Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Alright, so I admit...
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Alright, so I admit... (Read 2897 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #20 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 3:13pm
Print Post  
Human beings survive, and thrive, all over the world, and have for many thousands of years, as long as they have property rights and enough economic freedom to provide a variety of food in adequate quantities.
Knowing what our food is composed of and what might or might not have been added to it are very recent innovations.
In modern times, people in our country have had (thanks to free trade and markets) incredible wealth (by even world standards today), and incredible variety and quantity of food. This gives people much better chances to eat well, or poorly.
The opportunity to not do any physical work, and not exercise either, while still having plenty of money for food, has given a lot of Americans the opportunity to sit around and gain lots of weight.
That's what America is supposed to be all about- opportunity.
Shiva, you''re just way too much about reducing opportunity.

If you're having trouble choosing foods, just remember, eating processed foods is OK, as long as that's not all you eat. My Grandmother knew that.

Regulations that restrict entry to new companies that might try to compete with currently existing corporations is certainly welfare for those big corporations. They pay lobbyists huge amounts of money to make sure they work closely with the Regulators to write these regulations. Believe it or not, sometimes the corporations actually write the regulations. The bureaucrats like this, since they still get paid, they don't have to do the work, and the lobbyists, who have lots of money to spend, are now their very good friends.
It's called a Constitutional representative Republic. But it's not actually that at all anymore, thanks to you 'progressives'.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #21 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 4:21pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:56pm:
Actually you do agree -- just not when it comes to your personal preference. Please explain how your magical opinion is above everyone else's, Almighty.

Meh, virtually everyone supports labeling for basic things such as nutrition facts and ingredients. These are both common sense regulations. Talk with the average person and see if they would support ending nutrition facts on products such as the calories. Most people LOVE these things because, again, it empowers consumers and lets you really compare two products to each other.

Again though, what do you think about AT LEAST mandating that companies have to tell you about allergens in the food IF YOU ASK THEM? Is this at least alright or do we have to wait until someone dies because the companies exercised their freedom to murder their customers?

And even if you don't support this at least we can all agree that if they tell you there is not something in the food (let's say they say it's got 200 calories even though they know it's actually got over 400) (Or you ask if it has MSG and are allergic to it and they say no even though they know for a fact that it's riddled with MSG) then you can sue them for fraud? Does at least this BARE MINIMUM protection make sense to you?

As far as my own personal preferences: Leave it up to the people. So maybe have a referendum. This seems a lot fairer, that way it's NOT my opinion but the majority's opinion. So let's say 60% of people in your state vote that GMOs have to be labeled, is THIS reasonable? Let me guess, tyranny of the majority?  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4270
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #22 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 6:52pm
Print Post  
I honestly don't understand how you could possibly not grasp these concepts in your head after it being explained to you thousands of times. If I tried to initiate violence against companies who didn't put labels on their food that I wanted labeled, I would be a criminal, and rightfully so. If I told you that you should put a certain label on your food because I think it's a cool idea and most people think it's a cool idea and that I will murder you if you resist, I would rightfully be a criminal.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #23 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 8:34pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 6:52pm:
I honestly don't understand how you could possibly not grasp these concepts in your head after it being explained to you thousands of times. If I tried to initiate violence against companies who didn't put labels on their food that I wanted labeled, I would be a criminal, and rightfully so. If I told you that you should put a certain label on your food because I think it's a cool idea and most people think it's a cool idea and that I will murder you if you resist, I would rightfully be a criminal.

Could you PLEASE answer one question:

What if the company claimed that there was No MSG or some other allergen to someone who asked them. As a result the customer gets it and eats it and gets very sick and potentially dies. Do you think that this is fraud and should people be allowed to sue them for fraud?

Again, the caveat is that the person who tells them that there is no MSG knows full well that there IS MSG in the product and lots of it.

PLEASE answer this, this is the THIRD time I have asked it with no response from you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2119
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #24 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 11:48pm
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 8:34pm:
Could you PLEASE answer one question:

What if the company claimed that there was No MSG or some other allergen to someone who asked them. As a result the customer gets it and eats it and gets very sick and potentially dies. Do you think that this is fraud and should people be allowed to sue them for fraud?

Again, the caveat is that the person who tells them that there is no MSG knows full well that there IS MSG in the product and lots of it.

PLEASE answer this, this is the THIRD time I have asked it with no response from you.


He can answer his own way. Short answer is yes. That would be fraud. Long answer is, what stops a company from doing something malicious with food today, or even a calculated casualty risk. Basically collateral damage where a company says it's more profitable to take the risk to save money and know users with issues could get sick/die, and do something shady, rather than be honest up front. And the wonderful thing about a calculated casualty risk, is the government protects the businesses from retaliation for fraud, where in a free market that corrupted layer of protection would need to be replaced with another, far more costly mechanism to the business, that it makes more economic sense to favor the consumers and use transparency in labeling.

BTW, the FDA ruled that MSG no longer needs to be labeled as MSG, and can be labeled as simply sodium or not labeled at all in a lot of cases. It's due to business ethics and consumer campaigns to get transparency, that many label their product to have MSG.

People forget that most labeling and rating systems are a product of the market. MPAA movie rating system is one of the most common examples. Food companies original sought the government for a standard nutritional facts label in 1966 IIRC, which passed in 1968. All to clear up confusion. But before 1966, you'll have a hard time finding processed(canned, dried foods) food without ingredients in them. And if they mislabeled the food, consumers were awarded damages more favorably, where now the companies have increased their ability to avoid damages. The history of food labeling is fascinating in itself, because you can see where the corruption stemmed from. Basically businesses that had shady practices that wanted a layer of protection from consumers, so if their shady practices were legitimized, that would benefit the company.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #25 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:25am
Print Post  
Fair enough, if some sort of Private voluntary Labeling emerges and is widely used and better than the Government one then I support this any day of the week.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #26 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 7:00am
Print Post  
Liberalterian wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:25am:
Fair enough, if some sort of Private voluntary Labeling emerges and is widely used and better than the Government one then I support this any day of the week.

