"Individuals are always stupid."

Individuals are always stupid.

Dr. David Acheson
Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection
(Food Safety Czar)
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

This lovely little quote is from a spot on the Colbert Report regarding the raid of a raw foods store in California (Rawsome foods).

In the bit, he candidly explains how "raw milk has led to serious illness and death...ecoli, salmonella, diphtheria," how "the FDA is composed of public health professionals" and "is interested in protecting the public and public health." He calls any accusations about the FDA being under the umbrella of the WHO or the U.N. "nonsense."

Here is the quote in the context (presented by Colbert):

Rawesome employee: "If we're all adults, why can't we choose to drink paint if we want to?"

Mr. Acheson: "Individuals are always stupid."

I'm going to assume Mr. Achenson, being an individual, didn't really mean that.

I think he is really saying "people who depend entirely upon their own faculties do not benefit from the specialization provided for them by social partners, and are therefore stupid."

Fair enough, David?

If so, we are in agreement. We are exponentially smarter because we all benefit through the collaboration of specialized individuals. I learned not to drink paint without even having to try it for myself. I don't need to carry water in a bucket from the lake because water treatment professionals pipe it in for me. Everyone is smarter and more capable and more free because of specialization.

But, is raiding a market of willing buyers and sellers benefiting this social collaboration?

The assumption, made by this David individual, is that some buyers will be unintentionally harmed by this "unsafe" collaboration, and, therefore, "all of us" will be less-well-off as a whole if this collaboration is permitted. What has happened is very simple: David has responded to a demand, by the people, to save themselves. He is simply responding to a legitimate need for safe food. The only problem is–he is doing it very, very poorly...

We all want safe food. Why does getting it require men with guns?

There is a correct answer.

Because we lacked the leadership and imagination that could have otherwise peacefully responded to the true demand for safe food.

Here's what really happened: no businessman had the balls to invest in a real, large-scale, quality-control business (as prevalent in other industries). As such, the issue struck the bargain-basement social safety net of government responsibility, and we all suffer from this stagnant, unchecked, authoritarian, armed government food safety monopoly.

Rather than respond to real public demand, bureaucrats manufacture an estimate of the public demand. They basically say: "people want 'safe' food, so that is what we will give them." Then, they get together to define "safe," author verbose works of fiction, and, if you don't agree with their story, they brandish a weapon. Their narcissism, believing that they know what is best for you, is one culprit.

But, they couldn't have gotten their without your tacit consent. You, the American citizen, is culpable for begging your government for a food safety handout. You gave your hard-earned money away to thieves with guns who write laws that they can shoot you for violating. What the hell did you expect? Safer food is not free. TNSTAAFSL (There's No Such Thing As A Free Safe Lunch), and, in this case, your payment is not only the scourge of taxes ripped from your wallet, but the harassment of armed soldiers.

Is that really the price of safe food?

Consider a non-authoritarian approach. Any quality-control company would immediately recognize the demand for safe raw milk. Competing quality-control companies would jump at the chance to be the first to provide safe raw milk. (Unsafe raw milk is most common in large, industrial farms with drugged-up cows). Consumers, none of whom wish to get sick, would highly value the company's identification of a safe raw product, and pay a fair price for it. Yes, safe raw milk would be expensive, but you could actually buy it.

In our current authoritarian system, you cannot buy "safe" raw milk. Because of laws, no quality control company has the incentive to illegally establish an underground "safe raw milk" certification program. No, instead, you trust the individual farmer who offers the black market raw milk. The farmer is also the quality control specialist because the government effectively prohibits specialization in this field.

How is this collaboration with social partners?

According to their site, the FDA is responsible for...

protecting the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off radiation

What about the "safety" and "security" of the raw milk portion of our nation's food supply? If raw milk is not suitable for consumption, why call it "food" in the first place? Classify the stuff as a type of white paint. Everybody knows not to drink paint. "You drank raw milk? Why would you do a stupid thing like that? You had it coming." Let the crazies do what they will with their raw milk. If labeling "milk" a type of "paint" prevents the raiding and pillaging of innocent people, I say do it! This new legal definition is no less of a fiction than your other ridiculous legislative compositions.

David Acheson is correct that an individual is stupid. He is stupid when he believes he can force another not to harm himself. So blithe an error seems easily dispatched, but is the lifeblood and justification for all governance. It is proven wrong in every case, yet we cling to it. We acknowledge and champion the truth intuitively in all great works of art, movies, novels. Yet, in practice, we are terrified of it. We continue have faith in this grand fallacy that other individuals are stupid and unworthy of the opportunity to earn their own lives. We cannot stop the suicide bomber, yet, we believe we can stop the man from drinking from an udder. In practice, our terrified, apathetic, nihilistic will continues to worship this great golden calf and believes it has the divine power and inclination to save us from ourselves. It cannot. When we replace the "we" for "I" I it is obvious that David Acheson is full of shit. You are not stupid.

I'm going to go drink some paint.