View Poll Results: Do you want an Apiary Inspection Service?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    22 36.07%
  • no

    39 63.93%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 116
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    63

    Post

    Hi Mark,

    <<ikkybear, their hive dies nextdoor to you and then what?>>>

    I am at a disadvantage because I am not sure where you are leading. Are you saying force should be used to burn their equipment since it might affect yours? Remember, you tried to explain to them how to solve their problem and they rebuffed you. Now that their hive died, maybe they will respect your opinion and change at least some of their ways.

    <<The state took measures to see that the beekeepers did what they themselves were not able to do without direction.>>

    That is sugarcoating the statement that the state used force to accomplish it's means. I don't have a problem with addressing problems, it is the use of force that I have a problem with.

    Walid
    The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<br />..................Albert Einstein

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Va
    Posts
    793

    Post

    &gt;&gt;&gt; It's not me - it's 'THE STATE'.

    sounds like 'BIG' government employee to me.

    Since the state may not believe in FGMO - no more fogging. Since the state does not think small cell works, only commerical foundation. etc. etc. Finaly, no more diversity.
    Bee all you can Bee!
    http://www.hamiltonapiary.net

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    26,086

    Post

    ikkybeer, The purpose of the Apiary Inspection Program in Ny is to protect the beekeeping industry from diseases and pests of Honeybees.

    That is where i am coming from. The question is should there be a program like that or not.

    And if yes, there should be a program like that, what should it be like? How should it be run?

    If regulations exist, how stringently should they be enforced?

    Explaining what has happened to cause the AFB to be there and what should have been done are things that can be and are talked about.

    But once the disease is present in a form that can be seen, it needs to be addressed by the beekeeper, under the direction of the Inspector. That is the way that things are here.

    How are things done where you live?

    There was a time, or so I've been told, when NC would burn out of state hives that weren't moved out of the state fast enough.

    I am curious about your use of the term "force".
    A policeman pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket. Is that force? Is that an example of force? Is that whatm you mean? The state enforcing it's laws? Is that force?
    Mark Berninghausen "That which works, persists."

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    63

    Post

    Hi Mark,

    &lt;&lt;And if yes, there should be a program like that, what should it be like? How should it be run?&gt;&gt;

    In your other thread, a day or two ago, you were agreeing with the idea of a private inspection service. That is what I believe should exist.

    &lt;&lt;If regulations exist, how stringently should they be enforced?&gt;&gt;

    Regulations where there is no actual victim of a crime should not be enforced.


    &lt;&lt;How are things done where you live?&gt;&gt;

    I assume the taxpayers of North Carolina are subsidizing the bee industry. If they find AFB, I imagine the regulators kill the hive and fumigate the boxes for a dollar a pop.


    &lt;&lt;I am curious about your use of the term "force".
    A policeman pulls me over for speeding and gives me a ticket. Is that force? Is that an example of force? Is that whatm you mean? The state enforcing it's laws? Is that force?&gt;&gt;

    Taxes or force, same thing however you want to look at it. If you refuse to pay they will forcibly extract it from you. The decision to give the ticket is up to the policeman, is he equitably enforcing the law? Is it based on his quota? Is it pouring down rain? Is she pretty? Is he black? Is it a fancy car? Does the driver's lawyer fix the ticket with the prosecutor?

    If you really want to know why something is being done, there is a little latin phrase that sums it up nicely, "cui bono?" (who benefits?). In the ticket scenario you could list the tax authority, the policeman, the judge, the lawyer, the insurance company. We lose.

    Walid
    The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<br />..................Albert Einstein

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    26,086

    Post

    okay
    Mark Berninghausen "That which works, persists."

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Post

    &gt;&gt;I do see how keeping a distance between apiarys might slow the spread of a disease, but how are regulations doing it? Any chance I will be able to get you to see that your proposed solution can be done without a regulation? Any chance I could get regulation out of your vocabulary at all?

    To answer in order, I'll get to it, yes, and no. How are regulations keeping minimum distances between apiaries? In SD, the state sets minimum distances between apiaries. Beekeepers apply for rights to establish apiaries, and the state regulatory agency maintains maps that designate which areas are "available." Here, the minimum distance between apiaries is three miles. (Beekeepers actually wrote the bills that established these laws or regulations. I believe beekeepers could change these regulations in SD pretty easily if we wanted to; this state doesn't like to pay for anything it doesn't have to.)

    Secondly, yes, you could convince me that there are ways other than state regulations that could work to create and maintain these minimum distances. Any suggestions? I should qualify my statement here. Other methods, really, should be cost effective (ask commercial beekeepers if they can afford to pay landowners NOT to put bees on their land; usually, it works the other way around with landowners paying for pollination, and the profit margin isn't that great in commercial operations), needs to be level (so the biggest operators don't have more rights than the smaller operators), and needs to work with some method of "enforcement." I use "enforcement" in quotes, because if someone violates the system, how does retribution work?

    As far as removing "regulation" from my vocabulary, not on your life. It's a good word. It has a distinct meaning. It should stay in the vocabulary.

    Seriously, though, are "regulations" bad by definition? Why did humans ever create such things? What makes "laws" or "rules" different than "regulations?"

    &gt;&gt;This result could be accomplished more effectively with a private system. Private consultants could visit x number of beekeepers and notate the percentage of AFB hives. After educating the clients, they come back the next year and check those same hives and the percentage drops.

    And who pays these private consultants? I've done some consulting work, and continue to do some work along similar lines. Guess what? You don't pay me, I don't give you information or advice. This system is fine for a few people who feel the need of inspections for diseases, but how can it accomplish the same goals as the current inspection systems? The beekeeper down the road with massive numbers of Varroa doesn't believe he has a problem, and won't do anything about it. I doubt he would pay for a private consultant under those circumstances.

    &gt;&gt;Laws that try to prevent disease by preventing exposure seem counterproductive to me.

    I agree with your comments, Michael, about many attempts to control things backfiring. Do you really believe this statement, though? What about some of the worst diseases? Do you think vaccinations for polio and scarlet fever are wrong? What about the "regulations" in effect right now when we're trying to avoid spreading bird flu through the global population of humans? What about programs that try to prevent the spread of HIV?

    &gt;&gt;Laws don't solve problems. People solve problems.

    I agree with the principle. However, in my mind, people write laws, so laws can be tools to solve problems.

    Overall, the tone I'm getting from this thread is that some beekeepers don't like or want inspections, and they're very outspoken about their beliefs. The poll seemed to show that the majority of beekeepers who responded to the poll wanted state inspections. Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    63

    Post

    Hi Kieck,

    &lt;&lt;In SD, the state sets minimum distances between apiaries. Beekeepers apply for rights to establish apiaries, and the state regulatory agency maintains maps that designate which areas are "available." Here, the minimum distance between apiaries is three miles. Beekeepers actually wrote the bills that established these laws or regulations.&gt;&gt;

    This is incredible! Do you mean if someone wants to have a couple of hives in their back yard, they have literally lost that freedom is someone has an apiary within 3 miles? Do you think that the beekeepers were a little biased towards their existence when they wrote these laws?

    &lt;&lt;Seriously, though, are "regulations" bad by definition? Why did humans ever create such things? What makes "laws" or "rules" different than "regulations?"&gt;&gt;

    There are God-given laws that everyone pretty much understands but do not necessarily respect. Basically, you are free to do anything you want as long as you don't harm or steal someone else's body or property. Men can write laws that support that idea and sometimes they can write laws that violate that idea. So you understand just because it is a law, it doesn't mean it is a good law. So when you pass a seemingly innoccuous law that states "let's create a state department called the State Apiary Service to protect the agriculture in the state", it might seem like a good idea. Regulations are then written by people who don't see or care about the overall ramifications. And then other people still yet, make their own interpretations. It's mind boggling.

    &lt;&lt;And who pays these private consultants? I've done some consulting work, and continue to do some work along similar lines. Guess what? You don't pay me, I don't give you information or advice. This system is fine for a few people who feel the need of inspections for diseases, but how can it accomplish the same goals as the current inspection systems? The beekeeper down the road with massive numbers of Varroa doesn't believe he has a problem, and won't do anything about it. I doubt he would pay for a private consultant under those circumstances.&gt;&gt;

    Who is this guy down the road that I keep hearing about? I feel like wringing his neck (lol) because he is always mentioned as the guy we need to be protected against and therefore everyone is now subject to an instrusive state agency. If you know someone nearby that has varroa in their hives, why not approach them with an attitude of helpfulness exhibited by everyone in this forum instead of threatening them with uncaring regulations? Who will pay for these consultants? Everyone already does so. They come in the form of queen breeders, equipment sales, other beekeepers, authors, (don't forget many people who could actually enter into a bee consulting service if the state wasn't there taking their place), etc. all provided by the free market.