A free market choice to label or not isn't possible when there are already government mandates for labeling.
If labeling was something people wanted, and were willing to pay for, companies would have done it voluntarily before government decided it was 'necessary'.

There probably is a problem with millions of Americans not knowing what's in the food they're buying, but since more than 30 million Americans can't read anyway, labeling isn't going to help them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #27 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:09am
Print Post  
A free market is not a "pirate's mart" where anything goes. It's about the voluntary exchange of value based on contract law. Despite what many think, all sales/exchanges are contracts.

Contract law in the West is based on ~4 centuries (some much older) or rules for valid contracts. Among requirements for a valid contract - there must be a 'meeting of the minds' - that means a common understanding of terms and conditions. in the contract. If you order a BigMac and there is no sesame seed bun as advertized, then no meeting of the minds; the contract performance by McD' is likely defective.

Where governments have been traditionally involved in trade is in "standards, weights and measures". A "12 ounce jar of olives" or "10000 bushels of #2 yellow corn at 4% moisture" have a specific meaning in trade; masses and volumes but also other qualities. IMO it's great that such standards EXIST, but there is zero reason to involve government. If you want to sell a olives labeled "as much as I cared to put in the jar" or sell corn "as-is" that's perfectly fine by me. The point is that simple accepted methods and terms are useful for efficient trade and in resolution of contract disputes.

Liberalterian wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 8:34pm:
Could you PLEASE answer one question:

What if the company claimed that there was No MSG or some other allergen to someone who asked them....., the caveat is that the person who tells them that there is no MSG knows full well that there IS MSG in the product and lots of it.


This has nothing to do with meeting of minds - and everything to do with fraud when purposeful - and that it may be either criminal or civil.

So what ? This happens all the time. Ppl bought Chevy Cobalt with an expectation that the air-bags would deploy - but they don't. A dumass commercial convinces ppl they have "low T" but the medication causes stroke or cancer. The local restaurant sells food with the implied representation it's safe to eat, but ppl get food poisoning or hepatitis ? Yes - you sue or get a government prosecutor involved when you are cheated and harmed by fraud. If you think government regulation prevent these problems while a threat of lawsuit doesn't - you are guilty of magical thinking.

Let me oppose your idea, "government is the solution/savior".

Imagine that instead of government creating safety standards for electrical appliances that a private company insured companies that followed their standards and methods against liability. Let's say we call this company "Underwriters Labs" or UL. What if we standards for computer electronics, so a private org like DIN ("German Institute for Standardization") or the USB consortium create a standard.  Consider the private NFS International for food safety.

Consider a typical government safety program - like the FDA mandate to only permit "safe and effective" drugs, vs the UL similar mandate wrt electricals. This causes a skew in motives. No one is fired from the FDA for preventing an effective drug for years, only for allowing a dangerous one - so they are overly safe, but this cost lives. The FDA also prevents sale of unapproved medicines, which is a shame since some ppl could benefit - so long as they understand the risks.

Consider the UL mandate to a/ make a profit and b/ promote safety to avoid insurance costs and loss of reputation. UL has to balance the competing interests of income & safety. They will fail as a company if they are overly safe or not safe enough. They don't FORCE their rules on anyone - you can buy non-UL approved items, but you are assuming a risk - it empowers the consumer.

Standards good; force bad.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #28 - Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:44pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:09am:
So, I admit it: there needs to be limited government to take care of a few things here and there as a safety measure. You guys were right, Dennis and Shiva. I was wrong. I'm sorry.


Welcome to the halls of Classic Liberalism (as opposed to neo-classical liberatism).

Government should be "limited" but there is a need for government to address some matters where a problem exists that is best addressed by government. That is "limited" government. That is obviously NOT the government we have but it is the government we should have.

First and foremost it needs to address issues where our Inalienable Rights are being violated. The example of food labeling is a good one because without the mandatory regulation only god knows what would be in the can.

"Limited Government" doesn't even mean "small government" but logically it should be. It all depends upon the problems that the government really needs to address. The fewer the problems the smaller the government.

By way of example I don't like government welfare assistance and we have a huge part of government dedicated to "welfare" from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, to SNAP and housing assistance. All of these "suck" from a standpoint of "limited government" but all of them are addressing a serious problem in America which is poverty. They all mitigate the effects of the poverty without reducing the poverty. We need to reduce poverty by thinking about what's causing it and doing something about the poverty.

Come up with ideas on how to reduce poverty because if they work then the size of government grows smaller.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Alright, so I admit...
Reply #29 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:55am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:44pm:
"Limited Government" doesn't even mean "small government" but logically it should be. It all depends upon the problems that the government really needs to address. The fewer the problems the smaller the government.



Come up with ideas on how to reduce poverty because if they work then the size of government grows smaller.


Our government is not limited by 'progressive' notions of 'problems' that need to be solved, but by the Constitution, which does not provide any general powers to the government, just a few specific enumerated powers.

In case you doubt this, you should re-read the Federalist Papers, where you will find repeated assertions that NO general power is granted.

The Founders had a terrific idea to reduce poverty. Property rights, the rule of law and government limited by the Constitution. It worked great when we used it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Alright, so I admit...
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy