The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[FirstAscent]

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...

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

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

[Hawker]

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...

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

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

A parting quote:

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NghtRppr]

Maybe but the point is that if you have to choose between freedom and safe food, you will choose freedom.

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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

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

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

PDF: Wolves, elk, willows, and trophic cascades in the upper Gallatin Range of Southwestern Montana, USA

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

Two books related to the subject matter:

The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity

Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature

[Hawker]

Maybe but the point is that if you have to choose between freedom and safe food, you will choose freedom.

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hawker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FredericBastiat]

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

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


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

Ciao.

[Hawker]

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

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


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

Ciao.

Bye   Do come again - its been fun.

[FirstAscent]

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

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

[The Script]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is society?

[NghtRppr]

any right you have to sell food comes from the society

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

[Bimmerhead]

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

Puhleeze, name one libertarian 'dictator'.

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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

[Hawker]

any right you have to sell food comes from the society

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

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