Practical Consequences

Started by Xajow, May 25, 2011, 05:10:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xajow

First up, a family selling rabbits gets a government shakedown.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/usda-fines-missouri-family-90k-for-selling-a-few-rabbits-without-a-license/
      It started out as a hobby, a way for the Dollarhite family in Nixa, Mo., to teach a teenage son responsibility. Like a lemonade stand.

But now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government to the tune of a $90,643 fine. The fine was levied more than a year after authorities contacted family members, prompting them to immediately halt their part-time business and liquidate their equipment.

[...]

When a local pet store asked them to supply their pet rabbits, the Dollarhites had no idea they would be running afoul of an obscure federal regulation that prohibits selling more than $500 worth of rabbits to a pet store without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the law, pet stores are exempt from regulation.

[...]

The fine is part of a campaign to step up enforcement of the law that has included levying fines on magicians who use rabbits in magic hat tricks. An Inspector General report prompted increased enforcement, Sacks said.

[...]

“This cage is a quarter-inch too small, you’d have to have this replaced,” the inspector told Judy Dollarhite, she recalled.

In fact, there are no actual written USDA standards for what constitutes proper care of a rabbit by a wholesale breeder of pet animals, Sacks said. Instead, the process is a “negotiation” between a USDA official and a breeder when they apply for a license.

The inspector left the Dollarhites’ home, telling Judy Dollarhite she needed a license and saying she would send an application, Judy Dollarhite said. But the instructions were unclear and the application never came, Judy Dollarhite said.




Next, the government uses sting operations to protect us all from the public menace of.... milk. Raw milk, sold to people who knowingly and willingly choose to buy it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/21/MNVN1JH966.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1NNBLlW5R
      Pennsylvania Amish farmer Dan Allgyer has become a cause celebre for raw milk drinkers as the target of a Food and Drug Administration campaign - using sting operations and guns-drawn raids usually reserved for terrorists and drug lords - to eliminate unpasteurized milk.

Such milk, also known as raw or fresh milk, is legal in California and considered essential to Europe's finest cheeses, creams and butters.

But under the authority of a 1987 FDA regulation banning interstate commerce in raw milk, government agents have conducted a sting operation on a raw milk producer in Fresno, made three raids on a boutique goat cheese maker in Ventura County and descended with guns drawn on a raw milk buying club in Venice (Los Angeles County).

Allgyer is the latest to feel the force of a yearslong Food and Drug Administration campaign against raw milk that has focused on tiny farms and consumer co-ops.

Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, which sells raw milk to 50,000 customers a week in 400 stores in the Bay Area and the rest of the state, was the subject of an undercover investigation three years ago by federal agents, becoming the largest dairy owner targeted so far.

"They refuse to acknowledge raw milk can be done in a safe manner," McAfee said of the FDA. "The state of California is very effectively doing that. ... There is no recorded evidence anywhere, any place - the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, anybody - that shows anybody has ever died from raw milk in California."

[...]

The Food Safety and Modernization Act approved by Congress last year and signed by President Obama in January has vastly enhanced the agency's powers. Starting July 3, the agency can confiscate any food at any farm that it deems unsafe or mislabeled.

The FDA filed an injunction against Allgyer on April 19, accusing him of "contributing to the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" at his Rainbow Acres Farm in Kinzer, Pa., where he tends three dozen cows and sells their raw milk to a small buyers club in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.

The agency has not found Allgyer's milk to be contaminated, but it claims Allgyer is "engaged in milking cows and packaging, labeling, selling and distributing unpasteurized cow milk across state lines."

Federal agents began a sting operation on Allgyer in October 2009, posing as consumers to infiltrate the Grassfed on the Hill buying club that bought Allgyer's milk. The agents placed orders, getting Allgyer to deliver milk across the Maryland state line.

In April 2010, FDA agents, U.S. marshals and a state trooper made a predawn raid on his farm. There, they discovered "numerous portable coolers in the defendant's driveway that appeared to be milk," the injunction said.

[...]

Jonathan Emord, a food and drug attorney who is consulting with the buying club about a possible lawsuit, said the agency wants Allgyer to pay for its investigation, which could put the farmer out of business.

"There is not a single bit of evidence to show that any of the milk from Dan's cows injured anyone," Emord said.




I am very tempted to make a sarcastic comment about the pragmatism and compassion of these examples of non-libertarianism in action, but I won't. I'm trying to play nice.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Jude

#1
Pulling out two examples of governmental action gone wrong as proof that libertarianism works is about as sane as pointing to Bernie Maidoff singularly as proof that it doesn't.  Use statistics if you want to make a point about a trend, not anecdotes.

EDIT:  By the way, the latter part of the milk article is abject BS.  I can produce studies if you wish, but raw milk's supposed health benefits are not at all scientifically supported.  It's nonsense.

Xajow

Quote from: Jude on May 25, 2011, 09:12:53 PM
Pulling out two examples of governmental action gone wrong as proof that libertarianism works is about as sane as pointing to Bernie Maidoff singularly as proof that it doesn't.
You're right, those two stories by themselves certainly don't prove that. But then, I don't recall saying they did.

Quote from: Jude on May 25, 2011, 09:12:53 PM
Use statistics if you want to make a point about a trend, not anecdotes.
When I get around to making a point about a trend I'll do that.

Quote from: Jude on May 25, 2011, 09:12:53 PM
EDIT:  By the way, the latter part of the milk article is abject BS.  I can produce studies if you wish, but raw milk's supposed health benefits are not at all scientifically supported.  It's nonsense.
I don't care about that. I care about people getting arrested for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Person A has raw milk. Person B wants to buy raw milk. Person A sells raw milk to Person B. Why is that a crime? Whose rights have been violated? Why is impractical or wrong to say, "Hey, maybe we could do without that regulation or law"?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Jude

#3
Your quote, "I am very tempted to make a sarcastic comment about the pragmatism and compassion of these examples of non-libertarianism in action, but I won't. I'm trying to play nice," seems to imply you were trying to make a large-scale political point about these 2 cases.

As for why there's regulation about raw milk, they're trying to protect people from themselves because raw milk is more dangerous than processed milk and has no actual benefits (the small amount of pro-biotics which they may contain doesn't outweigh the increased risk of receiving dangerous bacteria according to scientific assessments).  The people who claim otherwise have no evidence and are basically making shit up.

You obviously think that it's wrong to regulate this, but I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate with you about that.

Shjade

Quote from: Xajow on May 25, 2011, 09:53:50 PM
I don't care about that. I care about people getting arrested for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Person A has raw milk. Person B wants to buy raw milk. Person A sells raw milk to Person B. Why is that a crime? Whose rights have been violated? Why is impractical or wrong to say, "Hey, maybe we could do without that regulation or law"?
In other words this thread's a pro-marijuana argument in milk's clothing? ;p
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Will

Quote from: Xajow on May 25, 2011, 09:53:50 PM
You're right, those two stories by themselves certainly don't prove that. But then, I don't recall saying they did.
When I get around to making a point about a trend I'll do that.
I don't care about that. I care about people getting arrested for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Person A has raw milk. Person B wants to buy raw milk. Person A sells raw milk to Person B. Why is that a crime? Whose rights have been violated? Why is impractical or wrong to say, "Hey, maybe we could do without that regulation or law"?

Stupid people who hurt themselves through ignorance means a higher health care and disability burden for everyone else.  This is why I'm all for seatbelt laws, etc.  We can say, just let the idiots hurt themselves, but if they end up paralyzed and in a wheelchair, they end up on disability.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Xajow

Quote from: Jude on May 25, 2011, 10:24:20 PM
Your quote, "I am very tempted to make a sarcastic comment about the pragmatism and compassion of these examples of non-libertarianism in action, but I won't. I'm trying to play nice," seems to imply you were trying to make a large-scale political point about these 2 cases.
I was trying to make a point about the manner in which "practical" and/or "compassionate" solutions are sometimes played out.

Quote from: Jude on May 25, 2011, 10:24:20 PM
As for why there's regulation about raw milk, they're trying to protect people from themselves because raw milk is more dangerous than processed milk and has no actual benefits (the small amount of pro-biotics which they may contain doesn't outweigh the increased risk of receiving dangerous bacteria according to scientific assessments).  The people who claim otherwise have no evidence and are basically making shit up.
Yet in other parts of the world, raw milk is used and consumed without massive spread of disease and death. Why is all raw milk in the U.S. inherently more dangerous than the raw milk in, say, France?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Shjade on May 25, 2011, 11:17:31 PM
In other words this thread's a pro-marijuana argument in milk's clothing? ;p
Ha! In a way, yes I suppose it is.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Will on May 26, 2011, 12:42:07 AM
Stupid people who hurt themselves through ignorance means a higher health care and disability burden for everyone else.  This is why I'm all for seatbelt laws, etc.  We can say, just let the idiots hurt themselves, but if they end up paralyzed and in a wheelchair, they end up on disability.
So are you in favor of compelling everyone to exercise, to conform to a specific diet and to get check-ups regularly to make sure they don't end up burdening everyone else?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Callie Del Noire

I find it amazing with the milk thing but then I'm still a bit dubious about the milk regulation issues after reading how Monsanto has pretty much rolled up and bulldozed over the US.  In almost every country they have had issues with their Bovine Growth Hormone, but here in the US Monsanto has been pushing for the removal of 'BGH free' labels to keep folks from telling the difference.


Will

Quote from: Xajow on May 26, 2011, 04:14:52 AM
So are you in favor of compelling everyone to exercise, to conform to a specific diet and to get check-ups regularly to make sure they don't end up burdening everyone else?

Some of that I would definitely be for, most specifically the regular checkups.  That kind of assumes universal health care, but given that, I think it's a great idea.  Enforcing diet and exercise go far beyond the limit of what's practical, though, so I'm not so keen on that.

Clearly our political ideologies are very far apart. ::)
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Xajow

Quote from: Will on May 26, 2011, 10:06:33 AM
Some of that I would definitely be for, most specifically the regular checkups.  That kind of assumes universal health care, but given that, I think it's a great idea.  Enforcing diet and exercise go far beyond the limit of what's practical, though, so I'm not so keen on that.
So would you then favor some form of required punishment for people who, at their mandated check-ups, were discovered to be overweight or had too high a cholesterol level?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Will

#12
No.  I think that requiring the visit would be productive enough in and of itself without having to resort to punishments.  I think people want to be healthy, in general, and giving them the means to do so would go a long way towards making the population healthier on average.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Xajow

I was not aware they were being denied a means to do so. But okay. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Will

Lack of insurance has a way of doing that.  Aversion to doctors/hospitals adds to it.  General lack of motivation and apathy contributes as well.  In light of all that, universal health care and required checkups seems like a good idea to me.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Xajow

Lack of motivation to use a service is not a denial of service.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Pointless Digression

Quote from: Xajow on May 26, 2011, 04:10:38 AM
Yet in other parts of the world, raw milk is used and consumed without massive spread of disease and death

         

Jude

#17
To be fair, I didn't cite my sources either -- which I probably should've.  Raw milk also doesn't lead to "massive" disease or death, that much is true.  However, there is a reason why everyone knows the name Louis Pasteur:  his process revolutionized the consumption of milk by making it much more safe.

