of additives it has in it. Fluoride has proven effects on tooth and bone health because of it's bonding characteristics and molecular size, and chlorine is the only purifying agent which can be economically used for water purification, other than ozone which has it's own host of problems (Mainly because it breaks down on it's own and thus takes more effort to use for purification purposes), and is present in such low quantities in tap water that you'd get more chlorine in your diet by a factor of 100 from table salt than you would from tap water. Also As far as I know fluoride doesn't actually interact with cells in the body in any way, other than replacing, uh, phosphorus atoms, I think? In the bones and teeth.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Isn't it obvious that the latter *will* work better?

This is SUCH a dangerous assumption.
Imagine a certificate based situation.
Producer A produces milk, but his farm is in the neigborhood of Fukushima.
The milk is radioactive and he cannot sell it as a certified product.
He goes on to sell it to producer B that produces uncertified icecreams from it.
Producer B goes on to sell his icecreams in Europe and noone knows his milk came from next door to Fukushima.
Altho the customers know the icecream is uncertified they don't think it tastes spoiled and is much cheaper than certified ice cream and so they go ahead and consume the radioactive icecream en masse.

I see no problem at all. People should be free to take risks. Buying food from an unknown supplier from an unknown land with no certification at all is a considerable risk to take, but you should be free to do so. You should be free to play Russian roulette if you want to.

By the way, you might be overreacting to what happened in Fukushima (the German government-controlled organic farm was orders of magnitude more lethal), and you should consider that retailers that want to stay in business for long would not sell completely unknown products. That would avoid the need for the consumer to worry too much with producers certifications.

Yes, people need (want! demand!) to be taken care of because as an individual you have little influence over most aspects of society.

Precisely, and there's no better way to suit any demand than competition. A monopoly just won't do it well. This economic rule applies to everything, consumer protection is not an exception.

If you had to choose between a party that wants to make money off of you by selling food and the government then i know what i would choose to decide what is healthy.

You really trust an armed gang that forces us to finance them more than an average retailer that voluntarily provide you something, without pointing you any guns?

Now to get back to the story. It is a shame that the regulations turned out to be bad for that business.

It's expected. Again, monopolies don't provide good products or services, when compared to free market competitors.

But these same regulations prevent the big ciompanies from selling poison.
And these big companies produce so much that there are a lot more people involved.
If they produced poisonous foodstuff then there will be a much bigger problem than this lady having to give up her icecream store.

You sound like a anti-corporations leftist. You really can't see that the only reason these "big companies" survive and make so much "big bucks" is because they can easily get rid of these annoying ice cream seller ladies with such state regulations? This is the whole point of OP by the way.

Another thing is that you can't over specify the law.
Too many exceptions and it will become unmanageable.

When voluntary regulations get unmanageable, people are free to pick others. Can't do that with those imposed by government, though.

[Fakeman]

... chlorine is the only purifying agent which can be economically used for water purification, other than ozone which has it's own host of problems (Mainly because it breaks down on it's own and thus takes more effort to use for purification purposes), and is present in such low quantities in tap water that you'd get more chlorine in your diet by a factor of 100 from table salt than you would from tap water.

By that logic, it should be safe to get your daily sodium requirements from elemental sodium. Chloride in table salt doesn't have the same properties as elemental chlorine.

[kjj]

... chlorine is the only purifying agent which can be economically used for water purification, other than ozone which has it's own host of problems (Mainly because it breaks down on it's own and thus takes more effort to use for purification purposes), and is present in such low quantities in tap water that you'd get more chlorine in your diet by a factor of 100 from table salt than you would from tap water.

By that logic, it should be safe to get your daily sodium requirements from elemental sodium. Chloride in table salt doesn't have the same properties as elemental chlorine.

My old chemistry teacher would say that there is no chlorine in table salt.  The chloride ion is a totally different species, with totally different properties (as you point out).  There really isn't any sodium either, but this is less obvious because we call table salt "sodium chloride" with the ionization state implied, rather than "Natrous chloride" which makes it explicit.  I guess we can blame the chemists for not isolating sodium as an element until 1807, far too late to get a 'real' Latin name and a tradition of calling the lowest ionization state by the -ous suffix like ferrous and stannous.

At any rate, the covalent chlorine in tap water is harmless.

[mobodick]

Isn't it obvious that the latter *will* work better?

This is SUCH a dangerous assumption.
Imagine a certificate based situation.
Producer A produces milk, but his farm is in the neigborhood of Fukushima.
The milk is radioactive and he cannot sell it as a certified product.
He goes on to sell it to producer B that produces uncertified icecreams from it.
Producer B goes on to sell his icecreams in Europe and noone knows his milk came from next door to Fukushima.
Altho the customers know the icecream is uncertified they don't think it tastes spoiled and is much cheaper than certified ice cream and so they go ahead and consume the radioactive icecream en masse.