    &lt;&lt;Overall, the tone I'm getting from this thread is that some beekeepers don't like or want inspections, and they're very outspoken about their beliefs. The poll seemed to show that the majority of beekeepers who responded to the poll wanted state inspections. Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?&gt;&gt;

    Two things here. If you ran an informal poll in this thread after much discussion, I believe you would have different results. But the question needs to be narrower. "If you could choose between two systems that accomplish the same results (not goals), one being private or the other run by a state agency, which would you prefer?" Or this. "Do you think apiaries have enough of a problem to warrant a coordinated effort, yes or no?" Just because a majority would join a coordinated effort, doesn't mean the state will be the most efficient or even effective at it.

    Do you believe that might makes right? Maybe a minority is more vocal because they clearly see the inequity in a state regulatory agency. They (we) don't take loss of freedom lightly.

    Walid
    The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<br />..................Albert Einstein

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,290

    Post

    &gt;I agree with your comments, Michael, about many attempts to control things backfiring. Do you really believe this statement, though? What about some of the worst diseases? Do you think vaccinations for polio and scarlet fever are wrong?

    There are many who don't believe in vaccinations, including, but not limted to the Jehovah's Witnesses and many of the "healthy food" crowd. There are many who believe that vaccinations are responsible for many childhood problems that have grown exponetially since vaccinations became comon. Do I think vaccinations shoudl be available? Of course. Do I think they should be required? Of course not. If I have no say so about what is injected in my body or my child's body, then how would you define freedom?

    I know of no state where you are required to have vaccinations. Most have laws that supposedly require them for school attendance, but you can sign waivers that exempt your kids if it's against your beliefs.

    BTW there is NO vaccine for Scarlet Fever.

    &gt;What about the "regulations" in effect right now when we're trying to avoid spreading bird flu through the global population of humans?

    It is very doubtful it will make any difference. We do it because we don't know what else to do. Since no person has yet to catch it from another person, it seems unlikely to actually cause a problem for humans anyway.

    &gt;What about programs that try to prevent the spread of HIV?

    Programs? Regulations? Laws? I would guess there is more private money being spent on programs for HIV solutions and prevention than government money. Just outlaw sex and IV drugs and blood transfusions. We can eradicate it in one generation.

    &gt;I agree with the principle. However, in my mind, people write laws, so laws can be tools to solve problems.

    It is a nice theory. One I have never seen work.

    &gt;Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?

    They usually do. The majority of the American people did not participate in the Revolutionary war either. But they still reaped the benefits.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Post

    &gt;&gt;This is incredible! Do you mean if someone wants to have a couple of hives in their back yard, they have literally lost that freedom is someone has an apiary within 3 miles? Do you think that the beekeepers were a little biased towards their existence when they wrote these laws?

    I should have clarified this a little further. Landowners are exempt from this minimum distance if they are hobbyists. Hobbyists, in SD, can have a maximum of 5 yards with a maximum of 10 hives per yard before they are no longer considered "hobbyist." The minimum distance applies to all commercial apiaries, but even those have exemptions for "temporary pollination" contracts.

    &gt;&gt;So you understand just because it is a law, it doesn't mean it is a good law.

    I agree. Not all laws are good. Becoming "law" doesn't make an idea good or right.

    &gt;&gt;There are God-given laws that everyone pretty much understands but do not necessarily respect. Basically, you are free to do anything you want as long as you don't harm or steal someone else's body or property.

    Not necessarily, and these "laws" differ widely in the ways they're interpreted. For example, is deliberately killing a person "murder?" What if it's done as an act of war? What about executing a murderer or someone convicted of treason? Are those deliberate killings still "murder?"

    Keep in mind, too, that a lot of wars have been fought, "in the name of God." Both sides claim God is on their side. Who's right? I suppose the winners must be, looking at the situation logically, but try to convince the losers that, not only did they lose, but their religious convictions must be all wrong because they lost.

    &gt;&gt;"If you could choose between two systems that accomplish the same results (not goals), one being private or the other run by a state agency, which would you prefer?"

    This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure you could get the same results with these two different systems.

    I've been thinking a lot lately about the possibilities of "privatizing" bee inspections services, how they could work, if they could work, etc. I was noticing yesterday and today (read the thread on "GM again") that many beekeepers worry about the influence of big business on food production and agriculture. At the same time, (I hope they're not the same) beekeepers are advocating setting up private businesses to provide inspections.

    &gt;&gt;Do you believe that might makes right?

    No, I don't. I also don't believe that lack of might makes right. But, really, is having your beehives inspected periodically by a governmental agency a grave "loss of freedom?" And shouldn't we be just as worried about losing our rights to big business as to government?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornton Colorado
    Posts
    2,003

    Post

    &lt;IkkyBear&gt;
    If you don't own them or their property, I suppose you could leave them alone.

    This sounds reasonable.

    &lt;IkkyBear&gt;
    Regulations where there is no actual victim of a crime should not be enforced.

    Or exist. But this is an incomplete answer. We need to corral the idea of crime. What regulation does is invent crimes in a not so objective way. Think Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness here as well as property rights. Property being strictly defined. So, no killing, stealing, destroying other peoples property. Keep your arguments also contained by intent.

    &lt;sqkcrk&gt;
    I am curious about your use of the term "force".

    Think of this as any situation in which there is a person that does not have a choice. This person is made to act by force.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    To answer in order, I'll get to it, yes, and no. ...

    Boy, you're missing the trees for the forest. I didn't ask how regulation is maintaining a minimum distance. You ought to reread what I said.

    Perhaps if I simplify your argument:

    1. SD regulates minimum distance (stated as fact)
    2. minimum distance controls AFB (stated as fact)
    3. AFB is controlled because SD regulates(conclusion)

    Your conclusion is a fallacy because it presumes that "SD regulates" and "minimum distance" are the same thing.

    Your argument is the same as:

    1. John fishes.
    2. fish are caught via fishing.
    3. Fish are caught because John fishes.

    Back to the point, You have not shown that regulation stops the spread of any of those acronyms.

    By the way, my response to your points of argument were:

    1. I believe this is fact.
    2. I agreed that this may be true and that it seemed reasonable.
    3. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Any suggestions?

    I made a bunch, and cost effectiveness is your problem. If the business can't survive the way you see it then it should die.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Seriously, though, are "regulations" bad by definition? Why did humans ever create such things? What makes "laws" or "rules" different than "regulations?"

    Humans created them because it is much easier to create these controls then having to put the ideas through the whole legislative process. Laws are things that are created in a strict way.

    Now this is going to be a general statement, I know that abuses exist, but an easy way of think of the difference in practice is that laws are meant to protect my rights and regulations are meant to control me. Notice the synonym in regulate and control.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    And who pays these private consultants?

    Asked and answered. You said it in the same paragraph, the people that think they need it.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    doesn't believe he has a problem...

    He doesn't think it is an issue and you think it is. Who is right? Why do you think you should get to be right by force?

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Do you think vaccinations for polio and scarlet fever are wrong?

    You make the same logic error as above. Vaccinations has been shown to be good. Doesn't say nothing about laws or regulation.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Should a loud minority make decisions over a majority?

    Might makes right. I am trumped.

    &lt;read IkkyBear's response&gt;

    Yeah, and what he said!
    JohnF INTP

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornton Colorado
    Posts
    2,003

    Post

    &lt;Michael Bush&gt;
    Just outlaw sex and IV drugs and ...

    Whew, you scared me for a second. I though you were going to say rock-n-roll... [img]smile.gif[/img]

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Keep in mind, too, ...

    Man, have I ever mentioned before that you like to shift context?

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    But, really, is having your beehives inspected periodically by a governmental agency a grave "loss of freedom?"

    Yes. A deep resounding booming yes. In an extremely huge way it is. Liberty is something you either have or you don't, there are no degrees.
    JohnF INTP

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Post

    JohnF:

    I went back and reread your post. Now that you've clarified the "it," I think I did miss the intention of your first question.

    &gt;&gt;I do see how keeping a distance between apiarys might slow the spread of a disease, but how are regulations doing it? Any chance I will be able to get you to see that your proposed solution can be done without a regulation? Any chance I could get regulation out of your vocabulary at all?

    The way you wrote your first question could just as easily be interpreted, "How are regulations keeping a minimum distance between apiaries?"

    &gt;&gt;Perhaps if I simplify your argument:

    &gt;&gt;1. SD regulates minimum distance (stated as fact)
    &gt;&gt;2. minimum distance controls AFB (stated as fact)
    &gt;&gt;3. AFB is controlled because SD regulates(conclusion)

    Actually, what *I* intended was more along the lines of:

    1) South Dakota regulates minimum distances between apiaries.
    2) Greater distances between apiaries slow the spread of diseases and pests.
    3) Diseases and pests SHOULD spread from apiary to apiary in South Dakota more slowly than in states without minimum distances between apiaries.

    You simplified my argument, but you also added your own interpretation of my intent.

    Now, how is your other example about fishing even really parallel? Even to the other? I don't understand how "John fishes" is along the same lines as "South Dakota regulates minimum distances between apiaries."

    And, just for further clarification, the minimum distances between commercial apiaries in South Dakota are established in South Dakota's uniform, codified laws. Are they "regulations" then, or "laws?" What's the difference again?


    &gt;&gt;Might makes right. I am trumped.

    Do you maintain those same views and make similar statements when your opinion agrees with the majority?

    Personally, like I said before, I don't believe that "might makes right." Theoretically, and we're all talking like a bunch of idealists here, our government operates on the idea that the majority opinion is greater than the minority opinion. Otherwise, bills that receive a minority of the votes in our legislative bodies would still pass, candidates who receive fewer votes than their opponents would be elected over those who receive more votes, etc. It's important to protect the rights of those in the minority opinion, but we rarely operate where the minority sector sets the "rules."

    &gt;&gt;He doesn't think it is an issue and you think it is. Who is right? Why do you think you should get to be right by force?

    I don't think I should be right by force. At the same time, why should I have to pay for someone else's faults, or pay because someone is developing (whatever disease or pest you want to name hear) resistance? How do you balance the rights of one person against the rights of another person?

    For what it's worth, your debates drive me nuts at times, JohnF, but I do appreciate them. Dissenting opinions, even if we don't wind up agreeing, should hone our own opinions. Thanks much for adding to the debate about these topics! [img]smile.gif[/img]

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    63

    Post

    Hi Kieck,

    &lt;&lt;Hobbyists, in SD, can have a maximum of 5 yards with a maximum of 10 hives per yard before they are no longer considered "hobbyist." The minimum distance applies to all commercial apiaries, but even those have exemptions for "temporary pollination" contracts.&gt;&gt;

    So someone that wanted to become a honey magnate without registring with the state, could setup individuals to rent their property to him. He could sell them a hive or ten and have a contract to service the hives and buy the honey. If the state rewrote their guidelines to close the loophole to this scoundrel then you would realize that their intent is to control the business and not the mites.

    &lt;&lt;is deliberately killing a person "murder?" What if it's done as an act of war? What about executing a murderer or someone convicted of treason? Are those deliberate killings still "murder?"&gt;&gt;

    Maybe we should keep the discussion in the bee realm, but killing is always wrong except in self defense. How can you teach your children, or disciples, or subjects that killing is wrong but then hypocritically use it as punishment. God created this world and people understand in their gut that an institution should not be able to morally end the life of a human being superior to it's existence. And war is always a racket.

    &lt;&lt;I'm not sure you could get the same results with these two different systems.&gt;&gt;

    Again, those are two different issues. After you decide there needs to be a cooperative effort, you would then need to objectively decide which system would do a better job. Unfortunately it is easy for politicians to pose as guardians when in fact they really wish to control.

    &lt;&lt;I also don't believe that lack of might makes right. But, really, is having your beehives inspected periodically by a governmental agency a grave "loss of freedom?" And shouldn't we be just as worried about losing our rights to big business as to government?&gt;&gt;

    Exactly. Might, majority, minority, equality have nothing to do with right.

    Think of it this way. If near total freedom is defined by an infantessimal restriction on that freedom, then any intrusion on your freedom is infinitely large in comparison. If people can't make a voluntary choice and pick the obvious answer to a problem, why force it on them? Might doesn't make it right.


    If you support your subordination to a government agency and the big business controls the government agency, then you are supporting your loss of rights to both the agency and the big businesses.

