RE: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation

[Guest guest]

> RE: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation (was Adjudicating

>Pollution Disputes )

>

>

>

>Nor do I feel that forcing inspections on companies, and then of

>all things making them pay for it, is any different/better than

>the bad job the gov is doing right now.

<snip>

Giving forced-inspection

>authority to private business and forcing the inspected to pay up

>front is certainly not my idea of less government, in regard to

>any Libertarian or Constitutional principles that I'm aware of.

<snip>

>Your plan simply gives business the same abusive authority as

>gov, and still violates private property rights. It also assumes

>guilt and makes the accused pay to prove his innocence, BEFORE he

>has harmed anyone and AFTER his property has been invaded without

>his consent.

>

>

<snip>

Forced inspections not only

>violate constitutional property rights, they require legislated

>criminal codes for punishment, and agencies to deliver exact

>sentences and organize it all, etc - which of course encourages

>the same old corruption and pay-offs. You might WANT your local

>food producer to have this and do that and be all he can be, but

>you have no right to force your wants on him if he has not hurt

>you.

>

>

>

>-Mark

Mark,

never used the word " forced " nor did he imply " forced " inspections, at

least, not as I understood it. I understood him to be referring to

" voluntary " inspection (can correct me if I misunderstood). If you've

read his posts to this point, I'd imagine you'd notice that " forced "

inspection is contrary to just about everything he's written that's remotely

related to this subject.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>I inferred " force " from his following statements:

>> " However, we disagree on the relative importance that

>>pre-purchase inspection and certification would have. "

____

[Chris's reply]

How could you possibly conflate " importance " with " force " ?

____

>> " This simply requires an on-site pre-purchase inspection on a

>>daily basis. "

____

[Chris's reply]

I also stated that the producer would be motivated to pay for this herself.

I'm saying it's the nature of the work, and thus it would occur more often

than you were suggesting, much like cleaning the forms is required to get the

job done, but doesn't need a government regulation to motivate the producer

to do so.

_____

>> " Raw milk could be and is and should be inspected after

>>production for

>>bacteria content, etc, but if I want top-quality grass-fed raw

>>milk grown on good

>>soil, I want to know much more than that, including the

>>cleanliness of the

>>facilities, assurance that the product is raw, soil fertility

>>measures, quality

>>of pasture, etc. While some of these can be known to some degree

>>by visiting

>>the farm, I'd have much more confidence as a consumer in milk

>>that was

>>certified by a third party who did more detailed inspection on a

>>daily basis "

____

[Chris's reply]

Right, certified. Organic producers are not required to follow the organic

regulations, but simply are if they want to use the certification label.

This would be true regardless of whether they are certified by the government

or

a private producer, and in either case is voluntary. It's a matter of

contractual agreement that if you use a third party certification you must

submit

to their criteria, but engaging in that contract is a matter of voluntary

choice.

____

[Mark]

>I know that he did not use the word and I have misunderstood him

>before, but.that sounds like " force " . How would those inspections

>consistently happen without force? What would be the incentive

>for universal voluntary compliance? Chris? You there? God forbid

>we are in agreement again and I missed it.

____

[Chris's reply]

I stated that we were in agreement on the legal principles and just

disagreed on how common the market pressure would select for pre-purchase

inspection.

It would happen without force by consumers desiring products meeting certain

standards and defering to third parties willing to enforce those standards

on companies *willing* to submit to those standards in order to gain

certification. There will be no incentive to universal compliance and will be

no

universal compliance. There will be compliance of *some* businesses who want

to

sell increased volume if the majority of consumers have such concerns or who

want to increase their premium to a minority of consumers in a niche market

with such concerns, and I suspect that the market will reward those companies

that do, at least in certain industries.

Chris

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Suze Fisher [mailto:s.fisher22@...]

Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 12:29 PM

Subject: RE: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation

Mark,

never used the word " forced " nor did he imply " forced "

inspections, at

least, not as I understood it. I understood him to be referring

to

" voluntary " inspection (can correct me if I misunderstood).

If you've

read his posts to this point, I'd imagine you'd notice that

" forced "

inspection is contrary to just about everything he's written

that's remotely

related to this subject.

Suze Fisher

Suze,

I inferred " force " from his following statements:

" However, we disagree on the relative importance that

pre-purchase inspection and certification would have. "

" This simply requires an on-site pre-purchase inspection on a

daily basis. "

" Raw milk could be and is and should be inspected after

production for

bacteria content, etc, but if I want top-quality grass-fed raw

milk grown on good

soil, I want to know much more than that, including the

cleanliness of the

facilities, assurance that the product is raw, soil fertility

measures, quality

of pasture, etc. While some of these can be known to some degree

by visiting

the farm, I'd have much more confidence as a consumer in milk

that was

certified by a third party who did more detailed inspection on a

daily basis "

I know that he did not use the word and I have misunderstood him

before, but.that sounds like " force " . How would those inspections

consistently happen without force? What would be the incentive

for universal voluntary compliance? Chris? You there? God forbid

we are in agreement again and I missed it.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:23 PM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS Private Regulation

>I inferred " force " from his following statements:

>> " However, we disagree on the relative importance that

>>pre-purchase inspection and certification would have. "

____

[Chris's reply]

How could you possibly conflate " importance " with " force " ?

____

>> " This simply requires an on-site pre-purchase inspection on a

>>daily basis. "

____

[Chris's reply]

I also stated that the producer would be motivated to pay for

this herself.

I'm saying it's the nature of the work, and thus it would occur

more often

than you were suggesting, much like cleaning the forms is

required to get the

job done, but doesn't need a government regulation to motivate

the producer

to do so.

_____

>> " Raw milk could be and is and should be inspected after

>>production for

>>bacteria content, etc, but if I want top-quality grass-fed raw

>>milk grown on good

>>soil, I want to know much more than that, including the

>>cleanliness of the

>>facilities, assurance that the product is raw, soil fertility

>>measures, quality

>>of pasture, etc. While some of these can be known to some

degree

>>by visiting

>>the farm, I'd have much more confidence as a consumer in milk

>>that was

>>certified by a third party who did more detailed inspection on

a

>>daily basis "

____

[Chris's reply]

Right, certified. Organic producers are not required to follow

the organic

regulations, but simply are if they want to use the certification

label.

This would be true regardless of whether they are certified by

the government or

a private producer, and in either case is voluntary. It's a

matter of

contractual agreement that if you use a third party certification

you must submit

to their criteria, but engaging in that contract is a matter of

voluntary

choice.

____

[Mark]

>I know that he did not use the word and I have misunderstood

him

>before, but.that sounds like " force " . How would those

inspections

>consistently happen without force? What would be the incentive

>for universal voluntary compliance? Chris? You there? God

forbid

>we are in agreement again and I missed it.

____

[Chris's reply]

I stated that we were in agreement on the legal principles and

just

disagreed on how common the market pressure would select for

pre-purchase inspection.

It would happen without force by consumers desiring products

meeting certain

standards and defering to third parties willing to enforce those

standards

on companies *willing* to submit to those standards in order to

gain

certification. There will be no incentive to universal

compliance and will be no

universal compliance. There will be compliance of *some*

businesses who want to

sell increased volume if the majority of consumers have such

concerns or who

want to increase their premium to a minority of consumers in a

niche market

with such concerns, and I suspect that the market will reward

those companies

that do, at least in certain industries.

Chris

-----------------------

Very good. Seems all voluntary, consensual, contractual and

Libertarian enough for me. Thanks for re-wording.

-Mark