Does the gov. require the layout of nutritional info on foods?
If so, do you think without that requirement...we'd actually see the real amounts of ingredients (units of vitamins) instead of the stupid percents of gov. approved daily reccomendations?
Of course, noone trusts or thinks the gov. knows what they're doing when it comes to setting the daily reccomendations....that's why we always like to see super high percents...like 2000% vitamin c and d....
limitgov:Does the gov. require the layout of nutritional info on foods?
limitgov:If so, do you think without that requirement...we'd actually see the real amounts of ingredients (units of vitamins) instead of the stupid percents of gov. approved daily reccomendations?
limitgov:Of course, noone trusts or thinks the gov. knows what they're doing when it comes to setting the daily reccomendations....that's why we always like to see super high percents...like 2000% vitamin c and d....
Its overstated how important nutrition facts are.
Not if you will die if you eat a food with the wrong ingrediant.
"Not if you will die if you eat a food with the wrong ingrediant."
Killing customers is a sure way to maximize profit. (sarcasm)
I'm not really talking about ingredients...I'm talking about the percent daily values of government approved vitamins and minerals....
also....in a free market...do you not think companies would list the ingredients on their own?
why in the world not? especially if their competitors did...
also....in a free market...do you not think companies would list the ingredients on their own? why in the world not? especially if their competitors did...
I have no idea. But even if they did, that would not be good enough. They would also need to notify the customer that the product was produced in a plant or on equipment which uses ingredient X.
Eric, the idea is that companies don't want to wait for consumers to die and stop buying their products... you inform people in advance to maximize your revenues. Get them to buy your non-peanut products.
Many companies already only list product descriptions only when they are required to. When they are allowed to list things like "other spices," they do. This is unfortunite for people who are allergic to sesame as it falls under such a category. I certainly don't see what is wrong with requiring certain ingrediants to be listed. What do you have against it?
That it is a coerced transfer of costs from the peanut allergy sufferer to the producer. If the producer will not label what allergens his product has and doesn't have, it's the responsibility of the peanut allergy sufferer not to buy it. Why should someone pull out a gun and put the onus of that on the producer?
Why should people "pull out the guns" when I steal something? The "pull out the guns" argument is going to collapse on itself. I will let you know that ahead of time.
Also, with your peanut allergy example, what if the product was produced on equipment which is used to make peanuts, yet this is not specifically listed? In that case it does not matter how responsible the person with the allergy is.
This entire problem can be solved by requiring ingrediants to be listed. Nobody has yet offered any other solution. That fact that what you consider "aggression" is required is totally meaningless to me.
This is unfortunite for people who are allergic to sesame as it falls under such a category. I certainly don't see what is wrong with requiring certain ingrediants to be listed. What do you have against it?
It is unfortunate for people who are allergic to sesame only if the people allergic to sesame don't check the unlisted ingredients by calling the company, etc. They can do research on their own, like many fitness trainers do when researching certain kinds of protein supplements that may have more than just protein in them. Food companies don't have some kind of responsibility to the masses of allergic people because they don't HAVE to run their food company just like people don't HAVE to buy their food. If it were a monopoly whereas no one else sold a specific and necessary food, it might be different.
I was using this as an argument against the idea that companies would always list ingrediants on their own (which apparently you don't believe they would?). I do not care about what you think people are and are not responsible for. That does not matter to me. I could say people are not responsible for respecting private property. My goal is a just society from a subjective Rawlsian persective.
You do realize that stealing something is quite a different action than cooking something made of my own materials, right? I have hurt no one by making a candy bar. If you have food sensitivities, and you don't know what's in it, then you shouldn't eat it. Guess what - you're no worse off than you would have been had I not made a candy bar. On the other hand, if I walk into a store and steal a candy bar, there is someone who is worse off.
And yes, it matters how responsible the person with the allergy is. If he has a serious peanut issue, he can choose to buy only products with a label that says "made in a peanut free factory." Why would there be such a thing? Presumably, because there's a market for such products, as evidenced by this poor guy who can't eat the candy bar I produced.
I'm sorry to hear that you consider aggression to be totally meaningless. I presume you will continue to regard it as totally meaningless if your wallet is stolen next, or if you are enslaved next. You are proposing that I be shot if I offer a candy bar for sale without listing the ingredients. I suggest that this is a position acceptable only to a sociopath.
Yes, a just society where booted thugs menace food producers with machine guns to intimidate them into printing information on their labels. Nothing can go wrong with that plan.
You do realize that stealing something is quite a different action than cooking something made of my own materials, right?
A person who does not believe in the legitemacy of private property would not consider it stealing. Do you consider it wrongful theft if you steal food from a slave master in order to feed a slave? No, you don't. Likewise, a person who does not believe in private property (or does not believe in the idea that private property trumps everything, such as me) does not consider such an act wrong.
If you have food sensitivities, and you don't know what's in it, then you shouldn't eat it. Guess what - you're no worse off than you would have been had I not made a candy bar. On the other hand, if I walk into a store and steal a candy bar, there is someone who is worse off.
What if they are gummy bears made in the same plant as peanuts? Your "personal responsibility" argument is completely meaningless to me when the entire problem could be easily solved by having certain requirements. If some kid goes and buys some candy and dies because there are peanut traces in it, your response would be "well the kid should have been more responsible." Right? What about saving the "irresponsible" kids life?
What if there isn't?
Anyways, I don't think people with allergies should have to live under such degrading conditions when the problem could be solved so much easyer.
You define aggression as "an act which violates one of the social construts which I abide by." I do not always consider the violation of private property to be aggression. If a kid falls out of a tree on your lawn and I go in to save him against your will, I am not committing aggression in my view. You would be committing aggression by stopping me.
The plan is enforced by the government, not thugs. Also, I don't see how requiring labeling is equivalent to "menacing food producers with machine guns."
The plan is enforced by the government, not thugs.
That's like saying, "There are termites crawling around your walls, not insects." Government = thugs. The 'machine gun' equivalence is speaking in regards to the fact that, if I were to make lemonade with lemons, water, and sugar, I don't have to tell anyone that there's sugar in it unless they ask me. Just like if someone handed you a margarita. Usually, especially if you're underage, you'd ask if it's virgin or alcoholic. If the government says that you are responsible for killing someone by not informing them about the peanuts in your recipe, they'll send you to jail. You can refuse to go to jail because it's not your fault, at which point you'd be evading arrest and, at one point or another, probably 'endangering police officers' due to them chasing you, which they can eventually shoot you for if no one gives up. Hence the inevitable machine gun reference.
Well, let's look at the stealing case, then. You don't consider anything wrong with taking my stuff, since you don't believe in private property. Fine. You also don't believe there is anything wrong, as we know, with sticking guns in people's faces, so why object when I defend my fictious property? If it helps, I'll get some cardboard and aluminum foil and make myself a piece of costume jewelry to wear while defending my property.
We have a trade-off here. The situation can be 'completely solved' as you say, by shooting anyone who produces a candy bar without a label. I say it can also be 'completely solved' by you not eating a candy bar not labeled as safe for you. In one case, I get a gun in my face. In the other, you can't eat a specific candy bar. On what basis do you favor one over the other? I'll read on and see.
Ah, it is degrading to...what exactly? It's already the case, no matter what, that the allergy sufferer cannot eat every candy bar available, and can only eat specific candy bars. I suggest that he refrain from eating bars not labeled as safe, and you suggest that, well, I suppose every candy bar wrapper has to list every ingredient, not just in the bar, but used in the factory, and you claim it is degrading to have to refrain from eating some candy bars that do not contain the allergen. At least, that's the best I can do at reconstructing just what is degrading here. You apparently don't think it is degrading to have people walking around threatening to shoot you if you don't produce a wrapper up to their specifications, and don't think such a situation could possibly lead to any fraudulent outcomes. After all, empowering a large agency to carry this out, with no market competition, cannot lead to some unscrupulous producers paying off inspectors, right, either to shut down their competition or let them get away with things. Ok, so suppose that is not at all degrading. So now this supposed degradation of having to look for peanut-safe candy bars justifies shooting candy bar producers why exactly?
Once again, suppose I didn't make any candy bars. Then I wouldn't incur your wrath here, but I also wouldn't produce the very tasty morsel that you consider it degrading to not be able to eat. So it's ok to deny to the entire world this tasty treat, but not to only you?
Now, what if there isn't such a market? Then there was even less reason for you to be shooting me in the first place. The lack of a market for peanut-safe bars suggests that I'm certainly not going to go to any effort to have a peanut-safe factory in the first place, and you haven't (yet) proposed forcing people to open such factories, so in that case, there just isn't going to be a candy bar you can eat. Degrading, I know.
As for your irresponsible kid who eats a candy bar not labeled as safe, I have no reason to believe he'd do anything different if we required the manufacturer to list every item used in his factory. Why do I say that? Well, first, I used to work as a paramedic, then as an EMS chief. I worked a large number of calls where people with allergies ate items containing allergens, and it so happens that in our world, we follow your idea. Subway had a big sign listing the allergens in their low-carb wraps, yet I treated many patients who ate them anyway. Second - your scenario leads me to think it. You posited a world in which a food cannot be deemed safe for allergy sufferers unless it is so labeled. The kid you're talking about picked up a bar not so labeled - i.e. one which he had been taught not to eat - and ate it. Why won't he eat the labeled bar too?
As for your last paragraph, you're talking in generalities, I'm talking about a specific case. Is it or is it not aggressive to shoot candy bar makers?
Ok, government thugs, then. As for your also - what will you do if I make candy bars that do not conform to your labeling requirements - which we've seen have to include not only listing the ingredients, but also everything in my factory. Now, if I claim to do so, but don't, I'm lying, but let's look at a lesser case - I'm just not labeling them at all, except to say "Candy Bar. May contain allergens, or may not." What should be done about me?
"A person who does not believe in the legitemacy of private property would not consider it stealing."
Would that same person then see it as ok for someone to steal the candy bar from him since he doesn't accept the legitimacy of private property?
"Do you consider it wrongful theft if you steal food from a slave master in order to feed a slave? No, you don't."
Regardless of the intent, it's still stealing and therefore wrong. First off I would say slavery is illegitimate since one human being cannot own another, so I'm not so sure this is the best example to use. However, the fact that the slave owner has aggressed against the slave by the nature of slavery does not make it legitimate for a 3rd party to aggress against the slave owner except arguably in relation to the slave owner's illegitimate actions, meaning it would be ok for the a 3rd party to free the slave by whatever means necessary since slavery is aggression but not for a 3rd party to steal food from the slave owner. If you are beating up a kid for no reason, I can legitimately stop you by using force, but I can't go to your house and steal food or a bandaid to give to the kid, especially if you continue to beat him up after I bandage or feed him. In your example, I understand that perhaps the slave is being malnourished or something, but giving him food doesn't rectify the crime committed against him. He's still a slave and thus a 3rd party stealing food from the slave owner to feed the slave in no way stops the slave owner from continuing to aggress against the slave by keeping him in slavery (sorry for so many uses of the word slave lol). I'm not saying I would personally feel bad for the slave owner if a 3rd party stole his food to feed his slaves, but it's not a legitimate act.
I'd also say in most cases it's in the slave owner's interest to keep his slaves at least reasonably well fed so that they're productive. It seems stealing food to feed them is simply redundant as they would have been fed anyway, and again, it doesn't stop the slave from being aggressed against.
"If a kid falls out of a tree on your lawn and I go in to save him against your will, I am not committing aggression in my view. You would be committing aggression by stopping me."
I don't believe you would be aggressing against the homeowner if you rushed across his lawn to save a kid from falling out of a tree. You haven't damaged his property. The homesteading theory of property as far as a I understand it doesn't exclude people from walking on land as long as they don't degrade or damage whatever the owner is making use of that land for (I may have worded that strangely, I'm not an expert on this stuff :P). So if I cross a field of corn and don't damage the crop there's nothing illegitimate about that.
Yes, it is mandated by Federal Law on "processed" foods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Labeling_and_Education_Act
IMHO, if consumers demanded it via their purchasing decisions, we would have seen it with out such legislation. IMHO, such mandatory labeling is actually a red herring to food safety and health.
Most of the crap food have such labeling. The ones that don't require it are the healthy ones.
That's like saying, "There are termites crawling around your walls, not insects." Government = thugs.
You are just misusing the word "thug." I guess to appeal to peoples emotion you could say the government is full of thugs, but that is all. I mean I could call private police "thugs" if I wanted to (and historically, examples of private defense have not turned out well. Look at the mafia.).
The 'machine gun' equivalence is speaking in regards to the fact that, if I were to make lemonade with lemons, water, and sugar, I don't have to tell anyone that there's sugar in it unless they ask me. Just like if someone handed you a margarita. Usually, especially if you're underage, you'd ask if it's virgin or alcoholic. If the government says that you are responsible for killing someone by not informing them about the peanuts in your recipe, they'll send you to jail. You can refuse to go to jail because it's not your fault, at which point you'd be evading arrest and, at one point or another, probably 'endangering police officers' due to them chasing you, which they can eventually shoot you for if no one gives up. Hence the inevitable machine gun reference.
I disagree with the bolded portion of this statement, as I do not worship private property. I only see it as a means to an end. Regardless, I do not care even the slightest bit about the fact that violence is required to uphold the law, and I do not just assume that people who disagree with me can be claimed to be "aggressors" in any kind of objective manner.
