Topic: It’s not illegal to use real strawberries, it’s just impossible if you don’t wan - page 3. (Read 5450 times)

Not true.
In fact, the only people that haven't got a 100% chance to die are the once that are alive at this moment.
The rest is certified 100% pure death.
Unless, of course, you want to talk vampires or zombies, but that would become a highly technical discussion i'm afraid...

The evidence in support of your position isn't very good.  While 100% of all dead people have died at some point, the percentage of all people that ever lived that have died is far less than 100%.

Absolutely all of us will die.

Do you not see how silly this is?  What is the business going to do?  Refuse to sell to locals?  Wear disguises the following day when the dead guy's family comes back?


LOL.  I don't even know where to start.

It seems to me you are describing the present situation (government regulations).

This is SUCH a dangerous assumption.
Imagine a certificate based situation.
Producer A produces milk, but his farm is in the neigborhood of Fukushima.
The milk is radioactive and he cannot sell it as a certified product.
He goes on to sell it to producer B that produces uncertified icecreams from it.
Producer B goes on to sell his icecreams in Europe and noone knows his milk came from next door to Fukushima.
Altho the customers know the icecream is uncertified they don't think it tastes spoiled and is much cheaper than certified ice cream and so they go ahead and consume the radioactive icecream en masse.

This is what you will get with a voluntarily certificate program.
It just won't work itself out in an economy where most people don't have enough money to pay for everything that they are made to beliefe they need.

There will always be a pretty hefty pressure om making products cheaper and consumers will let themselfs get poisoned or killed for buying the wrong products.
It is just the world we live in and it is just the outcome of human nature as it applies to our current civilization.

Yes, people need (want! demand!) to be taken care of because as an individual you have little influence over most aspects of society.
If you had to choose between a party that wants to make money off of you by selling food and the government then i know what i would choose to decide what is healthy.
That is why we need the regulations and that is why we have them,.

Now to get back to the story. It is a shame that the regulations turned out to be bad for that business. But these same regulations prevent the big ciompanies from selling poison.
And these big companies produce so much that there are a lot more people involved.
If they produced poisonous foodstuff then there will be a much bigger problem than this lady having to give up her icecream store.
So it's not so black and white as the article makes it out to be.

Another thing is that you can't over specify the law.
Too many exceptions and it will become unmanageable.
So, altho theoretically an exception in the law coul work for this case, there will be many more similar but unique cases, all of which will require their own exception to the law.

Remember that these kinds of laws about regulations were written up over the past decenia exactly because hygene became a problem as people started consuming more.
It is a direct consequence of our consumption habbits.
The lady in question should deal with it and so should all other people in the western world.
But of course, as stated above by someone else, we should look critically at all regulations and see if they are still usefull instruments to our society.

That business wouldn't survive... unless it serves tourists who transit the area and get sick later on.  The business wouldn't care if they served contaminated food to a tourist who will be gone within hours or even minutes.  The tourist will be in another town or country by the time they get sick.  The bad business would gets to stay and keep serving bad food to the next batch of tourists.


Self regulation would be a handy system for the pharmaceutical industry.  The corporation gets to declare which treatment works and set their own prices for people who can't live without the treatment.  Treatment doesn't work and the patient dies?  The patient doesn't get to complain.  Can't afford it?  They didn't really need it anyway.


If there is one assured thing in life, is that there are no absolutes.

Have you ever even tried fresh strawberries or drank fresh raw milk? No? You should try it, it won't kill you. We are omnivorous animals and our stomach is made for fresh stuff. You can even eat fresh raw meat or steaks that were rotting for months to get mold on them.
In Italy you can get fresh ice cream made with seasonal fresh fruits and raw milk from the local milk farmer in nearly every village. Have you ever heard "Don't eat ice cream in Italy, it will make you sick"? In Vietnam you can buy fresh meat from small stalls at the roadside, and they don't use fridges. Ice cream with fresh fruits is nothing special. As long as fresh ingredients get processed and eaten asap it's no problem at all. It's not like they wait a month before they freeze the strawberries and milk.

The problem is the frivolous litigation environment in the States isn't it? Take out the incentive and convenience for people to sue over the most stupid of things and related costs will drop significantly. Of course it would also put a lot of lawyers out of job

But it has everything to do with lawsuits, which is what TTBit claims makes everything so much cheaper. There are few regulations and lots of lawsuits, and that's adding a 30% overhead to the price of the product.

I realise most of you with just rationalise this away and say that the market just isn't free enough (that's always the problem). It's the same excuse as the communist use. When things don't work out as you expected the problem is always that the implementation of the ideology hasn't been taken far enough.

Pasteurized milk is healthy and safe. Irradiated strawberries are healthy and safe, and they taste and look the same. Should she be allowed to sell an unsafe combination of fresh dairy and contaminated fruit ? Sure, if the customers understand the risks and take full responsibility for the outcome.

