sds:
sds:
I find it interesting that RHP’s lack of support for this law is based solely (at least in this post) on the fact that it’s impractical.
I agree it’s impractical, but my main problem is that the state has no business telling me what I can and cannot eat, nor what a restaurant can serve (beyond obviously poisonous or unsanitary foods).
Government: get your hands out of my stomach! It’s my body, right?
Actually, my argument wasn’t that it was impractical, but that it’s unhealthy. And the government already dictates what you eat through subsidies, unchecked monopolies by certain food companies, being paid off to say that unhealthy foods are healthy, etc., all which make certain foods cheaper and therefore more accessible.
If the government has no business at all in food, though, why have the government regulate for poisonous and unsanitary foods? Not only does the government have their hands on your stomach, they have their hands on business, which, as we all know, is far more important than the individual. Businesses could make much more money if they didn’t have to adhere to silly laws dictating sanitary facilities and safe ingredients, and that means cheaper food for everyone and bigger profits for business, which means more jobs and trickle-on-down money and so much more! Who cares if a few people die every so often from tainted food? It’s all worth it for the bottom line, amirite?!
Your argument was two-fold. First you mentioned the practical reason of the state not banning a substance that it also subsidizes. Secondly, you mentioned the health issue. But nice try.
Since I’m not a hardcore libertarian, I don’t really have a problem with government regulating issues of basic public safety and general welfare. But there’s a wide gulf (in my opinion) between forbidding companies from cooking with arsenic and banning salt in cooking, or soda drinks.
As for healthier ingredients, I think the market can regulate that best. Wal-Mart is starting to prominently sell organic foods, Progresso soup now has (some) MSG-free products, the salads at Wendy’s have romaine lettuce rather than iceberg, etc. Heck, Chipotle advertised for Food, Inc.
(I clearly stated my support for regulating poisons and unsanitary conditions. Hmmm, perhaps I should be indignant, too.)
I should actually stay out of this at this point. Robot-heart provided a rather satisfactory answer to my question. I won’t do that. Instead, I’ll mention that the government doesn’t always do a great job of protecting people from tainted food. But I am a hardcore libertarian, so no matter how many headlines I could produce, or how much evidence I provide, I’ll always be a crazy nutjob. The FDA actively covered up evidence that would have hurt Paxil and Prozac sales. The treasury’s SOP would be considered accounting fraud if replicated in any private company. The justice department tortures people. Most of the gigantic “evil” companies in the US got to be so big by finding a way to get taxpayer support. It’s the Christopher Columbus effect. He “didn’t know where he was going, didn’t know where he was when he got there, and as Churchill pointed out, did it all at government expense. Anyone can make a mistake. But to make a truly colossal blunder you need the support of the taxpayer.” And I’m sure the appropriate response is that if only more people voted the right people into office, things would be better. I just haven’t seen evidence that the right people to wield this government power exist.
