Yelp and other review sites are a good guideline for finding good restaurants and comparing opinions. I'm not arguing that. Reviews can also faked, bought, be unobjective, and there is no absolutely no scientific basis, quality control, standards, or controlled baseline by which to measure those reviews. They are opinions. This is the same circular logic that xmaspoo tried to use with warranties: Nutritional labels are a good thing, as long as they are not forced by the government, but complete, standardized, nutritional labels exist only because the government enforces them. Nutritional labeling provides us with a consistent, scientific, national baseline that allow us to accurately compare the ingredients in the food we buy. The government provides us with a public database of companies that fail to adequately disclose the nutritional content in the food they are selling. You can go online and see what companies have been inspected and cited for mislabeling. The difference between this and an online review site is the aforementioned controlled baseline and scientific standards, vs. some average joe's opinion. A perfect example of this would be in cosmetic labeling. INCI labeling gives us an international standard by which to read ingredient labels without the inclusion of marketing fluff. Again, you are completely oversimplifying the issue. If nutritional labels are nothing more then a marketing tool, then it doesn't boil down to "good companies will have good labels and bad companies won't". If the market demands nutritional labels, then ALL companies will see the value in adding them. Shady companies will still have them, but the question is, how will you know those ingredient listings are accurate and complete? Do you have the resources or the knowledge ability to test everything you eat? In the most simplistic and obvious example, if a company is selling a dangerous product then it may come to light right away, consumers respond, and the company goes out of business. Win for the free market! But this ignores the fact that many ingredients don't make you sick right away, but rather can take years of regular ingestion to cause serious, life threatening diseases. In the mean time, that company is making millions of dollars, and no one is the wiser because the online opinions tell you nothing more then "this tastes yummy!" I know that the free market solution to this is underwriters and private testing companies. But if those underwriters and private testing companies are not regulated, then you just end up with the same problem. Again, I do think the free market can work within micro-economies, because it gives the communities the ability to know their food producers, set up their own testing methods and scientific standards, and make educated choices. But, on a national and international level, when our food and ingredients (and their containers) are being imported from all over the world, without any standards you lose that ability to make an informed choice, and you are no more "free" then you are now.
i think we are standing back to back looking at the same view. there is no regulatory power better than the dollar spent by the customer. for example: you mentioned food labeling, and i agree. what is a better incentive to a company to label their food than the customer demand for it? buy food that is labeled and don't buy food that isn't. all the regulatory labeling process has accomplished is adding costs to small suppliers (that they cannot afford) and has actually PREVENTED small companies from labeling their foods in a manner that will increase sales and make them a competitor. because the regulatory gods that be have decided that there is no difference between gmo and non gmo foods. the companies that use gmo foodstuffs are rich enough and powerful enough to force the regulatory apparatus to favor them and to limit competition, because they know that people really don't want to eat that shit. and this is the path that all regulations take! it will always be the rich and the powerful abusing the system for their own advantage, the only recourse is no regulations, and let people buy or not buy based on their own criteria. freedom is not a zero sum equation, we can all be free as we want. what would prevent you from starting or joining a consumer advocacy group that focused on food and food safety analysis? why does it have to be a centrally planned omnibus? more authority = more corruption. i am sorry, but that is just the way it is. you and the well meaning people who think like you will NEVER engineer corruption, greed and downright criminality out of the human species, the only thing that we can do is limit the authourty that any one person ever has over another.
I've covered this in the post above, but we were probably posting at the same time, so I won't repeat myself. Disclosing your ingredients in a standardized manner shouldn't cost a company any additional money. I'm probably one of the biggest champions of small business on here, but if they do not know the ingredients in the product they are selling and provide an accurate weight of the contents, then they have absolutely no business selling their product to the public in the first place. This just shows your misunderstanding and misconception of labeling laws. You are actually arguing against yourself now. Food producers are absolutely free to disclose that their foods are made with non-GMOs. What they cannot do is make false claims about their non-GMO food. There is no scientific evidence that non-genetically modified foods are healthier then GMOs, and making such claims is fraud. Yes, there is a public perception that they are healthier, but that perception is not based on any scientific data. What the FDA has ruled is that companies who DO use GMOs should not be forced to disclose this on their labels. Isn't this what you want? Isn't this what you've been arguing in favor of this entire time? Do you want the government to FORCE this upon food producers? There are many small farmers who use non-heirloom seeds. If they are forced to now label their foods as genetically modified, then that false public perception would likely put them out of business. How many times have I said in this thread that there will be corruption and abuses of power? I've never said NEVER. With a system of trade as large as it is here in the US, of course there will be greed, corruption, fraud, criminality. I'm not speaking in absolutes.
You want to be free to not make decisions using deductive reasoning. Why should I have to worry about the quality of my food, that is some other person's job. The real circular logic is suggesting that you as a consumer want to be free, yet your version of "free" involves a tradeoff that places restrictions on the producer and seller of the foods. Stick with the regulatory option, big corps will still do what they want, write some more regulations, big corps still do what they want to your food. Streamline the process and these factory farms actually have to compete with your local food producers that currently have to sell their foods at 1.5-2 times the value of the factory farm foods because of the regulatory structure in place. This would shoulder a lot more importance onto consumer advocate groups, people will actually care what they have to say.
In general, this is the basis for the entire Liberal argument. " I want to be protected, so that I can be free to not worry about the decisions i am making. This should be provided at the expense of everyone else, so as to not incur mostly upon myself." Meanwhile she mentions tradeoffs which are obvious. She literally admitted that there is a trade off to actually having freedom, and then made the statement that she does not want that, she would rather somebody else make sure she cannot even make a wrong decision.
No, I'm saying is that your idea of "true freedom" simply doesn't exist outside of a philosophy discussion. Small producers will ALWAYS have to sell their goods at a higher price then larger producers. This has absolutely nothing to do with regulations, and everything to do with volume, overhead, and buying power. I'm not opposed to consumer advocacy groups. Consumer advocacy groups are responsible for a large percentage of the regulations you are so heavily protesting (even though I'm still not sure exactly what regulations you are against, other then in the most general sense). Consumer groups are effective because they give the consumer the power to lobby on a more equal level with large corporations, and shape policy within specific industries. Consumer organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia On the other hand, consumer advocacy groups don't always have your best interest at heart, and often work more for industry then they do the for the consumer. The Conservation Law Foundation would be one example of a consumer group that uses faulty science, lies and distortion of the truth to lobby against nuclear power, while heavily promoting alternative energy sources. A group like this could have the ability to shut down perfectly legitimate, safe businesses by playing upon people's fears and ignorance of a highly complicated industry. There needs to be a strong balance between public opinion, science, government, consumer groups and business. Without each part of the equation, we lose that balance, and power shifts to the piece with the most money.
1. Who is going to regulate government regulators? Then who regulates those regulators? Short answer is lobbyists, not you or I. Now adverse to that, if its a free market, you and i are the only regulators. Yes this means you have to pay attention to what you are buying and consuming, and if you don't you might get fucked. That's the tradeoff you mentioned before. 2. What are you even making this statement based off of? Because there is no national standard, i would not be able to determine if the products i am buying on the micro level are good for me or not? That makes no sense. National standards do nothing to effect my ability to research what i'm consuming.
Jesus fucking Christ on a stick. It's amazing how you guys have the ability to absolutely distort an argument down to the lowest common denominator. This is why conservative politicians like Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain are so popular. You can not see beyond "THEY WANT TO MAKE MY DECISIONS FOR ME!". Anyone with an IQ of 12 can understand that argument, no matter how baseless it actually is. What you refuse to do is look at the complexity and intricacies of our industry and infrastructure and look at the interconnectedness of it all and try to come to a reasonable solution, because that would actually take critical thinking.
