You have that. This person is an absolute professional, well-known in the industry.
Of course he is, he's good at farming. But just from looking at an excerpt of his writing I found lies, advocating unsafe food production, and apparently something about child labor laws, and I don't care how they relate for farming, you don't make kids work jobs meant for adults.
Regulation is the same no matter where you go
If you put regulation in a big, broad stroke you can go anywhere with it. We've all had the routine in college or at least most of us have, where we write a paper. We pick a topic, but find it's too general, and that encyclopedias could be written on it, so we make it more specific, and more specific, until we have something that can be accurately described in detail in a shorter paper.
So when you try to steer the discussion towards "REGULATION: GOOD OR BAD?" instead of what MY specific topic was, "FOOD REGULATION IN 1906: GOOD OR BAD?" you're creating something that can literally never end. My entire point here is that market forces in 1906 could not change the quality of food, and the government had to step in. There's loads of evidence for this, and I have not seen a single person provide even a miniscule bit of counter-evidence.
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 21:02 (UTC)Of course he is, he's good at farming. But just from looking at an excerpt of his writing I found lies, advocating unsafe food production, and apparently something about child labor laws, and I don't care how they relate for farming, you don't make kids work jobs meant for adults.
Regulation is the same no matter where you go
If you put regulation in a big, broad stroke you can go anywhere with it. We've all had the routine in college or at least most of us have, where we write a paper. We pick a topic, but find it's too general, and that encyclopedias could be written on it, so we make it more specific, and more specific, until we have something that can be accurately described in detail in a shorter paper.
So when you try to steer the discussion towards "REGULATION: GOOD OR BAD?" instead of what MY specific topic was, "FOOD REGULATION IN 1906: GOOD OR BAD?" you're creating something that can literally never end. My entire point here is that market forces in 1906 could not change the quality of food, and the government had to step in. There's loads of evidence for this, and I have not seen a single person provide even a miniscule bit of counter-evidence.