Raw Milk Production Lands Amish Man In Jail
Isn't it great when people A get to arrest people B because people A don't like what people B are selling, or even eating?
Its an awful place to live when our elected government can choose what we're not allowed to eat, drink, or buy as individuals. And, in an economy suffering through a recession, you'd think the US government would encourage this type of small business, for the greater good. Of course, this type of government over-regulation and intolerance is a small example of the type of things the government is doing to hurt their own economy, and in the process, take away freedoms from good citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Obviously the elected GOVERNMENT chooses what we can do and can't do. It's a government; that's what it does. An elected government is only different in the fact that it is legitimate in the sense that a majority of voters supported its creation. Moreover, when people B break the democratically formed laws of the state, yes, people B should suffer the consequences. Those who question the government's rights in such a situation are also questioning the very right of government to exist, which means the very basic protections of property, free speech, etc, because without some form of government there is anarchy. And no, you can't pick-and-choose which laws you want and do not want. You either support the democratic result or you are a hypocrite who picks-n-chooses. Very simple.
Finally, the greater good has been served in this example. Unprocessed milk causes baterial infections IN OTHER PEOPLE, which means Nolt should have got the proper permit to ensure that his product is not dangerous.
Unfortunately, laws aren't formed democratically. Referendums are hardly ever used when creating laws.
We have a democratically elected government where the few create laws to restrict the many.
I do not question the right of government existence, I question the right of government to revoke rights from citizens.
The greater good would be to allow responsible adults to consume and purchase what they want, and to be held responsible for not educating themselves on harmful substances they are ingesting.
If I want to purchase and drink raw milk from my neighbors cow, why should my neighbor need a permit to sell it to me?
Okay , you guys haveing fun now?
Surely josh you are not suggesting a government by referandum only!
The law to ban the sale of raw milk is a constitutionally valid law. The people have supported one government after another in making and keeping this law.
I may not like this law but i support the messy system that enables such laws to exist. I do not see any other alternative that ensures my individual wants are met while all individual wants are met.
The law to ban raw milk is outdated and wrong headed. it was put into effect because the government of the day felt it was the only way to stop the deaths of so many citizens from infected raw milk.
Why was the milk dirty you ask. because of poor farming practices and instead of cleaning up the farms they implemented pasteurization. and made it illegal to sell raw milk.
This protects the whole regulated dairy industry and turns milk into a vitual non food with most of its reall food value gone.
Such is democracy. Oddly it allows the sale of twinkies!
I'm not suggesting there should be a referendum for every piece of legislation.
My point is more, how do we know the majority of people would support this regulation?
We can't, and we don't.
Say there was a national referendum and 51% think it should be illegal to injest raw milk, but 49% says it should be legal. The opinion of the 51% should override what should be the freedom of the other 49%. That to me does not seem very fair, it seems to me it discriminates against minorities.
This law is an example of why government should be restricted from revoking rights from citizens.
Of course laws are formed democratically. Officals are elected and they legislate new laws. And if you don't like what they are doing now, you can elect new representatives in 4 years.
Rights are not rights. They are not inherent. History proves this without a doubt. The rights you talk about were legislated by a small number of delegates from the original states. Rights are laws that are suppose to protect the citizen from state power. But STATE POWER IS NOT REGULATION AGAINST THESE RIGHTS, at least not per se. State power only tramples upon the rights legislated in the constitution when it limits those freedoms. Nolt's raw milk operation was not an example of limitation, because Nolt's raw milk has the potential to kill or hurt others if it is not produced properly. No one, and I mean NO ONE has the right to trample upon my right to live and to live healthily. If somneone wants to sell a dangerous product he or she SHOULD meet the requirements of an objective set of criteria set down democratically.
No one has the right to sell products that can cause death.
Tell that to a car dealer, McDonalds, the tobacco industry, the military industrial complex, gun shops, liqour stores . . .
Well, government has a right to trample on your right to live, considering, as you said, government legislates your right to live.
You obviously are not thinking about what I have written. Cars, McDonald's, guns, cigarettes, and liquor are regulated based on the rights in the bill of rights.
"Well, government has a right to trample on your right to live, considering, as you said, government legislates your right to live." And here we return to a fundamental problem with republicanism: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE GOVERNMENT". "The government" is just a bunch of people deciding and arguing about political problems. If you want to return to a time before legislated rights, you're welcome to it: Step one, watch "Borderland"; step two, move to Mexico.
One group of people should not be able to create laws limiting an individual's ability to pursue happiness, with the exception when that pursuit interfers with another individuals pursuit of happiness.
Exactly, and selling bacteria infected raw milk limits the happiness of the person who buys the milk and get sick from it.
Thats the choice of the person buying it.
I don't have a choice if I don't know that the food is contaminated. That's a simple fact.
If you research what you eat, and you determine raw milk has a high possibility of being contaminated than you like, then you do not have to purchase it.
Pish-posh. I buy things that I don't research all the time.
That's your choice.
No, it is necessity. I don't have time to research everything I buy.
Nor am I educated to research all that I buy.
Why should the seller be blamed for your ignorance?
We've grown up thinking we don't need to learn about items we purchase because government is there to protect us.
However, even Dad would agree, as an example, this has been a monstrous failure when it comes to food, one of our most important purchases.
If you can't take the time to educate yourself about your purchase, than you shouldn't buy it, or deal with the consequences.
I would think it would be common sense that one of the worst places you can put your money is into a product you have not researched.
Would you ever buy a stock you know nothing about?
Of course not.
Stocks and everyday items are not equal. Bottomline, you can't research everything you buy competently, because you simply don't have the time or the competence.
Most items you don't need to because you've built a history with the product.
Like a box of Cheerios. No, you won't know what process it goes through, and you can never be guaranteed the product is 100% safe, but you know its 99.99999% safe based on your trust in the producer and the product.
This is similar to many everyday items...
You just shifted the argument.
No. You argue people do not have enough time or resources to gather all information regarding every product you purchase.
I argue its your responsibility to do so when you decide its necessary. You, as an individual, should not rely on other people to tell you if a product is safe.
Unfortunately, if you are not educated enough in certain fields you can not judge what you are researching or even decide that it is necessary to research something. When you are blind you can not see what you have not touched.
If thats the case, then use your judgment. To invest your money into a product you know nothing about is a bad decision no matter who you are.
So to know if a new product is safe I would have to read the data on it and then open a labratory to do my own tests on it? I don't think so. You have to rely on other people.
Post a Comment