So again, doesn't this go back to my argument that the problem is with lobbyists, not regulations? In theory, WE regulate the government. We do it through our votes and through the market. Again, I'm not opposed to capitalist system. If we feel a business is corrupting the government, we still have the choice to not do business with them. If your argument is that regulations only exist to favor big business, then you have the ability to counter that by supporting small businesses. Trading off one freedom for another isn't "true freedom". I'm a consumer, not a food manufacturer. Why on earth would I want to trade in my freedoms as a consumer to give manufacturers more freedom to fuck me over. I'm not even remotely arguing that we shouldn't be responsible for the choices we make. Right now you have the freedom to walk into a store, and have a very reasonable level of assurance that the products you buy will be safe, consistent, and advertised correctly without fraudulent statements, and that you have an established system of recourse if they are not. This is something that you are completely taking for granted. When I say "reasonable level of assurance", I do NOT mean that I want the government to protect me from everything that is evil and unholy. I do NOT mean that you do not have to think about what you purchase. I do NOT mean that you have should have no responsibility for what you buy or the choices you make. I do NOT mean that you shouldn't research what you purchase. I do NOT mean that the system is perfect and we shouldn't look at it critically. I'm pretty sure I'm using the term "microeconomy" incorrectly, but it's simple and I've already explained it. What I mean is that the free market does work on the most basic of levels. You go to your neighbors house and buy a tomato from him. If his tomato is rotten, you don't buy it. If he seems shady, you don't have to support him financially. It's a completely equal exchange of goods. However, when you have a large corporation, that has the resources to target their advertising, import their ingredients from all over the world, label their products however they want to without any standardization, buy positive reviews, without any recourse, this is NOT an equal exchange of goods, and you have completely lost your freedom to make an informed decision.
"Distorting a argument down to the lowest common denominator" is another term for simplification. Over complication of an argument does not make it right, or substantial. It does provide you the opportunity to dodge answering questions about the simple concepts underlying these arguments. Simple is better, ask any scientist, philosopher, mathematician, entrepreneur, basically anybody. I did not make the argument that they want to make the decisions for me. ( even thought they do) I, and others here, are making the argument that YOU want them to make the decisions for us, so that YOU don't have to make these decisions for yourself. How exactly am i refusing to look at the complexities and intricacies of our industry/infrastructure? I have taken a very hard look at these things, and based on what i have learned, i am under the impression that is is impossible to ever take every factors involved into consideration. Your absolutely right that economies are vastly complex, interconnected, and interactive. However your absolutely wrong that any centralized organization can possibly even fathom, let alone control, such an extensive complicated and unpredictable system.
What exactly does Bachmann or Cain have to do with any of this? Ad hominem doesn't make your point of view any more correct. I would like to know why you think the hostility to other people regulating your decisions in food consumptions is "baseless". The regulators are naturally in bed with the corporations, so where is the peoples interest in this? Big business and government are partners in plunder, rather than competitors. Consumer advocate groups cannot mandate regulations, only suggest them. Voluntary safety measures are better than mandated ones. When you can make decisions about the regulatory environment of food producers, your decisions now can be bought by the highest bidder looking for an unfair edge over competitors. If a food producer doesn't comply with recommended safety standards, you don't buy their product. If no safety standards are voluntarily mentioned on the label, don't buy the product. The world is so complex that your ideas cannot work is not a valid argument. Critical thinking is more then just tweaking a current system, but rather considering whether the whole approach to food safety is flawed from the start.
Without government involvement lobbying does not even exist. Are you really under the impression that its more practical to complicate a situation further, rather than simplify it? If power always corrupts, is it not better to simply remove the position of power, rather than try to attempt the complicated and often ineffectual process of regulating it to make it work? At the very least, when you take the more complicated route, it ALWAYS incurs more cost. ( before you even determine whether its successful or not) I disagree that i can walk into a strore and be reasonably assured that what i buy wont make me sick. Most of the factors that will damage my health in my lifetime are largely unknown. To put it simply You cannot simultaneously have the freedom to choose, and the freedom to not make a mistake in those choices. you necessarily sacrifice one for the other. You seem to be making the argument that you have the right to a bottom line as to how far your mistakes can go. I disagree with this entirely. As to the " in theory we regulate the government" statement. I simply cannot fathom how you beieve that we realistically have the power to control our government given its current legal structure. Theory means less than shit to reality, and the reality i, they simply do not represent our best interest in its current form.
I was countering one ad hominem with another. A reasonable countermeasure to this would be to support small businesses that aren't in bed with the government and regulators. An unreasonable approach is "OMG REGULATIONS ARE BAD!! GET RID OF THEM ALL!!" Corporations can't mandate regulations either. Have you ever heard of GMPs? Or Good Manufacturing Practices. This is a guideline set by the FDA for food, cosmetic and drug manufacturers. It's exactly what you are talking about... a voluntary system. GMPs are only mandatory within the pharmaceutical industry. The reason why GMPs work so well on a voluntary basis, and not a mandatory basis, is because they provide the national guideline of standards, based on decades of scientific research, that help businesses create a safe product without requiring mandatory regulations. How unreasonable!!! So where ARE your ideas working? Saying that your ideas work, over and over again using the same circular logic, is also not a valid argument. You argue that warranties are good! Nutritional labels are good! Ingredient labels are good! Food safety standards are good! Good manufacturing practices are good! Yet, all of these things are products of the government not private industry.
You are taking one sentence entirely out of context. I've already qualified *exactly* what I mean by this statement throughout this entire debate.
I think your in denial. No matter how complex, and involved your statements are, if they do not stand up to the simple questions and differences that make up the subject, then your arguments are contradictory. The reason i selected that single sentence is because i feel it most accurately and simply, states your position. The arguments you made that inllustrate "exactly" how you feel about it, all are in agreement with that single sentence i highlighted. If all your arguments are in agreement with it, then you cannot say that's not what you are arguing. Now if you disagree that the single statement i highlighted is an accurate portrayal of all your other arguments, then your other arguments should necessarily be in disagreement with that statement, in which case perhaps you should start again from the beginning, and focus on answering these questions from the most simple points of view, so that you prevent your arguments from clashing.
So even when I flat out say that is not the argument I'm making, and give you clear, thought out, reasonable statements explaining exactly what I mean, you're still going to reduce it to what YOU believe. My arguments don't contradict each other at all, because I'm arguing in favor of BALANCE between consumer freedom, corporate freedom, and government regulation. I don't deal in "absolutes". Absolute freedom and an absolute free market are fallacies that allow the debate to deteriorate to the most simplistic of levels, and create a situation where you are able to ignore facts and history, and draw conclusions based on nothing other then what you "feel".
An unreasonable approach is "Things aren't working out, lets tweak the regulatory structure, as we've been doing the entire time." Guess who can give exemptions and write different standards for one company versus others. GMPs are not specific, they are general requirements that must be met, flexible regulations ≠ voluntary. GMPs - Section One: Current Food Good Manufacturing Practices False dichotomy. Insufficient investigation ≠ false. Same as you saying: If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false. You confused mandated with voluntary. None of these things have to be mandated.
I did not say your arguments contradicted each other, my opinion is that your arguments all agree. However when i simplified those arguments into a single statement, you said that statement was false. What I'm saying is if all your statements agree with each other, then its nonsensical for you to pick the one you like least, and pretend its not true to say you feel that way. Since you tried to pretend that the simplified version i highlighted was untrue of your over all viewpoint, i pointed out that that would mean there was a flaw in the logic somewhere along the line. However, that was more of a hypothecial to cover all bases. Saying you believe in a balance between government, corporate, and consumer power over the market, agrees completely with the statement i highlighted before. Since creating a balance between government, corporate, and consumer power satisfies YOUR opinion that you have the right to a bottom line on the impact of your mistakes, you believe it should be provided to you, at a cost that incurs upon everyone, instead of just yourself. Surely part of your defense for this is that everyone else is also afforded the "freedom" you feel your entitled to. The problem is, not everyone is satisfied with this as you are.