I'd be more than happy to pull up some citations to back this up as long as we agree that any scientific discussion that we have on this subject will only accept legitimate, peer-reviewed literature from scientific journals to be evidence as opposed to anecdotes and passionate pleas from members of the organinite cult (my sarcastic term for those who have developed a pseudo-scientific world view around consumption of 'pure' products).

Noelle

#18
Quote from: Xajow on May 26, 2011, 12:08:09 PM
I was not aware they were being denied a means to do so. But okay. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Depends on how you're interpreting 'denied'. By all means, this is a free country and we are free to make many decisions regarding our lifestyle, but that's an awfully sunny outlook on what isn't actually. Look at the price of various types of foods, for starters -- the impoverished are ironically some of the heaviest, most unhealthy people out there simply because buying 10 frozen, sodium-laden, but complete dinners for $10 makes more sense than spending $10 on the produce and other ingredients it takes to make one, maybe two healthful dinners. They're free to choose, but what kind of choice are they making, exactly?

And food deserts -- places where the nearest outlet for fresh fruits and vegetables is beyond reasonable distance to travel for it or the actual availability is poor quality and/or too expensive -- are also cropping up in somewhat depressing amounts in more impoverished areas. There are no regulations for this, it is simply being driven by stores who do not see a demand for fruits and vegetables in a certain area (because the poor can't afford it in comparison to prepackaged foods), so they pull up the anchor and sail on past.

Tack that on to the rising cost of insurance, the disturbing lack of availability even for those with a full-time job (I fall into this category), the high cost of medical treatment for conditions that can arise from poor eating habits and lack of proper exercise, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster. Are they being denied? Technically, no. Does that mean that a laissez-faire approach is doing them any favors? Absolutely not.

We already have a kind of rewards system in place for those who do choose to partake in preventative care and drawbacks for those who don't. People who are obese pay higher premiums, and I think it's becoming increasingly common for insurance companies to offer incentives (lower premiums, free membership, etc.) for those who join gyms or make a certain weight (signed off by a doctor). It's certainly not dictating the kind of lifestyle people lead, but it is a bit of a goad in a certain direction.

But let's bring this back around to the raw milk debate. I'd like to liken it to holistic healing. People are feeding this stuff to their kids, who are also coincidentally at higher risk (along side the elderly) than your average, healthy adult of contracting diseases from any kind of mishandled raw milk product. It's not just a matter of letting adults make adult decisions for themselves, it's about the kind of impact those decisions have on those who are dependent on them and have no legal standing or otherwise to decide for themselves. No decision is truly insulated, at least not in a society that is as interconnected as ours is. If you get sick from consuming raw milk, you suddenly take time off of work, which is a loss in profit for the company, a larger burden on other workers who must compensate for your absence; conversely, if you decide to go to work anyway, there's decreased productivity, not to mention a potential burden on the health system, and you become infectious if you're carrying something like E. Coli. No big deal??

consortium11

Quote from: Will on May 26, 2011, 12:42:07 AM
Stupid people who hurt themselves through ignorance means a higher health care and disability burden for everyone else.  This is why I'm all for seatbelt laws, etc.  We can say, just let the idiots hurt themselves, but if they end up paralyzed and in a wheelchair, they end up on disability.

What about those who play consensual contact sports? Boxers, football players etc etc. They all go into each game knowing that there are risk of permanent injury... should they be banned or restricted?

Hell, cheerleading and horse riding (normally show jumping) have some of the worst injury stats for any sport (including serious ones). Should we be relegating and stopping who can and can't be cheerleaders due to risk of a higher healthcare and disability burden for everyone else?

Will

Again, you get into an issue of practicality.  Requiring seatbelts is much simpler than outlawing horse riding. 

Another factor is the percentage of people who seriously inure themselves in these activities.  If it's a tiny fraction of people who end up disabled, it's not really worth all the effort to phase it out.  People leading unhealthy and uneducated lives, in contrast, has a much higher rate of causing problems.  Not really a fair comparison.

Extrapolating my views and statements to the far extreme isn't exactly a good way to debate.  It puts words in my mouth and ignores any of my attempts to qualify those statements.  I recognize that there are limits to how this kind of thing should be applied, and those limits don't even really make a solid line.  It's more of a gray area.  Beyond that is the realm of absurdities.  I just wanted to say that before anyone else felt a need to ask "So do you think we should <insert absurdity>?"  Consider this a pre-emptive No.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Zakharra

Quote from: Will on May 26, 2011, 11:24:36 PM
Again, you get into an issue of practicality.  Requiring seatbelts is much simpler than outlawing horse riding. 

Another factor is the percentage of people who seriously inure themselves in these activities.  If it's a tiny fraction of people who end up disabled, it's not really worth all the effort to phase it out.  People leading unhealthy and uneducated lives, in contrast, has a much higher rate of causing problems.  Not really a fair comparison.

Extrapolating my views and statements to the far extreme isn't exactly a good way to debate.  It puts words in my mouth and ignores any of my attempts to qualify those statements.  I recognize that there are limits to how this kind of thing should be applied, and those limits don't even really make a solid line.  It's more of a gray area.  Beyond that is the realm of absurdities.  I just wanted to say that before anyone else felt a need to ask "So do you think we should <insert absurdity>?"  Consider this a pre-emptive No.

The problem with this is there are people who seriously concider and want to impliment what we think is absurd and stupid. We might think the people proposing it are beeing foolish, but in all likelyhood, they are dead serious. They'd enact the more restrictive and cofining rules ands regulations in order to 'protect you' from dangerous activities. 

Some examples are the outlawing of dodgeball, wiffleball in many schools and summer camps, hell, alot of contact sports are not being deemed unsafe.

The issue is that some rules are needed, but drawing the line between what is good and what's stupid is hard.

On the raw milk topic, I milk three goats. We use the milk for cooking and drink it. So far no one has gotten sick and I highly doubt anyone will. You can use raw milk safely. I isn't automatically bad because it is raw.

Jude

Well, the problem with raw milk advocates claims twofold.

1)  They claim that pasteurized and homogenized milk cause a bunch of illnesses and conditions.  This has been studied and no link has been found.

2)  They claim that raw milk is no less dangerous than processed milk.  This has also been studied, and they've found significantly higher levels of harmful bacteria in raw milk than even previously thought when western civilization damn near universally accepted pasteurization over 50 years ago.

Can you use raw milk safely sometimes?  Sure.  Will using raw milk ever be as safe as using processed milk?  Nope.  Of course, the risk is greatly mitigated by using raw milk from animals that you own in a very straightforward model of consumption, but the more trafficking involved with the product, the higher the risk of the contamination becoming a problem.  Raw milk has a much shorter shelf-life in addition to its higher bacteria count.

The bottom line is, raw milk has no measurable health benefits over pasteurized milk and there is a much higher risk of contamination and spoiling.  The laws here are to protect consumers -- whether or not you think it's a justified form of protection depends on your political philosophy, but given how poorly informed we are as a country when it comes to science, I'm not sure if the free market would solve the problem here.  There's too much misinformation out there about raw milk for the general populace to really decide -- they don't read peer review journals in making their decisions.

So the question is, in the name of freedom, are you willing to strike a law from the books that will result inevitably result in some negative consequences?  I don't know how I feel about it personally, but that's the dilemma.

BCdan

I am just going to toss my little conspiracy theory out there just for fun.   

The milk industry can price small-scale competition out of the market by making pasteurization absolutely mandatory, as opposed to say, making producers simply mention whether their milk is pasteurized or not. 


~I enjoy random PM's~

Valerian

Well.  I'm from Wisconsin, aka the Dairy State.  According to the Wisconsin Agricultural Board, about 14,400 dairy farms -- about 20% of all dairy farms in the U.S. -- are in Wisconsin.  Of those, 11,600 (80%), are considered small, with herds of 100 cows or less*.

Pasteurization has been required here since 1955.  So if it is a plot to drive out the small dairy farmers, it isn't working very well.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Xajow

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 26, 2011, 06:43:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#In_Europe
As I understand it, raw milk is regularly used and consumed in Europe. The lack of news of widespread outbreaks of disease caused by raw milk indicates to me they are not suffering from drinking raw milk as I am told would happen if we allowed regular use and consumption here.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Jude on May 26, 2011, 07:00:17 PM
I'd be more than happy to pull up some citations to back this up as long as we agree that any scientific discussion that we have on this subject will only accept legitimate, peer-reviewed literature from scientific journals to be evidence as opposed to anecdotes and passionate pleas from members of the organinite cult (my sarcastic term for those who have developed a pseudo-scientific world view around consumption of 'pure' products).
I am not trying to argue raw milk has great health properties. I'm not saying raw milk is better or that pasteurized milk isn't better. I'm simply wondering why we're punishing people for selling it to folks who know what it is and want to have it. Is that really the "practical" and "compassionate" thing to do?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Noelle on May 26, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
Depends on how you're interpreting 'denied'. By all means, this is a free country and we are free to make many decisions regarding our lifestyle, but that's an awfully sunny outlook on what isn't actually. Look at the price of various types of foods, for starters -- the impoverished are ironically some of the heaviest, most unhealthy people out there simply because buying 10 frozen, sodium-laden, but complete dinners for $10 makes more sense than spending $10 on the produce and other ingredients it takes to make one, maybe two healthful dinners. They're free to choose, but what kind of choice are they making, exactly?
They kind they have every right to make.

Quote from: Noelle on May 26, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
And food deserts -- places where the nearest outlet for fresh fruits and vegetables is beyond reasonable distance to travel for it or the actual availability is poor quality and/or too expensive -- are also cropping up in somewhat depressing amounts in more impoverished areas. There are no regulations for this, it is simply being driven by stores who do not see a demand for fruits and vegetables in a certain area (because the poor can't afford it in comparison to prepackaged foods), so they pull up the anchor and sail on past.
Food deserts? I've not heard of this before. What exactly is a "reasonable distance"? I am sure there are people who live a "fer piece" from the nearest grocery store, but I don't recall hearing that this somehow made eating situations terrible. I have known people who have to drive for a good half hour to get to the nearest grocery store, and I don't recall anyone referring to it as a food desert. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying this is something I'm skeptical about until I learn some more about it.

Quote from: Noelle on May 26, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
Tack that on to the rising cost of insurance, the disturbing lack of availability even for those with a full-time job (I fall into this category), the high cost of medical treatment for conditions that can arise from poor eating habits and lack of proper exercise, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster. Are they being denied? Technically, no. Does that mean that a laissez-faire approach is doing them any favors? Absolutely not.
That assumes a laissez-faire approach is in use, and I am not convinced there is.

Quote from: Noelle on May 26, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
We already have a kind of rewards system in place for those who do choose to partake in preventative care and drawbacks for those who don't. People who are obese pay higher premiums, and I think it's becoming increasingly common for insurance companies to offer incentives (lower premiums, free membership, etc.) for those who join gyms or make a certain weight (signed off by a doctor). It's certainly not dictating the kind of lifestyle people lead, but it is a bit of a goad in a certain direction.
And notably entirely voluntary.

Quote from: Noelle on May 26, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
But let's bring this back around to the raw milk debate. I'd like to liken it to holistic healing. People are feeding this stuff to their kids, who are also coincidentally at higher risk (along side the elderly) than your average, healthy adult of contracting diseases from any kind of mishandled raw milk product. It's not just a matter of letting adults make adult decisions for themselves, it's about the kind of impact those decisions have on those who are dependent on them and have no legal standing or otherwise to decide for themselves. No decision is truly insulated, at least not in a society that is as interconnected as ours is. If you get sick from consuming raw milk, you suddenly take time off of work, which is a loss in profit for the company, a larger burden on other workers who must compensate for your absence; conversely, if you decide to go to work anyway, there's decreased productivity, not to mention a potential burden on the health system, and you become infectious if you're carrying something like E. Coli. No big deal??
And yet, I have still not seen stories about recent outbreaks of child illness or death from the consumption of raw milk. Your cautionary statement almost seems to imply that you think parents who give raw milk to children don't care if the children become ill from drinking it. Perhaps you did not mean to imply that, and I hope you didn't. But I don't buy the "for the children" defense here. I also don't buy the "protect people from themselves" argument. If people were being sold raw milk and told it was pasteurized, that might make sense. But they aren't, and it doesn't. If you get sick and miss work, you say. So? This is different from the regular course of events exactly how?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Will on May 26, 2011, 11:24:36 PM
Extrapolating my views and statements to the far extreme isn't exactly a good way to debate.
I cannot speak for others, but in my own defense I was not trying to extrapolate anything you said to a far extreme. I merely took what you said and pushed a little further along using the logic you expressed. And frankly the idea that there are certain behaviors you don't favor regulating by law simply because it isn't practical I find troubling. Because it implies that if doing so were to become in some way practical, then you would have no problem with the government doing it. And that is, to be honest, a little bit scary.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Oniya

Quote from: Xajow on May 27, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
They kind they have every right to make.

The choice between eating something that they know is not the healthiest thing and starving to death.  Hell of a set of options, you have to admit.

Quote
Food deserts? I've not heard of this before. What exactly is a "reasonable distance"? I am sure there are people who live a "fer piece" from the nearest grocery store, but I don't recall hearing that this somehow made eating situations terrible. I have known people who have to drive for a good half hour to get to the nearest grocery store, and I don't recall anyone referring to it as a food desert. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying this is something I'm skeptical about until I learn some more about it.

The Storehouse submits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert - for basic info
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/FoodDeserts/ - for the Center of Disease Control's info on it.
http://www.fooddesert.net/ - Food Desert Awareness
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/fooddesert.html - for where these food deserts are:  (interactive map based on census data)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pointless Digression

Quote from: Xajow on May 27, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
Food deserts? I've not heard of this before.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Quote from: Xajow on May 27, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
And yet, I have still not seen stories about recent outbreaks of child illness or death from the consumption of raw milk.

Here you go: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/299/4/402.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058911
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19737059

Here's the money quote from the last paper:

Quote
People continue to consume raw milk even though numerous epidemiological studies have shown clearly that raw milk can be contaminated by a variety of pathogens, some of which are associated with human illness and disease. Several documented milkborne disease outbreaks occurred from 2000-2008 and were traced back to consumption of raw unpasteurized milk. Numerous people were found to have infections, some were hospitalized, and a few died.
         

Xajow

Quote from: Jude on May 27, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
The bottom line is, raw milk has no measurable health benefits over pasteurized milk and there is a much higher risk of contamination and spoiling.  The laws here are to protect consumers -- whether or not you think it's a justified form of protection depends on your political philosophy, but given how poorly informed we are as a country when it comes to science, I'm not sure if the free market would solve the problem here.  There's too much misinformation out there about raw milk for the general populace to really decide -- they don't read peer review journals in making their decisions.
So people are too ignorant to be allowed to make their own decisions? It's better to let ambitious politicians, who likely also do not read peer reviewed journals, decide these things? I remain unconvinced. I'm pretty sure if people started getting sick from raw milk, someone would notice and there would be a reaction in the market.

Quote from: Jude on May 27, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
So the question is, in the name of freedom, are you willing to strike a law from the books that will result inevitably result in some negative consequences?  I don't know how I feel about it personally, but that's the dilemma.
Your presentation of the dilemma is misleading. It does not acknowledge that the law itself is resulting in negative consequences. To answer your question, yes, I am willing. I tend to prefer the consequences of voluntary actions to the consequences of coerced actions.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Oniya on May 27, 2011, 02:44:33 PM
The choice between eating something that they know is not the healthiest thing and starving to death.  Hell of a set of options, you have to admit.
I do not believe that is the choice they are making.

Quote from: Oniya on May 27, 2011, 02:44:33 PM
The Storehouse submits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert - for basic info
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/FoodDeserts/ - for the Center of Disease Control's info on it.
http://www.fooddesert.net/ - Food Desert Awareness
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/fooddesert.html - for where these food deserts are:  (interactive map based on census data)
The CDC website says, "Estimates of how much of the US population is affected can vary greatly because there is no standard definition of a food desert. According to a 2009 report by the US Department of Agriculture, a small percentage of American consumers are limited in their ability to access affordable nutritious food because they live far from a supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy access to transportation." Makes me wonder if people have forgotten what gardens are for. And then there is this, "However, other studies have shown that even after healthier food options are more widely available in food deserts, many consumers continue to make unhealthy choices based on personal preferences." So it's less about availability than about choices people make.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 27, 2011, 03:11:34 PM
Here's the money quote from the last paper:
Okay. Seems like different situations of a relatively small amount of people getting ill from raw milk. So people should be careful. Would be interesting to know whether those people who suffered and/or dealt with those negative consequences decided to keep drinking raw milk. The question is then, is this worth the money spent on the sting operation that put Amish farmer Dan Allgyer in jail? Is that really the appropriate response?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Pointless Digression

#34
Not the point. You said that you hadn't heard of outbreaks of disease, illness, and/or death as a result of drinking raw milk, and I provided evidence of just that.

EDIT TO ADD:

Quote
So people should be careful.

How are people supposed to be careful with milk, exactly? Are you suggesting that people perform their own E.coli tests?
         

Oniya

You have the right to believe that - but I'd be interested to know the experience that has led you to that belief.  Have you recently lived in a low-income area?  Had to make use of a food bank?  Been limited to shopping at the corner convenience store for food because you have no transportation (public or otherwise)?

I'd also be curious as to how much gardening you yourself have done.  I've personally put in a garden in my back yard (since I have the advantage of living in a semi-rural area - those people in urban areas don't have that option at all).  The weather this year has been crap for gardens.  Between the rapidly fluctuating temperatures and excessive rain here in the midwest, many of my neighbors (who have even longer-standing gardens than mine) were unable to get planting done on time, or had their bedding plants flooded out. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

#36
People are ignorant.  People are pretty stupid when it comes to scientific questions.  The organic movement in and of itself is perfect proof of that -- I needn't say anymore.

Do I trust an "ambitious politician" to make the right call?  Nope; that politician is probably as stupid as his constituents in most cases.  The only way good decisions can be made is when they are guided by expert testimony and advice.

The good part about the political process is that they typically hold hearings where experts are allowed to weigh in, and in theory the truth should win out.  It doesn't always work, but I'll trust a court-style hearing any day for discerning the truth over individuals.

Whether or not we should protect people from themselves however, well, that's another matter entirely.  It is currently illegal to commit suicide and consume drugs however, so it isn't like this is unprecedented in our society.  I don't really care to make the "value judgment" argument on whether this case is right or wrong, but it's certainly not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Pumpkin Seeds

Not quite sure where this vaulted view of human intelligence originates.  Remember this is the same species that requires a sign on a gas pump asking them not to light a cigarette.

Noelle

Quote from: Xajow on May 27, 2011, 02:24:31 PM
They kind they have every right to make.

I don't know if you've missed my point or if I'm missing yours; my point was that while technically it's a choice, it turns into "how many days this week do I actually want to eat?" which, in fact, isn't much of a choice at all if you like staying alive and well and using the money you saved to help do things like, say, put gas in your car so you can get to work or any other daily expense you may take for granted. Do I spend $1 on a half pound of overripe bananas if they're on sale or do I spend $1 on a cheeseburger? What is going to keep my stomach full? What is going to be more satisfying to me? I'm not really sure how you can even reason that those two choices are even remotely equal in weight to someone who doesn't have a lot of money. Technically telling someone they can jump into a volcano or eat marshmallows while riding a pony is a choice, but they are not equal decisions to be made unless you're suicidal or otherwise incapable of reason.

Quote
Food deserts? I've not heard of this before. What exactly is a "reasonable distance"? I am sure there are people who live a "fer piece" from the nearest grocery store, but I don't recall hearing that this somehow made eating situations terrible. I have known people who have to drive for a good half hour to get to the nearest grocery store, and I don't recall anyone referring to it as a food desert. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying this is something I'm skeptical about until I learn some more about it.

Time article on food deserts
NPR's take (If you've got the time to spare, I found the video to be very interesting)
USDA-led research
Map of approximate 'food deserts' in the US + demographics/stastistics
(I just saw Oniya's provided links, so my apologies if any of these are doubled up)

It's based on distance (usually >1 mile), income, age, accessibility to transportation, and the contents of the nearest food outlet. Of course, when healthful food is available, I don't ignore personal choice, as there are plenty of people who will still choose to eat crap food when given equal footing on both sides, but right now I don't see that the two are weighted equally in either affordability or accessibility to make that call fairly. I'm dubious of some of the reports because they don't seem to report back that even when produce is made more available, that it is within the budget of the low-income people they're using, but it is fair to say that a lot of eating habits go beyond simply what's offered and that making certain things more available by itself isn't the silver bullet; all the same, I don't really see it as an excuse not to try and allow people the choice to begin with and certainly many more than just the poor would benefit from cheaper fruits and vegetables (I know I would).

QuoteThat assumes a laissez-faire approach is in use, and I am not convinced there is.

Go back to my quote; they aren't being denied a means to make healthy decisions technically (see above for my point about what kind of choice they're actually given), but what is a lack of acknowledgement and attempt to fix a problem but a laissez-faire approach, as you're suggesting? As I understand it, you're a libertarian -- and (correct me if I'm wrong), if we chalk this up to companies simply doing what's best for them and any attempt by the government to help these people have a fair choice to make is bad, well...I'm not really sure what else you'd call that, exactly. "Let it be" or "leave it alone", as it so happens to translate, is quite fitting.

QuoteAnd notably entirely voluntary.

So if every insurance company chooses to do it this way, are they dictating how I should live my life or is that kind of vocabulary only reserved to when the government does it? What if they're the only insurance company I can afford and the competition is low, so switching off the plan is impossible without giving up insurance entirely? I'll also tentatively state that people who can afford to have insurance in the first place can also probably afford to get healthy. Vicious circle: enter stage left.

QuoteAnd yet, I have still not seen stories about recent outbreaks of child illness or death from the consumption of raw milk. Your cautionary statement almost seems to imply that you think parents who give raw milk to children don't care if the children become ill from drinking it. Perhaps you did not mean to imply that, and I hope you didn't. But I don't buy the "for the children" defense here. I also don't buy the "protect people from themselves" argument. If people were being sold raw milk and told it was pasteurized, that might make sense. But they aren't, and it doesn't. If you get sick and miss work, you say. So? This is different from the regular course of events exactly how?

As others have already addressed most of the stats on disease and the like coming from raw milk, I don't really feel I need to address as much. However, good intent is not enough. I am not saying that parents give their children raw milk because they're hoping in some dark and twisted scheme to give them E. Coli, but I have to stress that your choices are not isolated, which means that if, for any number of reasons be it that you don't trust science or you just haven't read information that debunks the supposed benefits of drinking raw milk, someone else is still mopping up the mess you made, which is exactly the opposite of the whole libertarian tenant that people should be able to make their own choices so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You are using bad science to hurt children who are dependent on you to choose for them.

As a relevent question of clarification, are you comfortable with this law that was recently passed in Oregon? Certainly by the logic you've displayed, we have no need for this if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid and that belief in poor 'alternative medicine/therapies' is harmless.

The purpose of pointing out sick days, by the way, was just as testament that your patriotic, red-blooded American right to choose is not something that stops with you -- your poor decisions ripple outward, some making larger waves than others -- which is why it is short-sighted and occasionally reckless to simply let imperfect people make imperfect decisions with imperfect judgment with imperfect knowledge in an imperfect world. I'm hardly calling for a nanny state, which I would maintain is an equally bad idea as one totally removed from any government intervention, but the 'freebird' approach is hardly a perfect approach, either.

I suppose that brings me to a bit of relevant answering of my own -- I do not rank something like raw milk up there with all the more dangerous things out there in the world that people could be ingesting. I am not unrealistic about the dangers of raw milk in comparison to, say, swallowing battery acid or imbibing large amounts of black tar heroin. I don't think we need to launch a crusade against raw milk and form lynch mobs against farmers who sell it...but I'm not exactly comfortable with standing by while pseudoscience leads people down a severely misguided path, either, and I'm not thrilled with the idea that people are feeding this to their children despite the risk it poses to their demographic especially, among other things. I realize that it also seems contradictory to my tenant that, for instance, people be given a fair chance at having access to fruits and vegetables, but then, I would also support measures that would make sugary junk foods slightly more expensive while lowering the price of fresh produce.

Truthfully, I understand why people are upset over ban measures, but I more strongly side with why they're banning it in the first place, so although I am defending the decision, I don't feel radically aligned with it either. AUGHH CENTRISMMMM.

Xajow

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 27, 2011, 03:37:01 PM
Not the point. You said that you hadn't heard of outbreaks of disease, illness, and/or death as a result of drinking raw milk, and I provided evidence of just that.
Yep you did. And now I've heard of it. Thank you for helping me be more informed.

Quote from: Pointless Digression on May 27, 2011, 03:37:01 PM
How are people supposed to be careful with milk, exactly? Are you suggesting that people perform their own E.coli tests?
More like be careful where it comes from, how it's stored, things like that. Kinda like checking the eggs before one buys them, or not leaving raw chicken sitting out on the counter.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Oniya on May 27, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
You have the right to believe that - but I'd be interested to know the experience that has led you to that belief.  Have you recently lived in a low-income area?  Had to make use of a food bank?  Been limited to shopping at the corner convenience store for food because you have no transportation (public or otherwise)?
I'm gonna guess you're talking to me, but I'm not sure which belief your asking me about. The answer to your questions is no. But I have known what it means to walk at least a mile or so to get to a grocery store, and then walk back again carrying a few bags of groceries. It's not fun, but I have managed to do it.

Quote from: Oniya on May 27, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
I'd also be curious as to how much gardening you yourself have done.  I've personally put in a garden in my back yard (since I have the advantage of living in a semi-rural area - those people in urban areas don't have that option at all).  The weather this year has been crap for gardens.  Between the rapidly fluctuating temperatures and excessive rain here in the midwest, many of my neighbors (who have even longer-standing gardens than mine) were unable to get planting done on time, or had their bedding plants flooded out.
I didn't claim a garden was the perfect solution. But it's not like gardening or at the very least a tomato plant or two is somehow just for wealthy people. I mean, once upon a time, nobody lived near a supermarket and a lot of people didn't live near a town at all. But now a supermarket being more than a mile away is a food desert? I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying I'm skeptical.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Jude on May 27, 2011, 05:35:50 PM
People are ignorant.  People are pretty stupid when it comes to scientific questions.  The organic movement in and of itself is perfect proof of that -- I needn't say anymore.
That wasn't the question. But maybe you answered it just the same.

Quote from: Jude on May 27, 2011, 05:35:50 PM
Whether or not we should protect people from themselves however, well, that's another matter entirely.  It is currently illegal to commit suicide and consume drugs however, so it isn't like this is unprecedented in our society.  I don't really care to make the "value judgment" argument on whether this case is right or wrong, but it's certainly not as simple as you're making it out to be.
That something is not unprecedented doesn't make it the correct choice. As for how simple I am making it out to be, yeah, it kinda is. Either people should be allowed to decide for themselves to buy raw milk, or they shouldn't. Either individuals need to have government spend a lot time and effort to protect individuals from themselves, or they don't. That we can complicate an issue with lots of words and qualifiers and hedging and the like, doesn't mean the issue itself isn't actually fairly simple.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 27, 2011, 05:45:54 PM
Not quite sure where this vaulted view of human intelligence originates.  Remember this is the same species that requires a sign on a gas pump asking them not to light a cigarette.
It's also the same species that invented lasers, built things like the Empire State Building, and created microwave popcorn. I think we're doing okay.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
I don't know if you've missed my point or if I'm missing yours; my point was that while technically it's a choice, it turns into "how many days this week do I actually want to eat?" which, in fact, isn't much of a choice at all if you like staying alive and well and using the money you saved to help do things like, say, put gas in your car so you can get to work or any other daily expense you may take for granted. Do I spend $1 on a half pound of overripe bananas if they're on sale or do I spend $1 on a cheeseburger? What is going to keep my stomach full? What is going to be more satisfying to me? I'm not really sure how you can even reason that those two choices are even remotely equal in weight to someone who doesn't have a lot of money. Technically telling someone they can jump into a volcano or eat marshmallows while riding a pony is a choice, but they are not equal decisions to be made unless you're suicidal or otherwise incapable of reason.
Yes, there are hard choices sometimes. My father once had to work three jobs to keep the family in an apartment and put food on the table. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with these issues. The person who doesn't have a lot of money may not choose the bananas. But that isn't a reason to create a law saying he has to.

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
It's based on distance (usually >1 mile), income, age, accessibility to transportation, and the contents of the nearest food outlet. Of course, when healthful food is available, I don't ignore personal choice, as there are plenty of people who will still choose to eat crap food when given equal footing on both sides, but right now I don't see that the two are weighted equally in either affordability or accessibility to make that call fairly. I'm dubious of some of the reports because they don't seem to report back that even when produce is made more available, that it is within the budget of the low-income people they're using, but it is fair to say that a lot of eating habits go beyond simply what's offered and that making certain things more available by itself isn't the silver bullet; all the same, I don't really see it as an excuse not to try and allow people the choice to begin with and certainly many more than just the poor would benefit from cheaper fruits and vegetables (I know I would).
And I do not begrudge anyone who wants to see that people are offered more healthy choices. However, mandating that by law isn't going to drive down costs of fresh veggies for poor people.

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
Go back to my quote; they aren't being denied a means to make healthy decisions technically (see above for my point about what kind of choice they're actually given), but what is a lack of acknowledgement and attempt to fix a problem but a laissez-faire approach, as you're suggesting? As I understand it, you're a libertarian -- and (correct me if I'm wrong), if we chalk this up to companies simply doing what's best for them and any attempt by the government to help these people have a fair choice to make is bad, well...I'm not really sure what else you'd call that, exactly. "Let it be" or "leave it alone", as it so happens to translate, is quite fitting.
Well, for one, to claim a laissez-fair approach assumes there is nothing interfering in the price of foods or the price of gas or the costs of multiple things involved in getting food into a local store, and that simply isn't so. And there are programs available to help people in need pay for food. So that there is somehow a hands off approach being taken is, I think, mistaken.

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
So if every insurance company chooses to do it this way, are they dictating how I should live my life or is that kind of vocabulary only reserved to when the government does it? What if they're the only insurance company I can afford and the competition is low, so switching off the plan is impossible without giving up insurance entirely? I'll also tentatively state that people who can afford to have insurance in the first place can also probably afford to get healthy. Vicious circle: enter stage left.
Leaving aside what might or might not be meant by "get healthy," you're making an excellent case for why selling insurance across state lines should not be prohibited. If every insurance company does the same thing, are they dictating how you should live your life? No, because they are not forcing you to have insurance. Believe it or not, there are people who can afford it and choose not to buy it. What if the perfect choice that lets me have all I want isn't available? Then I do without it.

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
As others have already addressed most of the stats on disease and the like coming from raw milk, I don't really feel I need to address as much. However, good intent is not enough. I am not saying that parents give their children raw milk because they're hoping in some dark and twisted scheme to give them E. Coli, but I have to stress that your choices are not isolated, which means that if, for any number of reasons be it that you don't trust science or you just haven't read information that debunks the supposed benefits of drinking raw milk, someone else is still mopping up the mess you made, which is exactly the opposite of the whole libertarian tenant that people should be able to make their own choices so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You are using bad science to hurt children who are dependent on you to choose for them.
You seem to be assuming that raw milk equals sick children, and I am not convinced that is so. Some parents allow their children to run around the neighborhood without supervision. I once had conversation with a fellow who thought religion was so bad that parents shouldn't be allowed to teach children anything about it. That second one is an extreme example, but my point is, wanting to protect children isn't enough reason to tell people they aren't allowed to choose to do something. This is how we end up with jails overcrowded with non-violent offenders and people who at age 15 had sex with someone their own age ending up on sex offender registries for sex with a minor.

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
As a relevent question of clarification, are you comfortable with this law that was recently passed in Oregon? Certainly by the logic you've displayed, we have no need for this if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid and that belief in poor 'alternative medicine/therapies' is harmless.
Holy cow, yes, I have a serious problem with that law. The state is basically saying these people should not be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. You're saying, "if the parents didn't mean to the kill their kid." What a mean thing to say. Of course they did not intend for the child to die! Yes, I know, the children died. I'm not saying what the parents did was right, but they chose what they believed was right. Yes, the outcome was tragic, but where do you stop protecting all the children from all harm? Shall we have laws that keep parents from, say, taking their children on a hike away from immediate medical care access? Do we ask parents if they meant for to child to break his arm by letting him ride his bicycle through the neighborhood unattended? At some point you have to allow that bad things happen, even preventable bad things. So where is the line?

Quote from: Noelle on May 27, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
The purpose of pointing out sick days, by the way, was just as testament that your patriotic, red-blooded American right to choose is not something that stops with you -- your poor decisions ripple outward, some making larger waves than others -- which is why it is short-sighted and occasionally reckless to simply let imperfect people make imperfect decisions with imperfect judgment with imperfect knowledge in an imperfect world. I'm hardly calling for a nanny state, which I would maintain is an equally bad idea as one totally removed from any government intervention, but the 'freebird' approach is hardly a perfect approach, either.
Short-sighted and reckless to let imperfect people make imperfect decisions with imperfect judgement and imperfect knowledge in an imperfect world. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but until God establishes His new earth and makes people perfect with perfect knowledge and judgement, or something similar occurs, imperfect people making imperfect choices in an imperfect world is the best we can hope for. And I'm not trying to say there is a perfect approach to how we all live. In fact, that a perfect approach doesn't exist , that people are imperfect and that the world is not perfect are some of the reasons why I am libertarian in the first place.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Maiz

Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:24:34 AM
Yep you did. And now I've heard of it. Thank you for helping me be more informed.
More like be careful where it comes from, how it's stored, things like that. Kinda like checking the eggs before one buys them, or not leaving raw chicken sitting out on the counter.

Being careful after you buy a product can only go so far though. What about all the times a certain vegetable has been recalled because it's been infected with E.Coli for some reason? That obviously doesn't come after you buy it. Cautiously storing your milk or your meat or your eggs after you buy it helps but it doesn't stop stores from storing it improperly, or whatever. Hence regulations to minimise the risk to the general population.

Also a lot of foodborne illnesses aren't reported because usually you just get the runs or a fever or puke a few times, and people don't take that seriously.

Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:35:29 AM
I'm gonna guess you're talking to me, but I'm not sure which belief your asking me about. The answer to your questions is no. But I have known what it means to walk at least a mile or so to get to a grocery store, and then walk back again carrying a few bags of groceries. It's not fun, but I have managed to do it.
You were able to do it. Congratulations. Does that mean everyone else can? Does that mean that people who are most affected by food deserts can? no. Just because a grocery store is a mile away, and can be walkable doesn't mean it's practical. Some people have to deal with little children, some have jobss that if they leave then they are fired, which sets off a million problems. Some people physically cannot walk a mile, or can't do it every time they need groceries. All these things factor into food deserts.

QuoteI didn't claim a garden was the perfect solution. But it's not like gardening or at the very least a tomato plant or two is somehow just for wealthy people. I mean, once upon a time, nobody lived near a supermarket and a lot of people didn't live near a town at all. But now a supermarket being more than a mile away is a food desert? I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm saying I'm skeptical.
Except gardening has become something for at the very least the people of surburbia, with people who can afford to have leisure time, with people who can afford to buy the right plant food, the right weedkiller. You can't just say "welp people grew stuff back in the day and didn't need supermarkets, so now they shouldn't either" because one: two different societies. two: people depend on supermarkets for food now, unlike in the past when they depended on farms or whatever.

Noelle

Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 01:51:40 AM
Yes, there are hard choices sometimes. My father once had to work three jobs to keep the family in an apartment and put food on the table. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with these issues. The person who doesn't have a lot of money may not choose the bananas. But that isn't a reason to create a law saying he has to.

Nobody is suggesting creating a law to force him to choose bananas over less healthful food. I guess I'm starting to see some disparity here because you seem to be all about letting people choose, but don't seem willing to discuss potentials that can help people have a choice to make to begin with. Your anecdotes about what you or your family has done is not indicative of what everyone has done, can, or will do.

QuoteAnd I do not begrudge anyone who wants to see that people are offered more healthy choices. However, mandating that by law isn't going to drive down costs of fresh veggies for poor people.

So what is business doing to help? Part of the issue is that they're only doing what's best for their bottom line -- and I'm not saying this is unreasonable, as why else would you continue to try to sell something to people who aren't buying it -- but it also makes for a very poor outcome for the human aspect. Making fresh produce more widely available and affordable could very reasonably see an increase in consumption of those items, which would obviously be good for business.

QuoteWell, for one, to claim a laissez-fair approach assumes there is nothing interfering in the price of foods or the price of gas or the costs of multiple things involved in getting food into a local store, and that simply isn't so. And there are programs available to help people in need pay for food. So that there is somehow a hands off approach being taken is, I think, mistaken.

One thing I notice is that any criticism of how the private industry is handling things always gets deflected to "something else" (that something typically being government) -- I'm more interested in seeing you address how the business part is handling things than I am seeing you make everything an issue with how government is behind it all because I really don't think that it's always true and I take issue with constantly treating the private sector as a victim of Evil Monolithic Entity Governmentron 2000. Conversely, I find it interesting and perhaps a touch hypocritical that you point to government programs such as food stamps as a positive when it suits your argument as to why we don't need to do much, if anything at all, while simultaneously picking them apart in other aspects.

QuoteLeaving aside what might or might not be meant by "get healthy," you're making an excellent case for why selling insurance across state lines should not be prohibited. If every insurance company does the same thing, are they dictating how you should live your life? No, because they are not forcing you to have insurance. Believe it or not, there are people who can afford it and choose not to buy it. What if the perfect choice that lets me have all I want isn't available? Then I do without it.

You're making a case for people who have money and can afford it, which is not the subject at hand. This is also another crooked choice that is technically being offered but in reality doesn't actually hash out to be even remotely equal for people in poor financial standing. Do I pay an extra few hundred dollars I don't have to spare every month in case something happens and be near incapable of paying the rest of my financial obligations -- or do I go without, never or rarely be able to get routine checkups and maintain a good standard of health, and then fall into financial ruins when/if something major comes up and I am unable to foot the bill?

QuoteHoly cow, yes, I have a serious problem with that law. The state is basically saying these people should not be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. You're saying, "if the parents didn't mean to the kill their kid." What a mean thing to say. Of course they did not intend for the child to die! Yes, I know, the children died. I'm not saying what the parents did was right, but they chose what they believed was right. Yes, the outcome was tragic, but where do you stop protecting all the children from all harm? Shall we have laws that keep parents from, say, taking their children on a hike away from immediate medical care access? Do we ask parents if they meant for to child to break his arm by letting him ride his bicycle through the neighborhood unattended? At some point you have to allow that bad things happen, even preventable bad things. So where is the line?

I have to be honest, I am horrified at your response to this. How you can possibly equate an accident like falling off your bike to a parent forcing a child to bear the consequence (death) of frankly baseless garbage beliefs is beyond me. Maybe what I said sounds mean to you, but it's absolutely true of the situation -- good intent is not enough. Ignorance is not bliss, it's dangerous, and what could be more evident of that than faith healing? I didn't mean to hit a pedestrian with my car, but I still get charged with vehicular manslaughter because my good intent doesn't have an ounce of bearing on what actually happened. Even if I testify that Jesus told me to get in my car and drive it doesn't mean I am suddenly exempt from the law because I should be free to practice my religion regardless of who is a victim of it. Susan Atkins thought Charles Manson was Jesus and claimed she would do anything for God, even murder. You're free to defend her motivations as well, if you'd like.

Besides, you're starting to invoke a slippery slope. Punishing parents who kill their children through dangerously negligent beliefs is not the same as excessive measures like bubble-wrapping sharp corners and switching to spoons instead of forks.

Xajow

Quote from: xiaomei on May 28, 2011, 06:03:56 AM
Being careful after you buy a product can only go so far though.
Yep.

Quote from: xiaomei on May 28, 2011, 06:03:56 AM
You were able to do it. Congratulations. Does that mean everyone else can? Does that mean that people who are most affected by food deserts can? no. Just because a grocery store is a mile away, and can be walkable doesn't mean it's practical. Some people have to deal with little children, some have jobss that if they leave then they are fired, which sets off a million problems. Some people physically cannot walk a mile, or can't do it every time they need groceries. All these things factor into food deserts.
I'm sure they do. I'm not sure what you're expecting of me. No, I don't have a perfect solution to making sure everyone eats healthy all the time. But then I do not believe anyone else does either. And while apparently some people have no problem with legislatively regulating behavior more and more, I do. Someone else in this thread said they were horrified by my response to something. Frankly, I'm a bit horrified that so many people seem to think the solution to society's problems is to craft laws that mandate conformity to this or that group's specific set of beliefs about how people should behave.

Quote from: xiaomei on May 28, 2011, 06:03:56 AM
Except gardening has become something for at the very least the people of surburbia, with people who can afford to have leisure time, with people who can afford to buy the right plant food, the right weedkiller. You can't just say "welp people grew stuff back in the day and didn't need supermarkets, so now they shouldn't either" because one: two different societies. two: people depend on supermarkets for food now, unlike in the past when they depended on farms or whatever.
Again, I'm not claiming gardening is the perfect solution. I merely suggested there was more than one way for people who lack on-the-corner supermarket access to acquire fresh food. It's staring to sound like if there isn't a supermarket every other block then people are somehow forced to suffer malnutrition. And I'm simply not buying that.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Jude

QuoteThat something is not unprecedented doesn't make it the correct choice. As for how simple I am making it out to be, yeah, it kinda is. Either people should be allowed to decide for themselves to buy raw milk, or they shouldn't. Either individuals need to have government spend a lot time and effort to protect individuals from themselves, or they don't. That we can complicate an issue with lots of words and qualifiers and hedging and the like, doesn't mean the issue itself isn't actually fairly simple.
This is the problem that I have with ideologues such as yourself.  They make everything out to be so incredibly simple and ignore the shades of grey and competing factors that are involved with every political question.  Whether or not the government should crack down on the sale of raw milk isn't as simple as painting your face blue and yelling "FREEEEEEEDOM" while wearing a kilt.

If the government cracks down on the sale of raw milk it will probably prevent the spread of many communicable diseases.  If they don't, people get to choose to consume raw milk which has no tangible benefits.  Basically what you have here is liberty for the sake of liberty (which I am not opposed to) versus cracking down on a substance who's sale really only has negative consequences for our nation.  If you think this situation is so simple, it's because the former so vastly outweighs the latter in your mind that you don't even take it into consideration.  I find that troubling.

What about vaccines?  A number of diseases that were nearly-eradicated previously have returned thanks to the anti-vaccination movement (which is actually related tangentially to the raw milk movement).  These people believe, despite the fact that there is no good evidence, that vaccines are harmful to children and have decided not to give them to their kids.  Guess what:  they're a tangible bodycount here.  The diseases we vaccinate against are dangerous and extremely communicable, and it isn't just kids dying who's parents chose not to vaccinate them.  I'm going to assume you'd be against legislation forcing parents to vaccinate their children if they choose to live in a large community/have their kid attend school?

A key component of vaccination is the concept of herd immunity because not all people are healthy enough to be vaccinated; weaken the herd immunity, and people who don't even get the choice of vaccinate or not will suffer.  We live in a highly interconnected society, almost no one is isolated anymore, your actions affect other people every day.  The choice to consume raw milk doesn't just affect the person who makes it -- if they get sick and spread that disease, it affects us all.  Then there's the idea of insurance pools, social cohesion, et cetera.

Let me be clear:  if everyone in the entire country (outside of the Amish who I'm not sure have the capability to pasteurize/homogenize) decided tomorrow that they weren't going to buy raw milk, the country would be a better place.  There are no health benefits, it isn't cheaper, and the potential for the spread of disease makes it a dangerous commodity to sell.  This does not necessarily mean people shouldn't consume raw milk from their own animals in some circumstances -- at least then you have control over the condition of the animal and you know your risks -- but even that I'd advise against unless it was necessary for some reason (for example a financial or practical matter).  This is just basic fact.

You can say you're against laws forcing the hand of people even when doing so would make our country a better place, and there are a lot of circumstances in which I agree with you, but not all.  There are competing factors here:  public good versus private freedom.  Private freedom should not always win out; and it doesn't.  Every single law we have on the books is a restriction of private freedom, even laws against murder.  In all of those situations we recognize that giving up our freedom to violently end another human being is a necessary sacrifice to make our country a better place.

I think giving up our freedom to purchase raw milk -- which has no benefits and is more expensive than processed milk -- to stop the occasional epidemic... Well, that doesn't seem anywhere near as simple as you're making it out to be.  But then again, in the black and white world view of the committed ideologue, nothing is that complicated.

