You have no right to know.

[Selene]

Is that the one where he shouts jubilantly "And I'm the son of a sea cook!"? Gorgeous comedy.

Yep.

[jts]

You have no right to know what is in the food you eat

Was that the philosophical background from which the two old dears in the hilarious comedy Arsenic and Old Lace were operating when they spiked their homemade elderberry wine with "arsenic, strychnine and just pinch of cyanide" and served it to their guests?

Where in the Ayn Rand Lexicon do you see that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

[caroljane]

You have no right to know what is in the food you eat

Was that the philosophical background from which the two old dears in the hilarious comedy Arsenic and Old Lace were operating when they spiked their homemade elderberry wine with "arsenic, strychnine and just pinch of cyanide" and served it to their guests?

Where in the Ayn Rand Lexicon do you see that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat?

http://aynrandlexico...ual_rights.html

Where in your Constit

You have no right to know what is in the food you eat

Was that the philosophical background from which the two old dears in the hilarious comedy Arsenic and Old Lace were operating when they spiked their homemade elderberry wine with "arsenic, strychnine and just pinch of cyanide" and served it to their guests?

Where in the Ayn Rand Lexicon do you see that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat?

http://aynrandlexico...ual_rights.html

Where in our Constitution does it say you have no right to take samples of the food and analyse it six ways to Sunday for every ingredient under the Vitamin-D filled sun?

[Selene]

Why would it make a damn bit of difference if it was in the Ayn Rand Objectivist lexicon?

Let the market decide. Am I going to buy a product with no ingredients listed on the label?

[jts]

Why would it make a damn bit of difference if it was in the Ayn Rand Objectivist lexicon?

Let the market decide. Am I going to buy a product with no ingredients listed on the label?

Ingredients will be listed. How will you know that the list is complete? Maybe the food has rat poison in it. And for those who are concerned about GMO (by Monsanto), how will you know whether it's Monsanto stuff? You have no right to know if that means someone has an obligation to tell you. Tough luck. Rats!

One thing that might help is non-GMO (non-Monsanto products) can be labelled as such as a marketing ploy. Then the customer might figure anything not labelled non-GMO is probably GMO. Monsanto wants a law prohibiting truthfully labelling non-GMO as non-GMO. They figure saying that it is what it is would be misleading.

I'm still puzzled that Monsanto wants to keep Monsanto products secret. If they are truly creating a superior product, why not brag about it and promote it? Do you know any other company that makes what they believe is a great product and then instead of bragging about it, tries to keep it secret?

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm still puzzled that Monsanto wants to keep Monsanto products secret. If they are truly creating a superior product, why not brag about it and promote it? Do you know any other company that makes what they believe is a great product and then instead of bragging about it, tries to keep it secret?

Reverse engineering. The Chinese or the Japanese will steal it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

I'm still puzzled that Monsanto wants to keep Monsanto products secret. If they are truly creating a superior product, why not brag about it and promote it? Do you know any other company that makes what they believe is a great product and then instead of bragging about it, tries to keep it secret?

Reverse engineering. The Chinese or the Japanese will steal it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You misunderstand the question. If the Chinese or Japanese want a sample of Monsanto seed so they can analyze it and copy it, that would not be a problem for the Chinese or Japanese. They could get the seed the same way the farmers do. The question is why does Monsanto oppose labelling of their products as their products in grocery stores? The answer of course is that (according to surveys) most people wouldn't buy it. But that is not a good enough reason; just educate the people and then they will prefer Monsanto products and then the Monsanto label will be a marketing point.

[william.scherk]

[sigh] Really, William, you should put more trust in your fellow man -

and his self-interest, too, of course.

I will give it some thought. At the moment, my trust circles radiate outward in levels of strength and automaticity: Me, My Immediate Family of upraising (meaning my co-reared cousins and my co-reared half-siblings), My Immediate Family's Spouses (no kids), my cul-de-sac (except for 1728, whom I have known for almost forty years, my Drive (Lilac), my estate (Alderwood, though not the 'renters'), my community hockey team (a lie), my community (bullshit), my region (ha!), my hockey team (double Ha!), my doctor, my optometrist, Raj/Gary, Parm, Sukvinder, Mr Pokay-Bombo, The Peach Arch News letters section.

Beyond these circles there is treachery and deceit and conspiracy. One must be vigilant, given our history.

I don't know if I recall any tainted milk scandal, if that's what you have in mind? In which case, I'm guessing the gallant State rescued the people from a plot to poison them by evil Business, or something.

Or something.

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

Totally unfair and uncalled for. Totally. A reading, writing, communicative chimpanzee must not be mocked, especially by a gun-toting socialist monstress like you. Next thing we know you will be blathering on about Peace, Order and Good Government and experiencing Total Fusebox Burn when contrasting this to Stephen Harper.

Tony says some family wit suggests: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Which is a pithy take on William of Ockham's pithy take on Endless Plots Most Beautiful.

I am sure that maintaining skepticism (much less total rejection) of most information input from the universe around us is beyond tiring, more so than mere critical thinking. I remember a poster on Oonline saying that thinking was "exhausting"; and consistently negative thinking must be unrelenting effort. It goes against the tendency of normal human psychology, which is to be slightly, irrationally optiimistic.

Normal Human Psychology, happily or not, is not the Norm. Not even normative. Some otherwise well-normed individuals are subject to what we call in the trade "WILD VARIATIONS." Upon these sports of nature and delusion are the next generation of replicators. See 9/11 'Truth' and the aforementioned Endless Plots Most Beautiful.

Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

Actually yes as it already happens daily.

[ ... ]

Good thing it wasn’t one but if it was it’s great to know that a competent private sector for-profit company was involved to handle the issue.

Very good points supporting and yet not supporting Tony's points about Always Better Private.

The line between governance and government is one that appears to me to be increasingly hazy. But in this instance, as in so many others where 'private' regulation precedes and sometimes outscores 'public regulation,' no differential calculation or comparison can be made, as an absence of public regulation is rare to vanishing on this earth.

That said, it aids our wisdom to contemplate things like the tainted milk scandal in China, in depth, to list and learn the lessons of Dan's example. And by learning, I mean New Learning, not re-reading Lexicon entries and climbing the Cherry Tree for confirmation fruit alone.

The lack of a regulatory structure in Chinese public bodies, the corruption in the private sector, the evasion, collusion and actual conspiracy to defraud -- these list items are on the table for comparison to the Wonderland where all cherries are sweet, all humans are named Norm, and all dissent and criminality will wither away like the State under communism.

Consider in passing that odd phrase comparning chalk and cheese, and consider its relation to the great Milk and Bread purity debates that long-preceded any FDA or CFIA or WHO, etc, long before circles of trust and guarantees and corporate extensions of good governance of the food supply.

What is in that 'milk' sold from a bucket in Whitechapel, or the 'white bread' sold in The City?

Consider another incident in the history of so-called Public Health, public inspection of fountains and wells in The City, in the time of cholera.

Indeed, consider cholera and the aftermath of any disaster. Consider, oh, one more: Walkerton.

Where in the Ayn Rand Lexicon do you see that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat?

It's not actually found in the bible, but in other, lesser sacralized publications.

Ingredients will be listed. How will you know that the list is complete? Maybe the food has rat poison in it. And for those who are concerned about GMO (by Monsanto), how will you know whether it's Monsanto stuff? You have no right to know if that means someone has an obligation to tell you. Tough luck. Rats!

Easy for a talking chimp to say! Maybe the food has rat poison in it, maybe not. Maybe it has Talking Chimp/Missing Link poison. Spin the bottle and step up to the plate, Oh-Primate-Who-Dances-With-Labels ...

Edited May 12, 2012 by william.scherk

[jts]

Ingredients will be listed. How will you know that the list is complete? Maybe the food has rat poison in it. And for those who are concerned about GMO (by Monsanto), how will you know whether it's Monsanto stuff? You have no right to know if that means someone has an obligation to tell you. Tough luck. Rats!

Easy for a talking chimp to say! Maybe the food has rat poison in it, maybe not. Maybe it has Talking Chimp/Missing Link poison. Spin the bottle and step up to the plate, Oh-Primate-Who-Dances-With-Labels ...

You did not click on the link that I provided.

[Dan Haggerty]

[sigh] Really, William, you should put more trust in your fellow man -

and his self-interest, too, of course.

I will give it some thought. At the moment, my trust circles radiate outward in levels of strength and automaticity: Me, My Immediate Family of upraising (meaning my co-reared cousins and my co-reared half-siblings), My Immediate Family's Spouses (no kids), my cul-de-sac (except for 1728, whom I have known for almost forty years, my Drive (Lilac), my estate (Alderwood, though not the 'renters'), my community hockey team (a lie), my community (bullshit), my region (ha!), my hockey team (double Ha!), my doctor, my optometrist, Raj/Gary, Parm, Sukvinder, Mr Pokay-Bombo, The Peach Arch News letters section.

Beyond these circles there is treachery and deceit and conspiracy. One must be vigilant, given our history.

I don't know if I recall any tainted milk scandal, if that's what you have in mind? In which case, I'm guessing the gallant State rescued the people from a plot to poison them by evil Business, or something.

Or something.

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

Totally unfair and uncalled for. Totally. A reading, writing, communicative chimpanzee must not be mocked, especially by a gun-toting socialist monstress like you. Next thing we know you will be blathering on about Peace, Order and Good Government and experiencing Total Fusebox Burn when contrasting this to Stephen Harper.

