Feds vs Farmer

Who are you siding with here?

  • Feds

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Farmer

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Total voters
    17
I trust people more than government generally.

What, all people?
People trying to sell me something are automatically low on my trust list. Caveat emptor
Having been a civil servant I know most are honest people trying to do a decent job, often impeded by politicians.
 
One should follow rules because they exist even if rules and safety have no correlation (safety of marijuana vs cigarettes let's say).

No. I believe the rules around the distribution of this milk is a safety concern. Thus should be followed.

If you can't follow unjust rules you don't deserve to do business and shouldn't try.

No. These rules are not unjust. As has already been mentioned elsewhere, I could water down, and otherwise adulterate foodstuffs for profit if it were not for the rules. I am glad of these rules. I believe the farmer is producing the milk in a way that is not justified, and is done for profit.

If you personally want something illegal that you've done the cost-benefit on and determined is desirable, you'll get it, but you shouldn't be able to nor should others.

Yes, that is the role of the government. I believe government is needed and is a positive thing for society. I have the "freedom" to risk it if I choose, but society works better within these constraints. Admittedly this is a hugely grey area. For example I wouldn't get much of anything for drugs here in the UK, but I am aware other nations I could be beheaded. So YMMV!
 
Well obviously depends on the individual and segment of government

The more politician involved the more I distrust government, but local officials trying to enforce a rule well it may be a bad rule but generally they are just trying to do their job.
 
I believe the farmer is producing the milk in a way that is not justified, and is done for profit.
Doesn't necessarily mean greed is his motivator, he might actually believe that his way of processing meat is healthier and feed his family that way
 
Doesn't necessarily mean greed is his motivator, he might actually believe that his way of processing meat is healthier and feed his family that way

If he were just feeding his family, I'm sure the Feds would not have got involved.
 
People trying to sell me something are automatically low on my trust list.

while that is a reasonable position to take in a vacuum, i nevertheless don't see how "people trying to sell you something" are less trustworthy than "people forcing you to buy something", generally.

included in that purchase is regulation of choices impacting only the person making them, with no opt-out, apparently.

and as usual, with no consistent principle applied (people are allowed to take alternative risks that are much greater to them, freely).
 
Doesn't mean greed was necessary involved. Maybe he just got popular and was ambitious

OK, but motivation in the end doesn't really matter here does it?

If we go back to drugs. If I grow one plant, distribute between friends it's all good. If I get 'ambitious' and grow ten plants I'm in for a lot of trouble..
 

While an interesting read, I am not sure the relevance.

You mean mass illegal consumption changing enough minds to overcome inertia and lead to a 51% majority of people actively saying "yes" to an illegal thing.

Yes! True democracy at work.

Does 51% of the population want unsafe milk?
 
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.
Of course the analogy works. However you've altered it to be secretly laced instead of honestly advertised product that can result in farm raids for said honestly advertised product. Don't confuse yourself with trigger phrases like "rooted in racism".
 
While an interesting read, I am not sure the relevance.



Yes! True democracy at work.

Does 51% of the population want unsafe milk?
Pretty hard to find out if the Feds shut it down too fast.
 
Pretty hard to find out if the Feds shut it down too fast.

No, I'm very confident, given for example prohibition failed. Amongst it being pretty obvious.
 
I'm not sure what people are arguing. There seem to be two issues:
- some people want raw milk
- we force distributors of a certain size to have higher standards

What are people's arguments about these points, in this case?
 
Of course the analogy works. However you've altered it to be secretly laced instead of honestly advertised product that can result in farm raids for said honestly advertised product. Don't confuse yourself with trigger phrases like "rooted in racism".

Did you read the last two sentences of the post?
 
Yes, you distorted the analogy. Raw milk sellers aren't lacing their products, they're advertising exactly what's in it. Some break rules, but even the ones who are following the rules can get raided discretionarily.
 
Yes, you distorted the analogy. Raw milk sellers aren't lacing their products, they're advertising exactly what's in it. Some break rules, but even the ones who are following the rules can get raided discretionarily.

I doubt the raw milk people are advertising that their products contain deadly bacteria
 
Top Bottom