    Walid
    The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<br />..................Albert Einstein

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Post

    &gt;&gt;So someone that wanted to become a honey magnate without registring with the state, could setup individuals to rent their property to him. He could sell them a hive or ten and have a contract to service the hives and buy the honey. If the state rewrote their guidelines to close the loophole to this scoundrel then you would realize that their intent is to control the business and not the mites.

    I might agree with you on this one IF the "state" rewrote the laws. So far, that hasn't happened. Also, in SD, most of our legislators are teachers and farmers and small business people and things like that. They're only in legislative session for two months out of the year, and we only pay them for the time they work. In this state, no one can make a living as a legislator only.

    Also, like I keep emphasizing, these laws were established from bills drafted by beekeeping organizations. "We" (I use quotation marks because I wasn't even alive at the time these laws were enacted) decided that this would be best for beekeeping, especially with the growth of commercial operations in the state. I believe part of the idea behind the legislation was to avoid conflicts among commercial beekeepers, too. No one "else" forced these rules upon beekeepers in SD; beekeepers just chose to use the state system for their benefit.

    &gt;&gt;If you support your subordination to a government agency. . . .

    I realize I'm idealistic on this one, but I still believe I have a voice in our government. People like to spout that quip about, "government by the people, of the people, and for the people." If that's true (and I know you can argue that it isn't), then this subordination would be to ourselves. That's a deep philosophical debate that I won't get into.

    &gt;&gt; If near total freedom is defined by an infantessimal restriction on that freedom, then any intrusion on your freedom is infinitely large in comparison.

    I think this one gets back to balancing my rights with your rights and so forth. Yes, I like personal freedoms. I don't know that I'd like the results of limitless personal freedoms.

    Just some food for thought:

    Like all Americans, I have a right to freedom of speech. However, that isn't a limitless right. I don't have a right to slander someone else. I really don't believe that I should have that right, but that restriction definitely limits my freedom of speech.

    I also have a right to freedom of movement. If I am freely moving across someone else's property, I could be charged with trespassing. That limits my right to freedom of movement.

    To bring it back to bees, should my management techniques for hives limit your right to have healthy bees? How do you balance the two? How do you "enforce" that balance? Or, should I just be able to keep bees anyway I please wherever I'd like?

    At the danger of taking it to extremes, imagine that you're raising queens, either for yourself or for sale. Hypothetically, I could be using Africanized bees a few miles from you. Without regulations or laws about such things, I'd be within my rights. How would you feel about your ability to produce acceptable queens? I know I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent with this scenario, but I'm curious what specific suggestions those of you have that are opposed to regulations on beekeeping to such a situation. How should we deal with a situation like that?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornton Colorado
    Posts
    2,003

    Post

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    The way you wrote your first question ...

    Agreed. No foul.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    1) South Dakota regulates minimum distances between apiaries.
    2) Greater distances between apiaries slow the spread of diseases and pests.
    3) Diseases and pests SHOULD spread from apiary to apiary in South Dakota more slowly than in states without minimum distances between apiaries.

    (note, we don't need the between apiarys and other such qualifier because we are disecting the logic. The other stuff is given by context.)

    Also, we can't use the word should because it cannot be conclusive. If you are taking a stand you have to support some conclusion. For example, you can argue that I SHOULD give you 10 bucks and I may completely agree with you. Does this mean I will? I have to change your use of SHOULD to WILL in order for you to have an argument.

    Just changing the form for your argument:

    1. SD regulates distance (stated as fact)
    2. Other states do not regulate distance (stated as fact)
    3. distance relates inversely to rate (stated as
    fact)
    4. lower rate is good (stated as goal)
    5. rate will be lower in SD and not lower in other states (conclusion)

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Now, how is your other example about fishing even really parallel? Even to the other?

    It was the logic that was parallel, just trying to show the error.

    A little more formal than.

    my original form:

    1. Actor Action Variable (stated)
    2. Variable begets Benefit (stated)
    3. Action begets Benefit (conclusion)

    Conclusion is not supported by premises.

    New form:

    1. Actor1 Action Variable1 (stated)
    2. Actor2 does not Action Variable1 (stated)
    3. Variable1 is Variable2 (stated as inverse relationship)
    4. Variable2 begets Benefit (stated)
    5. Action begets Benefit (conclusion)

    Again, conclusion is not supported by premises.

