←back to thread

349 points perihelions | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.229s | source
Show context
prairieroadent ◴[] No.44534531[source]
there has to be a way for us as a society to introduce a level of accountability into our so called "food" supply chain without the burden of regulation... perhaps it's as simple as spending more educating our kids about agriculture

amendment: seems to be an unpopular take... my point being regulation is a workaround for a population that is worst than uneducated, miseducated, especially in regards to agriculture and "food" supply chain... if kids were provided with an actual education and not miseducated on the subject then the demand for on-demand food testing would go up, and prices for said testing would eventually go down after supply rises to meet demand increasing competition thus encouraging technological innovations to come in and lower prices

amendment ii: in a competitive market where all participants are thoroughly educated and the consumer is armed with the ability to test their food frequently then a market would likely emerge where consumers buy directly from farmers who out of market forces publish test alongside their crop

replies(4): >>44534570 #>>44534752 #>>44534869 #>>44535107 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.44534869[source]
> to introduce a level of accountability... without the burden of regulation

Why? What's wrong with regulation?

The whole point of regulation is safety and accountability and fairness.

Yes things can be over-regulated, but then the solution is to regulate properly, not over-regulate. The reason we don't have libertarian or anarchist societies is because they fundamentally can't solve the problems around safety, accountability, and fairness.

replies(2): >>44534934 #>>44534957 #
prairieroadent ◴[] No.44534934[source]
my point is that regulation is a burden, not that it isn't the next step... from my point of view regulation is a workaround for our nightmare of an education system where giving kids a proper schooling is considered dangerous and a threat to national security
replies(3): >>44535275 #>>44535566 #>>44536617 #
1. searine ◴[] No.44535566[source]
>my point is that regulation is a burden

By definition. Like a laws against murder are a burden to murderers.

The key to stopping murders isn't "get rid of the murder laws", but fix what made these people people violent (like lead poisoning?). Or in the context of this kind of regulation, the solution isn't to get rid of regulation, but make business account for the costs of their externalities from the beginning (rather than being forced to be moral by the government).