EPTI am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree.
California Raids Rawesome Food - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
I am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Respond to this: Well all of those sources are either governmental, or part of the Oppression Framework of our Mean and Bossy System so you can't believe them. /sarc | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
| ||
|
NET
United States703 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:11 xarthaz wrote: Yes, if the subject of murder also thinks it is good. If he doesnt, it does not fulfill the gooness criterion. Right, this isn't philosophy class, its the real world, and scientific evidence takes precedent in terms of the legality of the issue. On August 07 2011 10:18 shinosai wrote: Thank you, Falldownmarigold. After reading that article, I would like to formally apologize to the people in this thread and express that I have changed my position. After reading about the dangers of milkborne diseases being communicable, I think it is fair for the FDA to shut down this business. I did not realize that drinking raw milk could affect those who do not drink it. I am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree. No need to apologize, we all have different opinions, its just if those opinions can lead to potential harm to others is where I/we need to educate people that don't know about certain topics. I'm just happy you know now.  | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Look, you can post all the studies you want (PS might want to turn off smilies there) the bottom line is: the action and subject of action are good, hence lack of possibility for an utilitarian argument against the situation to exist. Hence the contradiction of the common premise of regulationism. Look guys, all those people studied who became ill from ingesting raw milk, they are as meaningful as fairies and unicorns because [insert Austrian School praxeology irrefutable rational truths nonsense here]. Those diseases those people caught cannot stand against the sheer force of the human mind. Begone, bacteria! My reason doth cast you out! | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:18 xarthaz wrote: Look, you can post all the studies you want (PS might want to turn off smilies there) the bottom line is: the action(ie selling milk) and subject of action(ie buying milk ) are good, hence lack of possibility for an utilitarian argument against the situation to exist. Hence the contradiction of the common premise of regulationism. while we are getting rid of regulating milk, lets also get rid of products liability and stop regulating consumer products. screw the consumer, if his products kill his ass, he should have been more responsible. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
while we are getting rid of regulating milk, lets also get rid of products liability and stop regulating consumer products. screw the consumer, if his products kill his ass, he should have been more responsible. People who go into a store with the presumption that the vendor is selling them safe products are stupid rubes. The day clearly has 96 hours in it so people can sit around and fully inform themselves about any and all products they might conceivably buy. Right xarthaz? | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:10 Demonhunter04 wrote: This bill was from a previous session of Congress (in 2010) and was not made into law, according to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary. It was made into a law, just not that particular bill. It was succeeded by: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02751:@@@L&summ2=m& | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
xarthaz get out. | ||
|
NET
United States703 Posts
| ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:18 shinosai wrote: Thank you, Falldownmarigold. After reading that article, I would like to formally apologize to the people in this thread and express that I have changed my position. After reading about the dangers of milkborne diseases being communicable, I think it is fair for the FDA to shut down this business. I did not realize that drinking raw milk could affect those who do not drink it. I am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree. What a reasonable guy. Props to you for being so...logical. Also, you might be pleased to know that it actually still is okay to drink raw milk - you just can't sell it off to people in a regulated industry. You're totally right about "people should be able to do X harmful thing", so long as it's not harmful to others. The government agrees as well, as you are still allowed to drink raw milk in private, smoke cigarettes in private, drink liquor in private, etc. Marijuana will be next on the list of permissible private activities. My roommate has worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger as his assistant the past couple summer breaks, so he has a really strong involvement and perspective on politics, especially in CA. To borrow from his observation during one of our discussions: You know how the gay marriage legislature was shot down during its first couple attempts? Well, with time, it passed. The same will hold true regarding marijuana legislation - what is logical will pass with ample time. As for harder drugs, well, I think your argument applies: things like crack and meth are inherently dangerous to others, which is not okay. Overall, good attitude. Twas a pleasure | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:24 shinosai wrote: It was made into a law, just not that particular bill. It was succeeded by: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02751:@@@L&summ2=m& Ah yes, my link says that it was superseded by H.R.2751, but also said that S 510 replaced it, lol that contradiction confused me. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:31 xarthaz wrote: The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management. i think you may be trying too hard to make your argument. i cant understand what you are trying to say. the government regulates various things (health care, medicine, food, products, etc.) in order to insure that it is safe for the population. the government regulates raw milk because it has the potential for causing harm to the general population and the government wants to reduce that risk. otherwise, we could have legitimate businesses that sell safe products, and others who take no safety measures and pose a danger to the general public. regulation makes it so that a customer can go into the store and know that at the least minimum steps have been taken to protect their health. at the end of the day, government regulation is normally a joke, and only minimal standards are enforced. better than nothing i suppose. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:33 Demonhunter04 wrote: Ah yes, my link says that it was superseded by H.R.2751, but also said that S 510 replaced it, lol that contradiction confused me. The original H.R. 2751 is a little bit different, but then the *text* of S 510 replaced it, creating what is now HR 2751. That is my understanding, anyways, and I can see how it might have confused you. | ||
|
AoN.DimSum
United States2983 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Without raw milk no decent cheeses  | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:38 AoN.DimSum wrote: So what about raw milk from grass-fed cows? I'm trying to look for how the cows are fed but I can't find anything. Even if it's handled in the safest way possible, it's still likely to carry various diseases. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:40 Boblion wrote: I don't really get it. People can buy guns but not raw milk. US can be really confusing sometimes. Without raw milk no decent cheeses you can buy raw milk in america. they were shut down because they weren't licensed. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
It was made into a law, just not that particular bill. It was succeeded by: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02751:@@@L&summ2=m& Odd, the link you provide mentions nothing about: I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied. It does say this though: Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act. Requires each owner, operator, or agent in charge of a food facility to identify and implement preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent hazards that could affect food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by such facility. Sets forth provisions governing exemptions from such requirements for certain facilities. Why would a bill that is allegedly intended to crush the independent producer in favor of the corporate giant specifically exempt the types of businesses (roadside stands, farmers markets) that are most likely to sell food not grown by a corporate giant? In fact, the only information from your link provided that even deals with restricting food deals with food imports, not seeds, "natural" or otherwise: Requires U.S. importers to perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities to verify that imported food is produced in compliance with applicable requirements related to hazard analysis and standards for produce safety and is not adulterated or misbranded. Requires the Secretary to establish a program to expedite review and importation of food offered for importation by U.S. importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program. Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) require a certification that an article of food imported or offered for import complies with applicable requirements of this Act; and (2) enter into arrangements and agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of registered foreign facilities. Requires food to be refused admission into the United States if permission to inspect the food facility is denied by the facility owner, operator, or agent or the foreign country. Sets forth provisions governing the establishment of a system to recognize bodies that accredit third-party auditors and audit agents to certify that foreign entities meet applicable FFDCA requirements for importation of food into the United States. I thought, maybe I can find this sinister corporatist regulation in the text of the bill. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr2751enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr2751enr.pdf The word "seed" or "seeds" appears nowhere in it. Here's what Snopes has to say: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it. The bill defines the term "food production facility" to be "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation." It's something of a stretch to interpret that definition as applying to persons who maintain home-based vegetable gardens or otherwise grow small amounts of food for personal consumption. Requires organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous insect sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to 'make sure there is no danger to the public food supply.' No language in HR 875 mandates that farms (organic or otherwise) use of any particular fertilizer or pesticide, or requires the use of either of those products in general. The bill merely calls upon the FSA to establish regulations regarding "minimum standards related to fertilizer use." The power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals No language in HR 875 addresses seed banking or requires GPS tracking of animals. ETC ETC ETC | ||
| ||
