Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 02:19:52 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Itís not illegal to use real strawberries, itís just impossible if you donít wan  (Read 5115 times)
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 04:28:05 AM
#41

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...

1506133192
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506133192

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506133192
Reply with quote  #2

1506133192
Report to moderator
1506133192
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506133192

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506133192
Reply with quote  #2

1506133192
Report to moderator
1506133192
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506133192

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506133192
Reply with quote  #2

1506133192
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Anonymous
Guest

August 19, 2011, 04:36:24 AM
#42

Well, there's only one way to make them learn.
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 06:24:04 AM
#43

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.

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 01:30:42 PM
#44

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 02:17:08 PM
#45

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.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 02:24:50 PM
#46


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  Wink 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...

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
onesalt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


GET IN - Smart Ticket Protocol - Live in market!


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:06:31 PM
#47

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.


               ████
             ███  ███
           ████     ███
         ███  ███    ███
       ████     ███    ███
     ███  ███     ███    ███
   ████     ███     ███   ██
 ███  ███     █████████████████
███     ███     ███           ██
 ███      ███     ██          ██
   ███      ██████████      ███
     ███      ██████      ███
       ███      ██      ███
         ███          ███
           ███      ███
             ███  ███
               ████

GUTS
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
smart-ticket protocol for events
live product with market traction!
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
  BTC ANN
  WEBSITE
  BLOG
   
  SANDBOX
  WHITEPAPER
  BOUNTY
   
3phase
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 313


Third score


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:41:04 PM
#48

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?

Fiat no more.
Δοκιμάστε το http://multibit.org - Bitcoin client τώρα και στα Ελληνικά
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 07:00:20 PM
#49

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


GET IN - Smart Ticket Protocol - Live in market!


View Profile
August 24, 2011, 02:49:13 AM
#50

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?


               ████
             ███  ███
           ████     ███
         ███  ███    ███
       ████     ███    ███
     ███  ███     ███    ███
   ████     ███     ███   ██
 ███  ███     █████████████████
███     ███     ███           ██
 ███      ███     ██          ██
   ███      ██████████      ███
     ███      ██████      ███
       ███      ██      ███
         ███          ███
           ███      ███
             ███  ███
               ████

GUTS
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
smart-ticket protocol for events
live product with market traction!
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
  BTC ANN
  WEBSITE
  BLOG
   
  SANDBOX
  WHITEPAPER
  BOUNTY
   
Anonymous
Guest

August 24, 2011, 02:53:25 AM
#51

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
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 576


View Profile
August 24, 2011, 02:58:07 AM
#52

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
Guest

August 24, 2011, 03:01:23 AM
#53

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
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 576


View Profile
August 24, 2011, 03:12:31 AM
#54

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


GET IN - Smart Ticket Protocol - Live in market!


View Profile
August 24, 2011, 03:22:47 AM
#55

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.


               ████
             ███  ███
           ████     ███
         ███  ███    ███
       ████     ███    ███
     ███  ███     ███    ███
   ████     ███     ███   ██
 ███  ███     █████████████████
███     ███     ███           ██
 ███      ███     ██          ██
   ███      ██████████      ███
     ███      ██████      ███
       ███      ██      ███
         ███          ███
           ███      ███
             ███  ███
               ████

GUTS
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
smart-ticket protocol for events
live product with market traction!
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
  BTC ANN
  WEBSITE
  BLOG
   
  SANDBOX
  WHITEPAPER
  BOUNTY
   
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
August 25, 2011, 01:16:03 PM
#56

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
August 29, 2011, 04:28:37 PM
#57

... 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.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
August 29, 2011, 05:04:47 PM
#58

... 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.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
August 30, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
#59

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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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.

Quote
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.



Quote
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?

Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
August 30, 2011, 12:53:05 PM
#60

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.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!