Feds vs Farmer
- Thread starter Hygro
- Start date
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I too agree 4000 is the scale of straight up commerce. But I don’t agree the federal government has to violently enforce safety standards in all cases.
I think well produced raw milk is a good thing. I don’t trust it beyond a certain scale: it needs to be large enough to force internal standards and small enough to not let any upkeep go out of sight of the proprietors, their responsibility. But if they have a good system their sight can go large.
I believe private association, including commerce to a certain scale, is a prerequisite for freedom. It is in this case also necessary to maintain diversity to keep us aiming to a best path. Milk standards were created when they were putting paint in raw milk and selling it as fast as possible. We can be smarter than heavy handed now.
I think well produced raw milk is a good thing. I don’t trust it beyond a certain scale: it needs to be large enough to force internal standards and small enough to not let any upkeep go out of sight of the proprietors, their responsibility. But if they have a good system their sight can go large.
I believe private association, including commerce to a certain scale, is a prerequisite for freedom. It is in this case also necessary to maintain diversity to keep us aiming to a best path. Milk standards were created when they were putting paint in raw milk and selling it as fast as possible. We can be smarter than heavy handed now.
Has anyone suggested this?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I don't know that scaling up makes things safer in this way, just profitabler. I just don't want a big outbreak when it happens, because eventually it will. I'm wrestling with size. I like unpasteurized cider fine, just maybe not in stores. But milk. Man. That's tougher. Maybe 50 or so max?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It’s only a hunch, but I think you want it large enough that it can be a fully rewarded total business obsession of the owners. I imagine that to be the optimal position.
But I see your damage control thinking as well.
But I see your damage control thinking as well.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
What do you think happens when the farmer says no to the destruction of product?
Do you think all farmers resist violently?
If 'police' is the end result of disobedience, it's intrinsically violent. Just because people back down to avoid the violence, it doesn't mean it's not violence
It's the large scale Black Swan. The only defense is inefficient redundancy
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Ah yes dirt packer mocks impotent and horseless self appointed monarch.
Meanwhile raids on dairy farms: numerous federal agents guns drawn who then physically destroy the product and sometimes arrest the farmers.
Totally nonviolent.
And when the mob comes and breaks all your windows for protection money? That’s nonviolent too, right?
That example is certainly closer to your Monty sketch…
Some people only selectively perceive state-backed violence rather than having a coherent version that is then selectively applied
The farmer had many opportunities not to have the illegal product disposed of, and I can't agree that violence is inhertant if police are involved. I do allow for a wide variety between the US and UK for this though.
I could pose that you are suggesting all law abiding actions are the result of the threat of violence.. and that all actions at all are merely supine to the police state. Which is clearly a bit daft.
I could pose that you are suggesting all law abiding actions are the result of the threat of violence.. and that all actions at all are merely supine to the police state. Which is clearly a bit daft.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It does not. It is, however, in this case that food regulations are enforced by well armed bureaucracies who do not hesitate to employ such force, and for that matter, not always with the warning you assume.
While we are at it, I assume you also support when your weed man is busted for his unregulated product.
While we are at it, I assume you also support when your weed man is busted for his unregulated product.
If you are breaking the law, you don't need to get a warning the law is going to be enforced. It is the risk you knowingly take and decide it is worth it.
I don't smoke, but I support legalisation, but I am sure that is for another thread.
If I was to come up to you with a gun and say if you do not do what I tell you I shall kidnap you and hold you in my basement I am being violent even if you do what you are told.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Between your smoking comment and your gun comment you are dodging the issue.
Furthermore, much of this armed, unforewarned enforcement is discretionary and targets farmers within the scope of the law.
To me this is such low hanging fruit for the Democratic Party and instead makes enemies where there should be allies. Losing hippies to the Republicans is an unforced error.
Lexicus
Deity
I think i do
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
So you were also pro weed man busts pre legalization.
Lexicus
Deity
No, because I don't blindly support laws just because they're there.
Similar threads
