Is anyone else bothered by the lack of trust watching?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Customers empower business, not the government. If meat standards suck, people will want better quality meat... a USDA-like testing company would form to make sure meat quality met their standards, their studies would be published, they'd hand out stickers for who they approve, and we'd be in the same place we are now.

Of course, if meat standards didn't suck, would we need them? I bet we'd still HAVE them because at least some people would still want some assurance that the meat they were buying met certain standards.

No reason to speculate. Sanitation was non-existent before government regulations. Completely free markets only work perfectly on paper, just like communism.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

No reason to speculate. Sanitation was non-existent before government regulations. Completely free markets only work perfectly on paper, just like communism.

What kind of sanitation? Garbage collection?

Soap has been around a pretty long time, so I'm sure you're not talking about that.

I can give plenty of examples of the government jumping in late in the "fixing something" game where the market had already fixed the issue and was still working (my favorite examples of these are OSHA-related, but there are plenty in many industries). In a lot of those cases, the government's involvement slowed the progress made and can be speculated that it even HURT the rate of progress by getting involved.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What kind of sanitation? Garbage collection?

Soap has been around a pretty long time, so I'm sure you're not talking about that.

I can give plenty of examples of the government jumping in late in the "fixing something" game where the market had already fixed the issue and was still working (my favorite examples of these are OSHA-related, but there are plenty in many industries). In a lot of those cases, the government's involvement slowed the progress made and can be speculated that it even HURT the rate of progress by getting involved.

The Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think success really has anything to do with anti trust, and I don't think monopolies are conducive to a true free market environment, but I suppose I could be wrong about that.

Monopolies cannot exist without the state supporting them.

Monopolies do not exist in a free market.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

abso-fucking-lutely.

Customers empower business, not the government. If meat standards suck, people will want better quality meat... a USDA-like testing company would form to make sure meat quality met their standards, their studies would be published, they'd hand out stickers for who they approve, and we'd be in the same place we are now.

Of course, if meat standards didn't suck, would we need them? I bet we'd still HAVE them because at least some people would still want some assurance that the meat they were buying met certain standards.

Plus the standards presented by a consumer group like that would be better than the USDA could possibly provide.

AND, it's the fascism of these groups that doesn't allow us to have, for instance, real cantaloupes. The FDA refuses to allow them into our country, so we only have the choice of eating musk melons labeled as cantaloupes.

AND it's the inefficiency of these groups that allows a certain degree of false advertising. Fat Free, Sugar Free, Low Sodium, etc... all of these words deceive the public because the FDA doesn't tell us what they mean, they just setup certain constraints the companies have to follow.

Consumer groups are WAY more efficient, more educating to the people, and in the end, cost the consumer less money.

And don't get me started on OSHA, ugh.

[lew]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

No reason to speculate. Sanitation was non-existent before government regulations. Completely free markets only work perfectly on paper, just like communism.

Uh, what?

[lew]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not biased. Not at all.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by lew

That's not biased. Not at all.

You are disputing that meat packing plants were actually sanitary? I guess I never really heard the arguement, but I suppose I'll bite, it was always just presented to me as a historical fact. Go ahead sir.

[Ardentfrost]

Oh man, I could write a huge fucking thing about The Jungle. The problem isn't the book (it was a good book, I enjoyed it), but the reaction to it. The book caused MAJOR loss in sales of American goods (especially meat) and instead of inspecting and certifying the work themselves, the company lobbied the gov't to pick up the bill of those actions. So the companies got a free ride in inspection that the tax payers, even those who don't normally buy those products, had to pay for.

And the labor problems outlined in the book didn't get any attention from the federal government until WAY later. The unnationalized unions of that time took care of most of those problems LONG before the government got involved. Once the unions nationalized, they started pushing for legislation which only allowed them to spend less money (turn more of a profit at the expense of the tax payers) and make them seem vitally important to their constituents. Labor laws got a lot of attention in the 40's and the 70's, both of which resulted in an increasing reason for workers to let the government worry about their own safety. When a worker thinks the government is taking care of his safety, he no longer worries about it as much as he should and continues to work through unsafe conditions. This creates situations like the mine explosion last year in WV (or was it KY?). The workers KNEW there were problems, but the company and the government were promising results, so they continued to work anyway, and 9 people died because of it.

So, even though Upton Sinclair was a socialist, I think his book was very important in getting those issues noticed so that they could be corrected, but what ended up happening was the worst things that could to fix the issues.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You are disputing that meat packing plants were actually sanitary? I guess I never really heard the arguement, but I suppose I'll bite, it was always just presented to me as a historical fact. Go ahead sir.

don't try arguing progressive reform with a paleolibertarian, you won't get anywhere. And I don't mean this as an insult, it's just a major part of the ideology.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

When a worker thinks the government is taking care of his safety, he no longer worries about it as much as he should and continues to work through unsafe conditions. This creates situations like the mine explosion last year in WV (or was it KY?). The workers KNEW there were problems, but the company and the government were promising results, so they continued to work anyway, and 9 people died because of it.

It was in WV, very close to where I live (Sago mine in Upshur County near Elkins)

The problem wasn't just the tanks, it was also that they didn't go in for several hours because they were afraid there was unburnt methane in there, and also because they were completely sealed off.

Most here accept the risks of working in the mines, and they are treated well by the companies in comparison with other jobs around here.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

don't try arguing progressive reform with a paleolibertarian, you won't get anywhere. And I don't mean this as an insult, it's just a major part of the ideology.

I have no problem with progressive reform - as long as it's people and the companies deciding themselves for the progressive reform. Not the government that is dictating what "reform" will be, based upon scare tactics and lobbyists.

For example, 95% of the food I buy is organic and I like to buy local, fresh food when I can. I also am planning on buying two hybrids to replace my current vehicles within the next month or so.

I have no problem with "progressive reform" or "progressive ideas" - again, as long as the government stays out of it.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by lew

I have no problem with progressive reform - as long as it's people and the companies deciding themselves for the progressive reform. Not the government that is dictating what "reform" will be, based upon scare tactics and lobbyists.

For example, 95% of the food I buy is organic and I like to buy local, fresh food when I can. I also am planning on buying two hybrids to replace my current vehicles within the next month or so.

I have no problem with "progressive reform" or "progressive ideas" - again, as long as the government stays out of it.

did you ever watch Penn & Teller's bullshit on organic foods?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

did you ever watch Penn & Teller's bullshit on organic foods?

I think I missed that one.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by lew

I think I missed that one.

This is the only part I found, you may have to look for the torrent

YouTube - Norman Borlaug

[lew]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

This is the only part I found, you may have to look for the torrent

YouTube - Norman Borlaug

Interesting.....but that means nothing to me.


I'm not advocating the government mandate that all foods be organic. I'm all for choice. I'm just choosing what I believe to be the "better" option - for people's health and the environment.

[lew]

Putfile - Penn Teller Foods

[Pro Street]

Greenpeace is a joke, and I consider myself an environmentalst

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by lew

I have no problem with progressive reform - as long as it's people and the companies deciding themselves for the progressive reform. Not the government that is dictating what "reform" will be, based upon scare tactics and lobbyists.

For example, 95% of the food I buy is organic and I like to buy local, fresh food when I can. I also am planning on buying two hybrids to replace my current vehicles within the next month or so.

I have no problem with "progressive reform" or "progressive ideas" - again, as long as the government stays out of it.

In the land of infinite information, infinite intellect, and infinite time that would be best, I agree. But as it is, I'd rather be able to just buy a steak with as little hassle as possible.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

So, you think the gov't and it's officials can'