The debate "Selling raw milk should be legalized." was started by
September 25, 2018, 5:34 pm.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
lachlan2 posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
Brynn posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan2, affiq, TheNewHuman and 6 visitors agree.
Brynn and 5 visitors disagree.
Right but the way raw milk is cleaned and transported long distances as Nem has stated is by being pasteurized.
but federally speaking, it isnt banned, from sale or from retail. the only ban is on transporting it long distances which increases the chance of spoilage and contamination many times over.
Obviously in the market sellers would label the product "raw milk".
There are plenty of things sold that are dangerous to consume raw that are safely sold in supermarkets. But for some reason your acting like raw milk is an exception where Walmart would secretly discuise it as regular milk to harm children! Like just because it was banned previously it is an exception to how every other product is sold which is clearly a logical fallacy motivated by an intolerance to change.
Ok? So if a store dosen't want to sell it they don't and if you don't want to buy it you don't. I don't see how this changes anything because raw milk in itself is inherently unsafe in some regards and you're assuming anyone that buys it is going to chug the whole container.
It is unsafe to consume raw eggs. So should they be banned from commerce?
No, in fact I'm a vegetarian which makes me slightly more aware of what's in the food I'm eating but some people go around and buy things trusting that what they're buying is safe. There's a level of trust that's been established between the buyer and consumer. All the products in the store are "cleaned" and "processed" to make them safe. Generally things that require a warning label aren't sold in the food section because again. There's a level of trust established.
If raw milk killed you, people wouldnt want to buy it, and there wpuld be little demand for it any way. It probably be one of those weird things that certain people buy for cooking and stuff.
Again, dont buy it then and leave other people alone. Maybe it wouldnt even get sold and go out of business, I dont know.
So you just walk through supermarkets and aimlessly consume everything you see on the shelf? Are you so incompetent that you can't pick out your own food products? If so , its still not justification for the use of force by the state.
But coca cola doesn't kill you? It's something that's safe. I want all the food sold at a food market, stall, store, etc. to be safe. I trust that everything I buy at a store is safe to consume.
Prohibition of the retail of it is still agressive and an infringement on liberty.
That's like banning the sale of coca cola and saying, " just grow your own sugar canes and brew it in your garage".
No one's stopping you from purchasing your own cow and drinking that raw milk.
They are the will of the people because their representatives enact them?
This relies on extremely illogical assumptions. If I dom't consent to taxations and a politician I didnt vote for consents for me, my individual will didnt change. Ypur relying on a simple assumption that if the majority votes for agression on the minority, consent is usurped and it becomes justified. And the only logic behind this justification is that a vote is a holistic determination that can override non-agression. It has no objective reasoning.
Your also assuming collective "will" is a thing that exists. If more than half of a population votes in favor of one decision ot dosent magically make all individuals have the same will. And when the politician taxes me when I did consent it dosent become any less agressive than it would have if there was no election. Only individuals can have wills and act, not collectives.
those beatings were criminal acts that were enforcing no laws. justice should be served. police are just people, can commit crimes, and should be held to the same standard as everyone else. black lives matter.
these are the will of the people because their representatives enact them and I see zero major uproar outside the fringe libertarian community. rather than me, it's you who is projecting on what the will of the people is. most people want common sense rules.
If the will of the people was for candy stores not to sell cyanide pills then they wont given there would be no market incentive to.
If you personally believe something is "the will of the people" just because you deem it so, ypu are just making an arbitrary value judgement on how other people should act. It would make sense that the police would have to beat people will clubs to make them follow their own will.
it's easily confused and potentially lethal. it's a bad idea.
by your logic I could sell cyanide pellets in a candy store. "if they didnt want it they shouldn't have bought it"
people want to live in a safe environment. they want these laws. it's common sense, and it's not some government overlord. it's the will of the people.
Banning the retail of raw milk should he legal too. Don't buy it if you dont like it.
the sale of substances should not be banned between private citizens, but within the wider commerce net, it should be regulated.
you can order it from the farm at your own risk, but supermarkets cant stock it for mass consumption. everyone wins.
"can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are responsible for causing numerou"
it should he sold in chemical stores, but not supermarkets. if you want it, go to the farm and buy it, that should be legal.
You just can't sell it like any other food because of how dangerous it is.
I guess if you really want to sell it just put a warning label on it.
selling raw milk is legal
No no. Prohibition of a peaceful action is the initiation of force on peaceful people. So the burden of proof is on you to explain why the state has the right to put a gun to someones head and force them to stop selling raw milk.
Basically individuals don't have to prpve why they have rights but you have to prove why a government can hold then at gunpoint and make then do what you want then to do.