But anyways, the way you phrased your initial point was very misleading. I understand you did it as a rhetorical point though. I used to be the same way.
Well I personally do believe in private property. I just don't worship it. I also think that there is absolutely no reason to assume that private property would be adequately enforced in the absence of a government. But my point was that violating PP is not "aggression" for a person who does not believe in PP. I was using it as an example to show that nobody has any reason to care if you believe the government is an "aggressor." I, like every reasonable person, believe there are certain cases where it is OK to "stick guns in peoples faces." Simply violating a labeling law alone is not sufficient in my opinion though.
So how many people who have labeled their foods incorrectly have been shot? And again, if the market will not adaquately label foods without govt intervention, then millions of lives are at risk. In fact more people would die from anaphylactic shock than people who are "shot" for disobeying labelling laws. I favor the reasonable law over the dogmatic ideological regurgitation because my goal is subjective Rawlsian justice.
Ah, it is degrading to...what exactly? It's already the case, no matter what, that the allergy sufferer cannot eat every candy bar available, and can only eat specific candy bars.
Having to only eat foods labeled "allergy free" because no foods are adequately labelled is degrading. The things you cannot do with others effects social well being. Many people with allergies are already effected socially, and living in complete fear of all unlabelled foods would only make it worse.
I suggest that he refrain from eating bars not labeled as safe, and you suggest that, well, I suppose every candy bar wrapper has to list every ingredient, not just in the bar, but used in the factory, and you claim it is degrading to have to refrain from eating some candy bars that do not contain the allergen. At least, that's the best I can do at reconstructing just what is degrading here. You apparently don't think it is degrading to have people walking around threatening to shoot you if you don't produce a wrapper up to their specifications, and don't think such a situation could possibly lead to any fraudulent outcomes. After all, empowering a large agency to carry this out, with no market competition, cannot lead to some unscrupulous producers paying off inspectors, right, either to shut down their competition or let them get away with things. Ok, so suppose that is not at all degrading. So now this supposed degradation of having to look for peanut-safe candy bars justifies shooting candy bar producers why exactly?
Having to comply with labeling laws may be a hassle, but it is not degrading. Just like having to comply with property or environmental laws can be a hassle, but are not degrading (most of the time). There could be fraud going on, however empirically this is extremely rare and I have never heard of a case involving a serious allergen. It is certainly better than doing nothing and forcing millions to live with a constant fear of dying, and increasing the number of deaths by anaphylactic shock in the process.
Comply with labeling laws and you can produce it. Also, it is millions of people we are talking about here.
Well there is a market (for certain kinds of foods only), but such substitutes are far more expensive than their counterparts, and they all rely on very similar ingredients. It is conceivable that under certain cases it would not be profitable to produce such products. In that case, if there were no labeling laws, people with allergies would live in constant fear of dying. Also, it is not just candy. Everyone with an allergy knows this.
Your evidence is anecdotal and I have anecdotal evidence to counter it.
Anyways, if the child eats something such as gummy worms which he expects to be peanut free, he can still die because there could be traces of peanut from the equipment. Do you have any objections to required labeling besides the fact that you conider it to be "aggression?" So far no good alternative has been provided.
Depends.
Why support the market if it does not lead to good outcomes?
You are now repeating your points. I'm not going to repeat mine. I'll just respond to what is new here.
You say that violating a labeling law is not a good reason to stick a gun in my face. What will you do if I don't follow your law? Say if I make a candy bar that says "Ingredients: guess." How will you react?
You repeat your incorrect claim that millions of lives are at risk. Once again, let those who suffer from allergies not eat things that aren't safe. Crazy, I know. Yes, yes, that's "degrading." What specifically is degrading about someone with allergies eating allergy-safe foods? What is the difference between a food labeled 'peanut allergy safe' and a food where the label lists everything in the food and used in the factory - other than that that first is clearer and easier to understand?
Why does he consider the gummy bear to be peanut free if he doesn't know what's in it? What kind of idiot says "I'll die if I eat some particular protein, and I don't know if it's in this food or not, so I'll eat it anyway"?
I have no idea what you mean by the lack of good alternatives. The good alternative is for allergy sufferers to deal with their allergies by not eating dangerous foods. There is no intrinsic human right to processed foods.
If the alternatives are more expensive, have you considered that there might be reason for that? Such as - it's hard to run a peanut-free factory? In which case your labeling law will do nothing to help the allergy sufferer. The foods you want to have labeled will turn out to be made in a non peanut free factory, in which case you won't be able to eat them - just as I suggested in the first place. Simply put, if the alternatives are expensive and hard to produce, what makes you expect that my candy bar, once you label it, would be safe? Far more likely, it would be unsafe, and they wouldn't eat it - just as they wouldn't eat it if it unlabeled. So, you haven't even articulated any better outcome from the perspective of the allergy sufferer to explain why you're walking around with guns, other than seemingly the idea that just societies come into existence when you threaten food producers.
Once again, I can produce a candy bar or not. If I don't, you can't eat the candy bar I didn't produce. If I do, and I don't label it, you can't eat it because you don't know what's in it. If I do label it, and the factory uses peanuts, you can't eat it. If the factory doesn't use peanuts, why wouldn't I want to label it "peanut free"? I wouldn't need to be forced to do that, it's a selling point. If I choose to shoot myself in the foot, I lose your business. Boo hoo - you're willing to live with the other cases where you can't have the candy bar, why not that one?
Your "depends" doesn't do much to convince me that you are not a sociopath. Perhaps in my subjective just society, we just imprison anyone who sounds like one.
Not everything which is in your factory needs to go on a label. But what should be done with you? You should be forced to recall your products. Then you can issue them again with new rappers.
Idk, it is just a made up person. Their specific beliefs were not central to my point anyways. I was only trying to show that violationg private property is only "aggression" for those that believe in it.
Regardless of the intent, it's still stealing and therefore wrong. First off I would say slavery is illegitimate since one human being cannot own another, so I'm not so sure this is the best example to use. However, the fact that the slave owner has aggressed against the slave by the nature of slavery does not make it legitimate for a 3rd party to aggress against the slave owner except arguably in relation to the slave owner's illegitimate actions, meaning it would be ok for the a 3rd party to free the slave by whatever means necessary since slavery is aggression but not for a 3rd party to steal food from the slave owner.
Well I disagree. I think it is legitemate. Do you see that this is just personal preference here? Although I do find your view on this somewhat disgusting.
If you are beating up a kid for no reason, I can legitimately stop you by using force, but I can't go to your house and steal food or a bandaid to give to the kid, especially if you continue to beat him up after I bandage or feed him. In your example, I understand that perhaps the slave is being malnourished or something, but giving him food doesn't rectify the crime committed against him. He's still a slave and thus a 3rd party stealing food from the slave owner to feed the slave in no way stops the slave owner from continuing to aggress against the slave by keeping him in slavery (sorry for so many uses of the word slave lol). I'm not saying I would personally feel bad for the slave owner if a 3rd party stole his food to feed his slaves, but it's not a legitimate act.
You are looking too much at principles and not enough at consequences. I could come up with a scenario where you don't believe something is "legitimate," yet not performing this action would result in catestophic consequences. Under such a scenario, you would be "biting the bullet" if you calimed it was actually wrong to perform such an action.
Yes, it does exclude people from walking on your land. Since this is the case, you believe it is not legitimate to walk on their land and save the child, right? So then the person rescuing the child is acting wrongly, correct?
You could make them all you want. You would just be prevented from distributing them.
What if I made a candy bar with poison in it and sold it on the market? What do you think should be done? On the ingredients it says "guess."
I am not going to go through this with you. It is not like there are allergy safe foods for all of the different food groups. What I don't understand is why someone could oppose required labeling since it is such a simple solution. You are too caught up in your ideology.
The gummy bear was not supposed to have peanut, but there were traces on it. He ate the gummy bears before and everything was fine. However, since the food was not labeled, the child never knew it was produced in a facility which makes peanuts. Had the child known this, he never would have eaten them to begin with. Again, labeling solves all of these problems, yet you are against it even though it is clearly beneficial because your ideology says it requires "aggression."
There is no intrinsic human right to anything, so that is a moot point. There are no good alternatives to any foods that aren't candy. People who are allergic to hazelnuts would have to fear death if they ate bread if there were no labels. There is no "allergy free bread," and so far the case has not been made that there would be adequate labeling in the absence of a government.
Idk if you knew this but not every food is made in a factory which produces peanuts. There are also foods like breads which appear to be safe to people with allergies but which actually arent. Without labels, they would not be able to distinguish the safe breads from the unsafe ones.
I look at it in a holistic perspective. If I do require labels, then people with allergies won't live in fear of death and they won't die as often. If I don't require them, there is no noticeable gain. If it were as simple as allowing 1 producer to make 1 candy bar without a label, that would not be so bad. But that is not the issue.
