(Close Window)
Topic: Raided and arrested for selling raw milk, WITHOUT permission :O:
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 08:30AM)
http://www.freetalklive.com/content/rawesome_foods_raided_again_0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MVwdv5HBVQ

And before anyone starts ranting about this thread being misleading, here's a "headline" from los angeles county district attorneys office:

"Three Arrested on Charges of Illegally Producing, Selling Unpasteurized Milk"
Besides not mentioning the raid in the headline, says exactly the same thing I did, but with less commentary ;)

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/080311a.htm
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 5, 2011 09:59AM)
I'm assuming your position as stated in previous posts is that no products should be banned/regulated. Seems to me it has to be on a case by case basis. That said, the co-op was probably targeted for being a community hub of activism around food/health issues. If not raw milk, they would have been harassed for something else. In the larger scheme of things, it would seem there are a lot of better ways to use those law enforcement resources.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Aug 5, 2011 10:06AM)
Is there a libertarian board you can take this stuff? How do you find these things? Mobile alert?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 5, 2011 10:22AM)
There are similar local issues about unpasteurized cheeses and honey. Some jurisdictions allow their sale and some do not.

I drink unpasteurized beer because I think it tastes better.

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 5, 2011 10:38AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 11:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

I drink unpasteurized beer because I think it tastes better.

[/quote]

But I doubt unpasteurized beer will kill you. Unpasteurized milk however will.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Aug 5, 2011 10:48AM)
Europe seems to lose several people a year from unpasteurized cheeses. In Europe, I'd say it was worth the risk...but with the health of American beef and poultry, I think the laws are very protective, but necessary.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 11:38, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 11:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

I drink unpasteurized beer because I think it tastes better.

[/quote]

But I doubt unpasteurized beer will kill you. Unpasteurized milk however will.
[/quote]

"Will"???
How about "can?" And so can pasteurized milk.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 10:56AM)
I applaud your title use, gdw. The operative word is permission.

The propaganda laden links you provided tried their best to mislead from the truth, but even they realize they need to provide it, even if they cram it so far in the end of the video that they have had several shots at sinking their propaganda harpoons into folks and blasting their emotional bullhorns at viewers.

The co-op refuses to get the permits necessary to produce and distribute unpasturized milk. Many folks who sell raw milk at Farmer's markets have done just that to take the steps to proclaim that they are following practices which do not endanger the public or their customers.

I'm assuming you prefer that anyone who wants can make raw milk or grow spinach and sell it in any manner they like, and the possible consequence of becoming violently ill or dieing from that product is just a part of that business and the unregulated market will correct that. I'm not sure those who have become ill or the families of those who have died from food poisonings and ecoli would agree with you.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 5, 2011 10:58AM)
If I recall correctly Québec tried to regulate unpasteurized cheese and the people revolted. The political lesson is this: Never get between les Québecois and good food.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 11:00AM)
Yes Tom, the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 5, 2011 11:03AM)
Must... not... respond... to... insanity...
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Aug 5, 2011 11:09AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:03, critter wrote:
Must... not... respond... to... insanity...
[/quote]

I'm fighting that urge as well. I know what you're going thru
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 5, 2011 11:16AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 11:48, Tom Jorgenson wrote:
Europe seems to lose several people a year from unpasteurized cheeses. In Europe, I'd say it was worth the risk...but with the health of American beef and poultry, I think the laws are very protective, but necessary.
[/quote]

One only has to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to understand why we have government regulations for our food supply. Private industry has been shown time and time again to be incapable of policing themselves or putting the peoples needs above corporate profits.

Libertarianism, like Socialism are hypothetical political systems and will not work in their purest form. But then neither will Democracy, Capitalism, Communism or any other form of governance. The best systems take bits and pieces of various ideologies and combines them into a system that best serves the needs of their peoples.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2011 11:16AM)
[quote]On 2011-08-05 12:00, gdw wrote:
. . . the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.[/quote]
So, they're not free.

Neither would they be under any other form of government, nor under anarchy.

If that's the point, then I'm glad everyone's clear on it; this should end this thread, no?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2011 11:18AM)
[quote]On 2011-08-05 12:16, Payne wrote:
But then neither will . . . Capitalism . . . or any other form of governance.[/quote]
Is capitalism a form of governance?

Economics, yes, but governance?
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:00, gdw wrote:
Yes Tom, the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.
[/quote]"Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Look, look, I'm being repressed."
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:00, gdw wrote:
Yes Tom, the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.
[/quote]Ah so you do support the killing of people in the name of profit. Good to know.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 11:36AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:16, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2011-08-05 12:00, gdw wrote:
. . . the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.[/quote]
So, they're not free.

Neither would they be under any other form of government, nor under anarchy.

If that's the point, then I'm glad everyone's clear on it; this should end this thread, no?
[/quote]

There is, then, nothing left of the first amendment, for example, in america.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 11:39AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:34, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:00, gdw wrote:
Yes Tom, the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.
[/quote]Ah so you do support the killing of people in the name of profit. Good to know.
[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about Tom?
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 11:46AM)
Ah ha, you recognize it when someone mirrors you, just not when you are doing it.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 5, 2011 11:48AM)
[quote]
Is capitalism a form of governance?

Economics, yes, but governance?
[/quote]

Some people believe so

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html

I'm not sure I completely agree with them. But capitalism plays an important role in many political systems. From Facism to Social Capitalism
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2011 11:59AM)
[quote]On 2011-08-05 12:48, Payne wrote:
[quote]Is capitalism a form of governance?

Economics, yes, but governance?[/quote]
. . . capitalism plays an important role in many political systems.[/quote]
No doubt.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 11:48, Tom Jorgenson wrote:
Europe seems to lose several people a year from unpasteurized cheeses. In Europe, I'd say it was worth the risk...but with the health of American beef and poultry, I think the laws are very protective, but necessary.
[/quote]

People die from pasteurized dairy products as well.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 12:25PM)
Not from the products having been pasteurized... Unless you consider the acceptance of less flavorful a living death.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 12:31PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:25, Tom Cutts wrote:
Not from the products having been pasteurized... Unless you consider the acceptance of less flavorful a living death.
[/quote]

Didn't say it was from the pasteurization. The same way it's not the raw milk that kills people, but what it can get tainted with.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 5, 2011 12:43PM)
Shut up brain, we're staying out of this!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 5, 2011 12:44PM)
These non-debates are disappointing. Surely you all have more nuanced thoughts on these issues.

For those who believe in regulation (as I do) there are important questions of the extent to which regulation is desirable. Many of gdw's examples do not imply (to me) that all regulation is bad, but they do suggest that often we (as a society) get it wrong. And that is always worthy of intelligent discussion.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 12:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:44, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
These non-debates are disappointing. Surely you all have more nuanced thoughts on these issues.

For those who believe in regulation (as I do) there are important questions of the extent to which regulation is desirable. Many of gdw's examples do not imply (to me) that all regulation is bad, but they do suggest that often we (as a society) get it wrong. And that is always worthy of intelligent discussion.

John
[/quote]

I agree. John, I actually do NOT think all regulation is bad. I actually support the idea of standards and regulations. What I don't support is enforcing them at the point of a gun, and with locking people in cages, and having a monopoly, which is hugely open to lobbying and corruption, running such regulations, and being used by larger corporations to regulate out competition from smaller businesses.

Like so:
http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/49834/group/homepage/
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 01:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:31, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:25, Tom Cutts wrote:
Not from the products having been pasteurized... Unless you consider the acceptance of less flavorful a living death.
[/quote]

Didn't say it was from the pasteurization. The same way it's not the raw milk that kills people, but what it can get tainted with.
[/quote] The problem with your line of thought is the raw milk became tainted because it was not pasteurized and/or it was handled improperly... Which makes the argument for either monitoring handling or requiring a process, pasteurization, which great reduces the chance of food poisoning. The folks who you are championing here simply refuse to monitoring of their handling. Rather than take legal challenge in the courts, they choose to trudge headlong against the law, time after time. You'll never guess what the outcome is.

I find it interesting you support killing in the name of profit, but not monopolizing in the name of profit.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2011 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:45, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:44, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
These non-debates are disappointing. Surely you all have more nuanced thoughts on these issues.

For those who believe in regulation (as I do) there are important questions of the extent to which regulation is desirable. Many of gdw's examples do not imply (to me) that all regulation is bad, but they do suggest that often we (as a society) get it wrong. And that is always worthy of intelligent discussion.

John
[/quote]

I agree. John, I actually do NOT think all regulation is bad. I actually support the idea of standards and regulations. What I don't support is enforcing them at the point of a gun, and with locking people in cages, and having a monopoly, which is hugely open to lobbying and corruption, running such regulations, and being used by larger corporations to regulate out competition from smaller businesses.

Like so:
http://www.wday.com/event/article/id/49834/group/homepage/
[/quote]

How do you support enforcing them?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 14:08, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:31, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 13:25, Tom Cutts wrote:
Not from the products having been pasteurized... Unless you consider the acceptance of less flavorful a living death.
[/quote]

Didn't say it was from the pasteurization. The same way it's not the raw milk that kills people, but what it can get tainted with.
[/quote] The problem with your line of thought is the raw milk became tainted because it was not pasteurized and/or it was handled improperly... Which makes the argument for either monitoring handling or requiring a process, pasteurization, which great reduces the chance of food poisoning. The folks who you are championing here simply refuse to monitoring of their handling. Rather than take legal challenge in the courts, they choose to trudge headlong against the law, time after time. You'll never guess what the outcome is.

I find it interesting you support killing in the name of profit, but not monopolizing in the name of profit.
[/quote]

Where is anything said about refusing any monitoring or proper handling of the milk?

"milk became tainted because it was . . . handled improperly" Yes, the exact same way that pasteurized milk can, and does, ALSO become tainted.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 01:15PM)
And enough with the "support killing."

I support letting people be able to choose for themselves.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 01:22PM)
Including letting companies kill their customers and or employees in the name of profits. The free choice will fix it all!

So, an entire hour and you haven't posted a link to a story about pasteurized products killing people. You're losing your touch.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Aug 5, 2011 01:41PM)
As I get older, I agree with Tom a bit more.... (on some ideas)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 5, 2011 01:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 14:15, gdw wrote:

I support letting people be able to choose for themselves.

[/quote]

And when I contract tuberculosis from someone who got it from drinking raw milk how is that choosing for myself?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 01:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 14:44, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 14:15, gdw wrote:

I support letting people be able to choose for themselves.

[/quote]

And when I contract tuberculosis from someone who got it from drinking raw milk how is that choosing for myself?
[/quote]

There is something fallacious in this, but I can't quite put it into words. Perhaps someone else can.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2011 02:00PM)
[quote]On 2011-08-05 14:55, gdw wrote:
[quote]On 2011-08-05 14:44, Payne wrote:
[quote]On 2011-08-05 14:15, gdw wrote:
I support letting people be able to choose for themselves.[/quote]
And when I contract tuberculosis from someone who got it from drinking raw milk how is that choosing for myself?[/quote]
There is something fallacious in this, but I can't quite put it into words. Perhaps someone else can.[/quote]
Payne could have chosen not to kiss anyone. He knew the job was dangerous when he took it.

;)
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 02:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 14:44, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 14:15, gdw wrote:

I support letting people be able to choose for themselves.

[/quote]

And when I contract tuberculosis from someone who got it from drinking raw milk how is that choosing for myself?
[/quote] You have caught on to his evil mastermind plan of solving the myth of over population by killing off those who willingly or even unknowingly engage in dangerous activities like buying milk and spinach, choking each other during sex, or now even kissing it appears.

Racist, sexist, and now kissist. Quickly, to the shuttle pods. Utopia is imploding!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 02:50PM)
"unknowingly engage in dangerous activities like buying milk and spinach,"
So dangerous apparently you need men with guns to come in and keep you safe, from FOOD, RUN AWAY!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 02:56PM)
When six people die you'll be complaining about that too. (Even though you claim to support killing for profit.)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 5, 2011 03:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 15:00, S2000magician wrote:

Payne could have chosen not to kiss anyone. He knew the job was dangerous when he took it.

;)
[/quote]

Which is why my motto is "Lips that tough Raw Milk will never touch mine". Actually my motto is "Asperitus Verto ea Volo" but it doesn't apply here
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 5, 2011 03:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 15:56, Tom Cutts wrote:
When six people die you'll be complaining about that too. (Even though you claim to support killing for profit.)
[/quote]

Tom, what the hell is wrong with you?
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 5, 2011 03:17PM)
Don't opress me with your rules and labels. I'm being freeeeeeeeeee!
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Aug 5, 2011 05:24PM)
Lol I'm starting to enjoy this thread.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Aug 6, 2011 03:25AM)
A Cow Pox on all your houses.

gdw wants all choices to be free, bar seeing shades of grey - that should be totally restricted.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 6, 2011 04:23AM)
I'm kind of hot and bothered thinking about kissing Payne.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 6, 2011 06:28AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 15:56, Tom Cutts wrote:
When six people die you'll be complaining about that too. (Even though you claim to support killing for profit.)
[/quote]
No, the Pentagon thread is thataway.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 6, 2011 08:31AM)
Third base!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 6, 2011 09:57AM)
[quote]On 2011-08-06 05:23, stoneunhinged wrote:
I'm kind of hot and bothered thinking about kissing Payne.[/quote]
What would Mai-Ling think about that?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 7, 2011 11:17AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-05 12:00, gdw wrote:
Yes Tom, the operative word IS "permission," and if you have to ask for it, you are not free.
[/quote]

You're right, we're not free. We have responsibilities in life [i]especially[/i] if we're in the business world to provide a service or product that's reasonably safe to consume. The procedures are in place to assure this and these people didn't not utilize them.

So, are you suggesting that to be truly free is to be allowed to sell food that has not been verified as safe to consume?

If, as you've posted, you understand the need for regulations, then I have to mirror lobowolf and ask; How do you propose enforcing those regulations? Quick, before this thread gets locked too!

As far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, it's already been established that it's not all-powerful. You can't commit libel or distribute classified information and claim protection under the 1st Amendment.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 7, 2011 12:21PM)
Ed, first off, freedom comes with responsibility, in fact much more than there currently is, especially with things like corporations preventing those producing food and such from being held to any for of real responsibilities when things go to pot.

How much of the whole cost did BP end up paying for the clean up of their spill?

As for private regulations and enforcement:

http://www.ul.com/
http://www.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/hoffman/EnclosureStandards.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/22/talk-derby-to-me-the-private-regulation-of-roller-derby-names/
http://ip.jotwell.com/what-can-roller-derby-girls-teach-us-about-ip-law-answer-more-than-you-think/
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Aug 7, 2011 01:48PM)
[quote]
Ed, first off, freedom comes with responsibility, in fact much more than there currently is, especially with things like corporations preventing those producing food and such from being held to any for of real responsibilities when things go to pot.
[/quote]
gwd, you're citing standards that many manufacturers don't follow. Most of what you listed isn't required by law, at least not in all circumstances, so many ignore the things you listed. For example, you can legally purchase electrical devices that aren't UL approved.

Anyone can write a safety standard and plenty of companies do publish standards, many that even surpass what's required by law, such as the UL Standard. Some people are afraid of getting sued and others really do care about their employees and customers.

But not everyone cares.

Some companies have been known to cut corners to increase profits if the expected costs of lawsuits wouldn't offset their increased profits.

There are many public laws regarding electricity, including the National Electrical Code, which was instituted in 1896. Electricians have to be licensed to ensure they are aware of these laws. The electricity-related laws for large buildings surpasses what is required for residential housing. The public laws exist precisely because the system you espouse wouldn't work.

Trying to prove the fire was caused by electricity can be difficult when all the insulation has burned away.


The number of ignorant people who would harm others because they weren't aware of the safety issues would be much larger than it is now if there were no laws. People do still die from people who violate legal standards, but in many cases they're stopped today before they cause harm. [i]They couldn't be stopped from doing permanent harm if there was no law to forbid their reckless actions[/i]. Also, without the law, there can be ambiguity as to what caused a death, but the law will make the law-breaker still accountable without absolute proof that it was their action that lead to harm.

Here's an example of what I meant in the last sentence above - it's sometimes hard to prove if the botulism from [i]this food[/i] killed a person without knowing everything they ate, but if the food manufacturer cut corners that lead to botulism in [i]their[/i] food that the person ate, they can still be held accountable for the death of the person.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
How much of the whole cost did BP end up paying for the clean up of their spill?
[/quote]
Not all of the damage was reversible, so they paid to clean up only part of the damage.

The BP captain violated existing law, which is why BP was accountable.

How could someone be penalized if they broke no law?


Look, to some extent I sympathize with your view. I certainly wouldn't want rules preventing anything that could result in any possible harm. Then going outside without sunscreen would be illegal! But, there are certain things, such as electricity, that are very dangerous and can cause great harm unless they are used within strict guidelines. These things should be regulated, and they only reliable way to regulate something is with laws. Selling food also falls into this category, which is why restaurants get inspected by the board of health, the food and drug administration exists, and there are laws regarding the manufacturing of many things we ingest. Other things, such as the farmer selling corn by the roadside, are not regulated because they are known to be generally safe.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 7, 2011 02:47PM)
Relax guys, gdw supports killing in the name of profit. Just move on...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 7, 2011 02:50PM)
What a police state.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 7, 2011 08:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-07 14:48, Bill Hallahan wrote:
[quote]
Ed, first off, freedom comes with responsibility, in fact much more than there currently is, especially with things like corporations preventing those producing food and such from being held to any for of real responsibilities when things go to pot.
[/quote]
gwd, you're citing standards that many manufacturers don't follow. Most of what you listed isn't required by law, at least not in all circumstances, so many ignore the things you listed. For example, you can legally purchase electrical devices that aren't UL approved.

Anyone can write a safety standard and plenty of companies do publish standards, many that even surpass what's required by law, such as the UL Standard. Some people are afraid of getting sued and others really do care about their employees and customers.

But not everyone cares.

Some companies have been known to cut corners to increase profits if the expected costs of lawsuits wouldn't offset their increased profits.
[/quote]

Yes, and they do so even WITH the laws currently in place, and in many cases they are actually facilitated by them.

[quote]
The number of ignorant people who would harm others because they weren't aware of the safety issues would be much larger than it is now if there were no laws. People do still die from people who violate legal standards, but in many cases they're stopped today before they cause harm. [i]They couldn't be stopped from doing permanent harm if there was no law to forbid their reckless actions[/i]. Also, without the law, there can be ambiguity as to what caused a death, but the law will make the law-breaker still accountable without absolute proof that it was their action that lead to harm.
[/quote]

Why do you think the only thing that can hold people accountable is the magic power of a "law," which only the state can create?

[quote]
Here's an example of what I meant in the last sentence above - it's sometimes hard to prove if the botulism from [i]this food[/i] killed a person without knowing everything they ate, but if the food manufacturer cut corners that lead to botulism in [i]their[/i] food that the person ate, they can still be held accountable for the death of the person.
[/quote]

Not sure exactly what you are saying here. You point out how it can be hard to pin point exactly what food poisoned someone, but that you when you do find what food is poisoned you can hold the manufacturer accountable. I'm just not sure what point you were trying to make exactly.

Again, even without the current system, there's no reason you could not track down what food was tainted, and, especially if the manufacturer didn't act to make things right with those they harmed, then you can bet there would be a big fall out that they would see in their sales. Who would buy from a company that sells tainted food, and shows a flagrant disregard for fixing it?

So much for Tom's insanity with regards to "killing for profit." It would do nothing but kill profits.

Point is there would definitely be HUGE pressure to take responsibility, and right your wrongs, or your business could simply crash and burn.

[quote]
gdw wrote:
[quote]
How much of the whole cost did BP end up paying for the clean up of their spill?
[/quote]
Not all of the damage was reversible, so they paid to clean up only part of the damage.
[/quote]

Oh good, so let's forget about holding people accountable for irreparable damage, only damage that can be undone.