    And...

    1. John Fishes
    2. Michael does not fish (for example purposes [img]smile.gif[/img] )
    3. having fish makes hands stinkier
    4. stinky hands are stinky
    5. John will have stinkier hands than Michael

    (That last bit was just for fun.)


    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    What's the difference again?

    I told you, it is an abused system. I even mentioned that I was giving a general definition. I can't help it if SD folks make regulations into law.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Do you maintain those same views and make similar statements when your opinion agrees with the majority?

    Yes I do. I do not remotely believe that might makes right. I always argue from the perspective of reason to the best of my knowledge. I am not always right and would never consider my opinion infallable. Reminds me of a passage from "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills. (I cannot remember it exactly, so I am paraphrasing) We cannot squelch the voice of the one over the voice of the many because if he is right the many will have learned what is right and if he is wrong the many will have supported its claim.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    our government operates on the idea that the majority opinion is greater than the minority opinion.

    No it doesn't. It was even created to operate against it. If this were the case then our government would be decided for us by the folks living on the coasts (higher pop. density) and those of us stuck in the middle would have no voice.

    But we get into a different kind of discussion here if we get too deep into this.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    At the same time,

    You won't, he will. You have options. You can always move.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    For what it's worth,

    This is music to my ears. It means you are considering my arguments.

    First though, I do not expect to convert other's opinions to my own. I do expect convergence OR an agreement that a paradox exists and that we (the actors of the discussion) do not know enough to identify the error. Yes, I believe reality operates in a logical manner.

    Now, I do not waste my time. You should ask, (oh, and you have on occasion) how does he profit? What if he is right? (Your economics homework will help a little with understanding the first question.)

    I believe that I know who you are philisophically better than you do. (or you than know me for that matter.) I do understand that this is probably due to some quest I have undertaken that you have not. I stand by my assertion that all surviving human beings that are not broken are philosophers so don't go letting some meaningless name hold you back. You should be more afraid that I am left-handed.

    I suggest that you assume all opposing viewpoints/data as right. In fact, accept it as the truth. Then, like my little logic descriptions above, hold this new truth against your premises (principles). Does it hold up? Does it identify a premise that suddenly appears in error?

    For one thing, your arguments will then flow logically. You can even state the premise that invalidates the idea. As actors in a discussion we may find that we hold two different premises and we may part with an unsolved paradox or try and resolve the difference.

    Dang! I went philosophical. Sometimes my wife looks at me and just says "Don't care!"

    Anyway, perhaps I will be able to get that "regulation" word out of your vocabulary. [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Discover the premises.
    JohnF INTP

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornton Colorado
    Posts
    2,003

    Post

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    How should we deal with a situation like that?

    I would move my operation to a place I felt better suited to my needs or create an artifical envornment better suited to my needs or pay the guy down the road to move his.

    You assume that AHB is a bad thing. You have defined this for yourself. Perhaps the neighbor disagrees and wants AHB.

    We keep giving you these examples and you keep asking. Dig into my response and accept that what I have said is true and discover what premise you think contradicts it.

    In this case, you will see that it is that you believe AHB is bad.

    What if this premise is wrong?
    What are the premises that support this conclusion?
    What if they (one of them) are (is) wrong?
    JohnF INTP

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Post

    Aaaahhh! See, I'm thinking along a different line again. I'm prepared to test the idea, rather than draw conclusions from. Honestly, I don't know if any data exists to show that diseases and pests spread more slowly in areas with minimum distances specified between apiaries.

    So, in my mind, I was setting it up as a hypothesis. 1) SD (and ND and maybe some other states) has minimum distances between apiaries.
    2) Studies of contagious diseases and parasites have demonstrated that these organisms spread through populations more slowly when contacts are limited. 3) The minimum distances between apiaries should limit the contacts (I'm not stating this as "fact" because I don't know that this is really the case). 4) HYPOTHESIS: States with regulations that specify minimum distances between apiaries should have slower rates of spread of diseases and pests.

    Like I said, I'm not ready to draw a conclusion. I'm just setting it up as a test. If is doesn't work, then we scrap the idea of minimum distances for the purpose of slowing spread of diseases and pests.

    We still might need the minimum distances to avoid conflicts among commercial beekeepers.

    &gt;&gt;I told you, it is an abused system. I even mentioned that I was giving a general definition. I can't help it if SD folks make regulations into law.

