Of Meat and Myth

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you seem pretty much confused as it is. Pity the poor car manufacturers. They designed a car which would blow to smithereens if rear ended and, as a result, the cars became LESS fuel efficient? And the CAFE standards mandate that cars become more efficient. And there's no co-relation.

There you go again.

The Ford Pinto and Mustand gas tank explosions were not caused by an engineering defect, and cars are still designed the exact same way today. What happened is that the line workers substituted a longer bolt than specified, and the tanks ruptured when a car was rear ended. A recall replaced the longer bolts, and no federal agency regulated and design changes to deal with this problem as it would have impacted unions.

The car gas mileage decreased because regulators demanded heavier bumpers, more pollution controls, and less efficient gasoline.

 

[konradv]

The weak have much more to gain from the strong than vice versa. That is reality. If a limited government can protect the weak from force or fraud by the strong, freedom is the best answer. Libertarian's are not anarchist after all, as I'm sure you know.

Sounds like a book worth looking into IMHO.

Why would a true libertarian submit to the government interfering with their right to make a contract? You say "fraud". I say "sharp business practice, mind your own business". How would a libertarian government be able to enforce anything when taxes are an anathema? Who's going to pay for the protection you say the weak will get? I'm certainly not going to pay a dime. What are you going to do about it, anyway? Send around "men with guns"?

I'm play acting here. Those aren't my real feelings. It's just an illustration of how, like Marxism, the devil is in the details. They're both "feel good" messages that don't stand up to close scrutiny. A truly libertarian government would inevitably lead to a new feudalism, IMO.

Why do some people always confuse libertarians and anarchists? Do you do that on purpose, or are you just stupid?

Because that's where it leads, until the strong make deals to protect the weak and a new feudalism emerges. I do it on purpose, because you apparently haven't thought it all the way through. I'm sure Marx didn't envision Stalin either.

 

[johnrocks]

As much as I love free markets and this site, free markets does not mean NO minimal standards, there needs to be a civil and honest discussion on this,imho. What we have now is far from a true free market yet at the same time, how many want their food and drugs to be totally without any safety standards and those in charge of the process to police themselves?

 

[Pappadave]

Just a point of information. I worked for a local Health Dept. for 35 years. The Dept. began inspecting meat in 1824. Pappadave

 

[uscitizen]

The weak have much more to gain from the strong than vice versa. That is reality. If a limited government can protect the weak from force or fraud by the strong, freedom is the best answer. Libertarian's are not anarchist after all, as I'm sure you know.

Sounds like a book worth looking into IMHO.

Why would a true libertarian submit to the government interfering with their right to make a contract? You say "fraud". I say "sharp business practice, mind your own business". How would a libertarian government be able to enforce anything when taxes are an anathema? Who's going to pay for the protection you say the weak will get? I'm certainly not going to pay a dime. What are you going to do about it, anyway? Send around "men with guns"?

I'm play acting here. Those aren't my real feelings. It's just an illustration of how, like Marxism, the devil is in the details. They're both "feel good" messages that don't stand up to close scrutiny. A truly libertarian government would inevitably lead to a new feudalism, IMO.

Why do some people always confuse libertarians and anarchists? Do you do that on purpose, or are you just stupid?

some libertarians speak of private police forces and such...

 

[lizzie]

The weak have much more to gain from the strong than vice versa. That is reality. If a limited government can protect the weak from force or fraud by the strong, freedom is the best answer. Libertarian's are not anarchist after all, as I'm sure you know.

Sounds like a book worth looking into IMHO.

Why would a true libertarian submit to the government interfering with their right to make a contract? You say "fraud". I say "sharp business practice, mind your own business". How would a libertarian government be able to enforce anything when taxes are an anathema? Who's going to pay for the protection you say the weak will get? I'm certainly not going to pay a dime. What are you going to do about it, anyway? Send around "men with guns"?

I'm play acting here. Those aren't my real feelings. It's just an illustration of how, like Marxism, the devil is in the details. They're both "feel good" messages that don't stand up to close scrutiny. A truly libertarian government would inevitably lead to a new feudalism, IMO.

Why do some people always confuse libertarians and anarchists? Do you do that on purpose, or are you just stupid?

Frankly, and no offense intended, many of the younger "libertarians" really just wear the label because they want to get high and they think it sounds cool. They don't know much about the philosophy itself, and nothing whatsoever about markets, free or otherwise.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why would a true libertarian submit to the government interfering with their right to make a contract? You say "fraud". I say "sharp business practice, mind your own business". How would a libertarian government be able to enforce anything when taxes are an anathema? Who's going to pay for the protection you say the weak will get? I'm certainly not going to pay a dime. What are you going to do about it, anyway? Send around "men with guns"?

