Terrorist Organization Assaults Amish Farmers Over Milk Production

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.

But they are asking things of others. They are asking a country to change its laws for them. That is a pretty big favor brother, it isn't a borrowed cigarette, or $1.50 for coffee.
 
So why should the Amish be allowed to break the law again? Is it because they get an exception by way of the Jesus rider?

Weren't they selling the raw milk to others as a way to make a buck? It seems like the Amish ought to look into what is legal and what is illegal before they get into the market. Seems like normal due diligence to me.

I do like the idea of ignoring any law that is inconvenient to me. On the other hand, if raw milk were legal to sell, what makes you think that the evil milk conglomerates wouldn't enter that market and overwhelm the Luddites?

I could spend my days making and selling butterfly knives, would probably make me a darn good profit, but there is this little thing that stops me. That it is totally ******* illegal.

If the amish cannot understand that simple premise, that is not anyone else's fault. You live in a country, follow the laws, try to change them , or protest them.
 
Yes, I'm saying Rolex has no say in anything.

Copywrite and intellectual property laws are nothing more than State privileged monopolies.

If I can make a watch that looks just like a Rolex, good for me. It's my property and I should be able to sell it to whoever I chose. (provided I tell them I made it, not rolex, otherwise I would be engaged in fraud).

Only people that have never had an original idea would support no intellectual property laws.

As someone who has had scripts stolen, i can say that the laws themselves are not strong enough in a lot of cases. But i guess you only support people's rights when it makes your point eh?
 
I can see it now, amish men in hoodies packin' heat, trying to look inconspicuous on street corners, subtly whispering " Hey there , english, dost thou have a need?", trying to hook another middle classman on the good stuff.

With Amish Paradise by Weird Al pumping on the phonograph installed in the buckboard idling at the curb.
 
Please provide proof that there are people that "seek to take money from me by force and use it to wage warfare against Amish people".

One would think if there was a war being waged on the amish, for obvious reasons it would be a rather quick affair.

Is there some kind of amish superhero squad fending off the NWO agents? 5 quasi human amish men allowed to spurn the conventions of non violence in the amish lifestyle? Real, dark, gritty amish antiheros?
 
If I have it correctly, the system you are advocating would allow sales, even of harmful products, with the remedy of lawsuit if harm can be demonstrated. That in itself would be a good reason to buy from a corporation because they have more assets to win in a judgement.

But here's another idea. Prevent harmful products from being sold in the first place so that the original harm doesn't happen. Naturally, you should make sellers aware of these rules so they do not risk fine or arrest.

However, if someone decides to buck the system in play for their own financial gain, they are acting unlawfully. Now, if you claim that anyone has the right to sell whatever they want, and that right trumps the law, then I shall claim the right to be protected from criminal behavior -- not just after I am damaged, but when justified, beforehand as well. This is the only way to stop those situations where financial compensation will not do. For example, if I get sick and die because you are selling me a faulty product, my spouse will think a check, or even you in prison, not quite the same as having me around. It would also kill small businesses whose only can only back their products, not with some government standard, but assets which are few and limited.

The argument is whether something is likely to cause harm, not whether we should act, as a society, to prevent such harm from occurring -- of course we should.
 
Last edited:
I've already responded to all of your claims sadhatter.

Read the thread before posting.

Actually as evidenced by the fact that my posts run the gamut from the start of the thread to the more recent posts, i think it is painfully obvious that i have. Teenage mantra spewing that would make a late 90's punk roll their eyes is not responding to anything. And neither is simply ignoring points made in favor of saying something annoying. Just because you get someone to roll their eyes, doesn't mean they are thinking.

But keep fighting the power, while not letting the man keep you down, and don't forget to kill the yuppie scum, because big brother is watching while getting blood from oil.
 
I would violate their rights, and stop them, if I felt there was a sufficiently high chance of such an action harming them.

Although at present, I am not aware of health risks related to dog urine.

If I did not feel there was a sufficiently high chance of such an action harming them, I would respect their rights and leave them alone.

I think in most states that would violate some law(s).
 
Prevent harmful....

precrime.jpg


No crime has been committed if no one has been injured. And if one person wants to buy something that is harmful for them from another, they have every right to do so.

Only FRAUD (where the seller is lying about the product to the buyer) can be prosecuted legitimately.

Any attempt to prevent fraud from occurring is tyranny, because it necessarily means the State is prosecuting precrime.
 
If I have it correctly, the system you are advocating would allow sales, even of harmful products, with the remedy of lawsuit if harm can be demonstrated. That in itself would be a good reason to buy from a corporation because they have more assets to win in a judgement.

But here's another idea. Prevent harmful products from being sold in the first place so that the original harm doesn't happen. Naturally, you should make sellers aware of these rules so they do not risk fine or arrest.

However, if someone decides to buck the system in play for their own financial gain, they are acting unlawfully. Now, if you claim that anyone has the right to sell whatever they want, and that right trumps the law, then I shall claim the right to be protected from criminal behavior -- not just after I am damaged, but when justified, beforehand as well. This is the only way to stop those situations where financial compensation will not do. For example, if I get sick and die because you are selling me a faulty product, my spouse will think a check, or even you in prison, not quite the same as having me around. It would also kill small businesses whose only can only back their products, not with some government standard, but assets which are few and limited.

The argument is whether something is likely to cause harm, not whether we should act, as a society, to prevent such harm from occurring -- of course we should.

I call this punk rock logic. As a punk myself back in the day, but one with a bit of a head on his shoulders, this kind of conversation always happened.

Person suggests a stupid idea, now when we follow that stupid idea, the person has to modify said stupid idea in order to not seem completely ignorant of certain pragmatic facts about the order. Once the conversation is said and done, it is obvious to anyone but the person promoting the stupid idea that if the stupid idea was followed, it would simply die off due to its own stupidity being a limiting factor in how popular it would be.

In this case, we have the ability for people to buy anything from anyone, lets stick with milk. After a few incidents of less than scrupulous people hurting customers in various ways, people are going to avoid any company that does not have safety procedures that are similar to what we have in place now. Eventually companies are not going to want to take these costs in the *** when they didn't have to before , and petition government to make sure that places are up to snuff. As opposed to having to hire an independent team themselves , and hope that people have some kind of faith in who they hired.

The small businessman now suffers because the company " Grandpa joes milk" can't hire as well known and trusted a firm to say their milk is good as Sealtest can.

Now at this point in this benny hill chase of an idea, Grandpa joe is going to want to pettition for a way that he can have just as good of a company to test his product as sealtest. At the same time sealtest is petitioning for the same thing, as they are getting about the same amount of business after the initial novelty of being able to buy milk at a shack on the highway wears off, and enough people die, or spend days in the hospital due to tainted product. But they now have to pay this new third party company that goes around attempting , somehow to convince the public of the GMP ( good manufacturing practises ) of sealtest. Remember there is no government agency that gives a stamp anymore , no standards that have to be followed. So the job of the people that now just make sure the company sits within these established standards, is not only to make sure the product is safe, but also to somehow convince the public that they arn't just stooges on sealtests payroll.

Eventually the government would think of this great idea, to have a set of rules that places have to follow, to ensure that people know what they are getting is safe. Well welcome to 19 ******* 30, when the FDA was established. The entire exercise would do nothing more than waste giant amounts of time and money for all involved, and let a few unfortunate people get sick or die due to there being no standards. Oh, but i forgot they can sue, i am sure they will get an appropriate amount of money from Uncle Stinky selling milk out of his hut at the flea market.

In short, it is a juvenile, silly idea that would simply waste time money, and possibly lives.
 
I am sure you have the victims of Bernie Maddoff are in your corner

They were defrauded by Madoff, so yes, they would be in my corner.

They have a legitimate right to prosecute him for the damage he caused them.

The US has tens of thousands of pages of legal code that seeks to prevent financial fraud. Guess what? Madoff ignored the laws and those preventative measures didn't stop him at all. All they did was make life miserable for the people who do obey every regulation.
 
Last edited:
[qimg]http://www.fascistsoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/precrime.jpg[/qimg]

No crime has been committed if no one has been injured. And if one person wants to buy something that is harmful for them from another, they have every right to do so.

Only FRAUD (where the seller is lying about the product to the buyer) can be prosecuted legitimately.

Any attempt to prevent fraud from occurring is tyranny, because it necessarily means the State is prosecuting precrime.

And i am sure that the lunatic who spikes his milk with cyanide one day and sells it for cheap at the flea market is going to tell people that he is doing so. Sure the same lunatic could be working at Sealtest right now, but with standards that have to be followed, the poisoning would be easily detected, and if not, at the very least a company that is required to have insurance would be the ones your suing, not uncle 4 Toes.

But that is okay, because at least those poor dead people had the choice to buy suspect milk, give me freedom or give me death!

Your idea is very impractical , juvenile, and if put into practice has the potential to be disastrous, for very , very little benefit.

On the flip side, it does let you keep spouting really cool anti government catch phrases, so i guess both sides of the coin need to be looked at.
 
Trying to kill people is attempted murder.

I don't think he's going to care about dairy regulations.
 
They were defrauded by Madoff, so yes, they would be in my corner.

They have a legitimate right to prosecute him for the damage he caused them.

And get what? There are 7.2 billion dollars these victims are never ever going to see because it no longer exists. Great comfort for people losing their retirement funds, college educations. Yahhhh Bernie went to jail. Oh wait we still have no money to live on
 
And get what? There are 7.2 billion dollars these victims are never ever going to see because it no longer exists. Great comfort for people losing their retirement funds, college educations. Yahhhh Bernie went to jail. Oh wait we still have no money to live on

Yeah, ponzi schemes tend to do that to people.

Good thing they can be prosecuted with fraud laws (which require no financial regulations).
 
Trying to kill people is attempted murder.

I don't think he's going to care about dairy regulations.

What does that have to do with anything i said?

I addressed this concern already, if this same man worked for a major milk company now, the chances that it would be detected long before it would hit market rise exponentially. And even if he does pull it off, the company that people would seek recourse from would be properly insured.

As of right now, that guy cannot sell his milk, and only complete morons who choose to circumvent the established safety measures would die from it. In your world, everyone would be a potential victim for this kind of person.

If you don't understand an argument, just ask. Trying to wedge in logic you have heard before ( people who commit crimes do not follow laws, your regurgitating this from gun control debates due to a lack of being able to understand my point.) , to bluff your way through does nothing for your credibility.
 
Yeah, ponzi schemes tend to do that to people.

Good thing they can be prosecuted with fraud laws (which require no financial regulations).

And............what have the victims got? According to you. I can get restitution when someone wrongs me. Whats the restitution these people got?
 
What does that have to do with anything i said?
if this same man worked for a major milk company now, the chances that it would be detected long before it would hit market rise exponentially.

The 72 million cases of food borne illness last year say otherwise.

This is a totally groundless assertion based in fantasy fiction.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom