Terrorist Organization Assaults Amish Farmers Over Milk Production

[sadhatter]

Yeah, ponzi schemes tend to do that to people.

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

And good thing ponzi schemes cannot kill people.

Tainted food on the other hand can, so i think you should be able to see why there are tighter restrictions.

 

[michaelsuede]

And............what have the victims got? According to you. I can get restitution when someone wrongs me. Whats the restitution these people got?

And what do the millions of companies, who now have to hire a massive accounting staff to process all the regulatory documentation, get as restitution?

People who are defrauded should bear the loss, not the people who had nothing to do with it.

Precrime always harms the law abiding the most.

 

[sadhatter]

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

This is a totally groundless assertion based in fantasy fiction.

And how many of those were caused by purposeful poisoning? And out of those, how many of those people did not get money?

Again, if you don't understand a point, just ask for clarification. You jumped from throwing " Murderers don't follow laws" at me to " Here is some stats about non intentional sickness caused by food." .

Your really making yourself look silly. Go back, read the posts, understand the points ( or ask me to clarify.) and we can keep going.

 

[michaelsuede]

And good thing ponzi schemes cannot kill people.

Tainted food on the other hand can, so i think you should be able to see why there are tighter restrictions.

In case you missed it, there were millions of food borne illnesses transmitted by bad food people sold to each other last year.

Regulations do not prevent anything - EVER.

The people who get sick can sue the people who sold them bad food. This does not require regulation of the food markets to accomplish.

 

[MG1962]

And what do the millions of companies, who now have to hire a massive accounting staff to process all the regulatory documentation, get as restitution?

A better question might be, if it so bad and awful for a company to exist, why are there millions of them to begin with?

People who are defrauded should bear the loss, not the people who had nothing to do with it.

Spoken like someone who has never had to care about such things

Precrime always harms the law abiding the most.

To bad you left out the bit about also affording them the most protection

 

[MG1962]

Regulations do not prevent anything - EVER.

I will give you $200.00 if you can get me a can of house paint containing lead in the next 1 hour

The people who get sick can sue the people who sold them bad food. This does not require regulation of the food markets to accomplish.

You cant sue if you are dead

 

[Twiler]

In case you missed it, there were millions of food borne illnesses transmitted by bad food people sold to each other last year.

Regulations do not prevent anything - EVER.
The people who get sick can sue the people who sold them bad food. This does not require regulation of the food markets to accomplish.

How can you prove that regulations don't prevent anything?

 

[Walter Ego]

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.

I've already dropped the dime on you, Mickey. Set your alarm for 4:59.

 

[marplots]

[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.

The difference is critical. In the Amish example, the weren't arrested for a precrime, but a crime. And, apparently, one they had been warned about for years.

And yes, you can buy something that is harmful from another. You could, for example, buy as much gasoline as you wanted, or buy as much raw milk as you wanted to use as fertilizer in your garden. However, you are not allowed to sell something to the public that has been withdrawn from sales for human consumption. I can sell you mercury legally. I probably cannot sell you mercury laced candy bars.

There should not be a "right" to victimize others. In my view, this is where Libertarianism falls flat on its face -- the lack of a useful way to deal with the collision of rights. I hope everyone who bought milk off these people sues when they are found guilty of selling an illegal foodstuff. After all, the current system doesn't disallow civil suits in parallel with a criminal complaint. Which is exactly the mechanism promoted in the Libertarian, Wild West scenario.

We already have lawsuits for damages. So why do people still get sued? Obviously, bad behavior cannot be controlled by threat of lawsuit alone. It can't even be entirely controlled by laws and regulations.

You are crying over spilt milk.

 

[kookbreaker]

In case you missed it, there were millions of food borne illnesses transmitted by bad food people sold to each other last year.

Regulations do not prevent anything - EVER.

The people who get sick can sue the people who sold them bad food. This does not require regulation of the food markets to accomplish.

You are making a very, very, very gross assumption by saying that all those food poisoning cases were caused by people selling bad food to people.

Far, far, far more often the cause of food illnesses is poor treatment of the food by the preparer/consumer. This is not the fault of the seller who was following regulations.

 

[The_Animus]

And yes, you can buy something that is harmful from another. You could, for example, buy as much gasoline as you wanted, or buy as much raw milk as you wanted to use as fertilizer in your garden. However, you are not allowed to sell something to the public that has been withdrawn from sales for human consumption. I can sell you mercury legally. I probably cannot sell you mercury laced candy bars.

Why is the sale of raw milk illegal, but the sale of alcohol and tobacco is not?

 

[randman]

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

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.

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.

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.

Amen. Libs, secularists and many dems appear to have no concept that our rights are above the law in the sense that they are God-given and any law that removes them is unConstitutional and does not have legit authority. They have no sense that government is for and by the people. In other words, the people themselves are the higher authority (besides God) that the government answers to, not that we are here to serve the government.

 

[randman]

You are making a very, very, very gross assumption by saying that all those food poisoning cases were caused by people selling bad food to people.

Far, far, far more often the cause of food illnesses is poor treatment of the food by the preparer/consumer. This is not the fault of the seller who was following regulations.

Food poisoning doesn't generally stem from the Amish or small organic farmers but large corporate interests, the same interests the government is protecting by harassing their competition.

This has nothing to do with food safety. It's all about pay-offs and increasing statist power over the people.

 

[randman]

Byw, it's not surprise that liberal, statist dems agree with harassing and banning family-owned, largely organic farming. Libs like to think they are for the environment as well but that's not generally the case. Libs were fine with coal companies lopping off mountain tops until they quit being solely dem.

They went along with Jim Crow for decades. Screw black southerners just as long as they could have the New Deal.

 

[Sledge]

Good grief, it's hilarious to watch some of our resident tro- ... er, "free thinkers" try and argue against laws put in place to protect people from food poisoning. I eagerly look forward to a thread bemoaning the government's interference in road safety by insisting everyone drive on one side of the road.

 

[Robin]

No, the article clearly says otherwise. Maybe you just didn't read it.

There are two raids referred to in the OP. There is a picture of someone with a gun drawn and the link states that this happened in 2008.

Maybe you just didn't read it.

Or maybe you fell for the implication in the OP that the picture was from the 2010 raid. I tend to be more sceptical about these things.

In any case we are talking about something that happened under both Republican and Democrat administrations.

There is a law about selling unprocessed milk and there were some businesses that were suspected of breaking this law and they were paid a visit by law enforcement officers.

If you want to spin this into some sort of a conspiracy by Obama then the facts just don't fit.

Take off the ideological blinkers and try thinking for yourself.

 

[Robin]

Amen. Libs, secularists and many dems appear to have no concept that our rights are above the law in the sense that they are God-given and any law that removes them is unConstitutional and does not have legit authority. They have no sense that government is for and by the people. In other words, the people themselves are the higher authority (besides God) that the government answers to, not that we are here to serve the government.

You appear to have not concept that you live in a democracy. Who do you think voted in the Republican and Democrat administrations that support and uphold these laws that you don't like?

Is it OK to ignore any law we don't happen to agree with?

By the way, do you support the legalisation of marijuana?

(Question for Michaelsuede too).

 

[Ausmerican]

No crime has been committed if no one has been injured.

Trying to kill people is attempted murder.

No crime has been committed if no one has been injured.

So I guess you just have your arbitrary line slightly off to the side of the governments huh?

 

[The_Animus]

Good grief, it's hilarious to watch some of our resident tro- ... er, "free thinkers" try and argue against laws put in place to protect people from food poisoning.

So you are for the government making it illegal to produce/sell alcohol and tobacco in order to protect people from alcohol or carcinogenic poisoning?

 

[Foolmewunz]

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

I mean, Michael... get serious, okay? You prefer a world in which there are no laws governing the preparation and distribution of articles for human consumption, e.g. milk, produce, etc... And in lieu of regulations, you prefer a criminal/judicial court process? As you said, they can sue if their injured/harmed. (And I'm sure they're going to sue in one of those imaginary Austrian School "free market courts".)

How about all that lovely tainted baby formula we sent around the world a couple of seasons ago? Shouldn't melamine be regulated out of products for human consumption? Or do we have to wait until six thousand (instead of sixty) babies have kidney failure?

What you jokers call Precrime, the rest of us refer to as Crime Prevention. It's been proven to work. And whilst it may not float on the FoTL River, yes, I would prefer that if I buy some organic greens in a store, that there's someone out there willing to put their job/career on the line, having certified that the farm that produced them practiced safe farming. I would definitely prefer that to buying off the bed of a pickup truck from someone who may never show up again and who cannot be found if I want to prosecute them later.