I'm play acting here. Those aren't my real feelings. It's just an illustration of how, like Marxism, the devil is in the details. They're both "feel good" messages that don't stand up to close scrutiny. A truly libertarian government would inevitably lead to a new feudalism, IMO.

Why do some people always confuse libertarians and anarchists? Do you do that on purpose, or are you just stupid?

Frankly, and no offense intended, many of the younger "libertarians" really just wear the label because they want to get high and they think it sounds cool. They don't know much about the philosophy itself, and nothing whatsoever about markets, free or otherwise.

I know that's why I'm a libertarian.

 

[lizzie]

Why do some people always confuse libertarians and anarchists? Do you do that on purpose, or are you just stupid?

Frankly, and no offense intended, many of the younger "libertarians" really just wear the label because they want to get high and they think it sounds cool. They don't know much about the philosophy itself, and nothing whatsoever about markets, free or otherwise.

I know that's why I'm a libertarian.

I wasn't addressing you at all. It's apparent from your opening post that you don't fall into that group at all, but most kids I know who are under 30 years of age, who also claim to be Libertarian, do. That is the reason I refer to them as "libertarians". People in my age group (>50) generally really do appreciate and adhere to the philosophy and core principles. That's the distinction I was attempting to make.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Frankly, and no offense intended, many of the younger "libertarians" really just wear the label because they want to get high and they think it sounds cool. They don't know much about the philosophy itself, and nothing whatsoever about markets, free or otherwise.

I know that's why I'm a libertarian.

I wasn't addressing you at all. It's apparent from your opening post that you don't fall into that group at all, but most kids I know who are under 30 years of age, who also claim to be Libertarian, do. That is the reason I refer to them as "libertarians". People in my age group (>50) generally really do appreciate and adhere to the philosophy and core principles. That's the distinction I was attempting to make.

I don't think I've ever met a person who only claims to be a libertarian because they like to smoke weed. The people I know that like to smoke don't follow politics at all or know what a libertarian even is.

 

[geauxtohell]

As someone who grew up on a farm raising beef cattle, I know damn well that the meat industry needs to be regulated.

I'd be willing to bet that the people bitching on this thread have never had EHEC or HUS from red meat.

There is a reason for that.

When the corporate packer conglomerates are left to their own devices, they decide to do things like grind up all the undesirable parts of slaughtered cows (like the central nervous system) to feed to other cows to put weight on them.

Then we wonder why prion diseases like "mad cow" get started.

 

[Bfgrn]

As much as I love free markets and this site, free markets does not mean NO minimal standards, there needs to be a civil and honest discussion on this,imho. What we have now is far from a true free market yet at the same time, how many want their food and drugs to be totally without any safety standards and those in charge of the process to police themselves?

In a TRUE free market, you can't get rich by making other people poor. We don't have a free market, we have a subsidized market. Socialism for corporations and a 'fee' market for We, the people.

 

[konradv]

This discussion brings to mind the recent egg contamination problem. The main culprit used to have a farm in my state, MD, until he was cited for unclean practices and left to move to IA, to "anti-business" howls from conservatives and libertarians. Any wonder we should take those complaints with a grain of salt? They're knee-jerk and don't take into account the sickness and death that the kind of hands-off government they prefer can lead to.

 

[johnrocks]

As much as I love free markets and this site, free markets does not mean NO minimal standards, there needs to be a civil and honest discussion on this,imho. What we have now is far from a true free market yet at the same time, how many want their food and drugs to be totally without any safety standards and those in charge of the process to police themselves?

In a TRUE free market, you can't get rich by making other people poor. We don't have a free market, we have a subsidized market. Socialism for corporations and a 'fee' market for We, the people.

So true.

 

[geauxtohell]

The irony of the success of any government agency or initiative is that people forget how bad things were and start to question the necessity of the above agency or initiative. The pathology that comes out of eating contaminated food products is serious, dangerous, and disgusting.

As I noted, with the exception of the Kuru people and their belief that it was appropriate to eat the brains of their relatives, there would be no CJD (Mad Cow Disease) if the corporate farm interests (especially in England) hadn't been feeding brain to their cattle in grist mill to fatten them up.

Once that got out, who put the clamps down on it here in the US? The FDA. Sometimes entire herds had to be destroyed, but it's better than tainting the entire meat supply or given the perception that the meat is all tainted and tanking the whole industry.

I understand the libertarian perspective on this, but the bottom line is the 100% libertarian solution isn't any better than the 100% (insert whatever here) solution.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Good meat is hard to beat... Just saying.

 

[geauxtohell]

Other (now) rare pathologies that come from eating tainted meat.

1.) Trichinosis from pork.
Trichinosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.) Beef tapeworm

2.) Pork Tapeworm.

I've enclosed a picture of what eating the larvae of a pork tapeworm does to the brain just to drive my point home:

T. solium cysticerci in the brain of a nine-year-old girl who died during cerebrospinal fluid extraction to diagnose her headaches.

Brain Worms and Brain Amoebas: They Do Exist

Yeah. We don't need any stinking regulation!

 

[Dante]

Advocates of the spontaneous order of freedom and free markets are forever stomping out the fires of fallacious reasoning, anti-capitalist bias, and twisted history. It seems that as soon as we put out one fire, opponents of the market manage to ignite ten others.

We spend as much time explaining the workings of the market as we do debunking myths and clichés about it. Statists and interventionists spout an endless stream of put-downs and one-liners that pass as thorough critiques of the market, each one requiring a time-consuming, painstaking response and appeal to reason. We are constantly rewriting prejudiced accounts of history to match what really happened.

Nearly ninety years ago, muckraking novelist Upton Sinclair wrote a book titled The Jungle which wove a tale of greed and abuse that reverberates to this day as a powerful case against laissez faire. Sinclair’s focus of scorn was the meatpacking industry. The objective of his effort was government regulation. The culmination of his work was the passage in 1906 of the famed Meat Inspection Act, enshrined in most history books as a sacred cow (excuse the pun) of the interventionist state.

Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

This is a nice refutation of Sinclair's The Jungle, which some on this board like to use as evidence against a truly free market.

In bold is a specious argument at best. Quoting Sinclair or holding up his novel is not evidence of anything. It is an example of an argument against the meat packing industry without regulation.

Sinclair's tome led to regulation of the meat packing industry which was an industry you'd like to see in effect today? huh?

can you show me where you disagree with a statement like this:

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is a vivid portrait of life and death in a turn-of-the-century American meat-packing factory. A grim indictment that led to government regulations of the food industry, The Jungle is Sinclair's extraordinary contribution to literature and social reform.

 

[Dante]

Advocates of the spontaneous order of freedom and free markets are forever stomping out the fires of fallacious reasoning, anti-capitalist bias, and twisted history. It seems that as soon as we put out one fire, opponents of the market manage to ignite ten others.

We spend as much time explaining the workings of the market as we do debunking myths and clichés about it. Statists and interventionists spout an endless stream of put-downs and one-liners that pass as thorough critiques of the market, each one requiring a time-consuming, painstaking response and appeal to reason. We are constantly rewriting prejudiced accounts of history to match what really happened.

Nearly ninety years ago, muckraking novelist Upton Sinclair wrote a book titled The Jungle which wove a tale of greed and abuse that reverberates to this day as a powerful case against laissez faire. Sinclair’s focus of scorn was the meatpacking industry. The objective of his effort was government regulation. The culmination of his work was the passage in 1906 of the famed Meat Inspection Act, enshrined in most history books as a sacred cow (excuse the pun) of the interventionist state.

Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

This is a nice refutation of Sinclair's The Jungle, which some on this board like to use as evidence against a truly free market.

Libertarian I take it? The problem I see with the philosophy is that like Marxism, it requires a basic change in human nature to work. People won't work as hard, if they don't see relatively immediate results from their labors under Marxism. Libertarianism with the concept of contracts between individuals being paramount, overlooks the fact that unless the two parties are equals, many times the strong will prey on the weak because their "freedom" to do otherwise is merely a construct that does not match reality.

The Libertarians we hear from today mistakenly see social reform as an enemy of progress.

Imagine what the world throughout history would look like without social reform. Most all beneficial advances on the societal level have come about through social reform.

 

[Dante]

Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

This is a nice refutation of Sinclair's The Jungle, which some on this board like to use as evidence against a truly free market.

Libertarian I take it? The problem I see with the philosophy is that like Marxism, it requires a basic change in human nature to work. People won't work as hard, if they don't see relatively immediate results from their labors under Marxism. Libertarianism with the concept of contracts between individuals being paramount, overlooks the fact that unless the two parties are equals, many times the strong will prey on the weak because their "freedom" to do otherwise is merely a construct that does not match reality.

The weak have much more to gain from the strong than vice versa. That is reality. If a limited government can protect the weak from force or fraud by the strong, freedom is the best answer. Libertarian's are not anarchist after all, as I'm sure you know.

Sounds like a book worth looking into IMHO.

History of mankind: survival of the best able to adapt, not the strongest or fittest.

go back to school

 

[editec]

It is no less a myth that the "invisible hand of the market" can solve all mankinds problems than it is to imagine that the HOLY GHOST is going to take care of things.

The market does what's best for the players in the market.

The public be damned!

That's exactly why we need government, folks.

Its a crappy tool, I'll admit, but it's the only tool a society has to keep the averice of the market in check.

The problem isn't government, folks, it's BAD government.