Why do some people say "I wouldn't want a government to dictate what I eat"? This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not? Context was the idea of a government banning meat
Why do some people say "I wouldn't want a government to dictate what I eat"? This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not? Context was the idea of a government banning meat
Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods
You're viewing a single thread.
Unregulated anarchy vs nanny state. There's a wide spectrum in between we can argue about, but let's not get too far toward either extreme.
As a (social) anarchist, yeah there's a wide range. The government shouldn't tell people what they're allowed to eat, in my opinion, but they should protect them from dangers and exploitation. We don't usually have the tools, or the time, to test all our food to ensure safety. We need government oversight for that. However, they shouldn't go too far beyond that and force us to eat particular things.
Kinder eggs should NOT be banned, and Americans have an inferior product because of it.
........but also I agree with the banning of Red dye #3.
It's banned in the US because we're sue-crazy. Companies can't rely on the common sense of their customers here. Even if the egg comes with a blinking neon sign that says there's a non edible toy inside, someone would sue (and win!) claiming that it's not enough and the toy shouldn't be there in the first place.
I was about to protest, but grog calls for red dye #2, so we're all good.
In a right wing "anarchy", dangerous foods will appear in the markets all the time.
In a left wing anarchist society, the community would consult their experts on food safety then band together and colletively stop making such foods, and stop importing those from other communities.
That's anarchy? Wow, that's dumb. They should not just collectively decide something. They should write down what they decided so that people who couldn't attend or that later come from outside the community know what has been decided. Or, even better, if I know I can't participate in the decision (or don't want to) I should be able to pass my voice to somebody who's there who I trust. Or, even better, just in case that person spontaneously gets sick or dies, to a group of people. Maybe, to get some consistency with people getting to know the details of the decision making process and the prior decisions, only redistribute these stand in votes every few years or so. Just to get the anarchy organised a bit.
That sounds great!
Wait a minute... That doesn't sound like anarchy... That sounds like democracy!
I have to admit I never really understood how anarchist societies were supposed to work. Now that you've pointed out they are just people banding together to make collective decisions based on expert information, I can't fathom why I ever thought they could go wrong.
Simple: they wouldn't work that way.
Left anarchism, like everything left, only works on paper.
Here's a few holes:
-
Who decides who is and isn't an expert? Jim Jones was considered an expert by the Jonestown people, RFK is considered one by maga.
-
Assuming we find a way to establish an "expert" category of citizens, that's already hierarchical. You now have a ruling class since these people get more of a say than the average person by virtue of their role, and don't have a completely flat anarchist society anymore but instead a sort of representative technocracy.
-
Moreover anarchist societies are supposed to not employ coercion, so even if you had experts whose opinion dictates norms, how are you going to enforce them?
Anarchists (left and right) reinvent the state, just shittier, less consistent, and without founding principles, every time they are put in front of the practical needs of a society where not everyone agrees with them.
Some go as far as inventing authoritarian oligarchies, just ones they happen to agree with and thus support.
Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was obvious.
Oh god you have no idea how many believe this in earnest (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Some go as far as inventing authoritarian oligarchies
tankies are authoritarian, their "leftism" is just a disguise to obtain power
They are authoritarian and marxist leftists, they are not mutually exclusive, if anything they are more likely bedfellows than not, by necessity.
You can't have a free economy without decentralised price controls (i.e. a market) and you can't have a market without ownership, so you will eventually end up having a control economy if you remove private ownership from the equation, and control economies are fundamentally authoritarian.
The ultimate means of production is the person, and you don't get to own it exclusively, even if it's yourself.
-