It has been produced and distributed in a controlled manner and is not a danger to me.
Feds vs Farmer
- Thread starter Hygro
- Start date
It has been produced and distributed in a controlled manner and is not a danger to me.
You seem to be confusing society and government.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Are you sure it’s me
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It does.
Raw milk isn’t illegal. It is regulated state by state and is illegal to sell across state lines.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I bought raw milk on a farm once in Texas. Same price, lower quality than raw milk from the boutique grocer in old new money Bay Area. Add the 40 mile round trip to the car plus gas…Yeah, and milk deliveries or personal pickup increase the price per unit bought by a lot.
Narz
keeping it real
And you trust the government to decide which products, foods, chemicals, drugs etc are & are not dangerous?
Except it doesnt seem you do because you already said you've gone around them before to get something you want (while presumably judging the person who helped you get what you wanted?)
More than I trust the person who wants to sell it.
More than discussing trust, the main issue is whether The Regulators have different incentives than the marketer when it comes to shipping you tainted product.
If there are different incentives, then there are different holes in the swiss cheese
If there are different incentives, then there are different holes in the swiss cheese
Yes, one is fuelled by greed.
Narz
keeping it real
I trust people more than government generally.
Lol yeah greedy small entrepreneurs ruining this country
Regulators being co-opted by large interests is its own problem. It hinders competition, it hinders compensation or fixing problems, and it inhibits innovations and liberties.
It's definitely its own problem. Once an enterprise grows to a certain size (and presents a certain risk if a problem manifests), it should be regulated. But trusting the same people who have been co-opted by larger interests to do that regulating will be a different type of risk. A disaster can put a small enterprise out of business. But disasters regularly fail to punish regulators. And getting co-opted also usually pays off.
It's definitely its own problem. Once an enterprise grows to a certain size (and presents a certain risk if a problem manifests), it should be regulated. But trusting the same people who have been co-opted by larger interests to do that regulating will be a different type of risk. A disaster can put a small enterprise out of business. But disasters regularly fail to punish regulators. And getting co-opted also usually pays off.
Lol yeah greedy small entrepreneurs ruining this country
You don't need to break food standard regulations to be a successful entrepreneur. If you do, it's not a viable business.
Narz
keeping it real
Edited out rudeness
It seems argument is :
One should follow rules because they exist even if rules and safety have no correlation (safety of marijuana vs cigarettes let's say).
If you can't follow unjust rules you don't deserve to do business and shouldn't try.
If you personally want something illegal that youve done the cost-benefit on and detirmined is desirable you'll get it but you shouldn't be able to nor should others.
It seems argument is :
One should follow rules because they exist even if rules and safety have no correlation (safety of marijuana vs cigarettes let's say).
If you can't follow unjust rules you don't deserve to do business and shouldn't try.
If you personally want something illegal that youve done the cost-benefit on and detirmined is desirable you'll get it but you shouldn't be able to nor should others.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
If you don't agree that we should completely throw out food safety regulations, then I am not sure what possible legal basis there could be for not enforcing them against those you deem "not sketchy."
I don't think it is particularly comparable to the drug war; food safety regulations are not rooted in racism and misunderstandings, they come out of a context in the 19th century when unscrupulous corporations sold people lots of tainted food and drink that killed people, sometimes in large numbers.
Like, the analogy you're making just doesn't really work. If marijuana was legal and someone was selling it laced with fentanyl and a person overdosed and died, of course I'd support the feds cracking down on the laced-weed seller. Even if the people buying from him signed waivers stating they knew the weed was laced with fentanyl.
Narz
keeping it real
But it is a viable business, if it wasn't it wouldn't be under assault
Stuff that's stupidly illegal are among the most viable (and resistant to assault) businesses. Drugs, prostitution, etc all thrive despite 'wars' on them. It's the 'legit' businesses that often need propping up
Narz
keeping it real
So maybe they should be updated then. AFAIK raw dairy been legal in CT & California for some decades now. Are there lots of deaths? People were pretty dumb in the 19th century, they were just realizing maybe one should wash one's hands before delivering a baby or touching food so they tending to go a lil crazy over germs
I'm pretty sure useless is someone else
Also I'm not sure if you're now parodying what you think is my opinion or stating something else?
So find a way to legalise and regulate!
Narz
keeping it real
You don't answer 90% of questions so that's my speculation, correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit : also I apologize for being testy
Lol sounds easy
Similar threads