Xajow

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
I guess I'm starting to see some disparity here because you seem to be all about letting people choose, but don't seem willing to discuss potentials that can help people have a choice to make to begin with.
Yes, I am about letting people choose. That includes the people who have to run the business that provide other people with access to food.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Your anecdotes about what you or your family has done is not indicative of what everyone has done, can, or will do.
Yes, I know. No one else in the whole world can do what I and/or my family have done. I am, apparently, supposed to assume everyone else is wholly incapable ever doing what I did. What? You didn't say that? Hey, guess what? I didn't say everyone else was expected to do what I did or my family did. I explained that I am not unfamiliar with the problems.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
So what is business doing to help? Part of the issue is that they're only doing what's best for their bottom line -- and I'm not saying this is unreasonable, as why else would you continue to try to sell something to people who aren't buying it -- but it also makes for a very poor outcome for the human aspect. Making fresh produce more widely available and affordable could very reasonably see an increase in consumption of those items, which would obviously be good for business.
What is business doing to help? I'm not sure what you expect them do beyond offering food people are not buying and absorbing the loss, which doesn't sound like a plan to stay in business. On the other hand, I see businesses like Wal-Mart offering pretty low prices on food, and I also people insisting they cannot allow Wal-Mart into their neighborhoods.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
One thing I notice is that any criticism of how the private industry is handling things always gets deflected to "something else" (that something typically being government)
I'm not deflecting criticism of private industry. I am reacting to the suggestion grocery stores should be made to offer cheap fruit and vegetables.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
I'm more interested in seeing you address how the business part is handling things than I am seeing you make everything an issue with how government is behind it all because I really don't think that it's always true and I take issue with constantly treating the private sector as a victim of Evil Monolithic Entity Governmentron 2000.
I take issue with the notion that we can solve problems by treating businesses as evil, greedy, callous bastards.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Conversely, I find it interesting and perhaps a touch hypocritical that you point to government programs such as food stamps as a positive when it suits your argument as to why we don't need to do much, if anything at all, while simultaneously picking them apart in other aspects.
I didn't say it was a positive. I said there are programs to help people in need buy food, which undermines your assertion that nothing is being done.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
You're making a case for people who have money and can afford it, which is not the subject at hand.
No, I am making a case for increasing competition to address the what-ifs you posed.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
This is also another crooked choice that is technically being offered but in reality doesn't actually hash out to be even remotely equal for people in poor financial standing. Do I pay an extra few hundred dollars I don't have to spare every month in case something happens and be near incapable of paying the rest of my financial obligations -- or do I go without, never or rarely be able to get routine checkups and maintain a good standard of health, and then fall into financial ruins when/if something major comes up and I am unable to foot the bill?
I am sorry that every choice in the world is not between sets of perfect options. If you expect me to believe we can fix this by legislation, you're going build a much better case than I have ever seen.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
I have to be honest, I am horrified at your response to this.
I am horrified that you want to start punishing people if they believe something you have decided for them is "baseless garbage". I am horrified that you want to establish precedent for basically ignoring a person's religious beliefs and forcing someone whose religious beliefs you do not share to conform to how you believe they should behave.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
How you can possibly equate an accident like falling off your bike to a parent forcing a child to bear the consequence (death) of frankly baseless garbage beliefs is beyond me.
That's nice, but I did not equate falling off a bike to "a parent forcing a child to bear the consequence (death) of frankly baseless garbage beliefs." What I did was compare accusing a parent of intending harm to a child to accusing a parent of intending death for a child.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Maybe what I said sounds mean to you,
Yeah, implying the parents wanted the children to die is mean, no matter how you spin it.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Maybe what I said sounds mean to you, but it's absolutely true of the situation -- good intent is not enough.
Good intent is not enough. This is why I oppose your solution to force other people to conform to what you want. Good intentions are not enough.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Ignorance is not bliss, it's dangerous, and what could be more evident of that than faith healing?
We cannot legislate danger out of the world. And trying to do so only creates different dangers.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
I didn't mean to hit a pedestrian with my car, but I still get charged with vehicular manslaughter because my good intent doesn't have an ounce of bearing on what actually happened. Even if I testify that Jesus told me to get in my car and drive it doesn't mean I am suddenly exempt from the law because I should be free to practice my religion regardless of who is a victim of it.
So, if I follow your logic, now you're equating religion to vehicular manslaughter? Really?

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Susan Atkins thought Charles Manson was Jesus and claimed she would do anything for God, even murder. You're free to defend her motivations as well, if you'd like.
And now you're assuming I want to defend murder. Wow. I see, you're one of those. "If you'd allow someone to die in this circumstance that I condemn, then you must be okay with worst case of murder I can think of."

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Besides, you're starting to invoke a slippery slope. Punishing parents who kill their children through dangerously negligent beliefs is not the same as excessive measures like bubble-wrapping sharp corners and switching to spoons instead of forks.
As best I can determine, the parents in the story you brought up did not kill their children. They were not, for example carelessly flinging knives about or exposing the children to poisonous snakes. Not taking the children to the doctor was wrong, in my opinion, but I don't hold to their religious beliefs. In any case, you're avoiding my question. You apparently expect to use the law to prevent people from doing or not doing things that allow harm to children. Where does that stop? Where do you draw the line?

A father takes his son camping in the mountains. Through no fault of the father, the son slips and falls, and ends up seriously injured. By the time he gets medical care, the son is dead. Is the father guilty of negligence for taking the son so far away from medical help? Do we accuse the father of killing the son because he took the child camping in the mountains?

A young man decides to join a gang. His parents, who refuse to believe their son would join a gang, remain unaware. The young man is killed by a member of a rival gang. Did the parents kill the child because they believed their son would not join a gang and therefore did nothing to stop him? Do we assume they wanted the child to die because they chose to not attending gang awareness classes?

A young woman is kidnapped and later found dead. Her parents allowed her to go down to the park with her friends and without adult supervision. Do we bring the parents to court for negligence?

Preventable bad things happen. Where is the line drawn?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Oniya

Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:11:52 PM
As best I can determine, the parents in the story you brought up did not kill their children. They were not, for example carelessly flinging knives about or exposing the children to poisonous snakes. Not taking the children to the doctor was wrong, in my opinion, but I don't hold to their religious beliefs. In any case, you're avoiding my question. You apparently expect to use the law to prevent people from doing or not doing things that allow harm to children. Where does that stop? Where do you draw the line?

A young child has a tumor growing on the side of her neck.  The child is less than two years old, and the tumor is the size of a softball and still growing.  The parents do not seek any treatment other than prayer.  The child shows no improvement from the prayer 'treatment', and is having difficulty breathing.  The child dies, slowly.  I watched this case.  If the group that Noelle linked is the same one, this particular group has one of the highest child-mortality rates in Oregon, and I know there are more court cases with a nearly identical pattern - the only difference being which condition, that medical intervention could have cured - is involved.  In many cases, family members that are outside the religious group have strongly recommended doctor visits.  Oh - and before we start saing 'oh, they have a right not to believe in doctors - there were people in this family who were myopic and had no problem getting eyeglasses, or diabetic and had no problem getting a prescription for insulin.  Oh yes, they had a choice to set their beliefs aside when it was to their benefit, but a child who doesn't have the ability to speak is subjected to the fatal consequences of that belief.

This is not a case of mere negligence or simple 'head in the clouds' ignorance.  There was more than just the single case that Noelle linked that brought about this law.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zakharra

QuoteLet me be clear:  if everyone in the entire country (outside of the Amish who I'm not sure have the capability to pasteurize/homogenize) decided tomorrow that they weren't going to buy raw milk, the country would be a better place.  There are no health benefits, it isn't cheaper, and the potential for the spread of disease makes it a dangerous commodity to sell.  This does not necessarily mean people shouldn't consume raw milk from their own animals in some circumstances -- at least then you have control over the condition of the animal and you know your risks -- but even that I'd advise against unless it was necessary for some reason (for example a financial or practical matter).  This is just basic fact.p

Part of that statement is complete BS. Raw milk IS cheaper than processed for a lot of people because they get if from the farm. It doesn't have to go through a distributor tha tprocesses it and a clean farm is just as safe as a clean facotry. Asd lsong as the farmer makes sure his cattle/goats are clean and healthy, raw milk is as safe as processed. As long as you do not let it sit out.

Processed milk can be just as dangerous as raw if let out to warm and there have been recalls on processed milk, as well as eggs, vegetables for bacterial infections so processed food isn't neccessarily inheriently safer than raw in a lot of things, It's just more tested.

It is how you care and use it that I think mainly determines it's safety. If adults want to drink raw milk, they should have every right and if the farmer can produce safe raw milk, he should be allowed to sell it to those who want to  buy it.

Zakharra

 On the matter of using religious belief to try and heal when medical science -can- heal or has a higher chance, the sciewnce should be used. Faith alone isn't enough and for you who profess faith, think about this. God (whoever you believe in) gave us brains to use. We developed science and improved medicines to help health. Why not use what god gave us to improve our body's health?

Xajow

Quote from: Jude on May 28, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
This is the problem that I have with ideologues such as yourself.  They make everything out to be so incredibly simple and ignore the shades of grey and competing factors that are involved with every political question.  Whether or not the government should crack down on the sale of raw milk isn't as simple as painting your face blue and yelling "FREEEEEEEDOM" while wearing a kilt.
This is the problem I have with people like you. You insist everything is complicated and if I don't agree, you try to paint me as some sort of radical nutcase who cannot tell the difference between the movies and the real world.

Quote from: Jude on May 28, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
If the government cracks down on the sale of raw milk it will probably prevent the spread of many communicable diseases.  If they don't, people get to choose to consume raw milk which has no tangible benefits.  Basically what you have here is liberty for the sake of liberty (which I am not opposed to) versus cracking down on a substance who's sale really only has negative consequences for our nation.  If you think this situation is so simple, it's because the former so vastly outweighs the latter in your mind that you don't even take it into consideration.  I find that troubling.
I see. It's okay for you to decide, based on an assumption, that my reasoning is simple, but not for me to believe that the basic issue is simple.

Quote from: Jude on May 28, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
What about vaccines?  A number of diseases that were nearly-eradicated previously have returned thanks to the anti-vaccination movement (which is actually related tangentially to the raw milk movement).  These people believe, despite the fact that there is no good evidence, that vaccines are harmful to children and have decided not to give them to their kids.  Guess what:  they're a tangible bodycount here.  The diseases we vaccinate against are dangerous and extremely communicable, and it isn't just kids dying who's parents chose not to vaccinate them.  I'm going to assume you'd be against legislation forcing parents to vaccinate their children if they choose to live in a large community/have their kid attend school?
Oh. Okay. I'll just let you establish what my positions are then?

Quote from: Jude on May 28, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
Let me be clear:  if everyone in the entire country (outside of the Amish who I'm not sure have the capability to pasteurize/homogenize) decided tomorrow that they weren't going to buy raw milk, the country would be a better place.  There are no health benefits, it isn't cheaper, and the potential for the spread of disease makes it a dangerous commodity to sell.  This does not necessarily mean people shouldn't consume raw milk from their own animals in some circumstances -- at least then you have control over the condition of the animal and you know your risks -- but even that I'd advise against unless it was necessary for some reason (for example a financial or practical matter).  This is just basic fact.
So in light of all of these facts, how do the French justify the wholesale endangerment of their society with the peril of raw milk?