    Is it "abused," or is the system working the way it's designed to work? I was trying, earlier, to point out that the differences between "laws" and "regulations" are minor, if they exist at all.

    &gt;&gt;I believe that I know who you are philisophically better than you do. (or you than know me for that matter.) I do understand that this is probably due to some quest I have undertaken that you have not.

    Huh?!? :confused:

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    63

    Post

    Hi Kieck,

    &lt;&lt;Like all Americans, I have a right to freedom of speech. I also have a right to freedom of movement. If I am freely moving across someone else's property, I could be charged with trespassing. That limits my right to freedom of movement.&gt;&gt;

    To me, it's absurd that the idea of words coming out of your mouth or pen can be compared to the instrusion on your God-given rights. You have the right to jump off a cliff without a parachute, but you don't have the right to avoid the consequence. You certainly do have the undiminished right to tresspass, but you also face the consequences. Rights as you think of them are not granted to you by the constitution, the constitution bars (or is supposed to) the government from intruding on your already existing God-given rights.

    &lt;&lt;To bring it back to bees, should my management techniques for hives limit your right to have healthy bees? How do you balance the two? How do you "enforce" that balance? Or, should I just be able to keep bees anyway I please wherever I'd like?&gt;&gt;

    You have the God-given right to raise bees but not the right to succeed at raising your bees. How do you balance it? You raise your bees knowing that there is some bad stuff out there. Be careful. You might have the legal right to force the citizens of SD to support you in your business or hobby, but you certainly don't have the moral right.

    &lt;&lt;imagine that you're raising queens, either for yourself or for sale. Hypothetically, I could be using Africanized bees a few miles from you. Without regulations or laws about such things, I'd be within my rights. How would you feel about your ability to produce acceptable queens?"&gt;&gt;

    Are AHB the problem or the result? Apparently, now, there is a lot of nectar and pollen out there for the taking, and AHB are stepping up to the plate (baseball or dinner, lol). In mother natures laboratory, the twain shall meet. If my queens produce honey producing brats, maybe people won't buy them. Maybe I could breed for more desirable traits, like their seeming resistance to mites, or prolific honey foraging. Or I could move, which is much more acceptable than using force on my neighbor.

    Walid
    The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.<br />..................Albert Einstein

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornton Colorado
    Posts
    2,003

    Post

    I have a great idea along this discussion! I'll make a chain of logical conclusions as an exercise and I will let other folks here make or break the arguments. This might be a little of what sqkcrk was asking for in the other thread.

    Using the subject of my last post.

    Conclusion: AHB is bad.

    Premise:

    1. AHB randomly kill people and will extinct the human race.

    2. AHB leave flie specks on my truck.

    3. AHB do not produce honey.

    4. AHB crossing causes HB to not produce honey.

    5. AHB swarm constantly and cannot be kept in a hive.

    6. AHB are not gentle and cannot be managed by a beekeeper.

    7. AHB are smaller and cannot carry enough pollen to support life.

    Now, this is my claim and I am sticking to it!
    JohnF INTP

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornton Colorado
    Posts
    2,003

    Post

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Like I said, I'm not ready to draw a conclusion.

    Yes you are, if you cannot state your hypothesis as a conclusion then you cannot create a valid test. Who's the scientist now? In simple terms you will declare: This SHOULD that so I am going to test if this WILL that.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    I'm not stating this as "fact" because I don't know that this is really the case

    When you design a test you certainly do state it as fact. It's the premise of the test. It is also part of what you are trying to disprove. And stating it as fact doesn't make it so. Of course I understand that usually when you are outlining a test you identify the things that are stated but could be wrong, otherwise you couldn't design controls or make it double blind.

    But you will have to be able to logically state it!

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    we scrap the idea of minimum distances

    Now you've changed your claim.

    You claimed regulation provides the benefit.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    to point out that the differences between "laws" and "regulations" are minor, if they exist at all.

    They are in principle. IkkyBear is doing a great job of diferentiating.

    &lt;IkkyBear&gt;
    the constitution bars (or is supposed to) the government from intruding on your already existing God-given rights.

    This is getting to my distinction between protection and control.

    &lt;Kieck&gt;
    Huh?!?

    I completely accept that response.
    JohnF INTP

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads