For my Libertarian friends

jammun wrote: JJLehto wrote: Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on. Peace Can we trust corporations, without FDA oversight, to give a damn?  Given that routinely about 16 billion pounds of ground beef are recalled monthly, I think there needs to be some sort of enforcer.  The alternative is a new enforcer, also known as lawyers, that bankrupt every business who dares allow crap to enter the food chain.  So is FDA needed?  That's a good question, but the alternative ain't pretty.  I would guess there would be no contaminated food recalls without the FDA 'suggesting' it's a good idea.  Typical corporation response, without the FDA, would be, "e. Coli?  Bah, let them sh*t fire out their asses for a couple of days."

Hope you didnt think I was arguing against the FDA
That seems to be the popular alternative, courts. But lawyers, courts? Not to mention damage done in mean time (illness, death?) Id rather take the imperfect FDA than without.

And yes, Bill O Reilly is a small step from fascist. Hes not uber conservative, I think in economics hes all over the place, but socially...if he (or Michael Savage) had his way this would be fascism.

^junk food is not addictive, either physically or psychologically. I always hear people saying that, and it's nonsense. The word you are looking for is "delicious." 

JJLehto wrote: jammun wrote: JJLehto wrote: Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on. Peace Can we trust corporations, without FDA oversight, to give a damn?  Given that routinely about 16 billion pounds of ground beef are recalled monthly, I think there needs to be some sort of enforcer.  The alternative is a new enforcer, also known as lawyers, that bankrupt every business who dares allow crap to enter the food chain.  So is FDA needed?  That's a good question, but the alternative ain't pretty.  I would guess there would be no contaminated food recalls without the FDA 'suggesting' it's a good idea.  Typical corporation response, without the FDA, would be, "e. Coli?  Bah, let them sh*t fire out their asses for a couple of days." Hope you didnt think I was arguing against the FDA

Nah, I'm just pointing out why these endless layers of bureacracy exist in the first place.  Whether or not we need them at their current levels, I don't know.  Maybe we Americans just need to go through the incremental pain of acquiring a less susceptable GI tract.  Problem is that option sometimes kills the very young or otherwise vulnerable, or I'd suggest it as a viable solution.  Buck up for the betterment of America, spend 24 hours on the toilet!  Uncle e. Coli wants you!  

Edited by jammun - August 02 2010 at 21:39

jammun wrote: JJLehto wrote: jammun wrote: JJLehto wrote: Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on. Peace Can we trust corporations, without FDA oversight, to give a damn?  Given that routinely about 16 billion pounds of ground beef are recalled monthly, I think there needs to be some sort of enforcer.  The alternative is a new enforcer, also known as lawyers, that bankrupt every business who dares allow crap to enter the food chain.  So is FDA needed?  That's a good question, but the alternative ain't pretty.  I would guess there would be no contaminated food recalls without the FDA 'suggesting' it's a good idea.  Typical corporation response, without the FDA, would be, "e. Coli?  Bah, let them sh*t fire out their asses for a couple of days." Hope you didnt think I was arguing against the FDA Nah, I'm just pointing out why these endless layers of bureacracy exist in the first place.  Whether or not we need them at their current levels, I don't know.  Maybe we Americans just need to go through the incremental pain of acquiring a less susceptable GI tract.  Problem is that option sometimes kills the very young or otherwise vulnerable, or I'd suggest it as a viable solution.  Buck up for the betterment of America, spend 24 hours on the toilet!  Uncle e. Coli wants you!

I just think this thread can be a bit black and white (was gunna say extreme but I abstained from that)
Like its all or none. Maybe this is just because we debate in theory alot..
But I think the FDA should be in place, yet I take personal responsibility. I do enjoy "bad" food but I have cut back on it alot compared to how I used to be, and I almost never touch junk food, rarely soda/iced tea anymore. Mostly water.
 The FDA is in place and my freedom is still there.
No one is making me do those things, yet. And if that does happen I will be standing next to yall in protest


Edited by JJLehto - August 02 2010 at 21:44

I think it's more appropriate to say the main objective of most corporations is to get away with as much distortion of the negatives of their product or the positives of their competition while still maintaining a healthy profit.

