The Tenth Amendment Movement

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You were suggesting that the market will correct any inadequecies with food safety regulation.

What was the world's first food safety agency, and what government sponsored it?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

You'll need to fill in - work week is too busy for vague, leading questions.

Sinclair's The Jungle, does come to mind, however, as an example of the market in action when it comes to food.

[TomAiello 26]

The original food safety organizations were not government sponsored. The major one (which is still active today) was a private organization, generally run on a not-for-profit basis, which certified food as safe to eat. Even today, there are many people who view it's recommendations as "better" than those of the government agencies established to parallel it's task.

I say "generally" because it's tough to survey the entire multi-millenium history of the organization to see if it was operated for profit at any time.

Food safety is almost a poster child for non-government safety measures, enacted and maintained by private citizens and groups, despite their being a government maintained alternative that they are forced to pay for with their tax dollars.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

The original food safety organizations were not government sponsored. The major one (which is still active today) was a private organization, generally run on a not-for-profit basis, which certified food as safe to eat. Even today, there are many people who view it's recommendations as "better" than those of the government agencies established to parallel it's task.

I say "generally" because it's tough to survey the entire multi-millenium history of the organization to see if it was operated for profit at any time.

Food safety is almost a poster child for non-government safety measures, enacted and maintained by private citizens and groups, despite their being a government maintained alternative that they are forced to pay for with their tax dollars.

Both ancient Greece and Ancient Rome had food safety programs.

The first English food law regulating food safety, the Assize of Bread and Ale, was passed in 1202.

[billvon 2,998]

>The first English food law regulating food safety, the Assize of Bread and Ale,
>was passed in 1202.

I think he's going back a little further than that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The original food safety organizations were not government sponsored. The major one (which is still active today) was a private organization, generally run on a not-for-profit basis, which certified food as safe to eat. Even today, there are many people who view it's recommendations as "better" than those of the government agencies established to parallel it's task.

And so why does it not have a name in this post? Is this something related to kosher food certification?

In contrast to your optimism, I look to the deaths from the peanut company that knew they had contamination but didn't want to toss the product and lose the revenue. That was in this past year.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

>The first English food law regulating food safety, the Assize of Bread and Ale,
>was passed in 1202.

I think he's going back a little further than that.

OK there's the Bible, but Sumeria and Mesopotamia undoubtedly influenced that, and on the whole Id trust the FDA over the Biblical food injunctions.

Ancient Egyptian food laws also precede the Bible. “Royal Sealer of Wine” was an offical in the Pharoah's court.

And if it IS the Bible, then it was for all practical and legal purposes administered by the government of the Israelites, anyway.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I look to the deaths from the peanut company that knew they had contamination but didn't want to toss the product and lose the revenue. That was in this past year.

Wasn't that peanut company regulated by the federal government?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

OK there's the Bible, but Sumeria and Mesopotamia undoubtedly influenced that, and on the whole Id trust the FDA over the Biblical food injunctions..

I'll venture that following a "don't eat shitty meat" rule probably was a pretty effective proactive health measure Way, Way Back In the Day - and thereafter.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I look to the deaths from the peanut company that knew they had contamination but didn't want to toss the product and lose the revenue. That was in this past year.

Wasn't that peanut company regulated by the federal government?

Do you think it would have acted more ethically if they weren't?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You were suggesting that the market will correct any inadequecies with food safety regulation.

What was the world's first food safety agency, and what government sponsored it?

I'm not sure I would consider Jews an agency.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Food safety is almost a poster child for non-government safety measures, enacted and maintained by private citizens and groups, despite their being a government maintained alternative that they are forced to pay for with their tax dollars.

Can you provide any specific examples of that?

Food & product safety has repeatedly been shown to be the first casualty of relaxed regulatory policies. E.g., just off the top of my head: Are you familiar with thalidomide? How many thalidomide babies were there in the US? (versus Europe, which at the time had a private sector driven regulatory framework; it’s largely inverse now.)

E.g., Are you familiar with melamine in baby food and ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) in toothpaste & cough syrup (used because it's cheaper than non-toxic glycerin)? Ethylene glycol-contaminated cough syrup has likely killed hundreds to thousands in places like Bangladesh, Panama, & Haiti, where there are limited regulations & less governments. FDA regulations, inspections, and enforcement are critical to keeping melamine- and ethylene glycol contaminated products out of the US.

As the melamine poisonings of over 50,000 infants in Asia vividly illustrates, regulation without enforcement is not effective whether it be the US financial system or Chinese dairy system. [NB: also a vivid example of where Austrian School economic theory fails; it relies too much an underlying assumption that people will *not* behave deleteriously, i.e., not add cheap poison to products.]

As was discussed previously, the GA peanut company is an example private sector failing at food safty. FDA regulations were violated, but there were no consequences. New laws are not needed; the ones that exist need to be enforced, and hampering the individuals charged with enforcing the standards is ineffective. The business failed to self-regulate.

Do you know what is the leading international food safety organization?

The private sector is notoriously inefficient when it comes to safety. There are no inducements for it.

Business exists to make money. There's everything right with that. Ya don't go to a whore-house for instruction in nuclear physics & BASE jumping; don't ask the private sector to do something that is counter to its mission and outside its scope.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Ion01 2]

Thats why I live in oklahoma! Its about time we started actually using the constitution! See you at the tea party!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

There's virtually a rotating door between the highest levels of government and the highest levels of business, and the tentacles of government are all over the businesses. The guys who run the top end of the financial sector seem to rotate between wall street and DC, depending on which party is in the White House. When a democrat is president, the republican financiers are running wall street and the democrats are at the Treasury department. Elect a republican president, and they swap places.

Is that an indictment of government or an effective argument indicting business interests for having inherent conflicts of interest?

Seems to me, one can make the latter case more robustly than the former.

The vast majority of the folks who you note above are in political appointments. What you've written above is an argument for increased influence/power/oversight by federal civil servants & technocrats and for increasing the attractiveness and quality of the federal workforce.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Most of you will shake your heads at this suggestion, but lawyers actually do a good service of keepinmg people in line.

The government allowed the Pinto to be sold. Ford hoped to make money by keeping fuel tank unlined which made the Pinto susceptible to killing people in fiery immolation. If you make money via unsafe products attorneys will just go ahead and take it back.


On to the original post I hold out hope that more power would go to the states but that would require a change in the judiciary and in precedent. The Federalist wing just isn't there anymore except for Thomas.

The Tenth Amendment was srrong until FDR's court packing plan set into motion the dominance of the Commerce Clause. Barring an amendment, the 10th Amendment is the Detroit of the Constitution.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Most of you will shake your heads at this suggestion, but lawyers actually do a good service of keepinmg people in line.

Well, eventually.

First a corporation does something slimy to make an extra margin, hurting people. Their lawyers successfully eliminate any small outcry.

When too many get hurt, then the (good) class action lawyers step in and slap them back. My buddy has spent more of his life than he'd like to think about dealing with cell phone contracts.

And if these class action suits keep happening, the government then writes legislation to clarify the picture.

Of course, there are many perversions of this sequence. But in the overall, I vote that Lawrocket's statement is correct.

[billvon 2,998]

> If you make money via unsafe products attorneys will just go ahead and
> take it back.

Unless the company's lawyers prevent you from doing so.

Lawyers (like veterans, skydivers, christians, pretty much any group) have some great people and some scumbags in them. Unfortunately most people notice the scumbags more often than the good people. Lawyers have this problem to a greater degree than most other groups, because the incredible amount of money people pay lawyers to be assholes tends to encourage such behavior.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

> If you make money via unsafe products attorneys will just go ahead and
> take it back.

Unless the company's lawyers prevent you from doing so.

Lawyers (like veterans, skydivers, christians, pretty much any group) have some great people and some scumbags in them. Unfortunately most people notice the scumbags more often than the good people. Lawyers have this problem to a greater degree than most other groups, because the incredible amount of money people pay lawyers to be assholes tends to encourage such behavior.

Quote

the problem I have with lawyers is that they get paid regaurdless of the outcome. I feel they should be put on a payed by result pay. Most industries get paid by offering a product or service that has the desired result or the money is returned or the company replaces the product. there are alot of lawyers that collect alot of money but don't collect alot of results for the client.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Most of you will shake your heads at this suggestion, but lawyers actually do a good service of keepinmg people in line.

The government allowed the Pinto to be sold.

IIRC, the Ford Motor Company withheld the data it had on the Pinto gas tank from the govt., and the money men in Detroit ignored the recommendations of their own engineers because they estimated the liability payouts they'd have to make would be less than the cost of modifications. A perfect example of how corporations put the bottom line before safety.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[lawrocket 3]

This is somewhat of the tough paert, Bill. Having been involved in the (now getting distant) past, I concluded that I cannot in good conscience work in "consumer" tort law.

The most powerful people in our profession are pleintiffs' class action lawyers. There is such an incredible amount of money in it that there is a great deal of unethical behavior. The tale of Millberg Weiss is but an example. I met Bill Lerach almost 10 years ago and most knew that he was up to no good.

These attorneys can do a lot of good. They are like prosecutors - those who can do the best for society are those with the most potential to abuse.

Power tends to corrupt. In business, in law and in government. Mine can be an honorable profession. I don't think it will be regarded as such any time soon.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the problem I have with lawyers is that they get paid regaurdless of the outcome.

Wrong. Plaintiff's attorneys get paid based on a contingency fee basis - no recovery; no fee. A serious, complex medical malpractice or product liability injury case can easily cost upwards of $50,000 for a plaintiff's attorney's law firm to fund. If the case goes to trial and winds up with a defense verdict (which believe it or not does happen), that investment is gone, and the real-world chances of recovering even a fraction of it are virtually zero.

Quote

I feel they should be put on a payed by result pay.

A lawyer can no more guarantee the result of a trial than a doctor can guarantee the result of a medical procedure.

[billvon 2,998]

>the problem I have with lawyers is that they get paid regaurdless of the outcome.

1) Many don't

2) Paying for results is a problem. In which case will you more likely make more moral decisions?

-if you get paid for your time as long as you do a competent job
-if you don't get paid unless you win?

The people who don't get paid unless they will will stoop to any low to win.

>there are alot of lawyers that collect alot of money but don't collect alot of
>results for the client.

Agreed. And often we call that "justice."

[rushmc 23]

I had not heard of this before you posted it. But i think this tactic or process may be the best oportunity to take back the country from the fed gov and law making courts. A good first step anyway.

With that, I read this this morning. From Drudge

WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACKS RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

[VIDEO]

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Developing...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In another development, a resolution was introduced reaffirming the solemn belief that the Earth is, more or less, spherical. (It almost died in committee when one member wanted to attach an amendment declaring that all salt on the Earth originated with Lot's wife.)

Quote

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

From the Lessons of History Department: During the civil rights movement of the 1960's, that exact rhetoric was used by people bitterly opposed to Federal action to eliminate racial segregation in the South. Nice to know that some proud traditions never change.

[TomAiello 26]

Oh, thank goodness you've opened my eyes. Now I see the truth:

Anyone in favor of states rights must be a racist, and...

...anyone in favor of gun control must be a Nazi.



"'Those Guys' made a similar argument, so you must be one of them" is a pretty silly position.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com