jMyles, the whole current discussion is only about selling apples that are laced with arsenic and will kill you, as long as they're labelled properly. that's what we're talking about. that's the only thing under discussion. we're discussing a straw man, except that you actually brought it up, so it's not a straw man.

obviously no one wants the status quo to change to that. (not even you, even though you aren't sure.) like, literally nobody. (even people who say they do, don't actually want to have to start reading labels on their fruit to make sure they won't die.)

there's almost nothing to go on in this discussion, we're talking - only - about such an extreme viewpoint.

Anyway what interests of the "hegemonic empire" does the fact that I can eat an apple without reading its label and not die, serve? You can't say "oh that's easy - the hegemonic empire doesn't want its stormtroopers - that would be its population - to die, because they can't fight for hte hegemonic empire or pay their taxes" because if that were the case it would ALSO be in the interests of the "hegemonic empire" to ban grossly unhealthy foods so people don't die of heart disease - the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy among rich countries in part for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe... But they don't do that, or many other things.

there's just no answer to why my grocery store isn't allowed to sell arsenic-laced apples as long as they're labelled, except the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS one that the government does its basic job and protects people from this thing. there's just no other answer. the mental contortions you would have to go through to believe that they're "seeking to enrich their corporate sponsors" and that's why you can't sell arsenic-laced apples is just - I mean, come on.

The reason you would have to put "some thought" into answering my questoins - even though they're super simple - is the same as why a flat-earther would have to put "some thought" into answering the question of why someone can broadcat an image of a spinning, round, Earth, from space. This requires some explanation, because the idea that the Earth is actually flat is so obviously untenable.

I was on the debate team in high school, out of these two statements: "Resolved: the Earth is a flat disc, not a round sphere-like object in space" and "Resolved: it ought to be legal to sell apples that are or might be arsenic-laced and deadly to consumers as long as a label is affixed to them informing consumers of this fact" it is absolutely easier to argue the affirmative of the former. It's just sooo easy, all you have to explain is a few images from space, everything else people don't have any personal experience with. Even the bible is on your side. There are people who believe this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth - on the other hand, everyone has purchased apples. You won't find anyone who would have been okay with them being arsenic-laced, as long as there is a label on them. It's just not something anyone can actually argue - which is why you go off on this totally irrelevant tangent about enriching corporate sponsors.

this entire thread with me discusses nothing but why the government shouldn't deregulate selling poisoned food. That's it. it's obvious. completely obvious.

Excuse me if there is some vitriol, but I'm not okay with someone arguing a position that I have to start reading labels on my fruits to make sure I don't die. It's not a position you can take. It's why you had originally gotten downvoted when you asked "in theory, why not". me dying of fruit is not a small price to pay for your right to test some alternative economic theory. you're arguing for my death. (or massive, massive personal inconvenience.)

you know, you can just admit you're wrong. Why not just reply and say: "You're right, it's obvious to me why labeling fruit shouldn't let you lace them with poison. I was really just thinking about other cases, my apologies." in other cases, sure you could be right.