The proper role and scope of government

[Griff]

.

[glatt]

Ooh, I've got an even better image of an unusual milk dispenser. In Igls, Austria, there is a small dairy farm with a spigot outide. You can bring your own containers and fill them with milk 24 hours a day. I got a picture, but don't have any of the details of the operation.

[Griff]

Neat. Can you find the pic?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?

For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?

In part I believe banning tobacco completely would be similar to what happened in Prohibition.
So a modicum of practicality was to force the labeling of packages
and the extra efforts to diverting young people from starting.
The drug wars are what we got with an outright bans.
I've said before I frown on the sale of raw dairy products because
the layman cannot know the quality or safety of each purchase.

I guess I'm missing the "obvious... and larger and more destructive examples".
Tobacco and obesity were not my original topic... but vaccination was mine.
Is that what you mean about cherry picking ?

For the above "deal with the problem" issues, I'm not certain of your meaning.
In my post, I had in mind that if customers (such as fast food places)
have no information they have no choice or alternatives.
But if the McD's of the world are required to publish such data,
maybe people will use it. I don't know if they will or won't.
Maybe it's too early for more restrictive government intervention, maybe not.
Likewise if school lunches are unhealthy, the timing may be urgent, or not. I don't know.
Is that what you were getting at ?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Griff

Neat. Can you find the pic?

Now I'm doubting my memory. I was pretty sure there was a spigot, but now I don't see one. Maybe this is just a storage locker. But it's also possible I saw the door open and there was a spigot inside, and I just don't have a picture of that.

But anyway, here it is. In Europe, they often have barns in the village center like this, and the animals are led out of the village to graze. This barn had cows in it that you could see lined up when the door was open. You can see plenty of evidence of them.

[glatt]

[Clodfobble]

Look, Lamplighter, just stop meandering for two seconds and answer a direct question.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I've said before I frown on the sale of raw dairy products because the layman cannot know the quality or safety of each purchase.

Do you support a legal ban on the practice of farms selling raw milk, or is your reaction simply limited to frowning?

I cannot continue any discussion with you until you clearly state how you feel about this topic. One sentence will suffice.

[Lamplighter]

OK, make me king and I'll ban raw milk.

[ZenGum]

Funny, I was about to come over all regal. Well, I'll do it anyway.


Harken, ye people, for I am King ZenGum, and I give unto you these laws:

You can sell whatever you like, from raw goats' milk to refined sugar, fish oil to cocaine.

You can buy whatever you like. Pay honestly.

You must be honest about what you sell. No sticking "organic" or "pasteurised" labels on things that aren't.

The government will establish certain standards for weights, measures and - here is the tricky bit - certain qualities.
For example, some things have to be done right, such as pasteurisation. The government will establish the appropriate standard, and people who wish to follow this may do so and thus earn the right to add a sticker to their product announcing that their product has been produced according to the standard. This sticker will have a big G.A. for Government Approved, and a picture of a nanny, just to make it clear. Falsely using this sticker will get you smote with great vengance and righteous fury. See rule 3.

But! If you don't want to follow the government standard, you don't have to. Do it your own way, be honest about what you did.

People can buy whichever they prefer.

Cool?

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

But! If you don't want to follow the government standard, you don't have to. Do it your own way, be honest about what you did.
People can buy whichever they prefer.

Which works in some industries and cannot be done in others. No standard applies to all industries. Some (ie Tobacco, investment bankers, stock brokers) have such bad reputations that heavy government regulation is necessary. Another (ie computer industry) needs almost no regulation due to its history.

Milk must meet standards such as six sigma quality. If any part of that industry repeatedly screws its customers, then the entire industry has earned the necessary regulations. Some industries turn a blind eye to their bad boys. Others do not want regulation and enforce industry standards. Therefore go after their bad boys with a vengeance.

A standard that must apply even to milk. Another industry that earned the regulations it deserves. The amount of regulation required is unique to every industry. What works for one can be completely unacceptable for another.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

OK, make me king and I'll ban raw milk.

Then you're a huge hypocrite, unless your second and third edicts as king are to also ban tobacco and high fructose corn syrup. Your Libertarian policy of letting everyone smoke and eat whatever they want even when it's dangerous for them has gone on too long!


Me, I'm gonna vote for King ZenGum. Especially if he's instituting prima nocta!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

People can buy whichever they prefer.

Cool?

As long as the same policy applies on uni-gender marriage, abortion, and sex toys.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Then you're a huge hypocrite, unless your second and third edicts as king are to also ban tobacco and high fructose corn syrup. Your Libertarian policy of letting everyone smoke and eat whatever they want even when it's dangerous for them has gone on too long!


Me, I'm gonna vote for King ZenGum. Especially if he's instituting prima nocta!

Ooooww, that hurt.

Frankly I was expecting a whole lot better ...

[infinite monkey]

AND FURTHERMORE, STOP MAKING YOUR KIDS SMOKE CIGARETTES.

Sheesh. You think you'd done learned by now.

Ma and Pa Earth have left the logic building.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Frankly I was expecting a whole lot better ...

I'm not sure why. You keep telling me you don't understand anything I'm saying anyway, how do you know I didn't actually meet your expectations?

It's a simple analogy.

Raw milk = tobacco = high fructose corn syrup.

All three are potentially dangerous, but all three have certain desirable benefits to the people who choose to use them.

I think all three should be legal, with people taking personal responsibility for using them. You think one of them should be banned, but the other two are somehow okay.

Does that make sense?