^^^^ No really. I understand the intent, but it goes way too far. These people are homeless and starving. Why do we need to wall them ooff in regulations and red tape More people die from ecoli tainted food that is super regulated already. Clearly its excessive and is indeed about money Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Clearly you've never worked in a restaurant. Profit or charity - a little bad food can kill far worse than chronic hunger. This is a old survival adage.
I have worked in several resturaunts, which is why I'm so cynical. I've seen store owners do some fucked up shit and pass their health inspection. Things like picking up moldy strawberries right off the floor and putting it your icecream. These regulations do ABSOLUTLY nothing to protect you. The only way to be safe is to rely on the free market. Employees see this shit and ttell people not to eat there. The word spreads. Meanwhile government keeps passing them. Of you ever come to Vegas, DO NOT get anything from Ice pan. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
That's absolute bullshit. And you know I don't often use that word, Yuri. Getting a red tag in a restaurant is often a devastating financial clever to an unsafe business. It's not that food inspections expect to prevent 100% of food borne illness and to completely irradiate predatory food handling behaviours. What they DO do is establish science-based regulator practices that include basic food storage, preparation, sanitary supplies, and training. They also respond to public complaints and can provide an epidemiological analysis and work with public health agencies to track serious fatal and debilitating foodbourne illness. And we're not just talking about a little it of the runs here (although, that can certainly be fatal, especially for self-neglecting populations like homeless individuals). You worked in a restaurant, right? So all that nonsense about temperature, sanitizers, hand-washing, pest cleanup and food storage is all done out of the free-will of the management? I've seen a lot of scummy practices too in my days, hell, I've reported restaurants I've worked for. Managers and poorly-trained employees can absolutely manipulate the system, get lazy and ignore regulations. They can do it for years and decades and not get caught. But when they do, it's inevitably by... food and drink inspectors!!!! Not public boycott. Prevention is a very interesting topic - and the public research supports is ongoing (it's actually a really interesting area of study, interesting methodologies required for this kind of social research in corporate environments), but if we're going to talk about intervention, then the regulators will win every-time when it comes to such clear cut epidemiological issues. These agencies can be deeply flawed - don't get me wrong. This case in the OP is a good example of how a failure in leadership or policy clearly took a less-than-effective approach to this very real public health issue. It could have been likely been resolved without punitive actions.
Couldn't people use freedom of religion as a way to get rid of this law, I have never read the bible but thought you were supposed to feed and cloth the poor? If I can't give a hungry man food there's clearly something wrong with the law.
Tis the way of Babylon and dem of the like to not let anything be free Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
we have something called the consitution here in america and it doesnt matter what 100 courts say, if it violates the constitution then it is not the law and the cops have a duty to uphold the law they swore an oath to. If you think that is constitutional... not worth even talking to you
I somewhat agree that government regulation can theoretically increase safety, the problem is that it directly takes out the same sized chunk of liberties to do so. the question comes down to do you think people should be responsible for themselves, in a natural free state, or should the 'government' create a less natural, less free state in order that the weaker do not harm themselves. but if you think the government does have a place to do this regulation, to use force to protect those who will not or cannot protect themselves, where do you draw the line? if you follow that logic it leads to authoritariansism. Personally I think the government forced safety doesnt even work. look how many americans eat shit food today. The problem is not lack of enough government, it is that they are uneducated or poor, both problems directy caused by the government and the anti-free market monopolists that control it. government is not the solution, often it is the problem masquerading as the solution. problem-reaction-solution. Imagine in a free market if there was no food regulation and people had to be very careful about which food they bought. we would be so much healthier as a cfountry very quickly. because no one would trust any big companies, they would buy food locally. If they did trust a big company, it would have to go way out of its way to show the public it was safe, and would be better than a regulated company
I don't see how anyone could sustain a plausible argument against laws that regulate food and drugs. You act like it would be fairly obvious to distinguish between good and bad companies, but without oversight how would we ever know? Companies would lie to you all day if they had the freedom to do so. Even as it is, brands like Cheerios get fined for exaggerating health benefits. Could you imagine if those constraints were eliminated? You'd never have guessed that so many products would be beneficial to your health. To say that food inspection is a failure because you can still gorge yourself on Big Macs is misguided. I would actually say it's contrary to your overall argument. We do have the choice between buying a combo meal at McDonald's and making a healthier meal out of fresh meat from the deli. Far too often, and I'm guilty of this as well, we choose the former because it's cheap and fast. I don't see any way this would change by loosening regulation. If anything, the bad food choices would multiply and they would be even cheaper because there would be fewer quality and safety-related expenses. Choosing fast food over fresh groceries is a question of economics, time, and nutritional education. A food item's very presence on a supermarket shelf is testament to the fact that it's safe to consume. Whether it's of superior nutritional value is a different question. To say that the average consumer would welcome the challenge of actively distinguishing between safe and unsafe food products when they're side by side is ridiculous. No one would trust big companies and they would demand proof of quality? That's exactly the reason why an independent group is tasked with inspecting factories and restaurants! Few of us have the time, knowledge, equipment and resources to adequately test these things, and would we really trust the company to be completely forthright if they had anything to hide? That's why we have someone do it for us. When the BP oil leak happened, that company went into overdrive putting out commercials about how much they were doing to clean up and how they make charitable contributions to this foundation and that foundation. Now, you don't have to be super-cynical to see that those ads were just damage control and spin, but if we're left to rely on the good word of the corporations that they're operating above board, we're done for. What incentive does a company have to be honest about its practices without the threat of legal consequences? I don't trust the honor system and I doubt they'll be allowing members of the public to walk around inspecting their premises for genuine safety reasons. I'm not seeing how this flow of information is getting out for everyone to make their educated choices. Look at GM. Huge corporation. Right now they're wrapped up in a gigantic, $10 billion lawsuit because they ignored reports that their cars were stalling out (and causing deaths) because of defective ignition switches. It would have cost them pennies on the dollar to fix it when they first learned about it, but they didn't. While cases like this slip through the cracks of our current system, it would be the rule rather than the exception if companies were given free rein to operate outside of government oversight. We tried it the other way all throughout history and I feel confident without having to cite statistics that under the current system there are far fewer deaths related to unsafe or impure foods and drugs than there were before Progressive Era reforms.
What an incredibly narrow understanding ofthe issue. These places exist today all over the world - and foodborne illness is a leading cause of mortality and disability. Holy fuck Wowzers! Your ideological narratives are doing you no favours. What rights are exactly being infringed by regulation? Monteary ones? Property? Fucking bullshit I think that is incredibly inconsistent. Re; Article 3 and 25. You have no clue what you're talking about. Rights are fundamentally claims against the state. Those naturalistic liberty arguments were written by armchair philosophers and were debunked over a hundred years ago by intensive cross-cultural fieldwork. I cannot believe people still buy into it. Utopian propaganda as it's absolute worst. It's not a real thing! It is completely imaginary; the "natural free state" is, ironically, a complete social construction, not supported by any modern academic understanding of human history.
Well the answer is, right now we dont really have a free market. I agreee completely- big companies would do horrible shit with their food and a few poor suckers who bought it would suffer. But then, people would learn the lesson the hard way and not buy anything from large companies, buy food locally, or, the alternative is that cherios goes out of business once 100 people get sick and its on the news and no one buys there stuff, then in order to be successfull future businesses have to win over consumer loyalty by having NGO inspections, open factories, whatever else. In the short run, the switch from monopoly to free market would hurt a minority of people who choose to eat bad food, yes. But that problem can only be attributed to the fact that the monopoly is bad, not that the free market is bad. to remove the splinter you may have to cut open your finger. what i am saying, bottom line, is that we do not need to use the threat of violent force to have safe food. Now, I guess most americans are really really dumb and you could use that as an argument why it would not work in the usa. I guess i agree. but in a place with educated people, it would work, and again, the problem is with lack of education not with the free market. I did not say that was a result of food inspection. "Personally I think the government forced safety doesnt even work. look how many americans eat shit food today. The problem is not lack of enough government, it is that they are uneducated or poor, both problems directy caused by the government and the anti-free market monopolists that control it. government is not the solution, often it is the problem masquerading as the solution. problem-reaction-solution." The point I was trying to make was, in order to solve a problem you have to truly identify the cause. It seems you imply that we have a free market currently in the USA. I disagree. My point is, without regulation, people would be forced to either put their lives in direct risk (instead of the current long term risk they expose themselves to) or to educate themselves about what they put in their body and use consumer choice to only buy good food. In my experience eating healthy is no more expensive than eating cheap crap. I get a bag of quinoa which is like 5 meals for like $5, in the USA. One of the most healthy and filling foods out there. Never ate from mcdonalds. Bottom line, the free market forces people to educate in order to survive and flourish, instead of letting other people think for you, and make choices for you. I have to majorly disagree. Soy, for example, is full of toxins and is in everything. The water is full of flouride which lowers childrens IQ. Juice boxes are lined with BPA and other xenoestrogens which cause breast cancer. check this out http://chriskresser.com/ exactly! I want independant companies to inspect the food companies! But I dont want them to do it by the promise of violent force (government)! do it voluntarily, have free market NGO's put a little logo on whatever food they have inspected, and you will find the non inspected food will quickly become less popular, just like with NGO GMO labelling. consumer pressure and consumer choice. sure, some idiots still use BP gasoline because they have no morality, but i think that goes back to the public being stupid, not a problem inherent in free markets. I can respect the argument that the USA is too stupid for free market capitalism. But I do not respect the argument that free market capitalism never works because people are always stupid. As I said before, the reason people are stupid today, is in large part due to governments around the world. The government is doing textbook classic problem-reaction-solution I have reply very specifically to your argument but here I think we need to take a step back before even discussing it. Without government regulation and government enforced 'intellectual property' we would all be driving electric cars 20 years ago or earlier. Without government GM wouldnt even exist today if I understand correctly. Look, the free market does not work well for sheeple, I do not deny it. But again, the problem there is not lack of government regulation, but the fact that a large portion of the population are mindless robots. No one forced you to buy the GM car, in a free market there would be a very different situation in the automobile industry. Agreed, again. But what is the cause? Uninformed people, a monopolistic economy with globalist corporations, all things created and sponsored by big government. We agree on reality pretty much 100%, the question is what is the cause of things, whether things should be voluntary or forced, etc. thats up to you to decide from your historical research, and the conclusion you draw will come from there. All I can do is advise you from my own research that the official history is one big giant lie, hiding in plain sight.
Whats with all the anger? If you need that much anger to make your point, I dont think you are worth the time debating.
Sorry pal, did I hurt your feelings? How about I edit out all the big bad swears for you? UPDATE: There ya go, now it's just passion!
Not quite, but why dont you now explain why you think you are such a manly mature adult and I am childish because I want to have a calm debate? What I said is true, using that kind of anger in your argment shows you are the one ideologically entrenched, and that you dont really want to find the truth with an open mind, but to confirm your ideology with emotional arguments.