You missed my point. My point was to bring up the reality that most regulation could be deemed unnecessary if consumers were more careful, and that no amount of regulation can fix stupid consumer choices.
Again, this is a matter of history, not logic. We keep coming back to this point so I think we're done here.
Nor do you have sympathy for producers who a) do not create tainted food but b) are forced out of the market by the bigger boys due to your regulatory desires.
They're not forced out of the market by the 'bigger boys', they're forced out of the market due to non-compliance with methods that insure safe food. I'm repeating myself here for the 50th time as well.
I was looking for more than Wikipedia clones, sorry.
You won't do the research, fine. I don't care. Do what you want with your time.
such as this.
That is talking about anti-trust laws.
Second, I'm stubborn about the facts - I'm not saying food regulation has been or is worthless, I'm merely asking you to also note that it has significant negatives associated with it.
I never claimed that there were no downsides to regulation, but the positives outweigh the negatives, as you can see by looking at pre-1906 food sanitation and post-1906 food sanitation.
You ask "Why?" Because people need to stop trying to get the government to solve every problem they have.
Not every problem, but there are certain things that are granted to the government well within the power of the Constitution. Mitigating externalities is definitely one of them. We may disagree on what we consider to be externalities, but they definitely have that power.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 01:02 (UTC)Again, this is a matter of history, not logic. We keep coming back to this point so I think we're done here.
Nor do you have sympathy for producers who a) do not create tainted food but b) are forced out of the market by the bigger boys due to your regulatory desires.
They're not forced out of the market by the 'bigger boys', they're forced out of the market due to non-compliance with methods that insure safe food. I'm repeating myself here for the 50th time as well.
I was looking for more than Wikipedia clones, sorry.
You won't do the research, fine. I don't care. Do what you want with your time.
such as this.
That is talking about anti-trust laws.
Second, I'm stubborn about the facts - I'm not saying food regulation has been or is worthless, I'm merely asking you to also note that it has significant negatives associated with it.
I never claimed that there were no downsides to regulation, but the positives outweigh the negatives, as you can see by looking at pre-1906 food sanitation and post-1906 food sanitation.
You ask "Why?" Because people need to stop trying to get the government to solve every problem they have.
Not every problem, but there are certain things that are granted to the government well within the power of the Constitution. Mitigating externalities is definitely one of them. We may disagree on what we consider to be externalities, but they definitely have that power.