It depends. What if the candy bar makers knowingly put poison in their candy bars?
"Idk, it is just a made up person. Their specific beliefs were not central to my point anyways. I was only trying to show that violationg private property is only "aggression" for those that believe in it."
What if he didn't consider battery a form of aggression and then proceeded to assault someone? Would it not be aggression simply because he didn't think it is?
"Well I disagree. I think it is legitemate. Do you see that this is just personal preference here? Although I do find your view on this somewhat disgusting."
First, I just want to say we're having a discussion. I'm not calling your views disgusting and if you want clarification on my views because you think something sounds egregious then please just ask. I'm open to new ideas, like I said I am no expert in this. I'm merely laying out my thought process to the best of my ability.
To explain my example from earlier, the reason I don't see it as legitimate to steal from the slave owner to feed the slave is because the slave owner is guilty of a clearly illegitimate action, but the aggressive action taken by the 3rd party in no way undoes the aggressive action of the slave owner. Aggressive action can legitimately be used in self defense or in defense of an innocent 3rd party (that would be the 3rd party freeing the slave) but that's not exactly what's happening in this case. The slave is continuously be aggressed against by the fact that he is a slave. I'm not sure why it is disgusting to free him as opposed to feeding him and leaving him in slavery. If he's a slave, the legitimate action is to free him and to use force against the slave owner if necessary. I'm not saying I feel bad for the slave owner if he gets his food stolen; I'm saying that as a remedy for holding slaves this solution is inappropriate. It doesn't stop the aggression on the slave by the slave owner and it isn't really related to the slave owner's initiation and continuous use of force against the slave.
If A steals an item of B's everyday and B is powerless to stop A, it's not legitimate for a 3rd party to steal something that A rightfully does own (meaning an item that A hasn't stolen from B) and then give it to B. If anything is going to be taken from A, it would be ALL the items A stole from B, not something that didn't previously belong to B (The 3rd party preventing A from stealing in the future would also be legitimate). The same applies to the slave. The slave didn't have food stolen from him, he had his body stolen so to speak. Freeing him is the legitimate solution. Again, I'm not saying I feel bad for the slave owner if he gets his food stolen or that I feel bad for A if someone takes something that A legitimately acquired and gives it to B. I'm saying that these are inappropriate solutions to the aggressive actions taken by the slave owner and A.
If slavery is legal in this society, it doesn't change the analysis to me. The legitimate act is still to free the slave. Both acts (stealing to feed and freeing) will be illegal in this society. If it's a matter of practicality (the slave can't be freed for some reason) then I would argue that the legitimate act would be to make the slave as whole as possible (in some way compensating him by aggressing against his aggressor). In this case, if stealing food and feeding the slave is the only possible way of giving the slave some sort of restitution from his aggressor (the slave owner) I would say it's legitimate. In a society where slavery is illegal however, I can't see freeing the slave as being a huge practical issue as opposed to stealing to feed the slave. Freeing the slave would be legal so no one but the slave owner could try to stop you and chances are, plenty of people will be willing (obligated in the case of police) to help free the slave. But what is practical and what is theoretically legitimate are 2 different questions. My previous paragraphs are only addressing what the truly legitimate response is, setting aside issues of practicality.
One more thing to add. Going back to my A and B example, the point of aggressive action in self defense or in defense of innocents is to make the victim whole again. If A still has all of B's stolen possessions, then the legitimate response is for a 3rd party to take back those items and restore them to B. If A does not possess those items, then the issue becomes more complicated. The solution however lies in making B as whole as possible, to try to restore him and his property to their state before A aggressed.
So I guess as I've written this all out, I can say in some situations where freeing the slave is not possible, other acts aimed at making the slave whole again at the expense of the slave owner can be legitimate. I'm hoping we can find some common ground here. I hope I explained everything clearly but if you have questions feel free to ask.
"You are looking too much at principles and not enough at consequences. I could come up with a scenario where you don't believe something is "legitimate," yet not performing this action would result in catestophic consequences. Under such a scenario, you would be "biting the bullet" if you calimed it was actually wrong to perform such an action."
I'm interested to hear examples/scenarios and I'll do my best to address them.
"Yes, it does exclude people from walking on your land. Since this is the case, you believe it is not legitimate to walk on their land and save the child, right? So then the person rescuing the child is acting wrongly, correct?"
In every discussion I've seen about the homesteading principle (not as it may be applied historically, but the actual principle) this isn't the case. So long as one does not damage someone's property, I don't see how walking across land can be prohibited unless the owner homesteads it to be that way (building a fence for instance, clearly stating the intention is to keep people from walking on his land).
However, let's say no one is allowed to walk on your land. If the kid falls out of the tree and breaks his leg or something and is completely unable to move, then he is permanently stuck aggressing against the homeowner's property unless the homeowner either moves the kid, or let's someone move the kid. Presumably the home owner doesn't want the kid on his lawn as he sees this a a violation of his property rights. It's in the owner's interest to get the kid off his lawn and even to let someone walk onto his lawn to move him. In other words if he wants the kid off his lawn, he has to allow someone to come get him or he himself has to move the kid. If he doesn't care that people are on his lawn then there is no violation of property rights and thus no problem.
The reason I don't believe the homesteading principle prevents people from crossing owned land so long as they don't damage the property is precisely because they aren't actually damaging property. There is no actual trespass. Now in certain cases it can be very easy to damage property by walking across some owned plot of land (walking in a flower bed, bringing a dog that leaves a "present" somewhere, accidentally knocking something over, etc.), but that doesn't mean all cases of crossing owned land equal property violation. But hey, if I'm wrong point me to something that shows that I'm wrong. My experiences with the homesteading principle are mostly anecdotal so I'm not entirely sure.
Even if this is really an act of property rights violation, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.
I think two things would make this discussion easier: first, if I could figure out how to quote, second, if you'd respond to one person per post.
Ok, not everything made in my factory needs to go on my label. Then I don't know what you're on about. You started this discussion by saying that listing the ingredients is not enough. You've used examples premised on the need to know what else is made in my factory, such as your gummi bears made in the same factory as peanuts. If you don't require me to list the things used in my factory, you're not even achieving what you set out to achieve.
By the way, I used to keep kosher. There are many things that can render a product non-kosher that never appear on labels. For instance, if the machine was used for some other product that contained non-kosher ingredients, and cleaned, then this product was made in it, this product would be non-kosher but none of the ingredients would so indicate. So, what do kosher consumers do about processed products? They buy only those products labeled as kosher. If they choose not to do so, then they aren't keeping kosher. The kosher labels come from a number of private firms in the business of providing such certification, supervision, and so forth. They compete both on price and on reliability, and different consumers will rely on different labels. The more widely accepted labels cost more. Tell me, is it degrading to have to look for the kosher label? Shouldn't I be able to buy any processed food and if it's not kosher, the manufacturer should have to print why on the label? Then next, we have to do the same thing for halal, and every other dietary restriction. Instead of labeling foods gluten-free, you're insisting that we need to label everything that contains gluten as containing gluten, otherwise celiac sufferers are degraded somehow. Is that about right?
If the marginal cost of putting the information on packaging is low (which it is) then I don't see the problem. At the very worst, all that happens is that the government imposed outcome matches the market outcome. On the other hand, some firms might not want to put their ingredients on packaging, if they can use a cheaper input and charge the same price they will, government mandated packaging will allow consumers to make the most informed decisions when purchasing.
I'm distributing them anyway. What will you do about it? "Preventing from distributing" is as vague as the first requirement. The point I'm making is that just because you make a statement doesn't mean that statement is carried out. You need to make sure it's carried out. Here I am distributing my candy bars whose labels aren't up to your standards. What do you do now?
Yes, by all means don't "go through" explaining why your gun solution is the only solution. Makes sense. Why aren't there allergy-safe foods for different allergies? Suppose some allergy is very uncommon, so uncommon that there is no allergy-safe foods for it. Suppose also that the allergen is not an ingredient in my candy bar, but is also used in my factory. You've said that I don't have to list everything I use in my factory, so how do I know what I have to list and what I don't? At least listing everything would be a clear requirement. Seemingly, I should have to list all ingredients in the food, and all allergens used in the factory. But I'm a candy bar maker, not an allergist. I don't know what of the many things used in my factory is an allergen and what isn't. The government knows this, so presumably they have to provide a list telling me what I have to say. That is, if I use peanuts in the factory, I have to list that I use peanuts in the factory, and so on through other allergens. Now, will this particular uncommon allergen be on the list or not? Such a small group lacks much clout in Washington, and won't be able to do much lobbying, so it's unclear. If it is not on the list, then your policy hasn't helped this allergy sufferer at all. Why is it more likely that it will be on this list than that companies will serve the niche market so created?
Back to our gummi bear eater. Had he known it was made in a peanut-containing factory, he wouldn't have eaten it. Had he followed my advice, he wouldn't have eaten it. Same result either way. So what has your policy added here? How has it been of any help to him? The only thing that would help him would be to require that the factory actually not contain any peanuts, but you haven't suggested that. Your entire argument now seems to be that it's easier to look for "may contain peanuts" than to look for "peanut safe" and that somehow the latter is the degrading while the former is not. For this, it seems very disproportionate to invoke the power of law.
Really? There are no good alternatives to bread? How about this - not bread. Or homemade bread. Why is it so essential that hazelnut allergy sufferers eat store bought bread? You've said it's not because they have some intrinsic human right to it, so on what grounds do we need to make sure they are able to eat store bought bread? Now, whether or not the market would produce hazelnut safe bread depends on how many hazelnut allergy sufferers there are, but I'd expect also that your calculus as to when force should be used would rely on this too. If only one person had an allergy, wouldn't that provide less of a case for including that allergen than if millions did? Now, on to the numbers. Jews are 1% of the population. Orthodox Jews are 10% of that, so kosher products target .1% of the population. Not only are there companies doing this, but multiple companies competing, driving down their prices, and so on. Also, while keeping kosher is important to them, it is not fatal to eat non-kosher, so their loyalty is presumably less than that of allergy sufferers.
Now, you then go on to mention bread a second time, and to claim, as if we haven't been exchanging posts for some time, that peanut allergy sufferers cannot distinguish safe from unsafe bread. I've already said that there is a sensible response for them - they should eat only those breads labeled as not containing peanuts. You think they are degraded by doing so, which strikes me as absurdly silly, if I can even figure out what you're talking about. Yes, they may have to miss some breads which actually would have been safe. Of course, suppose I make such a bread. I actually have a peanut-free factory and so on. Why would I not want to label my bread as such? Do I simply not want their business? Did I not think of it? Then maybe you could make a quick phone call and let me know it would be a good idea, instead of threatening me. Regardless, maybe I just don't want their business. I say "I don't care that I'm losing money, there's no way I'm telling those allergy sufferers that my product is safe for them." So what? Why is this outcome, where the peanut allergic lose out on a delicious bread, worse than your outcome, where I lose out on controlling my own production decisions?
Your second to last paragraph is simply a choice to ignore everything that has been said. I've pointed out that if allergy sufferers have any brains (presumably yes) then your labeling requirement just lets them eat more foods, rather than preventing them from dying. If 1 producer with an unlabeled product is ok, how about two? Three?
Your last line, well, ok, but now you're playing a semantic game. You know full well the context I asked the question in - I was asking about shooting candy bar producers for not labeling their products, not some other case where they put poison in. In such a case, we'd call that "shooting poisoners" not shooting candy bar producers.
Some firms, as you say, might not want to put their ingredients on packaging because they can save money. Government mandated packaging will threaten to shoot them in the head for such a choice. Yes, you're right, no real difference in outcome.
If pointing guns at heads increases welfare, I'm all for it.
Whose welfare? Will someone bother articulating why the ability to eat a loaf of bread that would otherwise be questionable is more welfare-enhancing than the ability to make production decisions without being shot?
EconomistInTraining:If pointing guns at heads increases welfare, I'm all for it.
Sure, go look at all the work on asymmetric information problems.
EconomistInTraining:Sure, go look at all the work on asymmetric information problems.
Information asymmetry sounds like a job for an entrepreneur!
....or we could shoot people who don't do things the way we want when we want.
Insanity.
That's the point, entrepreneurs are maximising their utility to the detriment of society.
...Or we could let these people live.
Just so we're straight, shooting people who disagree with the Rothbardian conception of property rights is fine right?
"Just so we're straight, shooting people who disagree with the Rothbardian conception of property rights is fine right?"
No. If you mean to ask if it's ok to shoot people who violate Rothbardian property rights (assuming we live in a society that recognizes Rothbardian property rights), only if that is the proportionally appropriate response. If A kicks and breaks B's fence, B does not have the right to gun A down.
Well, likewise, the government doesn't just go gunning people do who disagree it's regulation.
Correct, you are free to disagree. However, you are not free to violate the regulation. Walk me through the scenario. I have made a candy bar without what you want to see on the label. We'll count the steps until the gun comes out.
By the way, I'm in the far minority here on this, but I don't consider deadly force to ever be proportional in response to property rights violations. That is, there no amount of refusing to give me back my wallet where I will say "ok, then you can use a gun or threaten with one." I only consider deadly force to be proportional in response to threats tp bodily integrity, and then rarely.