
Everything I want to do is Illegal - smanek
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm
======
KirinDave
His point about how ridiculously unfair the current system can be is well
taken, and it's very frustrating. But, the paternalistic state exists because
people cry out for it. There are efforts to ban completely ridiculous
offenses, like your pants (url,
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/17/baggy.pants.ap/index.html> )"There should be
a law preventing that." When it comes to things like medicine, the current
overbearing system seems necessary because people at large seem nearly
incapable of rejecting obviously false medical treatments ("smart" water,
echinacea, magnet therapy, colon cleansing, Kinoki foot pads).

And the other problem... Having faith that people will do "the right thing?"
People often don't, especially when it comes to even slightly complex things.
Homeopathic remedies are a massive industry, but they've been definitively
shown over and over to have no discernible effect. Religious cults still
flourish in every civilized nation, despite their policy of taking everything
from their members and leaving them as broken, one-dimensional caricatures.
Chemical and drug abuse (as opposed to recreational use) is rampant, and our
laws cannot differentiate between the two. People even deny proven science
because they don't like the implications, stifling scientific progress that
could help sick and dying people.

It's not a new dilemma, but it's getting more complex and urgent as our
population grows. On the one hand, some people make the world better. On the
other? Some people make it worse, sometimes simply through their ignorance.
Distinguishing between them and giving the helpers the latitude to improve
without giving the destructive forces latitude to destroy is the fundamental
dilemma of any society.

~~~
smanek
I don't expect people to do the 'right thing.' For starters, because we don't
know what the 'right thing' is.

Look at it this way: 99% of everything men have ever know has been wrong. All
scientific theories (except the current ones) have been proven wrong. And, at
every point in history, men who thought the current theories were wrong were
labeled heretics or morons. There were men who wouldn't let themselves be
'bled' 200 years ago and men who won't undergo chemo today. And that is their
choice.

I think a lot of people make stupid choices, but if it only harms themselves,
I say let them. Hell, I would have thought some of Bill Gates' decisions early
in Microsoft's history were wrong, but that goes to show what I know.

Every person should be allowed to make their own decisions (and live with the
consequences of thereof).

If someone believes in homeopathy or the new age panacea du jour over real
medicine, let them. If they die because they made the wrong choice, it's a
shame, but at least they died free men.

~~~
KirinDave
But many of these choices lead to things which are destructive to others. For
example, lots of people are resisting vaccination despite overwhelming
scientific evidence that there is no link between autism and vaccination.
These people let their children rely on the herd immunity of the first world.

If everyone followed this strategy, many people would die as a consequence of
even a relatively small segment of the population's choice. At some point,
your freedom ends and another's begins. Drawing that line is really hard,
especially when some people are frantically trying to give it up and others
are frantically taking it for personal gain.

Of course, not all cases are equal.

~~~
smanek
Not true. Wouldn't people who chose to get vaccinated live, and those who
don't would die?

That sounds like the tragedy of the commons.

~~~
KirinDave
Many vaccines sadly aren't 100% effective. The reason they work so well is
because if _everyone_ is vaccinated the immunities of the group reduce
exposure to the group, a kind of self-reinforcement.

And the more a vaccinated person is exposed to a disease, the more
permutations of that disease get thrown at the vaccinated population. If one
takes, then we have the whole problem of the disease all over again. One
consequence of the short life of bacteria and the mutation of viruses is that
they're basically brute-forcing our immunities of every population they're in
contact with.

This is why it's _so important_ that people follow vaccination programs.
Eventually we'll have to deal with new diseases, but if we aggressively and
correctly vaccinate, we can stave off that day for a lot longer than if we
half-ass it.

~~~
Andys
Sounds good in theory. In practice, there have been disease outbreaks in
communities with 100% vaccination rates against that disease. Most vaccines
don't even cover all the known strains, forget the new mutations.

IMO, vaccination is no replacement for promoting a strong natural immunity and
preventative medicine. Both of which are virtually thrown out the window in
modern medicine.

~~~
KirinDave
I'm for any medicine that can be proven to work through the techniques
espoused by modern medical science. If you can prove it works in a placebo-
controlled double-(or dare-i-dream-triple?)-blind study, then I'm all for it.

Anything less means "controlled study needed."

------
ssanders82
His argument has good points, but would be a lot more convincing if presented
in a less vitriolic tone. As Sgt. Friday would say "Just the facts, ma'am."

This particular situation sounds like overkill, but there are reasons we have
laws concerning who can produce and sell food, and how homes must be
constructed to basic safety standards. And yes, if you sell products to
consumers you have to pay sales taxes.

~~~
smanek
I don't belive that products should necessarily be held to any standard.
Consumers should be informed about the safety of their product (known unsafe,
unknown, certified safe, etc) and be allowed to make their own decisions.

Frankly, I think that I'm better at evaluating how much risk is acceptable to
me than some government bureaucrat in Washington.

If a contractor offers to sell me a 800 square foot house, and I agree to buy
it (knowing full well that it hasn't been certified and is smaller than
legally required), how is that anyone's business but my own? I should be
allowed to make my own decisions and live with the consequences of my own
actions.

~~~
Alex3917
>Frankly, I think that I'm better at evaluating how much risk is acceptable to
me than some government bureaucrat in Washington.

Then you would love living in China. I guess going to a restaurant or grocery
store where much of the food contains various poisons wouldn't bother you,
since you're able to tell the difference.

~~~
mechanical_fish
I was going to say: Relaxing the food regulations isn't some kind of brilliant
new idea. It's been tried before, and in some countries it's still being
tried. If the Chinese cat food stories from _last year_ aren't scary enough
for you, try reading Sinclair's _The Jungle_... or the slaughterhouse chapter
of _Fast Food Nation_.

~~~
astine
Sure, but you do realize that "The Jungle" was a deliberate load of muckraking
bull? The whole book was about poor working conditions in American factories
and to drive the point home, Sinclair described a guy falling into the lard
vats and getting eaten. There was no truth to the health claims but the
concept of eating people freaked out European importers so much that the US
was forced to create FDA (Or its predecessor, I don't remember precisely.) The
first reports found no evidence of Sinclair's claims.

The ironic thing is that Sinclair was hoping to spark a socialist revolution
and improve the lives of the slaughterhouse workers. What happened was that
the inspection agencies added to cost to the production process and actually
lowered the standard of living for the workers.

~~~
apu
[Citation Needed]

~~~
mhb
To refute a work of fiction?

~~~
mechanical_fish
A work of fiction that is nonetheless far more credible than this sentence:

 _There was no truth to the health claims..._

From the Wikipedia entry on _The Jungle_ :

 _After much persuasion from Sinclair as to the seriousness of the situation,
Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. The men the
president chose, Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds, had both done
investigative work for Roosevelt before, and were thought trustworthy...

Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the
conditions Neill and Reynolds observed were described as "revolting;" the only
claim left unsubstantiated by the report was the sensational claim that
workers who had fallen into the giant lard vats were left and sold as lard._

Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an unimpeachable source. But it's better than _one_
guy's unsourced opinion.

I note for the record that, confronted with a historical example from _last
year_ , a contemporary work of nonfiction ( _Fast Food Nation_ ), and a work
of muckraking fiction from 1906, we've now become curiously focused on
debunking a single famous legend from the 1906 work. Because, of course, if
Sinclair stretched a fact here and there out of revolutionary fervor,
adulterated cat food must be perfectly good for cats.

~~~
astine
I don't know anything about "Fast Food Nation." I do know a little about Upton
Sinclair. I can only argue with what I know.

Edit: You are right, it does seem that Wikipedia with some of my claims, but
backs up the my points about the real focus and Sinclair's novel and it's real
impact.

Either way, I prefer transparency to regulation.

------
strick
If you'd like to learn more about the issues in this essay, I recommend The
Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Pollan spends a good chunk of the book
using Salatin's Polyface Farm as an example of sustainable agriculture.

Disclaimer: I've just joined the Arlington buyer's club for Polyface Farm and
have been very happy with their meat and eggs.

~~~
pchivers
+1 for the recommendation of _The Omnivore's Dilemma_. It's one of the best
books about food and nutrition that I've ever read.

------
Diogenes
The problem, my friends, is the legislators. More spefically, lawyers as
legislators. Think about that (in the context of many of the other good points
here), and realize that there is an inherent conflict of interest having
members of a self-regulating professional class (lawyers and the Bar) writing
the very laws that only they can administer.

Never vote for any lawyer running for any legislative body.

------
icey
The author of this paper (Joe Salatin) runs Polyface farms. Recently, they've
been in the news for helping Chipotle figure out how to source local pork
products for all of their stores. If you live in the Northeast, you can eat
some of his pork by going there.

------
TrevorJ
Great submission. As the grandson of a lifeling farmer, I have one thing to
say to America: we better do a much better job of protecting the ones who out
food on our tables because right now we aren't.

------
peteg
If you found this interesting I would highly suggest his recently released
book by the same name. It goes into depth explaining a lot of things more.

A big point in his book that is getting missed here is this: our food
regulation system doesn't really make us safer, it just gives us the feeling
and appearance of that. What farmers like Salatin offer is true transparency
and food safety, the kind government regulated food will never be able to
provide. He just wants to be free to provide truly health building food.

------
DmitriLebedev
Can anyone explain what's meant by "o" and "u" word? Googled, but found no
explanation.

~~~
joshwa
O = Organic U = ???

~~~
jcl
Presumably, U = typo for O

------
hobbs
This is the top "Hacker News"?

~~~
gills
Why would this be less than relevant to Hacker News? Put the metaphor in a
context you care about.

Right now: Are you allowed to hack code in your living room? Can your buddies
come over and help you out? Can you host your business on a server in your
garage? Can you use Lisp? Can you build a mashup and earn revenue from widgets
other people produce?

What if government regulations told you this: * All code must be written in
government-certified office space. * All code must be written by professional
degreed programmers hired at a minimum government-defined wage. * All code
must be Java. * Hosting must be done by government-certified shared hosting
providers. * Your application must support at least 100k simultaneous users.

Would you be happy with that sort of regulation? Would you bother with a
startup? Would you accept it all on the premise that it keeps your children
safe from evil unregulated websites?

Or do you prefer to have a choice?

~~~
hobbs
Hell, if this is the criteria for what constitutes relevant news, we may as
well have articles that debate the relative merits of different world
religions. After all, the debates would help shed light about how to think
about our own religious wars within the hacker community.

Honestly, I have just as much of a laissez-faire libertarian philosophy as the
next hacker, but there are plenty of other forums that are better suited to
spreading the word. ( _cough_ reddit, _cough_ digg)

~~~
sofal
I don't think a discussion about this sort of thing on digg or reddit would
even begin to approach the high signal/noise ratio of this comment thread. For
this reason, I'm not terribly disappointed with the topic digression.

~~~
hobbs
True enough. I guess my point is that there were previous debates about
banning TechCrunch, which has articles that are spot-on topic but of
questionable validity, and then we get an article about farming regulations
shooting to the top spot. I mean c'mon guys, do you want to be picky or not?

