Ahmigawd, unregulated dinners!

I have no clue, but it just makes me wince and want to cry about the stupidity of media and government...

I am aware it now classifies as a restaurant and all that, but my questions run thus:

1) Who are these people hurting, really?
2) Is it even worth the resources to hunt them down and worry about them?
3) Why treat them like robbers and felons?

I suspect the state is bitter over lost tax and regulation revenue. This is without getting into the implications of how much of EVERYTHING you do now requires a special license to do. Is it illegal? Undoubtedly. Immoral? Certainly not.

SiempreTuna said:

I'm sure you have a point about the tax

Re laws and regulations: unfortunately they are there to guard against the unscrupulous - look what happened when banks were de-regulated: a bunch of greedy, immoral a-holes basically took advantage and wound up taking down the entire global economy

All it would take is one of these dining groups to start serving dodgy chicken (or whatever) and one person die from food poisoning and everyone would be screaming about city agencies failing to do their job.

Same reason we have speed limits - you may be a great driver who's in perfect control at 90 mph, but what about the eejit in the clapped out jalope trying to keep up with you?

Click to expand...

In my experience (and the evidence of multiple studies), that eejit in the jalope will be a dangerous driver at 90, 70, or 35, and speed limits INCREASE the probability of being in accidents (so do red light cameras, and speed limits in small towns).

As far as regulations go, I do recall that 'deregulation', which was coupled with government backing/underwriting for bad loans and such, which led to aforementioned greedy people being able to use money they'd never have been able to do with inheriting that risk themselves. Instead, since they made tons of bad loans/decisions with profit in mind and no penalties since they didn't foot the bill, everything imploded.

SiempreTuna said:

Ain't that the truth - basically, they're all dire apart from you and me .. and sometimes I wonder about you

Click to expand...

I'm pretty dire myself. I didn't get to finish elaborating on my previous post. As usual, I thought of ways to clarify what I meant after I typed it and walked away.

At any rate, to clarify what I meant- I don't see how a lack of regulation and holding someone responsible for bad food are mutually exclusive. Having a good, clean kitchen is in a restaurant's best interest, regardless of food inspection or not. Many don't keep a clean kitchen, though. If a kitchen or dining area is gross, people generally won't eat there. If they do and they get sick, I would argue that they'd have grounds for a criminal or civil suit, depending I suppose on the circumstances. That being said, it would also be in a restaurant's best interest to keep people from eating dodgy ingredients.

I've seen firsthand that food inspections don't necessarily mean you have a clean working environment, or the other way around. I've seen several local restaurants that got shut down mostly because they irritated someone in the inspections department. Nobody I knew that ate there ever got sick or complained of a lack of cleanliness. And there are other restaurants in town with up-to-date, last-week inspection dates posted that are absolutely disgusting and I get sick at every time I eat there (I made the mistake a few times of assuming my stomach upset was a fluke). Inspections don't guarantee cleanliness, they just guarantee there's either A) an inspector to pay off or B) an inspector to clean up for, then slack off as soon as he leaves. Having been on-hand at two jobs for inspections, it also frequently comes down to the inspector's mood. "Am I going to ding them for <12" between ceiling and refrigerator?" "Am I going to ding them for a one-degree temperature variance that could be a calibration error?"

OF COURSE, my disclaimer must also be in this post. My disclaimer runs thus: This assumes the restaurant owner would be rational about this and not just go "Screw it. I'll pay the lawsuits." Which I am willing to admit, is a distinct possible outcome.

If I'm arguing from a moral perspective, then I'd say, "AWAY with the FDA and inspections. Away with the government intervention that prevents me from opening my own private kitchen."

From a strictly LEGAL/PRACTICAL (as my morality is not always aligned with practicality, a fact I am fully aware of being a moral anarchist) confine, yes, my issue is with the completely subjective process of enforcement that mostly targets smaller businesses unable to pay fines and clamps down on innovation and creativity.