Republicans Represent the People

[Znedrow4]

republicans have all the crazy christians so no thanks. i dont like democrats either though. pretty much screwed no matter which way we go. i guess thats the punk rocker in me

[reverendjeremiah]

republicans have all the crazy christians so no thanks. i dont like democrats either though. pretty much screwed no matter which way we go. i guess thats the punk rocker in me

Damn you Reverend Jeremiah's Anus for pointing that out

I told you

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

republicans have all the crazy christians so no thanks. i dont like democrats either though. pretty much screwed no matter which way we go. i guess thats the punk rocker in me

You're not wrong.

[theVOID]

Indeed they do. They do because the people paying them tell them to do so because they are bought and paid for. Their masters become the wealthy and powerful and not the people who elected them into office. That's not a result of the government's level of involvement in the economy. That's a result of someone wanting said politician to legislate favorably to the individuals who bought them.

So we agree on the effect but not the cause it seems.

People have been sold this Keynesian shit hook-line and sinker, because of this they vote for politicians who advocate the same principles that ultimately fuck them over. It's not a coincidence that the time that Keynesianism started into full swing was the same time that the wealth disparity started accelerating world wide, nor is it a coincidence that here in NZ we moved away from interventionist economics and the opportunities and motivations for corruption simultaneously decreased.

That amongst a great many other things to me suggests that it is more a problem of government power and naive public support for increased power that creates the opportunities for corruption, rather than corporate interests that push governments towards creating the conditions they want. If the later was the case why bother with general increased regulations at the same time? The increasing regulations come at the same time, suggesting that it is the overall types of powers the government has that provide opportunity, not corporations pushing from the base up for specifics, at least not to the same extent - They corrupt government and create a problem, the solution is seen as more regulation and bigger government which creates more opportunities for advantages that are exploited leading to even more problems the solution to which is seen as even more regulation and government - It's a toxic cycle, just like the Keynesian solution to debt is to borrow and spend - Neither make any sense.

Aaaand I'm going to have to stop you right here.
No.

I don't know if it's different in your country or not (I highly doubt it, but I don't honestly know) but that's now how this happens in most cases. If the government did not have the power to legislate the economy, then that's not going to stop people who want legislation of the economy from making exceptions.

You give the government that type of power and the amount of effort needed to create legislation that falls into that sphere is far greatly reduced. If the government did not have that sort of power over other people's productivity and consensual trade then passing a law to take advantage of it would be MUCH harder, it would stick out like a sore thumb - The legislation would not pass as easily, the opposition who complains about anything to seek election, and the media always looking for a good ride, would highlight the out of the ordinary giving people the opportunity to express outrage - When the legislation is seen as 'standard economic fare' however there isn't nearly as much interest.

You want to stop the special interests from getting favorable legislation as easily? That ^^^ is what you do.

It's happened in my country and given one of the threads you started about the ... I think it was some law that got passed that banned smoking in your country? It sounds like something we have in common. Don't pretend like CEOs are going to be perfect angels in a non-stop free market theVoid-Approved society because you're just being naive.

You think corporations pushed for the smoking laws? No. That is just our government being nanny state jerkoffs.

No I don't think CEOs or Markets are "perfect angels" as I've said countless times, I see CEO's as people perusing self interest and free markets as a system where they cannot get the taxpayer backed advantages that they want. Free markets, or more concisely, minimal-interventionist economics, does away entirely with the EXACT favorites and conditions that corporations want. Most of them simply will not break the law to get it, so they lobby governments, finance campaigns and pay people off to get intervention into the markets from on high all to suit themselves.

An interesting fact that supports my position is the significant lack of corporate support for Ron Paul, you would think that as a non-interventionist the corporations would be crawling all over him, because according to your confused analysis of the situation, he is exactly what they want. That is NOT the case, the average donations to Ron Paul's campaigns are $70 and 96% of donations are from individuals, that is absolutely dwarfed by the special interest support for the corporatists in the GOP and Dems.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52317.html

Government non-interferance in the economy gives these abusers at least equal opportunity for many of the abuses they already commit.

No it does not, the advantages they get through taxpayer funding completely dwarf the opportunities they would have in a free market.

Again, see the lack of support for the free market candidates from corporations and the correlation between Keynesianism and the wealth disparity. The evidence suggests the total opposite.

Yes. Thanks to small government anti-regulation pro-business interests that heavily de-regulated the market lowered taxes and funded a pair of illegal and expensive wars without paying for any of it in the budgets except by cutting popular social programs and forcing the government to intervene on a woman's uterus.

You haven't had deregulation! Small government isn't pro business either, it's anti-corporatism. Corporate welfare is "pro-business" and that is absolutely a big government Keynesian position, not a small government non-interventionist position.

Anti-abortion is more common amongst the right mostly because of the GOP, the Dems do marginally better on social liberties some of the time. Neither of them do good enough.

And anti-war is amongst the most common policies for libertarians, both the right-libertarians like Ron Paul and the left libertarians like Chomsky.

Oh right. Paper money. That's why my government is in debt.

*Facepalm*

Do you not get what Keynesianism is? It is a fully fledged economic theory, not just "fiat vs gold".

Paper money isn't exclusively Keynesian and to be honest it's a relatively insignificant position in principle, you could have a fiat system with a fiscally responsible government just fine - Gold has such a huge appeal right now because Keynesian economic policies are destroying the value of currency and bolstering inflation, the reserve banks are printing money to buy government treasuries and bonds so the US doesn't go flat broke and have a debt crisis - This is only escalating as countries like China and Japan drastically lower the number of Government bonds they are buying - The Fed now buys 70% of us Government debt - How do they afford that? By printing more money - What are the effects of that? Lower purchasing power and rising prices that raise the cost of living, the single biggest problem for the working class. Gold standards force fiscal responsibility because you can't just fire up the printing press to inflate your way out of interest payments - If there wasn't such reckless fiscal management you would see but a fraction of the current support for a gold standard.

Which is pointless when the wealthy and powerful can still buy a sledgehammer.

It's much much much harder to knock down the wall that it is to slip your buddy some $$$ so he can open the gate... At least when you're swinging the sledge passers by (the public) and the guy who wants to take the gate manager's job (the opposition) have a chance to do something about it.

I don't give a damn about how many rules there are as long as they're effective at what they do and enforced as such. More rules doesn't mean worse and fewer doesn't always mean better. I'm sure that's a fallacious logical arguement whose name I've forgotten.
Punishing people more harshly means diddly poop if wealthy people can continue to buy their way out of trouble. White collar crime in most countries is very difficult to prosecute in most cases and your system doesn't make easier to charge them appropriately to the crime they commit.
I'd settle for equal enforcement of the law as much as humanly possible.

That's because there are such vague lines between what is and is not legal! If it was just plain and simple "no force, fraud, coercion and negligence" then it would be one hell of a lot easier to prosecute people, you would still have to prove guilt, but that's just the price of a fair trial, the problem is a fucking ton of fraud, coercion and negligence is protected by law, part of these special conditions.

The "more rules" end up treating normal people, small and medium sized businesses and ethical corporations as criminals, THAT is my main concern with them. They also raise the cost of doing business which lowers the amount of money available for reinvestment, less jobs, stagnant wages etc.

Still, that's a nice opinion you have of regulation but given your confusion over what laws are and what regulations are, you seem to have your own idea as to what constitutes which that doesn't seem to follow the defintions and uses I've come across anytime I reference them.

Laws and regulations are the same fucking thing, we are talking about regulations/laws as they pertain to the economy, that is what is generally meant by "regulations". I have no confusion here, you have misunderstood me if you think that.

Still, thanks to my state and local water regulators, I can be quite certain I'll be drinking clean water tonight. Thanks to the FDA, I can be reasonably certain that these peanut butter M&Ms I'm eating now won't injure my health (anymore than peanut butter M&Ms normally would given the ingredients list that's there thanks to the FDA.)

Bullshit! Suppose there is no FDA tomorrow, do you think they're going to start making poisonous chocolates? And even if they did the absence of a regulatory body DOES NOT suddenly make fraud and negligence legal, someone selling you unsafe food under the guise of safety is breaking both of those conditions - You do not need an organization dedicated to being a watch dog in order to secure those basic obligations.

By the by, your link was quite amusing. So the FCC is a corrupt company, sure, thanks to the media conglomerates that 'purchased' it.
Your solution to this is... to eliminate the FCC I'm guessing? How wonderful. Now those media conglomerates don't need to corrupt a regulating body to do whatever mischief they intend to inflict upon us. Good work.

As long as they aren't being fraudulent or coercive then I don't give a shit what they do. You don't need to establish some massive government department for that to be illegal, you need laws against them both, a legal system and members of the public who can file lawsuits and class actions if they feel something has been breached - That's a damn site better than their having to approach a commission to deal with it who is already in the pockets of the companies who are supposed to be 'restrained' by it.

Strawman. Wasn't my arguement.

Were you not advocating health inspectors on the grounds that someone somewhere might be doing something negligent? How is that not treating the innocent like the guilty before they have the opportunity to do wrong?

You're damn right they do it anyway. Yet, you're promoting a system that makes it harder for them to do by removing the vast majority of the regulations and laws that prevent them from taking advantage of an unsuspecting public and robbing them blind with far fewer roadblocks to do so.

Here is the typical false use of the word 'stealing' or 'robbery' I suspect. How exactly are the Robbing the people?

My argument is that the same powers that result in regulations also give out the advantages and privileges, taxpayer funding etc to special interests as well as treating EVERYONE like a potential criminal because someone else somewhere else will do something wrong - that is ultimately WORSE than no powers at all - None of that disallows these organizations being prosecuted for committing a crime.

At least with a regulating government, fire can be fought with fire and even with all this talk about how bad my government is doing, all of the industrialized nations on this planet are at least as regulated and are doing anywhere from worse to far better.

You have the most corrupt government in the western world and it's getting worse, even though you are becoming more and more regulated. What you need is NOT more regulations, but cracking down on and more thoroughly punishing people who break the ones you already have. Send a message that people fuck with society get imprisoned or shut down, not that they'll get more red tape to dodge.

You're naive in the sense that you believe that less regulation means these corrupting companies, CEOs, and other powerful people are going be regulated by market forces they can control and a government with no power to tell them what they can or cannot do with their product or their money (other than, I assume taxes.)

Not "regulated", just forced to play by the same rules as everyone else and are open to punishment if they do not. In the free markets if they use the same tactics that they use on the government to get an advantage they don't just get to pass a law and call it legal, avoiding all responsibilities for their actions and taking a bit fat chunk of taxpayer cash while they're at it.

I'd hate to see the news report on how many got sick, injured, or killed as a result of that.

Depends how many business owners want to go to jail or get shut down doesn't it? It would be fuck all more at best, and the consequences for those that would do wrong are much worse while at the same time the ethical businesses aren't forced to suffer for it and the taxpayers aren't forced to fund it. It's exactly like saying "we could prevent domestic crime If we sent someone around to homes on a regular basis" and that probably would be true, but it's not worth 1. Sacrificing the freedoms of the innocent couples 2. treating people like potential criminals by default 3. using taxpayer funds to finance it.

You need a "big expensive government department" to make sure they comply and enforce the rules that they may break. Being fined/shut down/imprisoned is a result of enforcement of regulations that would be gone under your system, assuming the individuals enforcing those laws aren't also removed due to them only existing as a 'big expensive government department."

The police are not regulators! And you would need no more laws than those that apply to EVERY interaction between parties, those of not using Force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities. If you can't see how that is more effective that having regulations like "This must be stored like x and this like y and you must wear these gloves when doing z" and paying an entire government department to go and investigate every one of these needless stipulations then your a lost cause.

It is not enforcing what are otherwise specific market regulations, it is enforcing the essential rights people have in transactions of all types, the right to be free from force, to not be lied to, to not be mislead and manipulated and to not have the consented terms violated. One set of rules for everyone, not a million rules for a million different situations.

It's not a strawman at all. You just don't appear to understand the results of the kind of society based on your own ideas on how governments should be run or even the role of regulations in society.

Yes it was a straw man.

You do not need a myriad of tiny bullshit nitpicking regulations, you need a consistent and consent focused approach.

Yes, if they "neglect their responsibilities" then they will get prosecuted for doing so.

Which is a problem why?

But what dictates those responsibilites?

The people who consent to the agreement. If I agree to buy food from you under the pretense that it is safe to eat then you have the responsibility to live up to that agreement. If I agree to work for you under the pretense that I will be free from physical harm then you have the responsibility to live up to that agreement. If I agree to work for you then I obtain certain responsibilities too, like turning up on time, doing my job properly etc.

Who enforces them?

the police and courts

At what point is what they're doing even considered a crime?

Agreeing to terms with somebody and then failing to live up to those responsibilities is the crime.

We're going around in circles here, so let's just cut it for now and move on to the next round.

[Violet]

State education=/= private education.

How do you get from "States have more control" to "less people are educated" - That seems like a complete non-sequitur.

It's easier and cheaper to control the uneducated (ie: religion can do a pretty good job).

Teaching creationism would still be unconstitutional no? Allowing states to set standards within the legal sphere, have more control over spending, more control for teachers, parents and communities wouldn't change that, what it would do is make spending more transparent, more cost effective and give parents, teachers etc more say in what goes on.

My feelings on the constitution prevent me from responding to this without venom and disgust associated with its existence and the reverence of people towards what I see as a piece of paper.

Why should your government get to dictate beliefs to everyone else, be they right or wrong? And even if you wanted a single government mandate such as "you must teach what is currently espoused by the consensus of experts in the relevant field to get funding" there would be no other reason to usurp power.

Your government has more power than you? It gets to declare what is a correct belief. You are in no position to deny them this should they do so.

Regulated Capitalism = Interfering in the consensual trade of adults = Opportunities and motivations for corruption = Corporate welfare = Tainted markets = debt.

Irregulated capitalism = zero interference in trade (slave trade is open as it is not restricted) = a dog-eat-dog world of little opportunity for many and built upon the concept of corruption = Mercantile government = Monopolies out the wazzoo = profit for a few at the expense of almost everyone else.

---

Typical asshole... no choice other than shit.

I choose penis?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

So we agree on the effect but not the cause it seems.

I would say that we appear to agree on quite a bit and perhaps more than our discussions let on.
We agree on the problem and who is ultimately at fault.
We appear to disagree on the particular whys and what ultimately needs to change to improve the situation.

My solutions tend to involve a direct approach using the existing system whereas yours appear to involve radically altering the system.
Where we seem to argue is that you seem to think your system will be an improvement whereas my points of contention is that your system either doesn't change anything or it makes things worse.

People have been sold this Keynesian shit hook-line and sinker, because of this they vote for politicians who advocate the same principles that ultimately fuck them over. It's not a coincidence that the time that Keynesianism started into full swing was the same time that the wealth disparity started accelerating world wide, nor is it a coincidence that here in NZ we moved away from interventionist economics and the opportunities and motivations for corruption simultaneously decreased.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. This is why many people believe that prayer works, but I'm not being entirely fair when I say that.
But you're not being enitrely fair either. It's easy to point and state that the economic system the US is using is failing when the US is doing poorly when we've been using the same system for over a century - during which we went from being a nation that was barely holding together to a superpower and now we're in an economic recession and this story holds true for other countries around the planet.

To me, it just sounds like you and other economists with a vested interest against the "Keynesianism" system are using the current financial problems of the most powerful nations on the planet to promote a system that hasn't proven itself to be better or worse than the other.
I'll use an analogy -
It's like if a submarine was torpedoed and caused a major leak on the sub. "John" says that this sub is going down because it uses diamondium armor plating but if the sub used Diamondillium, it wouldn't have suffered the blow at all. When, in fact, it was just as likely that the people who constructed the sub just took shortcuts and it had become structurally unsound anyway. Furthermore, even if Diamondillum were used, it would just take a different kind of torpedo to bring down the sub anyway.
This is what your arguement sounds like to me.
It sounds like you're arguing that diamondillium is a major improvement over diamondium when I'm arguing that they're both terrible and that the sub is sinking because the crew is incompetant and that there are flaws in the sub's structure.

You give the government that type of power and the amount of effort needed to create legislation that falls into that sphere is far greatly reduced. If the government did not have that sort of power over other people's productivity and consensual trade then passing a law to take advantage of it would be MUCH harder, it would stick out like a sore thumb - The legislation would not pass as easily, the opposition who complains about anything to seek election, and the media always looking for a good ride, would highlight the out of the ordinary giving people the opportunity to express outrage - When the legislation is seen as 'standard economic fare' however there isn't nearly as much interest.

You want to stop the special interests from getting favorable legislation as easily? That ^^^ is what you do.

And your system either elimintes all stops to that kind of power or the corrupting forces find another use for said government or they make laws that even go against the government's founding principles. You KNOW that people have done this before on both the small scale and large scale.
My own government gives tax breaks to churches despite the fact that our very constitution forbids favoring one religion over another and I'm sure there are examples from yours.
You also know very well how much harder it is to prosecute white collar crimes in any country and, at the very least, your system does nothing to realistically improve this beyond what a regulated capitalist system would feasibly do.
Further, with your system, I see a system in place that can only repair damage already done and will have an extraordinarily difficult time making companies behave when they have so many more opportunities to mistreat the public. Especially if they're powerful enough to control the courts and essentially just write off bribes, jury intimidation, a team of high-priced lawyers, and purchased politicians as cost-of-living expensives that can be far cheaper than bothering to keep their products in check, their working conditions safe, or ever bother to dispose of hazardous waste properly.

It's hard enough to do even in a regulated economy when the public is soundly against a certain company even being around, let alone if they're releasing a harmful chemical in the local water supply that WOULD normally go through a government inspection agency (the EPA comes to mind) EPECIALLY if the chemical hasn't been proven to be harmful yet. Moreso if said company has a vested interest in making that chemical appear to be harmless - like what the tobacco companies did for cigarettes.

Ultimately, not a damn thing gets done.

You think corporations pushed for the smoking laws? No. That is just our government being nanny state jerkoffs.

I completely agree with you. I think smoking should be regulated in the sense of it being a 'public health concern' given that one smoker is essentially forcing people around him to smoke as well against their will. I would be for banning smoking in public buildings and putting warning labels on the packaging of cigarettes, but any more than that would be telling people what to do.

An interesting fact that supports my position is the significant lack of corporate support for Ron Paul, you would think that as a non-interventionist the corporations would be crawling all over him, because according to your confused analysis of the situation, he is exactly what they want. That is NOT the case, the average donations to Ron Paul's campaigns are $70 and 96% of donations are from individuals, that is absolutely dwarfed by the special interest support for the corporatists in the GOP and Dems.

And this is why I respect Ron Paul. As I've said elsewhere, I disagree with him on a number of issues but he's one of the few people attempting to get elected in the GOP who has any integrity and given EVERYONE ELSE in the GOP, that's saying a lot.
I don't see how corperate support (or rather the lack of support) helps your arguement. Republicans typically fight for the wealthiest americans. Ron Paul fights for smaller government that should get out of the economic system entirely.
Peopel who aren't wealthy, as far as how I see things, still get the short end of the stick either way.

You haven't had deregulation!

YES WE DID! It was one of the major things Bush did early in his presidency is lax the regulations (and enforcement of regulations) on many of the companies who had him in their pocket - including banks, oil companies (especially haliburton) as well as defense contractors and probably more than I care to recount.

Oh right. Paper money. That's why my government is in debt.

*Facepalm*

Do you not get what Keynesianism is? It is a fully fledged economic theory, not just "fiat vs gold".

Paper money isn't exclusively Keynesian and to be honest it's a relatively insignificant position in principle, you could have a fiat system with a fiscally responsible government just fine - Gold has such a huge appeal right now because Keynesian economic policies are destroying the value of currency and bolstering inflation, the reserve banks are printing money to buy government treasuries and bonds so the US doesn't go flat broke and have a debt crisis - This is only escalating as countries like China and Japan drastically lower the number of Government bonds they are buying - The Fed now buys 70% of us Government debt - How do they afford that? By printing more money - What are the effects of that? Lower purchasing power and rising prices that raise the cost of living, the single biggest problem for the working class. Gold standards force fiscal responsibility because you can't just fire up the printing press to inflate your way out of interest payments - If there wasn't such reckless fiscal management you would see but a fraction of the current support for a gold standard.

I understand that.
I also understand that there are ways to artificially inflate the value of raw materials. Oil companies have done this a number of times in recent years and I'm sure there are other methods to cheat this system as well. Failing all of that, lie about the amount of gold you have for spending.
You can easily replicate the same problems through one method or another given the time and opportunity.

It's much much much harder to knock down the wall that it is to slip your buddy some $$$ so he can open the gate... At least when you're swinging the sledge passers by (the public) and the guy who wants to take the gate manager's job (the opposition) have a chance to do something about it.

People have a chance to do something about it now and just as many chances to fix it.
The only difference is there is a wall instead of a gate. The rich ones are still breaking the rules and crossing the wall.

Bullshit! Suppose there is no FDA tomorrow, do you think they're going to start making poisonous chocolates? And even if they did the absence of a regulatory body DOES NOT suddenly make fraud and negligence legal, someone selling you unsafe food under the guise of safety is breaking both of those conditions - You do not need an organization dedicated to being a watch dog in order to secure those basic obligations.

Not immediately, no, thanks to their previous influences.
Not going to stop a lot of people from getting sick and/or killed and assuming the leaders in this company get anything other than a slap on the wrist (because they're a large chocolate company that can afford a team of high priced lawyers).
Now think about what the healthcare industry is doing now to people who get sick and require expensive treatments and thus promptly dropped from coverage. How many people need to die from their neglect before someone does something (assuming that their contracts are worded in such a way that means that their neglect isnt' neglect legally - yes, they have done this also.)

You're damn right they do it anyway. Yet, you're promoting a system that makes it harder for them to do by removing the vast majority of the regulations and laws that prevent them from taking advantage of an unsuspecting public and robbing them blind with far fewer roadblocks to do so.

Here is the typical false use of the word 'stealing' or 'robbery' I suspect. How exactly are the Robbing the people?

Take your pick from the litany of the worst companies that ever existed.
The comopany from the Erin Brockovich movie is a classic example of this, but now imagine that there arent' any EPA regulations for them to break.

My argument is that the same powers that result in regulations also give out the advantages and privileges, taxpayer funding etc to special interests as well as treating EVERYONE like a potential criminal because someone else somewhere else will do something wrong - that is ultimately WORSE than no powers at all - None of that disallows these organizations being prosecuted for committing a crime.

I'm fine with a health inspector going around making sure there isn't rat feces in the food I eat.
I'm fine being checked at the airport (at least I was before the TSA got body scanners and started molesting all passengers).
Yes, this means I and said restraunt 'gets treated like a criminal' assuming that having to pass through a metal detector or having a guy go through a checklist to make sure that the restraunt I eat at is safe and sanitary for people to eat there. These things happen because lawsuits are expensive, lives could be seriously affected (or ended entirely), and TONS of money lost just from lost, damaged, or destroyed property as a result of the worst that could happen. All of this, of course, could have been prevented completely by just paying a guy to go around and check restraunts and another guy to check passengers for a fraction of the cost in lives, money, and property.
Yes, it probably makes the restraunt feel bad and I certainly wish I didnt' have to deal with airport security at all, but I put up with it because I like to not get sick from eating at my favorite restraunt and I'd like to make it from one city to another without a terrorist blowing me up in the interim.

... and you're telling me that it's *better* to eliminate the regulations for food safety and the laws forcing airline companies to work with the TSA because they can be prosecuted afterwords?
Absolutely not.

You have the most corrupt government in the western world and it's getting worse, even though you are becoming more and more regulated. What you need is NOT more regulations, but cracking down on and more thoroughly punishing people who break the ones you already have. Send a message that people fuck with society get imprisoned or shut down, not that they'll get more red tape to dodge.

Most corrupt compared to what? Cuba? Mexico?
You can't even connect the corruption we have to the problems you say is the cause of our problems, let alone that we're "the most corrupt in th western world." Bull.

Not "regulated", just forced to play by the same rules as everyone else and are open to punishment if they do not. In the free markets if they use the same tactics that they use on the government to get an advantage they don't just get to pass a law and call it legal, avoiding all responsibilities for their actions and taking a bit fat chunk of taxpayer cash while they're at it.

Yes it would. Then it just goes back to who has the most money.
That person or persons win. Society Fail.

You do not need a myriad of tiny bullshit nitpicking regulations, you need a consistent and consent focused approach.

Which regulations have and continue to prove effective at doing.

We're going around in circles here, so let's just cut it for now and move on to the next round.

I think there's still a few more points we can cover - I think it just seems that way because our statement-by-statement posting styles tend to invovle making repetative points.
I'll attempt to be more concise, but if things don't improve, then we can move onto other topics later, I'm sure.

[Violet]

My solutions tend to involve a direct approach using the existing system whereas yours appear to involve radically altering the system.
Where we seem to argue is that you seem to think your system will be an improvement whereas my points of contention is that your system either doesn't change anything or it makes things worse.

My solutions also involve a direct approach. However, they also include 'radically altering the system'.

Does that mean I haz the middle ground? XD

[Minimalist]

[Ubermensch]

The lack of intervention also prevents something like the local health inspectors (a tax-paid government employee) from enforcing those pesky regulations against selling unsafe food in an unsafe environment.

We should punish them when they do something wrong, not BEFORE.

This a GOVERNMENT employee telling a small BUSINESS that they CANNOT make their CONSENTUAL trades to WILLING customers because they do not meet FEDERAL REGULATORY STANDARDS on what constitutes safe food.

Safe food is food that does not make people sick. When you purchase food you do so under the promise that it won't make you sick - If a company does not comply then they are fined/shut down/imprisoned. You DO NOT need a big expensive government department to make that perfectly clear.

Health inspection isn't a pass/fail kind of deal. It's actually a grading system, so it actually incentivises businesses. An establisment with an A+++ health rating is going to be more appealing to consumers than one with a D-, you dig? And yes, we should be checking these organisations regularly, they handle and prepare people's fucking FOOD. All the time! Strangers! I'd want to know that they are being held to AT LEAST minimum standards of quality and cleanliness! So that I can eat there with some degree of confidence that I am not going to get some sort of parasite that will eat my stomach lining! Prevention is better than cure and if that means we have to hold all food establishments to certain standards of safe practise then so fucking be it! I'm willing to pay a little bit extra in taxes in order to make sure I'm not going to be firing out both ends after I go to a restaurant, or even a fast food joint.

[Tiberius]

Health inspection isn't a pass/fail kind of deal. It's actually a grading system, so it actually incentivises businesses. An establisment with an A+++ health rating is going to be more appealing to consumers than one with a D-, you dig? And yes, we should be checking these organisations regularly, they handle and prepare people's fucking FOOD. All the time! Strangers! I'd want to know that they are being held to AT LEAST minimum standards of quality and cleanliness! So that I can eat there with some degree of confidence that I am not going to get some sort of parasite that will eat my stomach lining! Prevention is better than cure and if that means we have to hold all food establishments to certain standards of safe practise then so fucking be it! I'm willing to pay a little bit extra in taxes in order to make sure I'm not going to be firing out both ends after I go to a restaurant, or even a fast food joint.

1) How many times (be honest now) do you check a restaurant's health inspection results before eating there?

2) Even a restaurant achieving the maximum score on a health inspection does not mean it is safe to eat there. It means that at one point in time (i.e. the inspection), it was preparing foods according to a certain standard of care and cleanliness. It doesn't mean they are still doing it.