Let's look at one of the many reasons they were not held fully accountable:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/03/limited-liability-oil-spills-a

"Under the law that established the...Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.

The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import."

And more thoughts on it:
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/05/oil-spills-incentives-and-the-economic-way-of-thinking.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8265356

So, what was that about holding them accountable with laws? Sounds like almost the exact opposite is what is happening.
Also, because laws like this, and the cartel nature of oil companies, and lobbying power, all only possible with the use of the government, such disregard for actual safety is common business practice, so they have no worry about any real backlash from their "customers" like they would have if there was a free market offering competition, where there would be other companies NOT acting so careless. You know, like the system I propose.

Instead, under the system you are advocating, the one currently in place, they are protected, and create a normalizing of such dangerous practices, and disregard of any real standards and regulations that could be in place.

You point out how there are those that don't choose to follow the voluntary standards like the ones I provided, and yet, in the current system, they hardly have to worry about standards because they practically set them themselves, along with all the other big players, so everyone plays by their rules. If someone doesn't want to play by their rules, well, good thing they have all those regulations in place and the government on their side to keep out such REAL competition.

[quote]
The BP captain violated existing law, which is why BP was accountable.

How could someone be penalized if they broke no law?
[/quote]
See above.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 7, 2011 09:29PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-07 13:21, gdw wrote:
Ed, first off, freedom comes with responsibility, in fact much more than there currently is, especially with things like corporations preventing those producing food and such from being held to any for of real responsibilities when things go to pot.

How much of the whole cost did BP end up paying for the clean up of their spill?

As for private regulations and enforcement:

http://www.ul.com/
http://www.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/hoffman/EnclosureStandards.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/22/talk-derby-to-me-the-private-regulation-of-roller-derby-names/
http://ip.jotwell.com/what-can-roller-derby-girls-teach-us-about-ip-law-answer-more-than-you-think/
[/quote]

Nice way not to answer the question.

Self regulation is good, but it's not the end all and be all.

If you understand the need for regulations, then how are those regulations to be enforced?
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Aug 7, 2011 09:59PM)
Gdw wrote:
[quote]
Yes, and they do so even WITH the laws currently in place, and in many cases they are actually facilitated by them.
[/quote]
I am not aware of how any law has facilitated an electrical danger. Perhaps some other laws are bad, but you posted an example and I'm refuting [i]that[/i] example about electrical standards. I'm discussing what you wrote in your post.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
Why do you think the only thing that can hold people accountable is the magic power of a "law," which only the state can create?
[/quote]
First, I never wrote that's the [i]only thing...[/i], I wrote that laws are important and necessary in some cases.

The reason laws are necessary [i]in some cases[/i] is because in our society, we don't support lynch mobs. We have courts of law. You can sue someone in court, but if they don't violate any law then it will be very difficult to win, you'll have to establish a new precedent.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
Not sure exactly what you are saying here. You point out how it can be hard to pin point exactly what food poisoned someone, but that you when you do find what food is poisoned you can hold the manufacturer accountable. I'm just not sure what point you were trying to make exactly.
[/quote]
My point is that it's often difficult to prove cause and effect because of ambiguity of circumstance, but if the seller violates the law then they're guilty for risking people regardless of whether any specific case can be proven. This way, if someone clearly dies because someone sold bad food, it doesn't matter if smart lawyers can try to obfuscate the issue by claiming that [i]other[/i] food could have poisoned them.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
Again, even without the current system, there's no reason you could not track down what food was tainted...
[/quote]
This is often false. There are numerous cases where the source of bad food was suspected, but could not be proven. What could be proven is that the manufacturer violated safe manufacturing processes that could result in food contamination. That was my point above.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
So much for Tom's insanity with regards to "killing for profit." It would do nothing but kill profits.
[/quote]
Tom, was being sarcastic. However, if someone is killed, it doesn't help them later if the company goes out of business. It has happened. Some people take unethical risks for profit. They do this because of ignorance and/or greed.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
Oh good, so let's forget about holding people accountable for irreparable damage, only damage that can be undone.
[/quote]
Glen, at no point in my previous post did I imply that people shouldn't be held accountable. I wrote:
[quote]
Not all of the damage was reversible, so they paid to clean up only part of the damage.
[/quote]
Not good enough. In certain situations, if safety rules aren't followed, deaths are even likely.

And, I can't imagine how you reached that conclusion from that true statement. It's also pretty clear I was refuting your idea that compensation after-the-fact isn't always a good solution. In cases where ignoring certain guidelines is likely to kill people, after-the-fact compensation wouldn't help the injured.

And, it's clear is won't always serve as a deterrent too. People do break building guidelines occasionally, but the law prevents widespread abuse.

gdw wrote:
[quote]
"Under the law that established the...Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.
[/quote]
Yes, the [b]law[/b] that established the...Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I am arguing for some laws, not mere standards that can be, and often are, ignored by manufacturers.

But, to the best of my knowledge, no person died, or even got sick, due to that particular oil spill (although that's probably hard to prove and it if did happen, it would strengthen the argument for the existing law that the captain of the ship violated). But, bad milk can and has definitely make some people extremely sick, and even killed some people. Money can't compensate for a death.

By the way, oil spills happen all the time even without anyone breaking the law - there is considerable technical risk in oil exploration and transport. That's the reason for certain compensation laws. The BP case is different, it's a case of recklessness.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 8, 2011 07:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-07 22:29, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-07 13:21, gdw wrote:
Ed, first off, freedom comes with responsibility, in fact much more than there currently is, especially with things like corporations preventing those producing food and such from being held to any for of real responsibilities when things go to pot.

How much of the whole cost did BP end up paying for the clean up of their spill?

As for private regulations and enforcement:

http://www.ul.com/
http://www.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/hoffman/EnclosureStandards.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/22/talk-derby-to-me-the-private-regulation-of-roller-derby-names/
http://ip.jotwell.com/what-can-roller-derby-girls-teach-us-about-ip-law-answer-more-than-you-think/
[/quote]

Nice way not to answer the question.

Self regulation is good, but it's not the end all and be all.

If you understand the need for regulations, then how are those regulations to be enforced?
[/quote]

Ed, if you bothered to read any of those links, you would see that I DID answer the question as to how they would be enforced.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 8, 2011 07:48AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-08 08:33, gdw wrote:

Nice way not to answer the question.

Self regulation is good, but it's not the end all and be all.

If you understand the need for regulations, then how are those regulations to be enforced?
[/quote]

Ed, if you bothered to read any of those links, you would see that I DID answer the question as to how they would be enforced.
[/quote]

Self-enforcement is the only thing you recognize? OK, can you show me what self-enforcement procedures were in place from either the store or the provider of the raw milk that would have protected people?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 8, 2011 07:09PM)
Ed, the links were not about "self enforcement," but rather independent third party verification and enforcement.

As for procedures taken by Rawsome, it's kind of hard currently to find much that's not focused on the raid(s), but this link, from the previous raid I believe, addresses their track record as far as people getting sick, or rather the lack of record of anyone getting sick from their products:
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/fallout-from-the-rawsome-raid-in-l-a-building-code-safety-infractions-and-missouri-cheesemaker-shut-down-while-iowa-egg-recaller-continues-to-ship/

Comparison to govt regulations being "enforced" and holding people "accountable:"
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/08/23/lawmaker-why-didnt-feds-crack-down-on-decoster/
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 8, 2011 11:05PM)
I don't get you Glen. On the one hand, you complain that government regulations shouldn't exist,
then you complain because they weren't enforced properly.

Pick a side.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 08:19AM)
Not quite Ed. I complain that no one has a right to force them on others.
I also point out their ineptitude, how, instead of keeping the big companies under control, the allow the big companies to control the little ones.

People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 9, 2011 09:04AM)
[quote]On 2011-08-09 09:19, gdw wrote:
People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.[/quote]
You cannot possibly know this for certain.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 9, 2011 10:03AM)
But I gotta have faith-faith-faith
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 9, 2011 10:20AM)
[quote]On 2011-08-09 11:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
But I gotta have faith-faith-faith[/quote]
Or High Hopes.

(Cue the Sinatra tape . . . .)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 9, 2011 11:46AM)
Anybody got a forklift to get this lousy rubber tree out of my path?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 9, 2011 01:37PM)
Why is "without" all bolded out and capitalized, anyway? It would be much more horrifying to be arrested for selling raw milk [b]WITH[/b] permission.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 9, 2011 01:45PM)
[quote]On 2011-08-09 14:37, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Why is "without" all bolded out and capitalized, anyway?[/quote]
I'm not sure you can bold anything in a thread title.

;)
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 9, 2011 02:00PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 09:19, gdw wrote:
Not quite Ed. I complain that no one has a right to force them on others.
I also point out their ineptitude, how, instead of keeping the big companies under control, the allow the big companies to control the little ones.

People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.
[/quote]

You can believe that. The system we have is certainly not perfect, but it needs correction not dismisal. I simply can't follow your feelings.
We had your world, it was the turn of the last century when the government basically got out of the way of business and we ended up with the monopolies that the government finally had to step in and break up. It was a great place... provided you were one of the elite.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 02:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 15:00, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 09:19, gdw wrote:
Not quite Ed. I complain that no one has a right to force them on others.
I also point out their ineptitude, how, instead of keeping the big companies under control, the allow the big companies to control the little ones.

People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.
[/quote]

You can believe that. The system we have is certainly not perfect, but it needs correction not dismisal. I simply can't follow your feelings.
We had your world, it was the turn of the last century when the government basically got out of the way of business and we ended up with the monopolies that the government finally had to step in and break up. It was a great place... provided you were one of the elite.
[/quote]

What monopolies are you referring too?
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 9, 2011 02:23PM)
I'm still trying to figure out what's with the Oakley logo in the thread title. Do the anti-regulation rants now have corporate sponsorship? That would kind of make sense...
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 02:30PM)
I was attempting to place a smilie, but they apparently don't work in thread titles.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 9, 2011 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 15:23, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 15:00, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 09:19, gdw wrote:
Not quite Ed. I complain that no one has a right to force them on others.
I also point out their ineptitude, how, instead of keeping the big companies under control, the allow the big companies to control the little ones.

People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.
[/quote]

You can believe that. The system we have is certainly not perfect, but it needs correction not dismisal. I simply can't follow your feelings.
We had your world, it was the turn of the last century when the government basically got out of the way of business and we ended up with the monopolies that the government finally had to step in and break up. It was a great place... provided you were one of the elite.
[/quote]

What monopolies are you referring too?
[/quote]

What monopolies were developing in the 1900's?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 04:35PM)
http://www.dadyer.com/Economic%20Readings/witchhunting%20for%20robber%20barons.htm
http://mises.org/daily/5274/100-Years-of-Myths-about-Standard-Oil

Not that you'll give any weight to their words.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 9, 2011 04:37PM)
I just want to concede the point that we all understand what Glenn is saying. Even if we do not believe it, and can find all sorts of holes in it and in reality Glenn, you are not the best champion for the cause.

So can you please just stop posting this goofy stuff? We get it already. Seriously WE GET IT. We all know your position perfectly and don't need more examples of the evil of regulation and government. Why do you do this?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 05:02PM)
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=428271&forum=32&10

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=427599&forum=32&141

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=428144&forum=32&26

Because people make threads like those, most everyone is pointing out the symptoms, but so few are willing to acknowledge the root cause.
They say "it's not perfect, but we have it the best it's ever been."
You know what, in many ways, they are completely RIGHT.
That doesn't mean it can't be better.

Danny, we also all know your position perfectly well, so why do you continue to repeat yourself?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 9, 2011 06:36PM)
Glenn, it's hard to take your Mises link seriously:

As if the only issue about monopolies were predatory pricing. It's about the concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands. What we see then is price gouging, and in the case of media outlets, unearned political influence.

As if, left to the "free market," market share will be evenly divided amongst an ever growing pool of competitors.

Even Capitalists don't believe that.
Especially Capitalists.
Time to open up some Marx.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 08:18PM)
"What we see then is price gouging, and in the case of media outlets, unearned political influence."

Price gouging can ONLY be sustained when barriers to entry are are established and maintained by regulation.

"An efficiency monopoly has no legal power to compel people to deal with it or to protect itself from the consequences of its unethical practices. It can only attain bigness through its excellence in satisfying customers and by the economy of its operations. An efficiency monopoly which turns its back on the very performance which produced its success would be posting a sign, “COMPETITORS WANTED.” The market rewards excellence and exacts a toll on mediocrity."

The entire notion that one company could clear out competition by predatory price cutting only to turn around and charge what ever they like simply doesn't stand up.

If they eliminated competition by price cutting, then that simply means competition could not be profitable at similar prices. However, once the company turns around and starts price gouging, unless their "gouged" prices are still less than their competition was charging (which would still be a win for the customer) then there is nothing to stop competition from re-entering the market, thereby eliminating any possibility of the "monopoly" charging "whatever they want."

"2. The large firm stands to lose the most. By definition, the large firm is already selling the most units. As a predator, it must actually step up its production if it is to have any effect on competitors. As Professor McGee observed, “To lure customers away from somebody, he (the predator) must be prepared to serve them himself. The monopolizer thus finds himself in the position of selling more—and therefore losing more—than his competitors.”"

"5. Any “beaten” firms may reopen. Competitors may scale down production or close only temporarily as they “wait out the storm.” When the predator raises prices, they enter the market again. Conceivably, a “beaten” firm might be bought up by someone for a “song,” and then, under fresh management and with relatively low capital costs, face the predator with an actual competitive cost advantage.

6. High prices encourage newcomers. Even if the predator drives everyone else from the market, raising prices will attract competition from people heretofore not even in the industry. The higher the prices go, the more powerful that attraction."

It simply does NOT work in a FREE market. It can't be done without using government to regulate out any potential competition re-entering the market.


"Standard’s service to the consumer in the form of lower prices is well-documented. To quote from Professor Armentano again:

Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to .452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.[8]

That story continued for the remainder of the century, with the price of kerosene to the consumer falling to 5.91 cents per gallon in 1897. Armentano concludes from the record that “at the very pinnacle of Standard’s industry ‘control,’ the costs and the prices for refined oil reached their lowest levels in the history of the petroleum industry.”[9]"

"in the case of media outlets, unearned political influence."

Political influence is only useful if the politicians have a hand in the market, which would make it, by definition, NOT a free market.

http://www.dadyer.com/Economic%20Readings/witchhunting%20for%20robber%20barons.htm
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 9, 2011 08:47PM)
"An efficiency monopoly has no legal power to compel people to deal with it or to protect itself from the consequences of its unethical practices. It can only attain bigness through its excellence in satisfying customers and by the economy of its operations. An efficiency monopoly which turns its back on the very performance which produced its success would be posting a sign, “COMPETITORS WANTED.” The market rewards excellence and exacts a toll on mediocrity."

This is fantasy, Glenn. Capital is required to compete; how many new car companies are popping up every day despite the opportunity for the creation of a much better product? And as competitors compete, investors invest with the profitable side, creating more concentration and accruing greater advantages for a company's self preservation, which in turn creates more concentration. As a company gains a larger share of the market they begin to standardize and define the market as well.

