The best argument you can put forth in favor of regulation is that it does the best job of any other possible system, but in several discussions on this topic you have never even attempted to make that argument.
No, this is exactly what I am saying. I don't know why people always assume I'm arguing for the ideal when I'm not. I guess because it's easier to argue against me if you just assume my position to be something that it's not. Like if I'm for public education as opposed to private education it does not mean that I do not believe a society can exist without public education, or that public education is perfect, or any of these things. I'm sick of answering replies to arguments I never made.
Ergo at best the regulatory system is a marginal improvement over other systems of food safety.
Well, your main contention seems to be denying the correlation between food safety regulation and improved food safety. This isn't a matter of logic or analogies, just pure historical fact.
Here's one encyclopedic history of the matter: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Law.Food.and.Drug.Regulation
Just a cursory skim of that source seems to agree with my position, but I'm not planning to convince you. It's up to you to look at what you can, if you want, and make a conclusion based on the evidence.
I'm a rational anarchist, you can have whatever laws you think are necessary, however I think such a law is stupid and will do more to line the pockets of big business than do anything to improve food quality.
I disagree. I believe food testing is an essential part of the process, whether done by the producers themselves or by the government. One of the externalities of food production is that if one batch gets contaminated, it's possible to spread to everything that's being produced there. There's a reason why we're so hard on certain foods like beef in terms of testing; the bacteria there is extremely contagious.
If the company has to issue a massive recall on all of its beef products, I daresay that act is far more expensive than mandatory testing. Maybe over time it events out, but always remember that there are consequences associated with any decision.
Nope, never said that, in fact as I have mentioned several times I believe agencies like Consumers Union can do a far better job than government regulation.
I think without the power of enforcement, consumer unions tend to just blow a lot of hot air. Mega-corporations will just ignore them or snuff them out with superior marketing. This is pretty cynical, but that's my take on it.
no subject
No, this is exactly what I am saying. I don't know why people always assume I'm arguing for the ideal when I'm not. I guess because it's easier to argue against me if you just assume my position to be something that it's not. Like if I'm for public education as opposed to private education it does not mean that I do not believe a society can exist without public education, or that public education is perfect, or any of these things. I'm sick of answering replies to arguments I never made.
Ergo at best the regulatory system is a marginal improvement over other systems of food safety.
Well, your main contention seems to be denying the correlation between food safety regulation and improved food safety. This isn't a matter of logic or analogies, just pure historical fact.
Here's one encyclopedic history of the matter: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Law.Food.and.Drug.Regulation
Just a cursory skim of that source seems to agree with my position, but I'm not planning to convince you. It's up to you to look at what you can, if you want, and make a conclusion based on the evidence.
I'm a rational anarchist, you can have whatever laws you think are necessary, however I think such a law is stupid and will do more to line the pockets of big business than do anything to improve food quality.
I disagree. I believe food testing is an essential part of the process, whether done by the producers themselves or by the government. One of the externalities of food production is that if one batch gets contaminated, it's possible to spread to everything that's being produced there. There's a reason why we're so hard on certain foods like beef in terms of testing; the bacteria there is extremely contagious.
If the company has to issue a massive recall on all of its beef products, I daresay that act is far more expensive than mandatory testing. Maybe over time it events out, but always remember that there are consequences associated with any decision.
Nope, never said that, in fact as I have mentioned several times I believe agencies like Consumers Union can do a far better job than government regulation.
I think without the power of enforcement, consumer unions tend to just blow a lot of hot air. Mega-corporations will just ignore them or snuff them out with superior marketing. This is pretty cynical, but that's my take on it.