I literally said none of that. Please stop attributing things to me that were not expressed. You're not a mind reader; and my use of language is not a result of emotional distress, but rather emphasis. I've capitulated to your (arguably pointless) criticism. Can we deal with the substance of the debate now, or would you rather keep pressing your ad homs?
great argument. I would question whether those are freemarkets or just monopolistic slavery. However to make it simple, I agree that free markets and maybe even individualism do not work in places with abject poverty and no education. Is the problem that people are abjectly poor and uneducated, or that they have a free market? Think about why, not just what. problem-reaction-solution ... Yes, monetary and property. Do you actually deny that regulation results in less freedom of those things? good argument. There is nothing imaginary about differing levels of freedom from government. Modern academic understanding of human history is a joke, debunked 70 years ago at the latest. Since you provide no context or basis for this rant, I will have to make assumptions about your meaning. If you are basing your argument by saying there is no such thing as free will, I dont necessarily disagree, but there is definitely such thing as the amount of choices you have in a situation, and when your choiuces are limited by agents of government... you have less choices. let me explain myself instead of just replying to your rant. I will quote the piece you are talking about first "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." By natural free state I meant was not having government limit your choices. What is imaginary about such a thing?
Implication is a word in the dictionary, you alone started and finished the ad hominem, guess what, I cannot type instantly fast, but I was replying while you wrote that. I am analyzing your post, in a much less subjective and ignorantly assuming manner than you did mine. " Sorry pal, did I hurt your feelings? How about I edit out all the big bad swears for you?" I wont apologize for having critical thinking ability to understand implication
Seems like somebody is letting their emotions take hold... or sorry, is that just the implied by your behaviour? So you have chosen to respond (clearly without reading the documents I cited), and then decide to hit the eject button? Intellectual dishonesty as it's very wrost. Good thing I won't let you have the last word That shit's mine. Me telling you that you're wrong is not an ad hominem, pal. implication =/= accusation. In fact, I went as far as to clarify for you, but you're content with thinking you know my intentions better than I do. So much for the principle of charity, huh? Maybe you should have asked instead of just continuing with your indignant momentum. That's often why I pose my speculations as a question, and not pretend to be a mindreader of people. So far, you're the only one who's done any name-calling. Yet I'm the one denigrating this exchange? EDIT: Here, you might find this thread abundantly useful. Go ape shit feces!
So the way it works is that if enough people become sickened or die from eating the wrong foods (I'm talking short-term, not a lifetime of cholesterol-rich junk food), that's our sign to no longer support those brands, Those "poor suckers" are the economically disadvantaged, those without the resources or skill to investigate these brands, and basically anyone with the misfortune of picking up the wrong carton of milk because they were distracted or in a hurry. I don't think a reasonable person would embrace the idea of playing Russian roulette like that. And the point isn't that someone hypothetically forced me to buy a GM car. The point is that the ignition switch in a new GM car should be every bit as reliable and safe as the ignition switch in a new Bentley. To say that investigating any and all safety issues with a new car (aside from the air-bags, crash tests, etc.) is the consumer's duty is placing a lot of responsibility on the average person. Should we have to ask car manufacturers if their brakes are known to fail at certain speeds? Or whether our coffee beans are free trade or the sugar they put in it isn't tainted with pesticides to an unsafe degree? In our world, these concerns are taken care of before the product reaches the store shelves. When opposing arguments are waved off with, essentially, "If they die, they die," I'm not convinced that it's the best plan. If there's a place I'm willing to put up with a lot of red tape and regulation, it's regarding the things I put in or on my body. I've seen enough episodes of Kitchen Nightmare to know that when the cat's away, the mice will play.
well, yes, if someone drinks poison, they die, its not murder unless you put it to their lips. Do you think we should have a right to not kill oneself? that government should prevent everyone from killing themselves? we have to be consistent with logic to make an argument using that logic. -Companies in a free market would not intentionally sell bad food because in a free market, if you perform worse than your competition, you are gone. I know how the meat in 1911 was 10% human hands and 20% mouse meat (made up statistics), because that was hardly a free market, and again, I completely agree that there are obstacles to a free market that must be overcome such as lack of education, oligarchy, and abject poverty of the masses. -When people hear there will be no more food regulation, do you think they will not react? Of course they will start trying to educate themselves at least a little about what is safe. - Most importantly, I will say this again: I am NOT against inspections: we can have NGO's do the exact same thing the FDA does but better, and people will only buy foods with those trusted NGO labels. Same thing, without the threat of violent force, and it would work much better than the monsanto-owned FDA, because in a free market the trusted NGO's would have to compete and would haven to represent public interest unlike monsanto-owned FDA. Well, the reality I see is that government regulation is completely failing not succeeding, because the government is property of global corporations. Especially talking about pesticides, did you see the new glyphosate harvard study? The monsanto owned FDA is not about to ban glyphosate, but and NGO would. I am all for safety. I do not think the government has our safety in mind whatsoever, that they can regulate well or efficiently, or that inspection should be forced instead of voluntary. Why do I get robbed by the government to pay for regulating the monopoly economy so that uneducated people dont kill themselves? Should I have my money taken from me to ban all hammers so that people dont hit themselves? Thats something that effects the body. We will never be able to prevent every person from injuring themselves, attempting to do so inevitably leads to authoritarianism and more injury and death than was being prevented. Why does the government have a monopoly on inspections and why do you trust them as inspectors? A free market solution like GMO labelling would be the best option IMO. Lack of education, current oligarchy and abject poverty are problems that prevent the free market. But I submit to you that every one of the problems is manufactured by the government in order to create problem-reaction-solution. We would most certainly have to solve all these problems before implementing a total free market. And once again, I completely agree that a free market with an uninformed, controlled population would have terrible results, history does show that. But with access to information today the situation is completely different. There are still obstacles though, I would never suggest we just go straight into free market, we might have to temporarily increase regulation before doing so, and we need to make sure the NGO's are there to inspect.
then explain it instead of just saying it protects it... what in the constitution says you have the right to give homeless people food? religious expressions because these are church groups? no sorry thats weak and nowhere in the religious doctrine does it say you have to feed the homeless to practice the religion so yeah health is more important than religious freedom (and you would agree too if this topic was about human sacrificing, which IS apart of some religions but IS BANNED in the US), or should i say my right and the homeless peoples right to not being fed poison or harmful food is more important than religion