Windows or Mac?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 9, 2011 09:09PM)
Yes, it does require capital, and there are plenty out there, even now, who have the capital, however, as I mentioned, the amount needed is increased exponentially by the barriers to entry created and maintained via the government.
There are people who could afford the start up, but it's simply no longer profitable.
Without these barriers, the ability to make a profit dramatically increases, along with the number of people who can afford to do so.

This is the entire foundation of the difference between an efficiency monopoly and a coercive one.

It's the same reason so many small business simply can't compete with big box stores now. The costs just to buy permission to do business make it not profitable.

iPhone, android, HTC, Rogers, Bell, Motorola, Siemens, LG, Sony, or Samsung?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 10, 2011 04:05PM)
Here's a perfect example of what I am talking about:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-05/news/chi-local-ice-cream-makers-could-be-shut-down-by-state-20110805_1_kris-swanberg-nice-cream-strawberry-syrup
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 10, 2011 04:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 22:09, gdw wrote:

iPhone, android, HTC, Rogers, Bell, Motorola, Siemens, LG, Sony, or Samsung?
[/quote]
Wait a few years and your list will be shortened.
And I don't think any of those are start-up companies. They are companies that already have plenty of capital.
Which you and I do not.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 10, 2011 04:20PM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-10 17:12, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 22:09, gdw wrote:

iPhone, android, HTC, Rogers, Bell, Motorola, Siemens, LG, Sony, or Samsung?
[/quote]
Wait a few years and your list will be shortened.
And I don't think any of those are start-up companies. They are companies that already have plenty of capital.
Which you and I do not.
[/quote]

Yes, which is why I posted the story just above your post, which shows exactly what's stopping start up companies from competing.
Even not looking at mom and pop size start ups, there would still be those with more than enough money to jump back in to the market, or re-jump in, when the monopoly started gouging.
Unless you are suggesting that every potential businessman would have gone bankrupt.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 10, 2011 04:54PM)
1) Most new businesses as you are well aware, do fail.
2) A smaller company cannot ride out losses as long as a larger company.
3) Investment money goes to the company with even a slight advantage. This in turn multiplies the company's advantage.
4) It costs far more money to start a business than to continue it, due to investment in plant, regardless of government interference. A running business always has an advantage over a start-up.
5) Rarely does a small entrepreneur compete successfully against an established business by beating the larger business on price. The most successful have been those who have carved out a new niche in the market. When a new innovation occurs within an industry the innovation is almost always co-opted in one way or the other by the larger companies.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Aug 10, 2011 06:03PM)
Yes, all true, and all of those made exponentially worse in the current market, as shown at in the above article.

Many are still able to (barely) compete with those inflated start up costs as things are now, they would have far MORE opportunity to do so, and stay in the market, in a free market, thus making it even harder for a monopoly to gain and maintain control of a market without maintaining competitively low prices ad infinitum.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 12, 2011 04:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-09 09:19, gdw wrote:
Not quite Ed. I complain that no one has a right to force them on others.
I also point out their ineptitude, how, instead of keeping the big companies under control, the allow the big companies to control the little ones.

People free of coercion and force, dealing with REAL competition will do much better, and do so more safely.
[/quote]

You want to hear about REAL competition?

I used to work for a company called Art Mold. We printed on promotional items. (I'll bet half of you have a plastic key tag that looks like a luggage tag with fake stitching running around the edge, that's an AM-380 or the big plastic #1 with some inane slogan in the shaft. That's an AM-1. We were one of the biggest promotional companies in the country, constantly winning contests at promotional conventions. (Yes, promotional companies have conventions... I don't think they do much cos-play though!)

Along comes Norwood Promotion which wanted to be the BIGGEST promotional company in America. Their solution was to buy up the other three biggest companies, Art Mold being one of them.

We were called into a meeting and told that Norwood had only our best intentions at heart. We were not going to lose our corporate identity. We would remain "Art Mold-The Action Line - A Norwood Company." My co-worker summed it up best; "Update your resumes."

Within six months, they announced that there was corporate confusion in the business world and as of now we were "Norwood - The Action Line" (The other two companies had similar name changes.)

A year or so later, they called us in again and announced; "The lease is up on this building. We are not getting a new lease, we are not getting a new building. All the equipment and contracts are being sent to our home office in Illinois. If you want, you can apply for permission to move to Illinois and join us there." (Mind you, [i]applying[/i] didn't automatically mean you were going to Illinois, they had to see if they needed you there first!)

So there you are. They got their wish, they are the biggest promotional company in America. And over three dozen people in Rhode Island lost their jobs. (Again, I don't know about the other two companies. I can only imagine they faced similar situations.)

I also discovered no on wanted a 46 year old typesetter/graphic artist ("more trainable" was the phrase I heard) and after 11 months of searching, I ended up at Wal Mart where I have been for 8 years! (In four more years, I'll be making what I was making at Art Mold when it was "engulfed and devoured.")

So there you are Glen, there's your wonderful open competition.

I'm not suggesting that there was anything that could have been done to stop Norwood. What they did was perfectly above board and fully legal.

It also sucked for over three dozen people.