The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Hawker]

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

Make your case. I'm all ears.

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

[1714113593]

1714113593

[1714113593]

1714113593

[1714113593]

1714113593

[1714113593]

1714113593

[1714113593]

1714113593

[FirstAscent]

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

Make your case. I'm all ears.

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

You have cause when you can prove damages.

[Hawker]

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

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

You have cause when you can prove damages.

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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

You have cause when you can prove damages.

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NghtRppr]

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

It good to be clear what people stand for.

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

I bow down to my most benevolent overlords...

[FirstAscent]

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

I bow down to my most benevolent overlords...

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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