Comments on: More meals you can’t have

By: Zhubin

Zhubin — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:40:19 +0000

Nah, I’ll stick to bitching about my friends not posting enough anti-Bush rants.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:30:26 +0000

It’s called comparative advantage, furry. There’s lots of writers, libertarians included, covering the Bush administration’s civil liberties violations. I appreciate what they do and encourage others to keep up with the issue, but I have no special expertise in the subject. Food, on the other hand, I know.

I like it when people read my blog and come to me for libertarian opinions on stuff. But frankly, if you’re relying on Eternal Recurrence to tell you that Bush isn’t the best president ever, you might want to start checking out some more reputable news sources.

By: Zhubin

Zhubin — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:49:05 +0000

The Bush Administration continues to wiretap citizens’ phone lines without a warrant, and you’re talking about meat regulations.

I don’t mean to generalize, but you and every other libertarian in the country have absolutely no perspective on anything whatsoever. Ever.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:39:19 +0000

I think the tricky question isn’t so much what deviations ought to be allowed, but what counts as informed consent. As a matter of freedom of contract, I think people ought to be able to opt of the dirty counter rule if they really want to for some reason, but in the cases of really bizarre exemptions clearer communication may be needed than in run of the mill menu disclaimers. Sorting out those distinctions would be tough.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:58:14 +0000

also, thanks for the response

It seems that under your second system, the opt-out disclaimers would almost have to be regulated as well. It’s okay to opt out of the sous-vide regulation but probably not okay to opt out of the clean-counter regulation.

I figure it would just be easier to make sure the regulations are malleable - that is, that they can be easily amended to include “new” cooking techniques. That way, the regulatory robustness of the system could be maintained while allowing for innovation.

Incidentally, is it now illegal for me to have a dinner party at my house with a home-cooked main course? Will the government be forced to save my guests from the dangers of deregulated dal?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:41:46 +0000

Good WaPo link. I think there’s some kind of goofy reg in AZ now that makes it illegal for elementary school kids to bring in a homemade cake or muffins for their birthdays. Or something stupid like that.

By: Jacob Grier

Jacob Grier — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:59:58 +0000

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. I don’t mean that such a disclaimer would remove liability in cases of negligence. And presumably a restaurant would provide some explanation for why they are operating outside of normal procedures. They’d essentially be saying to customers that the things they do are considered unsafe by relevant authorities. Without a good argument for why they’re doing so, I think that would be a big turn off for customers.

For example, I’d gladly eat at a place making it’s own artisinal cured meats outside of current regulations. But if I walk into a hamburger joint that disclaims accordance with the health code, I’m probably turning right around and walking out.

By: Barzelay

Barzelay — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:37:12 +0000

If menu disclaimers were all it took, every restaurant would soon have a disclaimer of that sort. We would see them everywhere we could possibly choose to eat, meaning that we would have no effective choice in whether or not we ate at establishments the government hadn’t approved.