The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Raided and arrested for selling raw milk, WITHOUT permission :O: (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
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.

;)


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
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
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.)


Tom, what the hell is wrong with you?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Don't opress me with your rules and labels. I'm being freeeeeeeeeee!
RS1963
View Profile
Inner circle
2711 Posts

Profile of RS1963
Lol I'm starting to enjoy this thread.
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
A Cow Pox on all your houses.

gdw wants all choices to be free, bar seeing shades of grey - that should be totally restricted.
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
I'm kind of hot and bothered thinking about kissing Payne.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4734 Posts

Profile of landmark
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.)

No, the Pentagon thread is thataway.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Third base!
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 05:23, stoneunhinged wrote:
I'm kind of hot and bothered thinking about kissing Payne.

What would Mai-Ling think about that?
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2699 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
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.


You're right, we're not free. We have responsibilities in life especially 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.
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
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/......ards.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/22/t......y-names/
http://ip.jotwell.com/what-can-roller-de......u-think/
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Bill Hallahan
View Profile
Inner circle
New Hampshire
3212 Posts

Profile of Bill Hallahan
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.

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. They couldn't be stopped from doing permanent harm if there was no law to forbid their reckless actions. 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 this food killed a person without knowing everything they ate, but if the food manufacturer cut corners that lead to botulism in their 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?

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.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch"
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5708 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Relax guys, gdw supports killing in the name of profit. Just move on...
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15746 Posts

Profile of tommy
What a police state.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
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.

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.


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. They couldn't be stopped from doing permanent harm if there was no law to forbid their reckless actions. 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.


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 this food killed a person without knowing everything they ate, but if the food manufacturer cut corners that lead to botulism in their food that the person ate, they can still be held accountable for the death of the person.


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?

Not all of the damage was reversible, so they paid to clean up only part of the damage.


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/limite......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/......ing.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis......x8265356

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?

See above.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2699 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
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/......ards.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/22/t......y-names/
http://ip.jotwell.com/what-can-roller-de......u-think/


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?
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
Bill Hallahan
View Profile
Inner circle
New Hampshire
3212 Posts

Profile of Bill Hallahan
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.

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 that 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?

First, I never wrote that's the only thing..., I wrote that laws are important and necessary in some cases.

The reason laws are necessary in some cases 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.

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 other 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, the law 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.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch"
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
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/......ards.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/22/t......y-names/
http://ip.jotwell.com/what-can-roller-de......u-think/


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?


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.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2699 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
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?


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?
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
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/2010/09/0......to-ship/

Comparison to govt regulations being "enforced" and holding people "accountable:"
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/i......ecoster/
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Raided and arrested for selling raw milk, WITHOUT permission :O: (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL