- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If it is tainted or not is another matter entirely.
That is the point....
If it is tainted or not is another matter entirely.
Just not buying what you're selling.
That is the point....
Not really. My right to sell food is entirely different than some kind of right to poison people.
If you understood the way the food industry in the U.S. behaved, prior to regulation, you might be inclined to think in a different manner. Then again, given your contempt for reasoning beyond ideology... i'm not so sure.
FWIW
How many people need to die or be sick until the market can regulate itself?
We already had courts for that kind of thing.
Is that truly an efficient means of dealing with the problem of profiteering from cutting corners?
How many were sued for cyanide being purposely cut in their food?
It's sort of a Craigslist thing, a neighborhood social media site.I read the article once and didn't see anything about how she ended up getting caught directly. It did mention she posted her sale on "Nextdoor", whatever that is.
Exactly how ignorant does one have to be to not know that you need a permit to sell prepared food to the public?
Yes, really. You were an officer, you should know that ignorance of the law is seldom a defense.Really?
If you're going to do something like sell food to strangers, it's your obligation to know the laws.anyone who can read knows it is impossible for me, you, or anyone else to know all the laws.
1) If you're selling tamales via the Internet, you don't have to worry about the ACA.The 2,000 page Obamacare law immediately spawned 10,000 pages of regulations....
And yet, millions of Americans do successfully follow the relevant food safety laws. Go figure.And, regulators don't even need laws and votes and all that. They just write regulations and you pay the fine. Oh, there is an enabling law that says, "You have to follow all the regulations these dickheads write," but they know you can't.
Cars are not mortgaged.In my state, it was a felony, a felony, mind you, to remove mortgaged property from the state without written permission from the mortgage holder. Can you imagine taking your family on vacation, being stopped for parking on the side of the road so your little kid could pee into the sagebrush, and have a highway patrolman say, "Put your hands being your back. There's a felony warrant for your arrest for removing mortgaged property from your state. Your car is mortgaged and you don't have permission from the bank."
You do realize that the legislature fixing bad laws kinda undercuts your argument?My personal favorite was eavesdropping though. You're sitting in a bar and you hear the two guys in the booth behind you. One is asking the other guy to murder his wife for him. The booth is high and they can't see you so you slip out and call the police. They show up and slap the cuffs on your for felony eavesdropping. In all fairness, after two years of having eavesdropping a felony the state legislature quietly removed the law from the books.
Not at all. But that has nothing to do with "regulations." That's police departments abusing asset forfeiture, and legislatures ought to fix it by passing laws.When the cop seizes the $12,000 you have in your car to pay for a used tractor you want to buy they don't have to prove anything. They just keep your money. Sweet, isn't it.
Again, this slippery slope threat is purely fallacious.The regulator was wrong, should have contacted Ms. Cruz and told her the law, and those who applaud this regulation will live to regret it when they get their postcard.