I see no problem at all. People should be free to take risks. Buying food from an unknown supplier from an unknown land with no certification at all is a considerable risk to take, but you should be free to do so. You should be free to play Russian roulette if you want to.

You are not asking for freedom or voluntary risk taking.
The problem is that in this case the risk is unknown.
You would have no means to know what has happened to the food before, how it was processed and who was looking after the process.
You assume a world where the manufacturers don't screw over end-users.
But remember that this human nature, it is happening *despite* regulations, altho the regulations help to control this problem.
Imagine if there were *no* regulations.
People would get killed just trying out a new thing (or, as you say, choose to take a risk).

Why would anyone want to take a risk with things like baby food? Or the quality of the metal in their car engine? Or their high-pressure cooker?
I mean, there are a lot of things that we want to have as risk-free as possible in our society.
If you want risk go mountain climbing or something, i want my food as risk free as can be sustained by our civilisation.

By the way, you might be overreacting to what happened in Fukushima (the German government-controlled organic farm was orders of magnitude more lethal), and you should consider that retailers that want to stay in business for long would not sell completely unknown products. That would avoid the need for the consumer to worry too much with producers certifications.

No, i'm not overreacting, it was just an example.
The retailers would be in the same position as the consumers, they will fall prey to their suppliers lack of regulations.
The suppiers, meanwhile, will mostly have no idea where their product came from and do not want to care becvause caring makes them liable. There IS no problem with our suppies. Right.

Yes, people need (want! demand!) to be taken care of because as an individual you have little influence over most aspects of society.

Precisely, and there's no better way to suit any demand than competition. A monopoly just won't do it well. This economic rule applies to everything, consumer protection is not an exception.

Nope, that's not true.
Only certain classes of things are better off with competition (like most luxury goods).
Other things are better off with a monopoly (like most utility services).

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.
How do they see you and how are they able to affect your life?
If company X can get a competing edge by bio-engineering it's customers to like it more than company Y, why would they not do this?
Competition is becoming a game about who owns the consumers.
Are you going to sit still by te sideline untill the corporate world has figured out whom you will own money in the future?
Do we want this?

I think that your picture of the *Real World* is not grimm enough.
Self regulation will lead to the downfall of our civilisation as every company will take care of themselfs any way they see fit. At this point we, the consumers, would be completely out of the picture.
Competition is not about making a better product.
It is about beating the competition.
I think your fallacy is in assuming the best way to beat the competition is by making a better product.

If you had to choose between a party that wants to make money off of you by selling food and the government then i know what i would choose to decide what is healthy.

You really trust an armed gang that forces us to finance them more than an average retailer that voluntarily provide you something, without pointing you any guns?

Without this gang you would not have the internet, and radar, etc, etc, etc,..
But what is important is that they have (mostly) a monopoly on armed gangs.
This is important to the role they play.
They make sure the country is not invaded, for one.
They protect your shopkeeper from most robberies. What do you think your shopkeeper would think of the idea of taking care of his own security in a total anarchy? How much would he charge you THEN? And how would you go shopping in the first place, without being murdered on the street for the contents of your pockets?
You, again, assume that everyone would play nicely, but that is simply not how humans are configured.

Now to get back to the story. It is a shame that the regulations turned out to be bad for that business.

It's expected. Again, monopolies don't provide good products or services, when compared to free market competitors.

There are no free market competitors.
Maybe some small scale things, but nothing that would come close to providing a service or goods to a large part of the population.
And doing everything localy is just not an option in our modern society. Most people don't live at the same place as the resources they use up.
So, as i said above, some markets tend towards a monopoly because of how, for instance, infrastructure dictates it's shape.

I feel sad about the lady with the icecream shop and all, but to fix her situation you would need a big change to the underlying system that runs our society.
Free market will have a *lot* of collateral damage, so noone actually wants to do this.
So, as a challenge, come up with a good alternative (that would satisfy current needs) first before taking down the current system.

But these same regulations prevent the big ciompanies from selling poison.
And these big companies produce so much that there are a lot more people involved.
If they produced poisonous foodstuff then there will be a much bigger problem than this lady having to give up her icecream store.

You sound like a anti-corporations leftist. You really can't see that the only reason these "big companies" survive and make so much "big bucks" is because they can easily get rid of these annoying ice cream seller ladies with such state regulations? This is the whole point of OP by the way.

I won't deny that such regulations are abused, but no regulations would just make them abuse society in a more invasive way.
They don't abuse because of a lack of competition, they abuse because they are powerfull.
Power means you have the means to do things.
ANY big company has power, and thus means to do things, adapt their environment to them.
Would you rather have it so that big companies can use their powers completely unrestricted?
And how will that influence the little ones?

Another thing is that you can't over specify the law.
Too many exceptions and it will become unmanageable.

When voluntary regulations get unmanageable, people are free to pick others. Can't do that with those imposed by government, though.

[/quote]
Yes, let's pick more regulations when the old ones get unmanageable...
As if there are no consequences to these kinds of changes.

[kjj]

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.

Everything that you wrote was garbage.  Absolute nonsense.

But this one made me chuckle.  I'm not sure where you live, but around here, the government is funded by taxes, and taxes are paid under threat of men with guns coming around to toss you in jail.

So, we are considering two organizations with a primary goal of making money off me.  Thank you very much, but I prefer the one that doesn't threaten violence to get me to pay for things that I don't want.

[hugolp]

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.

This exactly what you are proposing. Politicians want to make money and you are proposing giving to them the monopoly. Its ridiculous.

[mobodick]

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.

Everything that you wrote was garbage.  Absolute nonsense.

But this one made me chuckle.  I'm not sure where you live, but around here, the government is funded by taxes, and taxes are paid under threat of men with guns coming around to toss you in jail.

So, we are considering two organizations with a primary goal of making money off me.  Thank you very much, but I prefer the one that doesn't threaten violence to get me to pay for things that I don't want.

Hey, if you don't like the guys with the guns then go live in another country!
But don't be surprised if that country is unstable and noone cares if you get a knive between your ribs on your walk through the park.

At least the government doesn't include a 3rd party (the share holders) that demands profit even if it means some people will die or get poor or whatever.

[kjj]

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.

Everything that you wrote was garbage.  Absolute nonsense.

But this one made me chuckle.  I'm not sure where you live, but around here, the government is funded by taxes, and taxes are paid under threat of men with guns coming around to toss you in jail.

So, we are considering two organizations with a primary goal of making money off me.  Thank you very much, but I prefer the one that doesn't threaten violence to get me to pay for things that I don't want.

Hey, if you don't like the guys with the guns then go live in another country!
But don't be surprised if that country is unstable and noone cares if you get a knive between your ribs on your walk through the park.

At least the government doesn't include a 3rd party (the share holders) that demands profit even if it means some people will die or get poor or whatever.

Are you joking?

[mobodick]

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.

Everything that you wrote was garbage.  Absolute nonsense.

But this one made me chuckle.  I'm not sure where you live, but around here, the government is funded by taxes, and taxes are paid under threat of men with guns coming around to toss you in jail.

So, we are considering two organizations with a primary goal of making money off me.  Thank you very much, but I prefer the one that doesn't threaten violence to get me to pay for things that I don't want.

Hey, if you don't like the guys with the guns then go live in another country!
But don't be surprised if that country is unstable and noone cares if you get a knive between your ribs on your walk through the park.

At least the government doesn't include a 3rd party (the share holders) that demands profit even if it means some people will die or get poor or whatever.

Are you joking?

About what?

[onesalt]

Hes right, shareholders demand money regardless of what the company is doing. Thats a major reason why GM failed, shareholders refused to let them fund the R&D into new car designs and research into what cars people actually wanted (people don't want SUVs that get 1mpg when petrol is 4 dollars a gallon) so GM was stuck making rubbish cars no one wanted.

[coinonymous]

Again the question arises, why would you put your safety (or societies safety for that matter) in the hands of an organisation which primary goal is to make money off of you.

Everything that you wrote was garbage.  Absolute nonsense.

But this one made me chuckle.  I'm not sure where you live, but around here, the government is funded by taxes, and taxes are paid under threat of men with guns coming around to toss you in jail.

So, we are considering two organizations with a primary goal of making money off me.  Thank you very much, but I prefer the one that doesn't threaten violence to get me to pay for things that I don't want.

Hey, if you don't like the guys with the guns then go live in another country!
But don't be surprised if that country is unstable and noone cares if you get a knive between your ribs on your walk through the park.

At least the government doesn't include a 3rd party (the share holders) that demands profit even if it means some people will die or get poor or whatever.

Are you joking?

About what?

I don't usually make inflammatory flameposts but this is going to be one.  mobodick, I don't like you.  I'm not going to debate any of this with you because you are clearly well beyond the capability of reasonable discussion on this stuff.

OTOH, mobodick, your people have won, and mine have lost, for the most part, in the battle for control of this world, so congratulations on your victory, I sure hope you are enjoying your utopia.

Now, what the fuck are you here for?  Bitcoin can't possibly be the right currency for somebody like you.

BTW, a small plug: my recent (and, effectively, first) blog post tangentially relates to this dicussion, check it out at http://btcz.tk/.  even mobodick is welcome to read but he probably won't like what I have to say.  Sorry for the crappy writing, though.  It's a work-in-progress.

[mobodick]

OTOH, mobodick, your people have won, and mine have lost, for the most part, in the battle for control of this world, so congratulations on your victory, I sure hope you are enjoying your utopia.

Wait, what?
I never said i LIKED it, i was just being realistic.
You need to open your eyes and see the reality most people live in.