The EPA - Keeping us breathing since 1970!

[Aimless]

This is worrying: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...68C39320100913

I bet we wouldn't have this sort of problem if the FDA didn't exist.

[Aimless]

You're the one using backward logic, GGT. You're saying libertarian ideals have been tried, but they haven't. You're taking one aspect of libertarianism, (which is freedom from government regulation) and saying that because it's been tried, that libertarian principles don't work. That's not how it works. It would be akin to me saying that because China has a socialist healthcare system, but as people are still getting sick due to their lax pollution controls that socialist healthcare has been tried and just doesn't work. It's absurd.

Something about your posts here brings to mind the ancient Communist objection that Communism in its pure form has never been tried so we can't say that Communism sucks Here's the thing: various aspects of Communist ideals and practices contribute to varying extents to the success or failure of various aspects of Communist societies. The same goes for Libertarianism and Libertarian societies. Unless you think that criminal liability will negate all the dangers of not having regulations, you should recognise that we can draw some conclusions about Libertarianism even from imperfect (rather, incomplete) implementations of Libertarian principles.

Because that's good customer service, and therefore good business.

And yet there are plenty of businesses that do great while offering bad-to-atrocious customer service and shafting their customers in various ways.

Because nobody would want to shop at a place that would rather counter-sue their customers for killing them with bad products then put forth a modest effort to test their products. People would much rather shop at their competitor that had the Better Homes and Garden's seal of approval. You know, the store that didn't try to kill them.

This is an oversimplification of both the decision-making of customers as well as the magnitude of the challenges faced by both businesses and their customers. It's almost farcical. If you look at your country just a few decades ago you'll find that people were happy to cuddle with lead based paint and use lots of leaded fuel etc.

False dichotomy. You don't think that a retailer like Walmart, or a private organization would be created that would do the same checks that the USDA does? Consumer advocates would suddenly cease to exist? Please.

Wow you just have to look at their track record wrt every safety issue that is currently being regulated.

You are conflating lots of disparate ideas and scenarios here, few of which actually support your point. Regulations wouldn't have prevented lead paint from being used before it was known to be dangerous. Regulations also didn't discover those dangers. The notion that you are putting forward is that were it not for government regulations and regulators, home owners, manufacturers, and industry leaders would all choose to produce and consume dangerous products. Without government regulations, would you choose to buy lead paint and put it in your home? Without government regulations, do you purchase tilapia from China? You seem to believe that it is only by the grace of government that people can make intelligent and informed decisions.

See above. Re. the final sentence, people can make far more intelligent and far more informed decisions far easier "by the grace of the government". The FDA does the legwork for you, and every single time you agree with the FDA your decision is as good as any decision can be in that matter. Name a single company that can and do bring the same resources to bear as the FDA does in its evaluations.

In fact, ironically, one of the largest polluters in the world isn't BP, or Shell, or any other oil company. It's the US government. When the US Government set about testing nuclear weapons, did they consider or care about the downwinders? In a lawsuit filed against the government by individuals affected by nuclear testing, was the government held to account for its actions? Did it offer up any assistance, or take any responsibility for the increase in cancer and related deaths in the affected areas? Was it held liable for its actions? No. The lawsuit was dismissed because governmental agencies have sovereign immunity. This? This is the organization you look to for protection?

This is "the organisation" you're looking to for protection as well The police? The prosecutors and courts you want to rely on to successfully implement your exclusive criminal liability solution?

[Draco]

Right, and how do you know they test it for safety? How do you know the safety standards are the same? Who would tell you what safety standards those even are? And what if there's one product which slips this safety inspection and harms someone? Keep in mind that you can't inspect each and every good leaving a factory and still have moderate prices.

I'll have it tested on people like you

(I'm joking before you get all PC or dramatic)

[Aimless]

I'll have it tested on people like you

Which will only tell you something (very little ) about its effects on angry middle-aged German men

[Draco]

Something about your posts here brings to mind the ancient Communist objection that Communism in its pure form has never been tried so we can't say that Communism sucks Here's the thing: various aspects of Communist ideals and practices contribute to varying extents to the success or failure of various aspects of Communist societies. The same goes for Libertarianism and Libertarian societies. Unless you think that criminal liability will negate all the dangers of not having regulations, you should recognise that we can draw some conclusions about Libertarianism even from imperfect (rather, incomplete) implementations of Libertarian principles.

Yeah but to be on the safe side, lets not "experiment" with communism again. The horror it inflicted on a good portion of the world is incomparable to anything libertarianism has ever offered..
I don't know any exact figures, in fact I don't have to because it's more than obvious but: communism (has) enslaved how many people? Killed how many? Destroyed how many countries? Silenced how many?

Look at it this way: 19th century UK/America. They were supposed to be as close to a libertarian/laissez-faire state as any ever has and look at the amazing feats of discoveries and progress that they made with the industrial revolution (and continued to do so for well over a century). No one can argue otherwise, but todays world would not have been possible without the industrial revolution (and libertarianism thank you).

Now tell me what communism has contributed to this world? Aside from countless deaths. Oh right, just that, deaths.
It doesn't matter that it has never been tried in its "purest form", fact remains that any political philosophy that does not recognise property rights, does not recognise the life of a man as belonging to him/her (and no one else), will only lead to enslavement.

[Khendraja'aro]

Which will only tell you something (very little ) about its effects on angry middle-aged German men

Mad. Not angry. And, yes, I'm referencing both meanings

[Draco]

Which will only tell you something (very little ) about its effects on angry middle-aged German men

Well so long as the product is deemed to be un/safe, I won't care what happens to the middle-aged German man

[Khendraja'aro]

Look at it this way: 19th century UK/America. They were supposed to be as close to a libertarian/laissez-faire state as any ever has and look at the amazing feats of discoveries and progress that they made with the industrial revolution (and continued to do so for well over a century). No one can argue otherwise, but todays world would not have been possible without the industrial revolution (and libertarianism thank you).

Yeeees, what a great period of time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_period#Poverty

Then again, the US is taking great strides back towards a Dickensian Utopia.

[Enoch the Red]

And yet there are plenty of businesses that do great while offering bad-to-atrocious customer service and shafting their customers in various ways.

And you are free to shop elsewhere.

This is an oversimplification of both the decision-making of customers as well as the magnitude of the challenges faced by both businesses and their customers. It's almost farcical. If you look at your country just a few decades ago you'll find that people were happy to cuddle with lead based paint and use lots of leaded fuel etc.

Before the dangers were known, absolutely. Afterwards, citation needed. You think parents were chipping off lead paint chips and handing them to their kids as candy? Really? It also should be noted that much of the research regarding the dangers of lead paint wasn't done by government institutions and regulators.

Wow you just have to look at their track record wrt every safety issue that is currently being regulated.

Which shows what a bang up job regulations have done! You know, you bring to mind the classical regulator's objection that government regulations in their most pure form have never been tried, so we can't say regulation sucks.

See above. Re. the final sentence, people can make far more intelligent and far more informed decisions far easier "by the grace of the government". The FDA does the legwork for you, and every single time you agree with the FDA your decision is as good as any decision can be in that matter. Name a single company that can and do bring the same resources to bear as the FDA does in its evaluations.

Because the FDA is currently the organization doing the legwork, the FDA can be the only organization capable of doing the leg work. Gotcha.

This is "the organisation" you're looking to for protection as well The police? The prosecutors and courts you want to rely on to successfully implement your exclusive criminal liability solution?

This is the organization I'd like to institute protections from, absolutely.

[Khendraja'aro]

And you are free to shop elsewhere.

Right. Heh. How naive can a single person be? You're setting a new record here!

And I wonder how your precious free market would have gone about introducing catalytic converters all on its own.

Oh, wait, it wouldn't have.

[Aimless]

And you are free to shop elsewhere.

...

Before the dangers were known, absolutely. Afterwards, citation needed. You think parents were chipping off lead paint chips and handing them to their kids as candy? Really? It also should be noted that much of the research regarding the dangers of lead paint wasn't done by government institutions and regulators.

http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst29.html

1887 - US medical authorities diagnose childhood lead poisoning

1897 - lead poisoning among Queensland children is documented

1904 - Child lead poisoning linked to lead-based paints (article in Australian Medical Gazette by J. Gibson)
...

1914 - Pediatric lead-paint poisoning death from eating crib paint is described
...

1920 - Introduction of tetraethyl lead as a key for improvement of engine performance

1921 - National Lead Company (USA) admits lead is a poison

1922 - League of Nations bans white-lead interior paint; US declines to adopt
...

1923 – First tetraethyl lead poisoning deaths occur
...

1943- Report concludes eating lead paint chips causes physical and neurological disorders, behavior, learning and intelligence problems in children

1952 – many cases of children lead poisoning associated with white- lead paint are reported and publicized in popular press in USA
...

1971- Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act passed
...

1978 – USA bans white lead paint (limit of lead in paint below 0.06%)

http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/a...ad-regulation/

1900s: Lead was regarded as a highly toxic chemical, with lead-based paint regarded as the most identifiable hazard. If a child ate paint chips, people recognized it could cause seizure, coma, and death. If it didn’t traumatically harm the child, he or she may have learning and behavioral disabilities.

1922: Lead was first introduce into gasoline, immediately drawing headlines concerning public health. The form of lead in gasoline was known as tetraethyl lead and it raised the octane level of gasoline, resulting in “premium” gas for high-performance engines.

1924: Five workers at a New Jersey plant died, with four of them going “insane” before their death. The New York Times (subscription) covered the story, and New York City, Philadelphia, and other jurisdictions banned the sale of leaded gasoline.

1930s: The industries rejected scientific evidence, claiming there was no proof of causation and tried to blame the children and families as being irresponsible for allowing children to eat the paint chips, claiming that they were “sub-normal to start with.”

1965: A geochemist named Clair Patterson in Greenland brought the airborne lead issue into American consciousness. Until then, industry experts claimed only workers were at risk for lead poisoning, and that because lead has always been naturally in the air, it must be safe. Using ice core samples, Patterson found that higher levels of lead existed in recent samples than older ice. He further concluded that the amount of lead Americans had in their blood was 100 times greater than natural levels.

1970: Nixon signed the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law on December 31st [...]

1984: The U.S. Senate considered banning the use of lead in gasoline, with Vernon Houk, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Environmental Heath, reporting that “if no lead had been allowed in gasoline since 1977, there would have been approximately 80 percent fewer children identified with lead toxicity.”

Citation provided, you piece it together. I have to concede that the FDA can't have done any research before it came into existence, you are absolutely right about that. Since it's come into existence it's done a great job of keeping industry in check. You can thank them for saving your great grandmother from being packed full of antipsychotics among other things.

Which shows what a bang up job regulations have done!

I meant look at their track record wrt regulated things before those things were regulated.

Because the FDA is currently the organization doing the legwork, the FDA can be the only organization capable of doing the leg work. Gotcha.

Can you point out any non-governmental organisations in the US that did what the FDA does as well and as thoroughly? Without the money, the interest, the resources and the power this sort of thing doesn't get done. You may well be correct in your belief that others have the interest but do you really think any of those have the money, the resources and the power the US govt has?

This is the organization I'd like to institute protections from, absolutely.

[Enoch the Red]

...

http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst29.html

http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/a...ad-regulation/

Citation provided, you piece it together. I have to concede that the FDA can't have done any research before it came into existence, you are absolutely right about that. Since it's come into existence it's done a great job of keeping industry in check. You can thank them for saving your great grandmother from being packed full of antipsychotics among other things.

The majority of the examples stated are hardly academic studies (including the newspaper articles, many would fall under what Khend would bemoan as anecdotal evidence); the major academic studies I've seen on lead started in the 1970's.

I meant look at their track record wrt regulated things before those things were regulated.

I don't think you're getting my point at all. Deregulation is one element of libertarianism, but as I've said, without the proper judicial controls and outlets it's essentially crony capitalism.

Can you point out any non-governmental organisations in the US that did what the FDA does as well and as thoroughly? Without the money, the interest, the resources and the power this sort of thing doesn't get done. You may well be correct in your belief that others have the interest but do you really think any of those have the money, the resources and the power the US govt has?

You're right. We're powerless.

Of course there's no organization that currently exists to compete with the USDA and FDA. There's been no need for one. I'd wager that the Gates Foundation could set one up, if they so desired, but if it were created today it would be redundant. You're applying current criteria to an alternate and completely disparate system.

[Khendraja'aro]

Again, Enoch, do you honestly think that something like catalytic converters for cars would have come into existance with your precious free market?

Additionally, your ideal only deals with direct effects you can make a criminal charge with to a single entity.

Take the exhaust of factories as an example. Now, those exhausts were pretty nasty. Which led to the construction of very high exhaust towers so the exhaust would not pollute the immediate vicinity but be spread over a wider area.
Only, those exhausts are not gone. So, now we have a whole industry practicing this method which then leads to a severe diminishment of air quality for the whole country.

Here's the kicker, though: You don't have an individual factory or company causing this. It's a whole industry.

So, what now? Want to drag several hundred factory owners before a judge? And who would do that dragging? The affected individuals who then first would have to prove that their condition is indeed worsened by those factories? The whole idea is nonsensical.

You're ignoring it again and again and again: If you have an area with a cumulative effect (like air quality), your idea. simply. does. not. work.

Another fun example: The London Fog. Who exactly would you have dragged before a judge for that particular debacle? Every inhabitant of London, or what?

Still another thought experiment: Four factories by different owners at the same river, each producing the same type of waste. Every one of them disposes of the waste by dumping it into the river, diluting it, so that when it leaves their pipes it's just under the dosage deemed safe.
Only that there are four of them doing that, so in reality the dosage in the river will be four times the limit.
And since they're doing that independently of each other, you can't really sue them...

[Enoch the Red]

Again, Enoch, do you honestly think that something like catalytic converters for cars would have come into existance with your precious free market?

If there was a market for it? Absolutely.

Additionally, your ideal only deals with direct effects you can make a criminal charge with to a single entity.

Take the exhaust of factories as an example. Now, those exhausts were pretty nasty. Which led to the construction of very high exhaust towers so the exhaust would not pollute the immediate vicinity but be spread over a wider area.
Only, those exhausts are not gone. So, now we have a whole industry practicing this method which then leads to a severe diminishment of air quality for the whole country.

Here's the kicker, though: You don't have an individual factory or company causing this. It's a whole industry.

So, what now? Want to drag several hundred factory owners before a judge? And who would do that dragging? The affected individuals who then first would have to prove that their condition is indeed worsened by those factories? The whole idea is nonsensical.

You're ignoring it again and again and again: If you have an area with a cumulative effect (like air quality), your idea. simply. does. not. work.

It's not nonsensical. If industries can be shown to be hurting the air quality in an area, they can and should be held accountable. If the effects are cumulative, then they would bear a proportional burden of the costs. If it's shown they were aware, or were made aware of the effect they were having, and willfully or negligently allowed it to keep happening then they would be criminally liable for the damage they caused.

Another fun example: The London Fog. Who exactly would you have dragged before a judge for that particular debacle? Every inhabitant of London, or what?

You're correct in that areas where pollution has become an accepted norm, and the populace indifferent, affecting a sea change would be more difficult. Outright legislation, in theory, could put an end to a given practice more quickly than a popular movement against pollution. In this specific instance, those mining and selling 'dirty' coal, (not that there is a truly 'clean' coal) would bear a portion of the responsibility, and should be treated accordingly.

Still another thought experiment: Four factories by different owners at the same river, each producing the same type of waste. Every one of them disposes of the waste by dumping it into the river, diluting it, so that when it leaves their pipes it's just under the dosage deemed safe.
Only that there are four of them doing that, so in reality the dosage in the river will be four times the limit.
And since they're doing that independently of each other, you can't really sue them...

...

This same thought experiment would apply to current regulations, Khen.

[CitizenCain]

Yeah, everyone here keeps telling me I don't know definition of terms, or I use them improperly.

I think you might be onto something there!

[Khendraja'aro]

If there was a market for it? Absolutely.

Right. Still naive, I see. There is no market for converters because the individual contribution of a car is small. It's when you have millions of cars, that's when the problem starts. How do you create a market for something the individual has no need for? Yes, you'll get the rational and the idealistic people. But the broad masses? Nope. It's a pipedream, my dear. Such things you can only have through legislation.

It's not nonsensical. If industries can be shown to be hurting the air quality in an area, they can and should be held accountable. If the effects are cumulative, then they would bear a proportional burden of the costs. If it's shown they were aware, or were made aware of the effect they were having, and willfully or negligently allowed it to keep happening then they would be criminally liable for the damage they caused.

Right. "They have to be shown" - that's a great idea. So, first we have to collect data, then we have to show that it's indeed them causing the damages, then we have to drag them to court, then we have to actually emerge victorious, and then they still have to change their ways. And while the court battle rages on for years, the air is still polluted.

You're correct in that areas where pollution has become an accepted norm, and the populace indifferent, affecting a sea change would be more difficult. Outright legislation, in theory, could put an end to a given practice more quickly than a popular movement against pollution. In this specific instance, those mining and selling 'dirty' coal, (not that there is a truly 'clean' coal) would bear a portion of the responsibility, and should be treated accordingly.

Why? Why should those mining coal be punished? They themselves don't burn it and you need coal for several industrial processes. Or do you think steel just appears from thin air?

This same thought experiment would apply to current regulations, Khen.

No. Your idea does not work because you're conflating general and individual responsibility. The one thing your idea would achieve: Any and all remaining industry in your country would get the hell out of Dodge. Because your ideas introduce a volatile and ever-changing goal post where a company suddenly becomes liable for stuff they previously did not have to take care of.

[Khendraja'aro]

Here's another example: You're a factory owner one of your products has shown to be harmful for one person in tenthousand test subjects. You release that data and sell your product - and suddenly you're dragged into court. There's a woman screaming: "He killed my baby!" Now, considering that you can't very well test on babies (it's frowned upon), that your product is indeed harmful in some cases and that the jury is not consisting of experts, you're found guilty and sentenced to prison.

Ain't that a scenario to make every factory owner absolutely want to invest in your country?

Here's a hint: Regulations not only protect the populace, they also protect the industry.

[GGT]

Who do you think tests your venison now? Do you think your butcher ships off samples of every piece of venison that is brought in to some CSI lab in Los Vegas funded by the USDA? A facility where they painstakingly verify it's genetically and prion-ically pure, and that the meat's lead content from the 12 gauge slug does not exceed the proscribed percentage set in stone by some flaming shrub, handed down from on high to Moses on Mt. Sinai? What mystical powers do you think your local health inspectors have? Do you think they are the ones following the hunters from the tree stand to your butcher's stoop?

No, you missed the point about testing or certifying meat. The butcher can trust the vendor because he knows that slaughter house processed the deer according to FDA or USDA Regulations, agreed to use/comply with certain standards, does their own internal quality control, passed inspections and keeps records. Plus random visits from board of health inspectors to check compliance. He knows the deer wasn't road-kill, or processed with a rusty knife on a tree stump, or stored unrefrigerated in the back of a pick-up truck.

That's your "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" right there. Now everyone in the food chain doesn't have to do their own research about these private or voluntary consumer groups you advocate, or figure out their standards. Same continuity of standards between PA and other states. I think most people find that to be a good thing. Seriously, who wants to check (or trust) Angie's List before buying a pound of meat?

[CitizenCain]

Right. "They have to be shown" - that's a great idea. So, first we have to collect data, then we have to show that it's indeed them causing the damages, then we have to drag them to court, then we have to actually emerge victorious, and then they still have to change their ways. And while the court battle rages on for years, the air is still polluted.

Guilty until proven innocent is your idea, and you think you have any business passing judgement on any other ideas?

Seriously, speaking of great ideas, look at the scientist proposing an idea so backwards that even Muslim theocracies stopped using it centuries ago.

No, you missed the point about testing or certifying meat.

Certification being a function only possible through the threat of force, and not by free association, right?

[GGT]

If there was a market for it? Absolutely.

It's not nonsensical. If industries can be shown to be hurting the air quality in an area, they can and should be held accountable. If the effects are cumulative, then they would bear a proportional burden of the costs. If it's shown they were aware, or were made aware of the effect they were having, and willfully or negligently allowed it to keep happening then they would be criminally liable for the damage they caused.

You're correct in that areas where pollution has become an accepted norm, and the populace indifferent, affecting a sea change would be more difficult. Outright legislation, in theory, could put an end to a given practice more quickly than a popular movement against pollution. In this specific instance, those mining and selling 'dirty' coal, (not that there is a truly 'clean' coal) would bear a portion of the responsibility, and should be treated accordingly.

We already know what the pre-regulation era looked like, and it was a bad time for workers and communities, air and water quality. Especially for poorer workers that relied on industry for their livelihood, in almost every industry, from paper mills to coal mines and foundries. Even when it didn't take a 20 year longitudinal study to prove disease and early death from choking smog and contaminated water, industry leaders weren't interested in using profits to make it better. Instead, they spent money to fight workers, legislators, regulations.

That's the laissez-faire libertarian scenario mentioned earlier. It's not that a populace is indifferent, but often powerless, even en masse. If workers are seen as expendable for the bottom line, and easily replaced, there's not much incentive from industry to change. Unless you ascribe to the notion of Benevolent Industrialists who want to Do The Right Thing for their workers, community, and nation....from a moral perspective?

edit:

That was a reference to minx's thread on TED talks about pragmatic wisdom, and incentivizing "moral" behavior.

[Enoch the Red]

Right. Still naive, I see. There is no market for converters because the individual contribution of a car is small. It's when you have millions of cars, that's when the problem starts. How do you create a market for something the individual has no need for? Yes, you'll get the rational and the idealistic people. But the broad masses? Nope. It's a pipedream, my dear. Such things you can only have through legislation.

Because there is clearly no market for appealing to the environmentally conscious crowd.

Why? Why should those mining coal be punished? They themselves don't burn it and you need coal for several industrial processes. Or do you think steel just appears from thin air?

It's not punishment, it's a responsibility.

Apparently you think coking coal is the same type of coal that was causing the London Fog. Coking coal is low in phosphorous and sulfur. The coal that was used in London was high in phosphorous and sulfur.

No. Your idea does not work because you're conflating general and individual responsibility. The one thing your idea would achieve: Any and all remaining industry in your country would get the hell out of Dodge. Because your ideas introduce a volatile and ever-changing goal post where a company suddenly becomes liable for stuff they previously did not have to take care of.

Again, the same argument can be made of current regulative environments. Or is there some Platonic regulative ideal that you're championing that will never need to be reformed?

When lead paint was discovered to be dangerous and was subsequently regulated, that changed the goal post, no? You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Should regulations adapt to changing environments? If so, you are introducing volatility into the market.

No, you missed the point about testing or certifying meat. The butcher can trust the vendor because he knows that slaughter house processed the deer according to FDA or USDA Regulations, agreed to use/comply with certain standards, does their own internal quality control, passed inspections and keeps records. Plus random visits from board of health inspectors to check compliance. He knows the deer wasn't road-kill, or processed with a rusty knife on a tree stump, or stored unrefrigerated in the back of a pick-up truck.

The butcher can trust a vendor who has been through the Better Homes and Gardens - Meat Edition verification process too. Or, for that matter, the United Meat Workers training process. Those programs can even have a membership renewal process, whereby members are required to submit to random inspections, yearly retraining, etc...

Whether you know it or not, under the current regulations you don't rate every butcher, or supermarket, or mom and pop store the same. There are stores you think are dirty, people whose hygiene you question, and businesses whose ethics you doubt. You likely don't shop there. Likewise, there are probably stores that give you an immediately positive impression when you first walk in, and who you know will go the extra mile to keep your business. You likely do shop there.

Of course, what I propose wouldn't allow SWAT teams to raid and arrest the deranged and nefarious hippies at Rawesome Foods. So I guess my plan does have some drawbacks.

That's your "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" right there. Now everyone in the food chain doesn't have to do their own research about these private or voluntary consumer groups you advocate, or figure out their standards. Same continuity of standards between PA and other states. I think most people find that to be a good thing. Seriously, who wants to check (or trust) Angie's List before buying a pound of meat?

It's simple. You buy meat labeled with the UMW seal of approval, you know you're getting a cut of meat that is up to the industry standards. You buy an unlabeled, greasy, vaguely meat shaped package, shucked into a bloody brown bag, then buyer-beware.

[GGT]

The butcher can trust a vendor who has been through the Better Homes and Gardens - Meat Edition verification process to. Or the United Meat Workers training process. Those programs can even have a membership renewal process, whereby members are required to submit to random inspections, yearly retraining, etc...

Sounds much like the USDA or FDA. So what's your beef again, simply that's a government agency? ( sorry about the pun)

Whether you know it or not, under the current regulations you don't rate every butcher, or supermarket, or mom and pop store the same. There are stores you think are dirty, people whose hygiene you question, and businesses whose ethics you doubt. You likely don't shop there. Likewise, there are probably stores that give you an immediately positive impression when you first walk in, and who you know will go the extra mile to keep your business. You likely do shop there.

Two different things---facilities vs products. And this isn't simply about "shopping choices", but interstate continuity and when facility choices are limited and consumers do need some protection. Ex: I may get stuck using a disgusting and filthy truck stop, 500 miles to the next place, but buying a bottle of water (from Coca Cola) or a sealed bag of Planter's peanuts most likely won't make me sick. On the outside chance it does, it's now easier to (1) report, (2) trace, and (3) hold those accountable. That's what you want, right---holding accountable parties liable?

Of course, what I propose wouldn't allow SWAT teams to raid and arrest the deranged and nefarious hippies at Rawesome Foods. So I guess my plan does have some drawbacks.

from your link:

Alcohol has also been linked with deaths, even though it’s legal. We don’t bust down the doors of breweries with SWAT teams or go raid the offices of cigarette manufacturers. Why we need a SWAT team, guns drawn, to make arrests of people selling milk is just beyond me. More as this unfolds.

Update. It looks like it may not have been a SWAT team after all, though at this point it’s hard to say. According to the LA Times

With no warning one weekday morning, investigators entered an organic grocery with a search warrant and ordered the hemp-clad workers to put down their buckets of mashed coconut cream and to step away from the nuts.

Then, guns drawn, four officers fanned out across Rawesome Foods in Venice. Skirting past the arugula and peering under crates of zucchini, they found the raid’s target inside a walk-in refrigerator: unmarked jugs of raw milk.

The Huffington Post describes the police as “federal agents”. The LA Weekly makes no mention of a SWAT team either.

Microbreweries also have to follow a modicum of standards, especially for refrigeration and labeling. All public food retailers do, for the health and safety of the general public. Your objection would also apply to local health inspectors, and local safety rule requiring proper labeling of foodstuffs? You'd be surprised the number of small grocers or food retailers that store liquid cleansers or poisons in the same place as cooking oil. Unlabeled.

It's simple. You buy meat labeled with the UMW seal of approval, you know you're getting a cut of meat that is up to the industry standards. You buy an unlabeled, greasy, vaguely meat shaped package, shucked into a bloody brown bag, then buyer-beware.

Yeah, your proposal has some flaws and drawbacks, for the public. Tourists, visitors, people passing through town....well, don't expect them to know the difference between that mushy "bloody brown bag" and a delicious hand-made burger from Five Guys (that comes in a greasy, unmarked brown bag).

Besides, and this is probably the biggest hurdle to your libertarian, sue-after-damages theory as a way to protect the public: our legal system is expensive, particularly the criminal courts. Lawyers charge at least $100/hour, bill for every damn minute (even for work done by paralegals or assistants) and public lawyers aren't set up to sue on behalf of the public. They're used as public defenders, not prosecutors.

Seriously, how many law firms would take on this type of action, unless it's a huge Class Action suit (which also has its flaws and drawbacks)? How many could or should act as their own attorney, and follow a criminal prosecution for decades? You'd have to change and reform the whole legal process, before you could dismantle the EPA or FDA or USDA or.....

[Enoch the Red]

Microbreweries also have to follow a modicum of standards, especially for refrigeration and labeling. All public food retailers do, for the health and safety of the general public. Your objection would also apply to local health inspectors, and local safety rule requiring proper labeling of foodstuffs? You'd be surprised the number of small grocers or food retailers that store liquid cleansers or poisons in the same place as cooking oil. Unlabeled.

I'm pretty sure they weren't there because they had been reported for not labeling their milk. I'm also fairly certain most industries don't refrigerate their liquid cleansers and poisons.

Let's just all thank Glod somebody was there to beat down those hippie punks. Hippies don't just beat themselves down, you know.

Just to be clear: you think a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, just so long as that doesn't mean voluntarily drinking milk or eating cheese straight from the cow.

Yeah, your proposal has some flaws and drawbacks, for the public. Tourists, visitors, people passing through town....well, don't expect them to know the difference between that mushy "bloody brown bag" and a delicious hand-made burger from Five Guys (that comes in a greasy, unmarked brown bag).

All it would take is for them to look in the window and see: "The quality of this product has been guaranteed by both the UMW and BHaG. If this product does not meet these standards, please report them to..."

This isn't rocket science, GGT. Businesses have been doing this, or things like this, for years. It's why they hang up their BBB/Chamber of Commerce plaques at the front where everyone can see them. It's good business.

Besides, and this is probably the biggest hurdle to your libertarian, sue-after-damages theory as a way to protect the public: our legal system is expensive, particularly the criminal courts. Lawyers charge at least $100/hour, bill for every damn minute (even for work done by paralegals or assistants) and public lawyers aren't set up to sue on behalf of the public. They're used as public defenders, not prosecutors.

What makes you think prosecutors would cease to exist? Nothing in libertarianism says that there shouldn't be a prosecution that seeks justice for the victims of crime.

[GGT]

I'm pretty sure they weren't there because they had been reported for not labeling their milk. I'm also fairly certain most industries don't refrigerate their liquid cleansers and poisons.

"Industries" don't, but like I said, you'd be surprised how many retail establishments don't follow the Do The Right Thing virtuous incentive. Either they don't know or understand, or don't care. Doesn't much matter which, do you think? Poisons end up in fridges or on countertops, foods end up stored with poisons or in gallon jugs on the floor, next to the rat bait.

