SCOTUS ruling in CA law on pork production

don't like anything about this & surprised they can reg other states. This passing shit via direct vote sucks. Prob 15 years ago the economists lead story was about the ills of "direct" democracy with a focus on Cali. It is pretty much the only way things get done in Colo. Probably had a lot damn vegetarians voting!!

 

found it.


The perils of extreme democracy

 

It’s not California’s problem how retailers choose to distribute and market their products. They have every right to pass a law on how farming and livestock can be handled in their state. If someone is entrepreneurial they will set up a cheaper caged operation for other states and make a lot of money.

 

it seems they have made it their problem. I don't like majority rule in cases like this. I fundamentally do not like that a simple majority can tell everyone what to do. I think it can be very tyrannical. & I don't like moving away from a representative democracy. Weed is legal here only b/c 50+% say so. That's stupid IMO.

 

They can't. But they can regulate products that enter their own market.

 

I have not read the decision, only the summaries. So I may be incorrect here. But to the extent that California sets the national pork market standards, it's because of the size of that market. Same thing happens with fuel standards for cars. The Trump administration briefly debated trying to outlaw California's standards because the size of the California market is such that it dictates the standard in unless manufacturers can create 2 separate models on a cost effective basis. Texas has done the same with school textbooks.

Blame the discovery of gold and the west coast location. The discovery of gold meant Congress allowed in California without insisting on the 2 ° by 3° standard. California has exercised outsized influence ever since

 

Quite a stretch to “tyranny.” They voted it in and it was 63-37. Not exactly a squeaker with a mere handful sneaking one across the goal line on the other 50%.

I suppose if that 63% were instead denied by quite literally a fraction of a percent via “representatives” that would just be healthy governance. Thank God people like Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy, and whoever the one that can’t name the day exist to tell the other 40 million how they are all wrong about what these 60 or so are right about. No tyranny there!

Coloweeedo was also not particularly close, almost 11 point spread.

And you still don’t have to buy weed. Keep on non-CheechChonging. And 100% of Colorado retains that ability also.

 

talking about the practice where simple majority rules. Prop 64 only needed a 1 vote margin. Things that are pop even cowardly legislatures should pass

 

The summary of the 2002 pig amendment to the Florida constitution:

"Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens; to prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date."

Florida Animal Cruelty, Amendment 10 (2002)

 

I will agree governance by constitutional amendment can be problematic, because people vote on how they feel on an issue without taking the bigger picture into account. Prop 13 is an example.

But having said that, I am not sure about your logic that simple majorty is bad. So 51%+ voted pot legal. Why do you think it should take a super majority to make it legal? Why should the minority dictate that it stays illegal?

FWIW legal pot is struggling in CA because it is so heavily taxed and regulated that illegal pot is more economical.

 

Yeah, this one killed me when it passed. Don't believe BMP for animal husbandry belongs in the state's constitution.

 

Hog farmers will lie. California will have no right to send inspectors into other states, so who really cares? They will all create small, cage-free farms for show, cycle their hogs for slaughter through that farm, raise prices and keep doing exactly what they have been doing for years.

 

I am pretty sure doc is for legal weed, just not the popular mechanism for passing laws, and on this I agree with him. Expanding freedoms should virtually always be welcome, but direct democracy also allows the 50.001% to deny freedoms to the remainder. And what is the significant difference between 50.001% and 49.999% that this great power should be so vested?

 

So is your argument that 'denying freedoms' (an odd thing to say seeing as we have state and federal constitutions which guarantee certain fundamental rights) just requires a more palatable percentage of votes to be acceptable? I think its telling that you would view something that way, though I suppose you can make an argument that not being able to be cruel to animals is the denial of a freedom of sorts. But rarely is something so simple, really what you are talking about is the freedom to act on others being denied in some way.

 

Since it hasn't been mentioned, but seems relevant to the topic, it's relatively common practice in American pork factories to boil pigs to remove the hair from their skin. It's also relatively common practice to boil them alive because it's cheaper than implementing a process or substance to first kill or incapacitate them. Some larger plants just push them into "scalding tanks," where scalding steam is pumped into the room until the pigs suffocate and die, a process which can take hours.

It's also relatively common practice to twist and tear off the genitals of newborn male piglets, as they don't need reproductive organs for food stock, and once again, it's cheaper to set up an assembly line of workers twisting and ripping off their genitals than to castrate the animals in a more humane way.

 

It’s a good ruling. The ruling doesn’t regulate pork production in other states. The law regulates what can be sold in a state. And if people can’t eat meat products without being unspeakably cruel to animals, they should eat fruit and vegetables. They would be healthier in the long run.

 

I am genuinely curious, what exactly is this telling you about me?

Clearly for public goods, we should be using public choice for allocation. There is only one national military, so some kind of majoritarian framework must be adopted to select its nature. But I wonder why should want to extend this process to other more personal realms.

Should 50.001% of the population be able to block state schools from teaching CRT? Block Hamburger Mary’s from drag shows? Deny abortions or gay marriage? Why not ban racy books or violent movies or rap music? Attending a drag show is a personal choice that is not forced on anyone, and I don’t see why I should be able to stop anyone from doing that just because 50% of the population happens to agree with me.

I am not addressing the specific animals rights issue here, as I don’t know enough about it, and such issues are philosophically extremely challenging. I think it’s fine if we want to grant personhood rights to animals, but if these rights are simply a matter of 50.001% of the people agreeing at any given time, they are hardly rights and can be removed at any moment.