Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

food...wonderful food...

THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 10:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.usatoday.com...

The USA Today reported "The US Department of Agriculture says the meat it buys for the National School Lunch Program 'meets or exceeds standards in commercial products.' That isn't always the case. McDonald's, B.K., and Costco, for instance, are far more rigorous in checking for bacteria and dangerous pathogens. They test the ground beef they but five to 10 times more often than the USDA tests beef made for schools during a typical production day. And the limits Jack in the Box and other big retailers set for certain bacteria in their burgers are up to 10 times more stringent than what the USDA sets for school beef. For chicken, the USDA has supplied schools with thousands of tons of meat from old birds that might otherwise go to compost or pet food. Called 'spent hens' because they're past their egg-laying prime, the chickens don't pass muster with Colonel Sanders--KFC won't buy them--and they don't pass the soup test, either. The Campell Soup Company says it stopped using them a decade ago based on 'quality considerations.'"

Doesn't that just sound yummy...?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 10:47:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Another reason I don't eat school lunch food,

2) KFC in Kentucky sucks. At least the one I went too.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 10:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Still better quality then what goes into hot dogs, so im good
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:40:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The reason we have the FDA is because that already didn't work.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 7:11:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 6:40:29 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The reason we have the FDA is because that already didn't work.
+1

I love this new anti-establishment libertarian platitude I see more and more of on DD0

HURR DURR ERMEGERD, LERV IT TER TEH PRIVERT MERKET
turn down for h'what
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:28:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

The government already does that and feeds it to the children.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:31:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:28:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

The government already does that and feeds it to the children.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:50:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

I have one answer to all of your nonsensical hypotheticals regarding the market:

Open a history textbook.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:15:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

By the same token, we should decriminalize murder: communities will realize the merits of not killing each other.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:26:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How do we even know what quality meat is or what companies use unless we are specifically told? They can make anything up, and they used to do that. The FDA is what stops them.

This is why I do not support markets. Communal control is a much better solution to these problems.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:26:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:50:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

I have one answer to all of your nonsensical hypotheticals regarding the market:

Open a history textbook.

Yes, I just provided you an empirical example.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:29:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:15:48 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

By the same token, we should decriminalize murder: communities will realize the merits of not killing each other.

I have one answer to you, read up on your political theory, specifically the social contract. Self-interested people choose to give up the freedom to kill in order to protect themselves.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:30:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:26:37 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:50:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

I have one answer to all of your nonsensical hypotheticals regarding the market:

Open a history textbook.

Yes, I just provided you an empirical example.

I don't know what Heinz did because there is no source for the claim, and nothing about it is on Wikipedia. All I know is that it didn't happen for the meat packing industry and that other companies perpetrated scams until the FDA began regulating them. Again, pick up a textbook.

Give me a source for Heinz so that I have something other than hearsay.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:33:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:26:33 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
How do we even know what quality meat

Define quality. I mean restaurants will use better meat to attract more business. (New chicken tastes better than old chicken. At least I'd like to think that.)

is or what companies use unless we are specifically told? They can make anything up, and they used to do that. The FDA is what stops them.

The FDA poses regulations but it does not physically stop them. Look at the article (or portion of one) I just posted, they failed in that regard.


This is why I do not support markets. Communal control is a much better solution to these problems.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:33:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:29:46 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:15:48 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

By the same token, we should decriminalize murder: communities will realize the merits of not killing each other.

I have one answer to you, read up on your political theory, specifically the social contract. Self-interested people choose to give up the freedom to kill in order to protect themselves.

Yes, and self-interested consumers choose to give up their freedom to purchase faulty goods in order to protect themselves.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:36:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:30:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:26:37 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:50:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

I have one answer to all of your nonsensical hypotheticals regarding the market:

Open a history textbook.

Yes, I just provided you an empirical example.

I don't know what Heinz did because there is no source for the claim, and nothing about it is on Wikipedia. All I know is that it didn't happen for the meat packing industry

It didn't happen with horseradish for a while either. Eventually it did.

and that other companies perpetrated scams until the FDA began regulating them. Again, pick up a textbook.

I've taken APUSH.


Give me a source for Heinz so that I have something other than hearsay.

Thomas Sowell Basic Economics Fourth edition, page 199.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:37:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:33:41 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:29:46 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:15:48 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

By the same token, we should decriminalize murder: communities will realize the merits of not killing each other.

I have one answer to you, read up on your political theory, specifically the social contract. Self-interested people choose to give up the freedom to kill in order to protect themselves.

Yes, and self-interested consumers choose to give up their freedom to purchase faulty goods in order to protect themselves.

Bingo, they don't have to buy the faulty goods. Meaning companies would change due to loss of profit.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:39:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:37:30 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:33:41 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:29:46 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:15:48 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

By the same token, we should decriminalize murder: communities will realize the merits of not killing each other.

I have one answer to you, read up on your political theory, specifically the social contract. Self-interested people choose to give up the freedom to kill in order to protect themselves.

Yes, and self-interested consumers choose to give up their freedom to purchase faulty goods in order to protect themselves.

Bingo, they don't have to buy the faulty goods. Meaning companies would change due to loss of profit.

Likewise,

Bingo, people don't need to murder. Meaning communities would change due to loss of safety.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:43:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:33:18 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:26:33 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
How do we even know what quality meat

Define quality. I mean restaurants will use better meat to attract more business. (New chicken tastes better than old chicken. At least I'd like to think that.)

Meat that doesn't contain rats and human carcasses sounds pretty good to me. How do we know what ingredients are being used in processed materials like prescription drugs and meats without regulation?
is or what companies use unless we are specifically told? They can make anything up, and they used to do that. The FDA is what stops them.

The FDA poses regulations but it does not physically stop them. Look at the article (or portion of one) I just posted, they failed in that regard.

The FDA has done more harm than good, and I'm sure that they can fix this problem.

This is why I do not support markets. Communal control is a much better solution to these problems.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:46:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:36:38 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:30:20 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:26:37 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:50:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

I have one answer to all of your nonsensical hypotheticals regarding the market:

Open a history textbook.

Yes, I just provided you an empirical example.

I don't know what Heinz did because there is no source for the claim, and nothing about it is on Wikipedia. All I know is that it didn't happen for the meat packing industry

It didn't happen with horseradish for a while either. Eventually it did.

"Eventually" doesn't protect the consumer from scam RIGHT NOW.

"Eventually" is meaningless. How many people have to die or suffer before the changes are made?

I found your example. He sold grated horseradish in a clear bottle so that people would see that there was no filler. That's different from the sale of processed goods like meat, prescription drugs, and ketchup. You can never tell what ingredients are used in those products and companies can always lie about what they did or did not use.
and that other companies perpetrated scams until the FDA began regulating them. Again, pick up a textbook.

I've taken APUSH.

Good. Read your textbook.

Give me a source for Heinz so that I have something other than hearsay.

Thomas Sowell Basic Economics Fourth edition, page 199.

LOL, Sowell is a fraud, and I've already explained why your example is a fail.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:46:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:37:30 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:33:41 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:29:46 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:15:48 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:42:34 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/25/2012 8:33:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/24/2012 10:48:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
No, no, no. Only the government can protect the consumer because have you read The Jungle? Yeah, businesses would just do that all the time because consumers are so dumb that they would knowingly continually purchase unclean, tainted meat products, and they'd feed it to their children. Market failure.

If there are no other options, people will purchase it. If they are not told about the practices, people will purchase it. Business only have good standards now because the FDA forces them too. You act as if people who were in the market were able to prevent these practices and didn't purchase bad meat, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't able to and they did purchase the bad meat. You can't rewrite history.

Didn't Heinz become huge because their horseradish was sold in clear bottles with unadulterated materials? You don't think that a single company would realize the profitability of selling quality meat?

By the same token, we should decriminalize murder: communities will realize the merits of not killing each other.

I have one answer to you, read up on your political theory, specifically the social contract. Self-interested people choose to give up the freedom to kill in order to protect themselves.

Yes, and self-interested consumers choose to give up their freedom to purchase faulty goods in order to protect themselves.

Bingo, they don't have to buy the faulty goods. Meaning companies would change due to loss of profit.

No, they wouldn't. If every company offers faulty goods, consumers have no choice. Before you claim that this wouldn't happen, pick up a textbook and read. It did happen.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:49:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyways, if the taxpayers want a service from the government, the businesses have no right to prevent them from getting it. If they don't like it, they can leave. It's our country and our government; it doesn't belong to them. We made the institutions for our own safety. It's not so hard to comply with safety standards and it doesn't but a burden on them unless they are trying to get away with substandard products, which you claim they don't want to do.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:05:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 9:49:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Anyways, if the taxpayers want a service from the government, the businesses have no right to prevent them from getting it. If they don't like it, they can leave. It's our country and our government; it doesn't belong to them. We made the institutions for our own safety. It's not so hard to comply with safety standards and it doesn't but a burden on them unless they are trying to get away with substandard products, which you claim they don't want to do.

Yes, mob rule democracy ftw. Let the government do their thing. No reason to argue.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:06:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 10:05:03 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:49:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Anyways, if the taxpayers want a service from the government, the businesses have no right to prevent them from getting it. If they don't like it, they can leave. It's our country and our government; it doesn't belong to them. We made the institutions for our own safety. It's not so hard to comply with safety standards and it doesn't but a burden on them unless they are trying to get away with substandard products, which you claim they don't want to do.

Yes, mob rule democracy ftw. Let the government do their thing. No reason to argue.

You can argue, but ultimately it is our government. We want a service from that government. I don't see why it is such a bad thing, especially since businesses don't have problems with the regulations since they don't want to sell us faulty products, right?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:15:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This isn't even a question of autonomy. There is no right to cheat people, sell them unsafe food and drugs, etc. I see no problem with enforcing safety. It's what businesses want for us as well, according to free market advocates like THEBOMB.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:17:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 10:06:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 10:05:03 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 9:49:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Anyways, if the taxpayers want a service from the government, the businesses have no right to prevent them from getting it. If they don't like it, they can leave. It's our country and our government; it doesn't belong to them. We made the institutions for our own safety. It's not so hard to comply with safety standards and it doesn't but a burden on them unless they are trying to get away with substandard products, which you claim they don't want to do.

Yes, mob rule democracy ftw. Let the government do their thing. No reason to argue.

You can argue, but ultimately it is our government. We want a service from that government. I don't see why it is such a bad thing, especially since businesses don't have problems with the regulations since they don't want to sell us faulty products, right?

The FDA has done much harm in not allowing life saving drugs to come into the market as well as bias towards soms pharmaceutical companies. Also the cost of regulations cause prices to increase and taxpayers have to pay for the FDA service, even though the FDA doesn't benefit.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:21:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your basically saying, whatever the government passes, a priori, it is good without regard to what the law really is, since its "what the taxpayers demand".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...