The end is the profit, but the means to the end gets murky. Keeping the customer happy is one thing, but you can do it through offering a genuinely good product with no distortion of perceptions, or you can bend the truth around your product to make it more appealing. The question is how much bending can you get away with. Do libertarians want laws protecting against the bending of truth in advertising, or do you expect all little lies to be responded to by customers actually refusing to buy a product and having the lying business go out of business? It seems like the most successful corporations will be the ones who lie the most, keep it covered up the most, and be so pervasive as to have there be no viable alternative products for consumers to go to if they could or even cared to switch.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^^ I don't understand how so many people in this thread think that the main objective of big corporations is to lose all their customers through evil misdeeds. At least on this case you're being deceivingly naive. In the case of food, it's actually these evil misdeeds that get customers ADDICTED to the poisons the sell. Their main goal is profit so they will create the most seductive-looking packaging for a seductive product filled with sugar which will make the eater crave for more and more. Yes, in the case of food I would never trust corporations to do what's good for people. And sorry but the "market will regulae things" dogma it's quite a stretch on this case. Yes, of course it will: when half the population is morbidly obese and addicted to Kraft products (and diabetic and sick and therefore addicted to healthcare too) maybe the other half will start thinking about not eating every piece of crap the pure celestial corporations throw at them... Curiously, the only place in the wolrd where you see obese people is on tbe US... Because people in the US have a high standard of living and are freer than most to make their own choices. Everything you described to me sounds great. Producers are making a product which people WANT TO CONSUME. They willingly purchase it. They're not forced to do so by advertising. There's nothing to suggest that advertising makes somebody want a product. It merely provides a means to select a product over an alternative. People buy what they want to eat. No amount of marketing in the world will get me to eat an olive. Now if you want to talk about why junk food is so cheap we can talk about government farm subsidies.

"High standard of living". Damn. Obesity was never described so awkwardly.

Liberty is too much of a religion for you libertarians.

stonebeard wrote: I think it's more appropriate to say the main objective of most corporations is to get away with as much distortion of the negatives of their product or the positives of their competition while still maintaining a healthy profit.The end is the profit, but the means to the end gets murky. Keeping the customer happy is one thing, but you can do it through offering a genuinely good product with no distortion of perceptions, or you can bend the truth around your product to make it more appealing. The question is how much bending can you get away with. Do libertarians want laws protecting against the bending of truth in advertising, or do you expect all little lies to be responded to by customers actually refusing to buy a product and having the lying business go out of business? It seems like the most successful corporations will be the ones who lie the most, keep it covered up the most, and be so pervasive as to have there be no viable alternative products for consumers to go to if they could or even cared to switch.

Spot on. Food corporations could create great products, attractive products, without deceiving and lying to hook people up to their sh*t.

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^^ I don't understand how so many people in this thread think that the main objective of big corporations is to lose all their customers through evil misdeeds. At least on this case you're being deceivingly naive. In the case of food, it's actually these evil misdeeds that get customers ADDICTED to the poisons the sell. Their main goal is profit so they will create the most seductive-looking packaging for a seductive product filled with sugar which will make the eater crave for more and more. Yes, in the case of food I would never trust corporations to do what's good for people. And sorry but the "market will regulae things" dogma it's quite a stretch on this case. Yes, of course it will: when half the population is morbidly obese and addicted to Kraft products (and diabetic and sick and therefore addicted to healthcare too) maybe the other half will start thinking about not eating every piece of crap the pure celestial corporations throw at them... Curiously, the only place in the wolrd where you see obese people is on tbe US... Because people in the US have a high standard of living and are freer than most to make their own choices. Everything you described to me sounds great. Producers are making a product which people WANT TO CONSUME. They willingly purchase it. They're not forced to do so by advertising. There's nothing to suggest that advertising makes somebody want a product. It merely provides a means to select a product over an alternative. People buy what they want to eat. No amount of marketing in the world will get me to eat an olive. Now if you want to talk about why junk food is so cheap we can talk about government farm subsidies. "High standard of living". Damn. Obesity was never described so awkwardly. Liberty is too much of a religion for you libertarians.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: jammun wrote: JJLehto wrote: jammun wrote: JJLehto wrote: Anywho, the FDA thing is like most others. I dont think anyone would say its bad in theory (or purpose) and it served a need originally. The question is, needed in 2010? Can we trust these people with our food to make sure its fine? Well, we all know my trust in them is low to begin with, and I wouldn't want to find out while dealing with my food. But sadly, have to do this work I've missed a few hours on. Peace Can we trust corporations, without FDA oversight, to give a damn?  Given that routinely about 16 billion pounds of ground beef are recalled monthly, I think there needs to be some sort of enforcer.  The alternative is a new enforcer, also known as lawyers, that bankrupt every business who dares allow crap to enter the food chain.  So is FDA needed?  That's a good question, but the alternative ain't pretty.  I would guess there would be no contaminated food recalls without the FDA 'suggesting' it's a good idea.  Typical corporation response, without the FDA, would be, "e. Coli?  Bah, let them sh*t fire out their asses for a couple of days." Hope you didnt think I was arguing against the FDA Nah, I'm just pointing out why these endless layers of bureacracy exist in the first place.  Whether or not we need them at their current levels, I don't know.  Maybe we Americans just need to go through the incremental pain of acquiring a less susceptable GI tract.  Problem is that option sometimes kills the very young or otherwise vulnerable, or I'd suggest it as a viable solution.  Buck up for the betterment of America, spend 24 hours on the toilet!  Uncle e. Coli wants you!   You actually didn't point out anything besides you supporting the FDA because it's necessary because if it wasn't then we wouldn't have the FDA.