Terrorist Organization Assaults Amish Farmers Over Milk Production

[triforcharity]

I like simple people that mind their own business and don't ask anything of anyone else.

So yes, I would consider myself a friend of theirs.

Do you have investments, a 401(k) or do you draw social security, or do you plan on it?

Then I would say you should just shut your trap......

 

[triforcharity]

They should be allowed to break the law because the law violates their rights as humans to engage in voluntary commerce with other people.

So I should be able to make medicine in by shed to sell to other people? Yeah, that makes sense.....

If people want to buy their stuff, the State has no legitimate authority to say they can't.

The FDA certainly would never get a conviction if I was on the jury.

You would never be on one, since your bias would be obvious from the very beginning.

By the way, the Amish don't have the internet to pour over the 75,000 pages of federal legal code before selling their milk. But they shouldn't have to anyways.

Nope, you're right, but there are these things called books and places to store them in large quantities......

edit: sorry, that's 72,536 pages of just the federal tax code alone. I'm sure there are another 140,000,000,000,000 pages dedicated to things like the sale of milk.

Thank god the State is there to solve all of societies problems.

Yep. The NWO will be there shortly to solve ours.......

 

[triforcharity]

here's a tip.

the corporations are lying about their motives for wanting patents.

It's funny how State and corporate interests always seem to be aligned in our society...... hmmmm.

Here's a little analogy for you.

I have a thing for buying quality tools. I buy Milwaukee tools for their quality and durability. I buy Oakley sunglasses for their style and quality.

You decide to make a knock off. You sell them in the same colors, designs, and use the same logos as the aforementioned products.

I go to the store, and need to purchase a new Milwaukee 18V corless drill and driver. I see two boxes. One is 200 dollars, one is 50. I choose the 50 based on price alone. I do not see the fine print that you have placed on the back of the box.

I get home, unpack it, use it once, and it blows up. Damn thing bursts into flames.

Now, I purchased this item because it had the name of Milwaukee Tools right on the front.

You have deprived me of a quality tool, and you have deprived Milwaukee of my business.

Milwaukee should have gotten my money. Instead, some baffoon in his mother's garage is playing his new X-Box with his other virgin friends.

Do I have a right to be pissed? Absolutely.

Does Milwaukee have the right to sue you for copyright infringement. Absolutely.

Do I have a right to sue you for the damaged caused by your faulty POS drill? Yes.

Now, do you see the problem?

 

[catsmate]

This is trolling at its best. No one can actually hold those opinions without exploding, but Rand and Michael are doing their best!

Well randman suffers from a serious case of xianity so he's quite capable of holding several. mutually contradictory and equally silly, opinions and believing in them all; his opposition to government regulation unless it's "Obama and the dems" reducing regulation shows this.
After all:

A person who can believe all the articles of the Christian faith is not going to boggle over a trifle of adverse evidence.

 

[dudalb]

I wonder if michealsude is one of those "Drunken Driving should not be a crime" individuals, and if he considers all fire and building codes to be oppresive. Sure sounds like it.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think insurance companies should take over our policing and court systems.

Holy...wha...I mean...huh?!?

I have spent some time practicing law in an area of the country that voices this type of glibertarianism.

You may be shocked how often I was asked to intervene on the behalf of these Galtian superheroes when the insurance companies try to short change them.

Insurance companies do not give a **** about you. They want to make money. They make money by denying you the service you pay for.

Farmers, ranchers, gun enthusiasts, small-government radicals, they all LOVE the police and those courts when they make insurance companies satisfy their contractual obligations.

 

[Twiler]

Holy...wha...I mean...huh?!?

I have spent some time practicing law in an area of the country that voices this type of glibertarianism.

You may be shocked how often I was asked to intervene on the behalf of these Galtian superheroes when the insurance companies try to short change them.

Insurance companies do not give a **** about you. They want to make money. They make money by denying you the service you pay for.

Farmers, ranchers, gun enthusiasts, small-government radicals, they all LOVE the police and those courts when they make insurance companies satisfy their contractual obligations.

He thinks that if you turn everything over to the free market, market forces will fix everything. He doesn't seem to grasp the significance of the phrase 'money is power'.

 

[TraneWreck]

He thinks that if you turn everything over to the free market, market forces will fix everything. He doesn't seem to grasp the significance of the phrase 'money is power'.

I've heard a lot of crazy libertarian nonsense in my day, but that one was a first for me. Most of the anti-government folks I'm aware of wouldn't even let the torches cool down after the pitch-fork raid on the IRS before heading over to the insurance companies.

 

[The_Animus]

I am in favor of alcohol and tobacco being regulated, yes. I think they are as a matter of fact.

Now, here's a parallel that works. Require milk to be pasteurized. That's a regulation you might say is equivalent to standards for manufacture of alcohol and cigarettes -- for instance, there are several states that have laws regarding FourLoco and other alcoholic beverages with caffeine. Cigarettes, as far as I know, are also highly regulated.

No one really said we should stop selling milk. I think the argument was whether the FDA should have the ability (and responsibility) to regulate how milk is prepared for sale as a food. There is another agency that regulates the sale of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. If any of those becomes a foodstuff, I suppose the FDA will regulate it as well.

There are examples of this. At one time PETN (a high explosive) was marketed as a heart medication in the US. It was simultaneously handled as an explosive (ATF) and as a medicinal (FDA) depending on use. I imagine nitroglycerin still is.

So yeah. Milk should be regulated. Are you guys going to get in a huff because there are dry cities in Alaska or dry counties in other states? Should they be able to sell alcohol in those jurisdictions under the same logic as the Amish milk sales?

The sale of home made alcohol "moonshine" is. Why? cause it kills people

Because alcohol and tobacco have to follow GMP , meaning they have to be up to a certain standard for sale, so i don't take a sip of Jagermeister and go blind.

Raw milk by its very definition would not be able to be held up to GMP in any reasonable way. It is like asking why guns are illegal, but Zip guns arn't.

Several people in this thread advocate that the production and sale of raw milk is illegal and should remain illegal because its consumption poses a risk to people. In other words, the government needs to do this, including raiding Amish milk producers, for the express purpose of protecting consumers from harm.

You talk about how alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Okay so it's regulated. Those regulated products kill more people and cause more sickness and injury each year than raw milk ever will. Not only that but those products cause harm to other people who don't even use the product. Secondhand smoke causes problems, and alcohol is tied to both car accidents, which kill innocent people, as well as violence and sexual assault. But you're telling me that isn't important. The products actual safety, and the number of people it actually harms is totally irrelevant so long as its labeled "regulated".

No. I would have no problem with tobacco being outlawed. I would be against the outlawing or alcohol, and do not see how that would be analogous with what we are discussing.

You are fine with one substance that kills large numbers of people being outlawed, but not another substance that kills large numbers of people. You are also fine outlawing substances such as raw milk which harm very few people. I won't even pretend to understand your reasoning.

 

[Chaos]

I do not see the fine print that you have placed on the back of the box.

Now there´s the flaw in your analogy. In Libertopia, there would be no reason for him to put fine print, or any other print, anywhere on his box that would allow you to figure out it was him who produced it.

 

[marplots]

Several people in this thread advocate that the production and sale of raw milk is illegal and should remain illegal because its consumption poses a risk to people. In other words, the government needs to do this, including raiding Amish milk producers, for the express purpose of protecting consumers from harm.

You talk about how alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Okay so it's regulated. Those regulated products kill more people and cause more sickness and injury each year than raw milk ever will. Not only that but those products cause harm to other people who don't even use the product. Secondhand smoke causes problems, and alcohol is tied to both car accidents, which kill innocent people, as well as violence and sexual assault. But you're telling me that isn't important. The products actual safety, and the number of people it actually harms is totally irrelevant so long as its labeled "regulated".

