The proper role and scope of government

[DanaC]

See, now, to me that's just surreal. can't sell unprocessed milk? Seriously?

Just make sure people are aware of the potential risks. We get all sorts of government information about how to handle poultry safely, and how some foods shouldn't be eaten by a pregnant woman, or a young child. So just make that part of the info. Unpasteurised milk may contain whatever it is it might contain. There ya go.

The idea of making it illegal to sell milk from a cow is just bizarre to me. It makes as little sense as the law that prevents me growing a particular plant from seed, drying out its flowers and leaves, burning it and inhaling the smoke.

Now...cigarettes are a different matter. Because they are not the natural product. They are sprayed and blended and refined and have burn accelerators and a whole heap of other chemical components added. I can see a logic in not allowing people to actively create an inherently dangerous substance and then sell it to people for consumption.

Someone wants to grow tobacco, dry it out and try and smoke it? that's back to the milk and the pot and the mushrooms.

Ban milk from the cow? Seriously?

That's practically the definition of modern man.

[Spexxvet]

The argument against "I'm informed, I'll make my own decision and live with the consequences" is that when the shit really hits the fan, and the consequences are horrific, the results get socialized. If a man chooses not to wear a motorcycle helmet, has an accident and is brain dead, guess who pays for his care and supports his family. Health insurance only goes so far, and will fight any distance that it has to go. Same with tobacco use and drinking raw milk (to a much lesser extent). Sometimes it's the taxpayers who pony up, sometimes it's beef and beer fundraisers.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The argument against "I'm informed, I'll make my own decision and live with the consequences" is that when the shit really hits the fan, and the consequences are horrific, the results get socialized. If a man chooses not to wear a motorcycle helmet, has an accident and is brain dead, guess who pays for his care and supports his family. Health insurance only goes so far, and will fight any distance that it has to go. Same with tobacco use and drinking raw milk (to a much lesser extent). Sometimes it's the taxpayers who pony up, sometimes it's beef and beer fundraisers.

It has mostly been said, but if this resaoning were applied consistently, we'd ban darn near everything. What wasn't banned would be compulsory.

I am content that my tax dollars will help pay for Aliantha's baby's delivery etc, and even her sons' future rugby injuries, since her taxes helped pay for my higher education.

Don't mention that I a fair portion of my scholarship. She'll be paying for my emphesyma treatment.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

It's even probable that the fight to ban these types of milk farms are probably being egged on by the big factory dairy farms themselves (repubs, for sure) to discourage competition.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Just make sure people are aware of the potential risks. We get all sorts of government information about how to handle poultry safely, and how some foods shouldn't be eaten by a pregnant woman, or a young child. So just make that part of the info. Unpasteurised milk may contain whatever it is it might contain. There ya go.

I think we are into something about how regulation seems to work in the US. It always seems to favor scaled production. Big business wants to sell low quality pasteurized homogenized for its own convenience, now if it can use regulators to eliminate a better quality competitor under the veneer of a small health risk it is a win for the corporations and the nanny staters. When big business isn't on board as in highfructosecornsyrup there doesn't seem to be much traction.

Ban milk from the cow? Seriously?

That's practically the definition of modern man.

That is just clever writing.

Spexx, yours could be seen as a strong argument against socialized medicine, but you'll notice The Brits have managed both. Which risk factors do we ban? Do we ignore the health benefits of raw dairy when we do the calculus? Do we take action against the obese? Do we tell people not to live in certain risky neighborhoods. Do we ban small economy cars as too unsafe? Do we just ban driving altogether? Its the sort of thing that gets Republicans thinking death panel. I don't think of raw milk as being on the slippery slope. Banning raw milk is off the slope and crashing through the trees.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Griff

...Spexx, yours could be seen as a strong argument against socialized medicine...

The difference is that in socialized medicine, both sides of the equation are socialized, not just the horrific consequences.

There has to be a line drawn between prohibited and compulsory. While we all probably agree that the consequences of "hold my beer and watch this" activities should be left to Darwinism, there's a lot of grey area.