As it turns out, the customers don't understand the risk, and choose not to be bothered by the issue by appointing a regulator which, imperfect and inefficient as it may be, does the job acceptably well. So well in fact, that the customer base have grown accustomed to the idea that any food they can purchase over the counter is healthy and safe. What Kris is actually doing is trying to sneak a product that does not pass the regulator's scrutiny directly to the customer base which assumes that it does. The product is thus misrepresented in the market place, and should be removed.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that, after waiving their legal rights and understanding the risks, customers should be allowed to eat anything. Except for extreme cases like depression or cult-induced suicide, your life is your property and you should do what you want. If you have a problem with the notion that all food must be proved safe by default, and a waiver is required when unsafe food is sold, then you can, you know, start your own country where all food is presumed unsafe and it's the customer's responsibility to make sure it's ok - we had that for many centuries, it didn't worked out so well. There are many such countries in fact, no need to start another one. Anything sold in the 3rd world must be boiled and killed with fire before being eaten, and eating improper food is a major death cause there.

Fraud is a definite reality, regulation makers abusing their powers is a definite reality.  Both have involved people getting killed in the past.  I don't see a lesser of two evils here. 

Whow says he doesnt? Btw, you are using the word utopia to describe something you clearly dont understand. The first rule to criticize something is understand it, you should not criticize something you dont even know about.

Nobody is saying there should be no law or no courts. Let me be clear, nobody is saying there should be no law or no courts. The question is whether the legal system should be a government monopolly. And even if you believe it should be, how long should it reach? Its utopic to give monpollistic power to one institution and trust that it will be controllable like you are claiming. Check history and tell me when that has happened. Only once please, tell me when you utopia has happened.

And btw, more than the 50% of the world trade is done based only on trust, outside of any legal jurisdiction.

As I said the problem is that the people is used to live in a bubble world and have forgotten how to behave.

Until you own a legitimate business, you're never going to understand. There is a BIG difference between reality and Utopian ideals. There is a BIG difference between businesses that go out of their way to prove their trust (mtgox/tradehill) and people who chose to have a business one day and chose not to have a business the next day (mybitcoin)

You can't have a free system the way you're thinking. Fraud and criminal THOUGHTS exists IN EVERYBODY. Nobody is immune to them and everyone has their breaking point. The only way to keep people honest is to give them incentive to stay honest. There is criminality in EVERY level of every race, age, social class, occupation, and yes, even in the government. It is our job to find and fix the dishonesty at the moment it's discovered in the government. It is the governments job to find and fix the dishonesty at the moment it's discovered in the territory in which it governs.

You don't have to trust me. You can keep thinking whatever you want to think. Just know that "life" will smack you in the face when your wrong. You better be right about what you preach.

Is that the article you intended to link?  It has nothing to do about regulation.

In some cases that's true, in others it's just wishful thinking. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0112/052_print.html

Well said, Hugo.

And the guy you quoted completely misunderstands what regulations are for. Regulations (even the good, voluntary ones) are not there to make people "reachable" and to make they responsible for their actions. There's no need of regulations for that, you don't need a "license" to be accountable, nor to abide your processes to arbitrary rules. Your customers just need a way to track you down if they feel you might harm them.

Quoted guy, trust me, state regulations exist only to protect established industries and lobbyists, and not only are unnecessary, they are economically harmful and ethically criminal.

Indoctrinated - very apropos term!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A business that kills its clients, makes them sick or otherwise harms them won't be in business very long. If Mt. Gox didn't shore up its security, Tradehill would be the primary exchange today.

Self-regulating systems occur naturally. Government interferes.

Government is the problem!

Bitcoin is an answer.

It never stops amazing me how people are so indoctrinated as to believe the government regulations work and do away with all harm when the proof that they dont work is in front of them. But they learnt when they were kids that without regulations we will be all dying in a waste of chaos, and so we need them. The motto of the government should be: Get them young and profit the rest of your life.

The worse thing is that they really believe that by being violent against this woman for example, they are making a better world.


This is the perfect example of the level at which we have arived. People actually trusted a nobody with huge quantities of money! We are so used to live in this world where theft is either regulated and indoctrinated as normal and any competition in the scam sector is prosecuted, that a lot of us dont know how to take the minimum precautions.

In this sense I think Bitcoin is great because it will teach us a couple of lessons that we desperately need.

Of course you have to have a dairy license. That's the government's way of being able to stop you if you decide to be a felon and/or cause problems for the community. You have to have a license to prove you are legitimate and it is one notch of insurance that you're willing to be held accountable for your actions in the business. (The license fees stem from costs to keep records and pay salaries, nobody is going to do the job for free)

You saw what happened with Mybitcoin right? The community had trust and trust alone to use his services and they got smacked in their face. Now, had he had a business license, we'd know exactly where to find him and have a lot more leverage over him as a community.




ALSO...


We like to reward the people who take the time, money, and effort to be honest by going through the system. We do this by restricting people who didn't go through the system.