Tony says some family wit suggests: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Which is a pithy take on William of Ockham's pithy take on Endless Plots Most Beautiful.

I am sure that maintaining skepticism (much less total rejection) of most information input from the universe around us is beyond tiring, more so than mere critical thinking. I remember a poster on Oonline saying that thinking was "exhausting"; and consistently negative thinking must be unrelenting effort. It goes against the tendency of normal human psychology, which is to be slightly, irrationally optiimistic.

Normal Human Psychology, happily or not, is not the Norm. Not even normative. Some otherwise well-normed individuals are subject to what we call in the trade "WILD VARIATIONS." Upon these sports of nature and delusion are the next generation of replicators. See 9/11 'Truth' and the aforementioned Endless Plots Most Beautiful.

Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

Actually yes as it already happens daily.

[ ... ]

Good thing it wasn’t one but if it was it’s great to know that a competent private sector for-profit company was involved to handle the issue.

Very good points supporting and yet not supporting Tony's points about Always Better Private.

The line between governance and government is one that appears to me to be increasingly hazy. But in this instance, as in so many others where 'private' regulation precedes and sometimes outscores 'public regulation,' no differential calculation or comparison can be made, as an absence of public regulation is rare to vanishing on this earth.

That said, it aids our wisdom to contemplate things like the tainted milk scandal in China, in depth, to list and learn the lessons of Dan's example. And by learning, I mean New Learning, not re-reading Lexicon entries and climbing the Cherry Tree for confirmation fruit alone.

The lack of a regulatory structure in Chinese public bodies, the corruption in the private sector, the evasion, collusion and actual conspiracy to defraud -- these list items are on the table for comparison to the Wonderland where all cherries are sweet, all humans are named Norm, and all dissent and criminality will wither away like the State under communism.

Consider in passing that odd phrase comparning chalk and cheese, and consider its relation to the great Milk and Bread purity debates that long-preceded any FDA or CFIA or WHO, etc, long before circles of trust and guarantees and corporate extensions of good governance of the food supply.

What is in that 'milk' sold from a bucket in Whitechapel, or the 'white bread' sold in The City?

Consider another incident in the history of so-called Public Health, public inspection of fountains and wells in The City, in the time of cholera.

Indeed, consider cholera and the aftermath of any disaster. Consider, oh, one more: Walkerton.

Where in the Ayn Rand Lexicon do you see that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat?

It's not actually found in the bible, but in other, lesser sacralized publications.

Ingredients will be listed. How will you know that the list is complete? Maybe the food has rat poison in it. And for those who are concerned about GMO (by Monsanto), how will you know whether it's Monsanto stuff? You have no right to know if that means someone has an obligation to tell you. Tough luck. Rats!

Easy for a talking chimp to say! Maybe the food has rat poison in it, maybe not. Maybe it has Talking Chimp/Missing Link poison. Spin the bottle and step up to the plate, Oh-Primate-Who-Dances-With-Labels ...

I agree that it can appear to be apples and oranges to determine private versus public control of safety. While I do think private will be more successful in the long run that would be an argument from utility. I'm pointing out that privatization can work if you demand freedom on ehtical grounds. We have proof it works so do not leave your health to government regulators that I have witnessed be unreliable and disconnected, but engage the process and demand accountability from others in a moral system of property rights. For me, the demand for regulation by a thrid party is just a confession of the individual to not want to be responsible himself. I'd rather be engaged and take the couple of seconds to know what I'm buying, which if you think about it should be the standard for anything we put into our mouths.

[anthony]

Dan,

Rightly, you point out where this is going : capitalism, "as an argument from utility".

I started it, with my private consumerist agencies, and I'm glad you've got it back

on point.

The argument for capitalism is a moral one, before anything else..

Even assuming that government would 'produce the goods' exactly on a par with the private

sector - which I doubt, but never mind - government carries a huge hidden cost.

When the State is our arbiter and major intervenor in all human affairs, all citizens lose.

We lose the capability to deal with each other honestly and truthfully - or even dishonestly and untruthfully.

A man becomes cocooned against reality - other people - by the ubiquitous, interfering,

snooping old Nanny. The level of self-responsibility drops, the direct relationship from man to man

weakens, the bad become worse, and the good become cynical.

A person tries to get away with what he can, regardless of morality, respect and self-respect.

One big upshot, is less trust in our fellow man. (As I chaffed William.)

Quoting you, "Privatization can work if you demand freedom on ethical grounds."

Those grounds are individualism, and rational selfishness, of course.

Quoting Aristotle, "...That I do without being commanded, what others do only from

fear of the law." (Yea, I quote that a lot!)

It's a society of Aristotles I think we all want - not one of people who dishonestly, selflessly

and fearfully have absconded their freedom to a government.