I think you are missing the nuance. The argument isn't that one product is more or less dangerous/safe. The argument is whether the government should have the duty to regulate products at all (and enforce those regulations).

If you wish to advocate withdrawing tobacco and alcohol from the marketplace, that is fine -- it could be done through the same mechanisms used to prohibit raw milk sales. To enforce your rules you would need the same sort of powers railed against in the OP.

Certainly the consequences of selling any substance deserve a hard look. But first you have to get past the idea that the government has no role here. I think they do. And I think alcohol and tobacco show that, contrary to the OP, the role is limited and the implied tyranny is a fiction.

 

[Sledge]

You are fine with one substance that kills large numbers of people being outlawed, but not another substance that kills large numbers of people. You are also fine outlawing substances such as raw milk which harm very few people. I won't even pretend to understand your reasoning.

You could try asking, but I guess that runs the risk of making you think about your views. Wouldn't want that, would we?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

You can't steal ideas, they are intangible.

As a writer and musician, this might be the most offensive thing I've read on this forum.

 

[dudalb]

As a writer and musician, this might be the most offensive thing I've read on this forum.

I find it incredible that a great many Libertarians, who claim to base their whole freaking philisophy on property rights,seem to make an exception to intellectual property.

 

[The_Animus]

You could try asking, but I guess that runs the risk of making you think about your views. Wouldn't want that, would we?

Well I can't say what you want, but I have no problem thinking about my views or even admitting I'm wrong.

In any case, please enlighten me as to the reasoning behind your expressed opinions.

 

[marplots]

I find it incredible that a great many Libertarians, who claim to base their whole freaking philisophy on property rights,seem to make an exception to intellectual property.

That's a necessary consequence of stealing the philosophy to start with.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well I can't say what you want, but I have no problem thinking about my views or even admitting I'm wrong.

In any case, please enlighten me as to the reasoning behind your expressed opinions.

If that is the case I don't suppose you'd mind going back to post 133 in this thread and making a reply to what I asked.

 

[Sledge]

Sounds reasonable, kookbreaker. And as you asked first, I'll wait until you get a reply before blessing The_Animus with my words of wisdom.

 

[The_Animus]

Animus,

By now you've seen his reply about this and know his opinion for certain.

The problem is not innovation based on an existing product, it is that he thinks there is nothing wrong with just outright copying the product. That is the opposite of innovation and development and is just theft.

OpenOffice is an example of innovation. Making copies of Microsoft Office and selling it is not.

Yes I now fully understand his position and I don't agree with it entirely. I don't think someone should be allowed to use another products brand name as that is what differentiates products from one another.

I know he mentioned that he thinks using the brand name is fine so long as the company name is not copied. In this way anyone can sell a product as an iPad, but only Apple can put their name on a product being sold as an iPad. This might be okay in Apple's case because most everyone knows the company name as well as the brand name, but for many products consumers would be confused and likely buy a 'knock off' that they thought was genuine.

Aside from his beliefs, mine are that a company should only retain the rights to its design up until research and development costs are recovered. After that it's up to each individual company or innovator to take that design and improve upon it in any way they can. So after Apple came out with the iPad, and they had recovered all development costs, anyone can make their own iPad. It can look the same, function the same, whatever, so long as they use their own brand name. This would allow companies to recover costs, and maintain first mover advantage. This would also allow people who have ideas to improve the product, or produce it more cheaply, to do so.

 

[leftysergeant]

I guess you don't think the farmers were terrorized by a 5:00 AM raid by armed agents.

I'll ask the FDA if they can stop by your house and conduct a pre-dawn inspection of your property.

Never know, you might be producing something in your house without State permission.

Raw milk has a long history as a reservoir of tuberculosis, E. coli, and a bunch of other epidemic diseases. You got woo.