5 ms·

maybe you could do that in the US, where the threat of lawsuits might keep people honest. but i wouldn't risk it. seems like the problem this essay is pointin

by lg 18y ago

maybe you could do that in the US, where the threat of lawsuits might keep people honest. but i wouldn't risk it. seems like the problem this essay is pointing out is that the laws aren't fine-grained enough to distinguish between industrial farms and mom-and-pops. But probably, if there WERE such a distinction and mom-and-pops got off easy, corporate agriculture would bend over backwards to meet the technical definition. if the law said people can sell uncertified stuff on the farm premises, there'd be a little hen house in the back of every shoprite (or whatever), just like with the suv fuel efficiency restrictions. perhaps one way around that, though, is that since all corporations are (if anything) corporations, the law could single out food that's been handled by employees of registered corporations for special treatment. but who knows, they'd probably find a way around that too.

timr 18y ago
I think you've made the critical argument: the law is a blunt instrument, because there are people who will abuse the intricacies of anything less. This entire comment thread fascinates me, because it seems to consist of repeated jabs at "absurd" laws by cranky libertarians (or anarchists), followed by parries by people who can see reasonable arguments for said laws. Rarely does the debate rise to the level where it is acknowledged that sometimes good laws have unintended absurd consequences, and that just because a law prevents you from doing something you want to do, doesn't mean that the law is invalid (or an inappropriate intrusion of government into daily life).
- peteg 18y ago
  It is more than the law is a blunt instrument. When it comes to food laws it is a blunt instrument whose only efficacious purpose is to raise the barrier to entry so high that small operators with truly clean and environmentally sound food can't compete (if they are even legal to begin with).

by lg 18y ago

timr 18y ago

I think you've made the critical argument: the law is a blunt instrument, because there are people who will abuse the intricacies of anything less. This entire comment thread fascinates me, because it seems to consist of repeated jabs at "absurd" laws by cranky libertarians (or anarchists), followed by parries by people who can see reasonable arguments for said laws. Rarely does the debate rise to the level where it is acknowledged that sometimes good laws have unintended absurd consequences, and that just because a law prevents you from doing something you want to do, doesn't mean that the law is invalid (or an inappropriate intrusion of government into daily life).

peteg 18y ago
It is more than the law is a blunt instrument. When it comes to food laws it is a blunt instrument whose only efficacious purpose is to raise the barrier to entry so high that small operators with truly clean and environmentally sound food can't compete (if they are even legal to begin with).