Let's just all thank Glod somebody was there to beat down those hippie punks. Hippies don't just beat themselves down, you know.

Just to be clear: you think a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, just so long as that doesn't mean voluntarily drinking milk or eating cheese straight from the cow.

False dichotomy.

All it would take is for them to look in the window and see: "The quality of this product has been guaranteed by both the UMW and BHaG. If this product does not meet these standards, please report them to..."

...and? Report them to whom and where for follow-up? The Better Homes of Gardens or Angie's List? That's their option after someone's been made quite ill or died? Get deleted from the voluntary web site? Please, that's almost insulting.

This isn't rocket science, GGT. Businesses have been doing this, or things like this, for years. It's why they hang up their BBB/Chamber of Commerce plaques at the front where everyone can see them. It's good business.

What makes you think prosecutors would cease to exist? Nothing in libertarianism says that there shouldn't be a prosecution that seeks justice for the victims of crime.

Take a look at BBB or Chamber of Commerce, btw. It's a totally voluntary participation and does NOT vouch for any business best practice---they're simply a repository for consumer opinions or recommendations. They even have a legal disclaimer in the fine print, if you notice.

Look, if people want to produce and/or drink raw milk, or slaughter their own animals for meat, nothing stops them from doing that. Nothing. However, if they want to SELL raw milk or meat products in a retail manner, there are certain limitations. None of which limits their own liberties. They have a choice (which seems to elude you) of either practicing food standards as a private family, or organizing as a co-op entity with informed memberships. But they can't just sell raw unpasteurized milk or any old meat to the public. I'm sure you can figure out why. It's not rocket science.

[Enoch the Red]

"Industries" don't, but like I said, you'd be surprised how many retail establishments don't follow the Do The Right Thing virtuous incentive. Either they don't know or understand, or don't care. Doesn't much matter which, do you think? Poisons end up in fridges or on countertops, foods end up stored with poisons or in gallon jugs on the floor, next to the rat bait.

So, dodge the issue entirely then? This time next week?

...and? Report them to whom and where for follow-up? The Better Homes of Gardens or Angie's List? That's their option after someone's been made quite ill or died? Get deleted from the voluntary web site? Please, that's almost insulting.

If we hadn't just spent the last three pages talking about it, I could understand your confusion, so let me spell it out. Again.

If we are talking minor offenses, report to the industry organization that they are a member of. The organization can look into the claims, schedule a surprise inspection, and if they found the business to be in the wrong, kick them out. If, on the other hand your son or daughter eats there, gets sick, and dies, and the restaurant was at fault, then they would be arrested, convicted, and put in jail. The parents could also seek damages in civil court.

We are talking about two separate spheres here. The first is the industrial and consumer sphere, and its voluntary usage of self-regulation, combined with consumer watch dog groups. The second is the legal sphere, where victims can pursue justice through civil and criminal courts.

Take a look at BBB or Chamber of Commerce, btw. It's a totally voluntary participation and does NOT vouch for any business best practice---they're simply a repository for consumer opinions or recommendations. They even have a legal disclaimer in the fine print, if you notice.

This too would be a voluntary association, and it too would come with a legal disclaimer. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I don't think it's coming through.

Look, if people want to produce and/or drink raw milk, or slaughter their own animals for meat, nothing stops them from doing that. Nothing. However, if they want to SELL raw milk or meat products in a retail manner, there are certain limitations. None of which limits their own liberties. They have a choice (which seems to elude you) of either practicing food standards as a private family, or organizing as a co-op entity with informed memberships. But they can't just sell raw unpasteurized milk or any old meat to the public. I'm sure you can figure out why. It's not rocket science.

Not true.

Still, no arrests were made and Rawesome reopened the same week. Stewart said at the time that Rawesome didn't need such permits because it wasn't technically a retailer. He contended that the store was a private club whose members paid an annual fee and service charges to obtain products directly from farmers.

link

This "store," (Rawesome Foods) was operating as a private club. He wasn't even trying to deceive the general public into buying his horrifyingly fresh milk. It's not as though consumers weren't aware of what they were getting - see the name of the store. But this is sensible regulation, right? I mean, people shouldn't just be able to enter into contracts with each other without the government being a party to it. It just wouldn't be moral.

[GGT]

So, dodge the issue entirely then? This time next week?
If we hadn't just spent the last three pages talking about it, I could understand your confusion, so let me spell it out. Again.
If we are talking minor offenses, report to the industry organization that they are a member of. The organization can look into the claims, schedule a surprise inspection, and if they found the business to be in the wrong, kick them out.

I'm not dodging any damn thing, ya know. I've asked more than once for you to "play out the scenario" of your libertarian ideal. It just never works in reality. As above ^, you assume everyone will belong to a voluntary "industry organization". Then assume that group will "look into claims", then make a surprise visit. Quite a leap of faith there. And what the hell good does it do the already sick (or dead) victims if that group "kicks them out" of that voluntary membership? Nothing.

If, on the other hand your son or daughter eats there, gets sick, and dies, and the restaurant was at fault, then they would be arrested, convicted, and put in jail. The parents could also seek damages in civil court.
We are talking about two separate sphere's here. The first is the industrial and consumer sphere, and its voluntary usage of self-regulation, combined with consumer watch dog groups. The second is

But both spheres involve a son or daughter who gets sick and dies. Are you SERIOUS? Voluntary self-regulation has been proven NOT to work. What makes you think it would?

This too would be a voluntary association, and it too would come with a legal disclaimer. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I don't think it's coming through.

In particular, your premise that criminal court (after damages) would actually work to prevent future bad practices, and your assumption that our judicial system doesn't ALSO have huge problems. That means you are suggesting the use of one dysfunctional system, to replace another dysfunctional system. So, it doesn't make sense.

Not true.
This "store," (Rawesome Foods) was operating as a private club. He wasn't even trying to deceive the general public into buying his horrifically fresh milk. It's not as though consumers weren't aware of what they were getting. But this is sensible regulation, right? I mean, people shouldn't just be able to enter into contracts with each other without the government being a party to it. It just wouldn't be moral.

You're conflating any Regulation with all Regulation. Of course it's stupid to raid a food co-op for selling raw milk (with all their requisite certifications and memberships, especially ones that exempt them from general public retail environments). But using that as your one example doesn't really mean much.

Got anything else?

[Enoch the Red]

I'm not dodging any damn thing, ya know. I've asked more than once for you to "play out the scenario" of your libertarian ideal. It just never works in reality. As above ^, you assume everyone will belong to a voluntary "industry organization". Then assume that group will "look into claims", then make a surprise visit. Quite a leap of faith there. And what the hell good does it do the already sick (or dead) victims if that group "kicks them out" of that voluntary membership? Nothing.

And what do you think happens in the current system? What, exactly, do you think happens if you see a worker leave the bathroom without washing their hands and report it? Do you think they close the restaurant based off of hearsay? Please.

But both spheres involve a son or daughter who gets sick and dies. Are you SERIOUS? Voluntary self-regulation has been proven NOT to work. What makes you think it would?

As can happen in the current model. Or did nobody die from E. Coli poisoning in Europe recently?

You're conflating any Regulation with all Regulation. Of course it's stupid to raid a food co-op for selling raw milk (with all their requisite certifications and memberships, especially ones that exempt them from general public retail environments). But using that as your one example doesn't really mean much.

And your conflating all regulation with good regulation, which is why I suspect it took several posts plus a caveat to concede that raiding Rawesome Foods is ridiculous. It's fine for people to buy cigarettes or alcohol at any retailer, over the counter, but Glod help them if they buy unprocessed milk? Or should the cigarettes have to have the requisite certifications for safety before they are sold in stores? Let's be honest GGT, the cognitive dissonance here is stunning.

What it boils down to is this: you seem to think that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves. I think people are capable of making decisions for themselves. Even decisions where the consequences can be potentially life threatening and dangerous.

You also believe that the only thing keeping people safe and honest is the overarching threat of government force. I happen to disagree.

[GGT]

And what do you think happens in the current system? If you see a worker leave the bathroom without washing their hands and report it? Do you think they close the restaurant based off of hearsay? Please.

As can happen in the current model. Or did nobody die from E. Coli poisoning in Europe recently?

In reality, food handlers that don't wash their hands after bathroom breaks, don't wear gloves while handling food (or go from cash register to food prep with bare and/or gloved hands, or have a food prep worker with an open finger wound not bandaged and gloved), or fail to wear hair nets or hats can absolutely shut down the whole gig, with a phone call to HQ and the state board of health. That's why federal regulations work.

And your conflating all regulation with good regulation, which is why I suspect it took several posts plus a caveat to concede that raiding Rawesome Foods is ridiculous. It's fine for people to buy cigarettes or alcohol at any retailer, over the counter, but Glod help them if they buy unprocessed milk? Or should the cigarettes have to have the requisite certifications for safety before they are sold in stores? Let's be honest GGT, the cognitive dissonance here is stunning.

What it boils down to is this: you seem to think that people are incapable of making decisions for themselves. I think people are capable of making decisions for themselves. Even decisions where the consequences can be potentially life threatening and dangerous.

You don't get out much, is that what you're saying? It's interesting you say I'm the one with "cognitive dissonance". I can buy raw milk, raw tobacco, bathtub gin, or even road-kill venison, if I want. Key words being IF I WANT. Not because I'm forced to, as the only products available.

Sensible regulation makes sense, and makes even more sense when it's coordinated nationally between all 50 states. Where you want to get rid of ALL federal regulations (because it limits freeedom) I prefer to retain federal regulations and make them more pragmatic, as it protects consumer liberty and mobility (and therefore, our freeedom).

[GGT]

As an aside, and something I've wondered about recently....why do you write Glod instead of God?

[Aimless]

They were arrested for producing and selling unpasteurized dairy products without a license or permit for the last four years, without demonstrating that they met the required standards and without making any of these things known through labeling the products. Knowingly breaking the law for at least four years and after a prior raid a year ago and making boatloads of cash in the meantime? And avoiding sales taxes? Loki should have a field day with this one of course it'll be interesting to see if this was a procedural fiasco on the state's part.