Quote from: Jude on May 28, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
You can say you're against laws forcing the hand of people even when doing so would make our country a better place, and there are a lot of circumstances in which I agree with you, but not all.  There are competing factors here:  public good versus private freedom.  Private freedom should not always win out; and it doesn't.  Every single law we have on the books is a restriction of private freedom, even laws against murder.  In all of those situations we recognize that giving up our freedom to violently end another human being is a necessary sacrifice to make our country a better place.
That isn't my philosophy. But why should I stop you from simplifying my beliefs now?

Quote from: Jude on May 28, 2011, 11:45:25 AM
I think giving up our freedom to purchase raw milk -- which has no benefits and is more expensive than processed milk -- to stop the occasional epidemic... Well, that doesn't seem anywhere near as simple as you're making it out to be.  But then again, in the black and white world view of the committed ideologue, nothing is that complicated.
You seemed able to make a simple and straightforward case for banning raw milk, and to oversimplify or misrepresent what you apparently think I believe, but somehow you think I am the committed ideologue with a black and white worldview. Huh. Not sure how that works. It's kinda funny to me that the champions for nuance so often seem the first ones to attempt to simplify everything with which they do not agree so they can wave it away as not understanding how the world works.

You think the issue is simple, well then you must not understand all the factors involved. Complaining about oversimplifying and performing it at the same time.

I did not say reasons for supporting one side of the issue or the other were simple. I said the issue was simple.

I get the "if you understood the way the world works you'd agree with me" bit. I do. I sometimes fall into that myself. Probably have in this very thread. But let's be honest. It's not very persuasive.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Oniya on May 28, 2011, 12:29:13 PM
This is not a case of mere negligence or simple 'head in the clouds' ignorance.  There was more than just the single case that Noelle linked that brought about this law.
I'm sure there are other cases. So how comfortable are you with the law saying, you're not allowed to adhere to what you believe because some people disapprove of the results?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Oniya

Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:55:30 PM
I'm sure there are other cases. So how comfortable are you with the law saying, you're not allowed to adhere to what you believe because some people disapprove of the results?

Let's not sugar-coat or move the goalposts: The 'results' that 'some people disapprove of' involve serious bodily injury or death to someone who has not freely and voluntarily chosen to take part in that belief system.  If I practiced a religion that involved sacrificing babies on an altar under the first new moon after the summer solstice, I would expect the law stepping in and saying that wasn't okay.  If I practiced a religion that dictated that I had to break the legs of my children when they reached some arbitrary age, then I'd expect that the law would step in. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Noelle

Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:11:52 PM
Yes, I know. No one else in the whole world can do what I and/or my family have done. I am, apparently, supposed to assume everyone else is wholly incapable ever doing what I did. What? You didn't say that? Hey, guess what? I didn't say everyone else was expected to do what I did or my family did. I explained that I am not unfamiliar with the problems.

Then why bring them up? It's not offering a solution and it contributes nothing substantial. My family was on food stamps when I was a child, I went through most of my formative years as a kid without health insurance, and I'd still not advocate that it offers anything substantial to this debate. In fact, much of what we're debating consists of you not really offering much in the way of solutions except to shoot down any attempt by the government to find one and not seeming to care enough to talk about anything a business could possibly do on their end. Your ideology at this point is helpless, actionless, and quite poor, if you ask me. You want government action crippled, but you don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard -- that's the message I'm getting here.

QuoteI didn't say it was a positive. I said there are programs to help people in need buy food, which undermines your assertion that nothing is being done.

Which I am saying is not really a point you can make considering you're not for government interference. Would you eliminate food stamps if you had the choice? If the answer is yes, then you most certainly can't use this as a point to support your ideology. If you can agree that some government interference is good for maintaining a certain standard of life and that it can be used judiciously in cases where people would be worse off without it, well, then we're getting somewhere.

QuoteI am sorry that every choice in the world is not between sets of perfect options. If you expect me to believe we can fix this by legislation, you're going build a much better case than I have ever seen.

I don't really know what to expect from you, given you haven't really offered much on that note. You keep putting legislation on the chopping block without telling me how you'd go about things differently with your libertarian ideals.  Yes, this is an offer. Do enlighten me on how you'd handle things differently.

From what I've gathered, you're in the "sucks to be you" camp that recognizes that some people have less-than-ideal situations, but aren't willing/don't care enough/whatever the excuse may be to do anything about it except shrug and say, "you have a choice!" and leave them to fend for themselves. If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump in and correct me here.

QuoteI am horrified that you want to start punishing people if they believe something you have decided for them is "baseless garbage". I am horrified that you want to establish precedent for basically ignoring a person's religious beliefs and forcing someone whose religious beliefs you do not share to conform to how you believe they should behave.

Except it is. I didn't deem it that way, there is no credible science anywhere to back faith healing as a legitimate means of treating illnesses. Besides, what you're saying is a fallacious summary, as it is. Nowhere did I say I wanted to punish people for believing a certain thing or forcing them to do anything. I would punish the worst-case outcome when common treatments they could have sought are ignored. Besides, they have a choice! You love choices, right? They can use faith healing and hope their kid doesn't die and they go to prison -- or they can responsibly seek the advice of a medical professional when it turns out their methods aren't working and their dependent's health takes a turn for the worse.

QuoteYeah, implying the parents wanted the children to die is mean, no matter how you spin it.

Except I didn't imply that at all, that was your assumption of it.

QuoteGood intent is not enough. This is why I oppose your solution to force other people to conform to what you want. Good intentions are not enough.

Then I oppose your good intent of opposing my good intent of opposing other people's good intent. And so it goes.

QuoteWe cannot legislate danger out of the world. And trying to do so only creates different dangers.

So why bother, right? Let's hand a gun to every citizen no matter what, let parents fill their suffering, cancer-ridden children with pleasant thoughts in high hopes that everything turns out okay, remove all stoplights, get rid of law enforcement, remove sanitation standards, building codes, workplace safety codes, food inspection, and do away with any standards we uphold against convicted criminals.

Really now, where are you drawing the line on "legislating danger"? You really have to help me out here because you're being awfully ambiguous.

QuoteSo, if I follow your logic, now you're equating religion to vehicular manslaughter? Really?

Yes I am, because you've failed to address when I do and do not have to respect someone's religion. If Jesus tells me to get in a car and drive and I hit someone on accident, under the logic you've provided, any attempt to bring me to justice is an attack on my religious freedom. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.

QuoteAnd now you're assuming I want to defend murder. Wow. I see, you're one of those. "If you'd allow someone to die in this circumstance that I condemn, then you must be okay with worst case of murder I can think of."

No, I'm trying to figure out where you stand because you haven't been very clear on the matter and you haven't set a single standard of to what extremes you'd take your anti-government legislatory ideology except to tell me when I've hit on something absurd.

Quote
As best I can determine, the parents in the story you brought up did not kill their children. They were not, for example carelessly flinging knives about or exposing the children to poisonous snakes.

And what if they were? They didn't mean to kill their kids then, either.

QuoteNot taking the children to the doctor was wrong, in my opinion, but I don't hold to their religious beliefs. In any case, you're avoiding my question. You apparently expect to use the law to prevent people from doing or not doing things that allow harm to children. Where does that stop? Where do you draw the line?

I don't expect the law to prevent people -- I expect the law to punish people accordingly when their decisions lead to bad consequences. That's what law does. Law doesn't necessarily prevent someone from stabbing someone else -- people make those decisions of their own accord. It brings that person to justice when their action infringes on someone else's right to live without a knife embedded in their chest.   If a responsible adult wants to decide for themselves that Jesus can cure their malignant tumor, fine, I hope they're ready to deal with the consequence of that. Pretending that faith healing is a responsible decision when someone else who cannot decide for themselves is forced to deal with it is foolish.

Your examples are poor ones. In the latter two, the death wasn't a result of a direct decision the adult made to deny them proven medical treatment. Choosing faith healing is not a freak accident, it is an intentional choice, whether or not the outcome is death. In the first example, it would be negligent of the father to make his son lay on the ground in the woods and sprinkle him with dirt in hopes that the magic woodland fairies would come sprinkle him with healing dust if a reasonable attempt could be made to find help nearby.

Jude

#56
I don't think you're reading what I'm saying.  The raw milk thing?  I'm not on either side of the debate.  I'm saying it's about competing interests -- protecting the public from themselves versus freedom -- I am not endorsing either side; maybe I've done a poor job of communicating that though.  In my last post in particular there was a paragraph where it seemed like I was taking a stand, but my intention was only to present the other side since you were so vehemently presenting yours.  I have repeatedly said that I don't want to have that philosophical, value-based argument, because I actually don't want to.

I don't feel strong about this.  If they removed the law prohibiting the sale of raw milk between states, I would not care much.  This is not an important issue to me -- if people want to consume potentially hazardous substances, I do not care, though I understand that enacting such regulations does protect people from themselves (which happens to be something I personally feel dubious towards).

As far as all of the "you people," "us versus them" discussion:

Tropic Thunder clip You People

Perhaps it will lighten the mood.

Xajow

Quote from: Oniya on May 28, 2011, 01:07:23 PM
Let's not sugar-coat or move the goalposts: The 'results' that 'some people disapprove of' involve serious bodily injury or death to someone who has not freely and voluntarily chosen to take part in that belief system.  If I practiced a religion that involved sacrificing babies on an altar under the first new moon after the summer solstice, I would expect the law stepping in and saying that wasn't okay.  If I practiced a religion that dictated that I had to break the legs of my children when they reached some arbitrary age, then I'd expect that the law would step in.
Choosing to cause harm where none existed is not the same as not getting treatment for harm already present.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Oniya

At this point, you are engaging in casuistry.  If you'll excuse me, I am off to engage in porcine choristry, which I expect to find far more productive.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Xajow

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:11:52 PMI didn't say everyone else was expected to do what I did or my family did. I explained that I am not unfamiliar with the problems.

Then why bring them up?
Um, because I was explaining that I am not unfamiliar with the problems. But I get it. You think my experience is irrelevant. I don't know how I am going to prevent it from  influencing my opinion, but I promise I'll try real hard. At least as hard as you are at preventing your experience from influencing your opinion.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
It's not offering a solution and it contributes nothing substantial. My family was on food stamps when I was a child, I went through most of my formative years as a kid without health insurance, and I'd still not advocate that it offers anything substantial to this debate. In fact, much of what we're debating consists of you not really offering much in the way of solutions except to shoot down any attempt by the government to find one and not seeming to care enough to talk about anything a business could possibly do on their end.
I was not aware I was expected to solve this problem. I'm not sure offering a solution here would be helpful to anyone in actuality, but I'll see what I can do. You'll have to wait a while.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Your ideology at this point is helpless, actionless, and quite poor, if you ask me. You want government action crippled, but you don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard -- that's the message I'm getting here.
I want government action crippled? Where did that come from? That is almost a whole other discussion. I don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard? That depends on which standards we're talking about and what you mean by "holding." If you mean putting public pressure on businesses, I am 100% all for it. If you mean passing laws that mandate behavior, no, I'm not for that. And no, that does not mean I want government action crippled. It means I want it applied properly, rather than abused to appease people who want to control the behavior of others.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:11:52 PMI said there are programs to help people in need buy food, which undermines your assertion that nothing is being done.
Which I am saying is not really a point you can make considering you're not for government interference.
Wow. I did not realize you were the arbiter of what I am allowed to use to counter your arguments. Seems awfully convenient for you.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Would you eliminate food stamps if you had the choice? If the answer is yes, then you most certainly can't use this as a point to support your ideology.
I didn't use food stamps as a point to support my ideology. I used the existence of government assistance programs to point out that your claim of nothing being done was not true. And since the programs do actually exist, whether I support them or not is irrelevant to whether or not they disprove your claim. To answer your question, I would privatize the entire program.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
If you can agree that some government interference is good for maintaining a certain standard of life and that it can be used judiciously in cases where people would be worse off without it, well, then we're getting somewhere.
That depends entirely upon what is meant by "government interference". Is there a role for government in society? Yes. Is that role to be mandating all manner of behavior for everyone who does not behave as this or that group's ideology believes is best for everyone? No. Is that role protecting the rights of individuals? Yes.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
I don't really know what to expect from you, given you haven't really offered much on that note. You keep putting legislation on the chopping block without telling me how you'd go about things differently with your libertarian ideals.  Yes, this is an offer. Do enlighten me on how you'd handle things differently.

From what I've gathered, you're in the "sucks to be you" camp that recognizes that some people have less-than-ideal situations, but aren't willing/don't care enough/whatever the excuse may be to do anything about it except shrug and say, "you have a choice!" and leave them to fend for themselves. If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump in and correct me here.
Very few if any people are in the "sucks to be you" camp. It's convenient to claim people who don't agree with us are there, but about 99.999% of the time, it is not true. And it's not true now. I realize some people think helping people equals government doing something. I am not one of those people. Contrary to what you seem to believe, that does not mean I am opposed to helping people. I have watched government try to help people for a long time now. I watched politicians promote "affordable housing" only to see people seethe with anger about predatory lenders when the housing market bubble burst. Even trying to mention the work of politicians in that mess will get you dismissed as an anti-government crackpot. I watched the government keep interest rates artificially low, and then saw people scramble to the be the one to demonize banks the most. I have watched Medicaid and Medicare grow and grow, contributing to higher and higher medical costs for everyone, and then saw people insist it was all the fault of the private market. I watched the "war on poverty" give food stamps to people in need, and I saw people buy candy with them, and I saw people live in the welfare system, barely getting by, but not really trying hard to get off of welfare because then they'd actually suffer an income drop. And I see people blaming businesses and banks and every single last person they can point to and cry "greedy capitalist!" And I have tried to discuss that government contributes as much to the problems as anything else, and watched people start accusing me of not wanting people to get help. I've talked to be people who clearly expect me to be ashamed of daring to think that maybe government, an instrument of force and top-down control, is not the best way to help everyone. Well, I'm not ashamed of noticing a problem that some people refuse to acknowledge.

The thing is, I don't have to know all the answers. One of the things I like about libertarianism is it acknowledges that in the real world, top-down solutions that expect everyone to conform often don't actually work as intended. People are not pawns you can simply control with laws. Certain drugs, prostitution, and in some cases interior design without a licence, are illegal. Yet for some reason these things are still available. We have had decades of government programs with the intent to help bring down health care prices for people, to help people get by when they are in financial need, and as prices go up and people remain on welfare. I question the ability of government programs to effectively address these problems, and some people look at that and the best they can muster up is to accuse me of not wanting people to get help. Really?

What would I do differently? I would start getting government out of the way of all sort of things. Like people who want to braid hair, or make flower arrangements. Why? Because I want people to suffer? No. Because I want to help people create jobs that help them and others find some financial success. I would also, and this is hypothetically assuming I have the power to accomplish any of this, start a nationwide private network of churches, non-profits, philanthropists and the like to see that people in need get help at the local level where it can benefit them the most by responding to the facts on the ground rather than expecting people to conform to rules established from on high by people who believe themselves smarter than everyone else. All those wealthy people who claim they want to pay more in taxes, I'd hit them up for money first, since they seem to think they have too much of it. I'd see if they really believed in helping people or just in government taking money and claiming to do it for them. In broad strokes, the plan would be to find ways to empower individuals, not the government, to take control over their own lives.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Nowhere did I say I wanted to punish people for believing a certain thing or forcing them to do anything.
You certainly appeared to support punishing people who chose for reasons of faith to not take their children to the doctor. If that isn't punishing people for believing a certain way or an attempt to force them to conform to something other than their beliefs I don't know what it is.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
I would punish the worst-case outcome when common treatments they could have sought are ignored. Besides, they have a choice! You love choices, right? They can use faith healing and hope their kid doesn't die and they go to prison -- or they can responsibly seek the advice of a medical professional when it turns out their methods aren't working and their dependent's health takes a turn for the worse.
They can choose punishment for following their beliefs or be coerced into compromising them. Conform or be punished, but somehow this isn't punishing people for following their beliefs?

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Except I didn't imply that at all, that was your assumption of it.
I quote, " if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid..." If?

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Then I oppose your good intent of opposing my good intent of opposing other people's good intent. And so it goes.
Great, but it misses the point. That you have good intentions for trying to control people via laws doesn't mean your intentions are sufficient justification.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Quote from: Xajow on May 28, 2011, 12:11:52 PMWe cannot legislate danger out of the world. And trying to do so only creates different dangers.
So why bother, right? Let's hand a gun to every citizen no matter what, let parents fill their suffering, cancer-ridden children with pleasant thoughts in high hopes that everything turns out okay, remove all stoplights, get rid of law enforcement, remove sanitation standards, building codes, workplace safety codes, food inspection, and do away with any standards we uphold against convicted criminals.

Really now, where are you drawing the line on "legislating danger"? You really have to help me out here because you're being awfully ambiguous.
No, I'm not. That you're just flailing about with wild comments that imply that you think I'm advocating chaos because I don't agree with your preferred way of trying to manufacture order does not mean I am being ambiguous. Next time, try not starting with the "guess you want to let anyone do anything" silliness, and just ask me what I think. I don't have to be manipulated into answering questions. Which isn't to say I will give you the answers you like, but I will answer direct questions.

I tend to oppose trying to legislate danger away, because in general it doesn't work. I prefer using government to protect the rights of individuals. Which does sometimes mean government is protecting people from danger, like murder or pollution (though I would not handle pollution the way it has been, but that is a different discussion). But trying to use government to eliminate all or most dangers in life is impractical, counterproductive and costly. And using government to force people to "contribute" to social programs is, imo, immoral (but that too is a different discussion).

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Yes I am, because you've failed to address when I do and do not have to respect someone's religion. If Jesus tells me to get in a car and drive and I hit someone on accident, under the logic you've provided, any attempt to bring me to justice is an attack on my religious freedom. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.
But I'm not the one making it absurd. And no, you're not using my logic. The parents in question did not cause the harm to their children. They only chose not to seek medical help for it, which is not the same as causing harm to someone else.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
No, I'm trying to figure out where you stand because you haven't been very clear on the matter and you haven't set a single standard of to what extremes you'd take your anti-government legislatory ideology except to tell me when I've hit on something absurd.
Asking questions works better than accusing me of supporting murder.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
I don't expect the law to prevent people -- I expect the law to punish people accordingly when their decisions lead to bad consequences. That's what law does.
Ideally, yes. In practice, not always.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
If a responsible adult wants to decide for themselves that Jesus can cure their malignant tumor, fine, I hope they're ready to deal with the consequence of that. Pretending that faith healing is a responsible decision when someone else who cannot decide for themselves is forced to deal with it is foolish.
Yes it is. But that, imo, is not a sound foundation for a law.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
Your examples are poor ones. In the latter two, the death wasn't a result of a direct decision the adult made to deny them proven medical treatment. Choosing faith healing is not a freak accident, it is an intentional choice, whether or not the outcome is death. In the first example, it would be negligent of the father to make his son lay on the ground in the woods and sprinkle him with dirt in hopes that the magic woodland fairies would come sprinkle him with healing dust if a reasonable attempt could be made to find help nearby.
You're not answering the questions. And still avoiding the more important question of where do you draw the line. Taking one's son to the woods where medical help is not readily available is an intentional choice. Parents not taking a gang awareness class because they do not believe their child would ever join a gang is an intentional choice. If intentional choice is the heart of the issue, then where do you draw the line?
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Shjade

So I'm just curious: does anyone else find it a little funny these posts are growing gradually longer when they're all saying the same thing, that thing being, "Choice should never be limited regardless of unintentional consequences," while all the responses to that position are essentially, "But look at all these unintentional consequences?"

I mean, regardless of my own opinion on the subject, it's hilarious just watching this so obviously futile argument go around in circles.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Noelle

Indeed, this has gone ad absurdum and I get the feeling that not only has the tone of the argument grown a little sharper than I'd like to carry on with, but we're very wildly off topic. I have issues arguing about sinister paintings of exaggerated level of government control as equally as I have issues arguing that all businesses are greedy, evil demons, neither of which I actually believe in and being thoroughly unconvinced that the private sector can and will solve all of our problems is a debate for another topic. We obviously fundamentally disagree on the role of the government and we're sitting at two ends of the spectrum with you defending the private sector as being not as sinister as I'm apparently painting it to be and myself defending government as being not as sinister as you are making it out to be, either. This is why I sit at the center, between the two, ideologically, but I digress :)

I have to know, though. Would you do away with child abuse laws, Xajow? One thing that has hit me as odd about the examples you're giving is that they often treat children like property and that parents are free to do as they like to their kids in good faith, which I think is what has troubled me the most about that particular portion of the debate.

Just for the sake of clarity, the whole quote you're crying foul on looks more like so:
Quotewe have no need for this if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid
.

Notice where the emphasis in that sentence is. It's not if the parents didn't mean to kill their kid, which contextually casts doubt on their intention -- it was more of a pleading, "but I didn't mean to!" Of course you didn't mean to knock over an expensive vase and break it, but the point is that it's destroyed and you're responsible for breaking it. I hope this is clear now.

Xajow

Quote from: Shjade on May 28, 2011, 10:09:42 PM
these posts are growing gradually longer when they're all saying the same thing, that thing being, "Choice should never be limited regardless of unintentional consequences,"
I am sorry if you think that is what I was saying. That wasn't my argument at all. That is probably my fault for not communicating well enough.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)

Xajow

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
sinister paintings [...] sinister [...] sinister
Again, I'm obviously not communicating well enough. I was not intending to say the government is sinister. I just happen to think it generally fails as a solver of social problems.

Quote from: Noelle on May 28, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
I have to know, though. Would you do away with child abuse laws, Xajow? One thing that has hit me as odd about the examples you're giving is that they often treat children like property and that parents are free to do as they like to their kids in good faith, which I think is what has troubled me the most about that particular portion of the debate.
In general, no. But again, it depends on how you define things. For example, statutory rape laws that put on sex offender registries for life a person whose "crime" is that when he was 15 had sex with someone who was 16, those sort of laws I would prefer to see at the very least seriously revised. I'm not arguing in favor of statutory rape. I'm suggesting laws with unjust consequences should not be left unchallenged simply because the laws started with good intentions to protect children. We can have just laws and still protect children from predators.
“It’s not just your body I want,” he said plainly. “I want your heart and mind as well. And each time I do this, you become mine a little more.” As he raised his hand to spank her again, she whimpered and said softly “Thank you, Master.”

Xajow's Ons/Offs, A/A info (updated 01APR11)