Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

States Partner to Sue Massachusetts, California Over Costly Livestock Bans

Two states attempt to dictate how farmers outside their boundaries treat their animals.

Caged chickensWoravit Vijitpanya / DreamstimeEarlier this week, thirteen states, led by Indiana, sued Massachusetts in federal court, seeking to overturn a Bay State law that makes it illegal for a business operating in the state to sell veal, eggs in the shell, or pork which it "knows or should know" comes from an animal which was confined in a small cage or crate.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, argues the Massachusetts law oversteps the state's powers under the U.S. Constitution. It follows on the heels of a similar lawsuit filed last week by many of the same states—this one led by Missouri—against California, which has a law similar to that found in Massachusetts.

Both suits are asking the Supreme Court, typically a court of last resort, to take up the case directly.

The question the Supreme Court is being asked to address, ultimately, is whether lawmakers in any one state—here, Massachusetts and California, respectively—may dictate how farmers in other states raise livestock.

These state laws are no doubt ripe for challenge. "If voters in my home state make the mistake of adopting the law, a federal court should strike down the law as an unconstitutional power grab on the part of Massachusetts," I wrote last year, months before voters in the state adopted the constitutionally defective (if well-intentioned) law.

"Massachusetts's efforts to regulate farming in other states constitute extraterritorial commercial regulation in violation of the Commerce Clause," reads the lawsuit filed this week. "This extraterritorial regulation will increase the costs of producing and marketing farm commodities nationwide, including for farmers and consumers in Plaintiff States."

If this pair of lawsuits rings a bell, you've been paying attention. Six states sued California in federal court over the same state law in 2014. But that suit was thrown out of court that same year. The court determined the states lacked standing, which requires an injury, traceable to the actions of a defendant, which a court may rectify. A finding that a plaintiff has standing is a prerequisite courts must find before agreeing to hear a case.

The court found the plaintiff states could not prove the states (rather than, say, their residents) had suffered any injury because of the California law. However, in dismissing the lawsuit against California, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller noted that injured farmers in the states that had sued are exactly the sort of people who would have standing to sue.

"In short, the wrong people made the right arguments," I noted at the time.

Will the Supreme Court take up the current lawsuits? The issue may well hinge, again, on standing. I'm a firm "maybe" on whether the current lawsuits will withstand challenges to the standing requirement.

In the Massachusetts case, one standing claim echoes the one that was rejected by the federal court in California: that the states have "standing on behalf of their farmers and consumers, all of whom will suffer significant effects from the Massachusetts law."

But the states also claim in the same lawsuit to have standing "because their agencies and instrumentalities own and operate farms and sell regulated commodities on the national market as part of a supply chain that reaches Massachusetts." That's a far better argument.

In support of its claim, the suit cites Purdue University, a public state university in Indiana.

"Purdue University sells livestock in Indiana and to nationwide meat distributors who then resell the products to retailers, some of whom are presumably located in Massachusetts," it reads.

I think the argument that the Massachusetts law would make it more difficult for Purdue to sell to distributors who resell products to retailers in Massachusetts is a strong argument for standing. But the argument that "some" of these retailers "are presumably located in Massachusetts" is a far weaker, far more nebulous argument.

I've urged farmers and other producers and consumers who are themselves harmed by these laws—the right people making the right arguments—to sue in order to overturn these laws. "Farmers can and should stand up for their rights," I concluded several years ago in a piece on the initial California lawsuit.

Legislative efforts to achieve the same goal have so far stalled. Earlier this year, for example, a bill was introduced in Congress that would prohibit (as the Constitutional already does) states from enacting laws like those at issue in California and Massachusetts. But that bill went nowhere.

The lawsuits against Massachusetts and California, taken together, are a noble effort to fight a set of unconstitutional laws. But I suspect they may—just like the earlier California lawsuit and efforts in Congress—fall short of their goals.

Photo Credit: Woravit Vijitpanya / Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...makes it illegal for a business operating in the state to sell veal, eggs in the shell, or pork which it "knows or should know" comes from an animal which was confined in a small cage or crate.

    "Don't make us confine you in a cage!"

  • Juice||

    If you do, I definitely won't supply you with any eggs.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I'm sure that that Costco roast chicken would have rather chased around grasshoppers instead of sitting there with victuals being shoved in front of its face. If they cluck too much, just play a little Mozart or Bill Withers and they'll be completely satisfied.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Legislative efforts to achieve the same goal have so far stalled. Earlier this year, for example, a bill was introduced in Congress that would prohibit ................. (as the Constitutional already does) !!!!!!!!!!!!!! states from enacting laws like those at issue in California and Massachusetts. But that bill went nowhere."

    How do we get Congress to pass a law that says that the Constitutional says what is says... And means what it means?!?!?!

    Admittedly, after that, we'd have to go to the heavy-handed, un-elected regulators, and repeat the exercise, and enact a regulation that says what about the law about the Constitutional? It, too, says what is says... And means what it means?!?!?!

    Then we get to the cops who enforce the regulations, and we... WTF?!?!? We're not a nation of laws any more!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Sad to say, this shit's been going on for about a century now. FDR was the "knee in the curve" when it went really-really bad. In the old days, you want to outlaw booze? Make any other big power-grab? Gotta get approved, an amendment to the Constitution...

    But by now we have established that amendments are NOT needed any more! We can...

    Transfer war powers to the POTUS

    Sterilize people under eugenics

    Take over their retirement plans (SSNs)

    Outlaw the ownership of gold

    Take away their guns & ammo

    Outlaw lots of types of meds and make you kiss a doctor's ass for the rest of them

    Regulate the prices of anything and everything

    Outlaw types of food

    Use eminent domain for the amusements of the biddies of the politicians

    ...and on and on...

  • Rockabilly||

    Once we had a right to be left alone, then FDR, the socialist god, took that away.
    It was FDR, the socialist god, who packed with Supreme Court with socialist yes men, who in turn reinterpreted the US Constitution as if it was written by the demented Karl Marx. Then FDR was able to pass a law which mandated all Americans to have a government issued ID number for controlling and tracking purposes.

  • damikesc||

    His ability to re-write contractual law (to demand payment not in gold, but in fiat cash) was the most damning.

  • JFree||

    He didn't rewrite contractual law. It is entirely reasonable for govt to decide what govts own legal tender is - and that legal tender is the only thing that govt courts can impose as the recompense in some private contract dispute.

    The gold-standard ceased to be an actual gold-standard the second SILVER was demonetized in 1873. Which yes was a stupid (though entirely legally valid) govt decision that required that courts enforce payment in actual gold even though loans themselves from then on were entirely in 'gold-backed' banknote fiat. From that point on, govt was simply the enforcement mechanism for fraudulent banks - with all competitive alternatives made illegal.

    What FDR probably should have done was just let the banking system implode 'honestly'. Let the bank runs continue - let courts continue to be the tool of banks - with the end result that a few hundred thousand bankers and judges would swing from lamp posts around the country and clear the way for a more intelligent and fairer constitutional monetary system. Course it's also possible that a few hundred thousand corpses swinging from lamp posts might just simply lead to even more bloodshed that is even more pointless.

  • GlenchristLaw||

    "Both suits are asking the Supreme Court, typically a court of last resort, to take up the case directly."
    .
    Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, suits in which a state is a party must go directly to the Supreme Court. There is no "ask."

  • tlapp||

    Maybe those states will just have to go with limited choices and higher prices. It is what their voters voted for when the elected those politicians.

  • SIV||

    More crate-raised veal for the rest of us!

  • SQRLSY One||

    More illegal goods to be smuggled across state lines!

    ISIS will be raising funds, by standing on street corners with trench coats lined with inner pockets full of caged hens laying low-cost eggs for us...

    ISIS being Islamofascists, though, means that they will NOT be able to tap the politically incorrect pig-meat-market!!! Here is an opportunity for (non-kosher, non-halal) Libertarian fund-raising!!!

  • Cunty Over Party||

    Probably the opposite. It will become more expensive for distributors to carry small cage products since they have to be careful none of it gets into MA or CA. Either consumer prices go up or payments to farmers go down. This creates an opening for non-small-cage distributors to take market share and supply from them.

    It's basically the same as the "GMO labelling" laws would have been had the FDA not stepped in. The cost of making sure none of the "evil" products enter a large state is so prohibitive that it makes more sense to stop carrying the "evil" products entirely.

  • Bretzky||

    So long as a state treats other states' citizens the same as it treats its own, it is perfectly free to set standards for selling goods and services within its borders. If people in another state don't want to abide by those standards, they are perfectly free to find somewhere else to sell their goods or services.

  • SQRLSY One||

    That's a pretty fascistic opinion, with no respect for individual freedom! If East Buttfuckistan USA outlaws the selling of drinking water in East Buttfuckistan, I as a resident of East Buttfuckistan must either lobby my fellow East Buttfuckistanians to get 51% of them to vote to change the laws, or produce my own drinking water, and I can NOT freely buy my drinking water from a more sensible state?!?! Come ON now!!!

  • Rigelsen||

    "...it is perfectly free to set standards for selling goods and services within its borders."

    At least under the US Constitution, not quite. States may certainly regulate the manner of selling and care of animals and meat once they are within the state, and as long as that is done without favor, that should pass muster. However, states may not regulate the treatment of animals in other states or prevent the sale of meat based on treatment from other states. The Commerce Clause restricts that power solely to the US Congress. This is also why you have the USDA managing health standards and inspections related to food products.

  • Cunty Over Party||

    None of that is in the Constitution.

    The Dormant Commerce Clause (itself arguably an non-constitutional innovation) does not prohibit state laws that have an effect on commerce in other states. It merely requires that states treat intrastate and interstate commerce identically (with the exception of alcohol due to the 21st amendment). New York is free to ban fireworks even though that harms fireworks manufacturers in other states.

  • IceTrey||

    But the Mass. law doesn't do that.

  • Rich||

    Wasn't Meddlesome Livestock one of Crusty's nicknames in college?

  • mtrueman||

    Farmers, no matter what their state, don't have the right to keep animals under inhumane conditions.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, but who (and by what process) are we going to decide what is, and what is not, "inhumane", in this case or in general? The Devil is in the details, as usual...

    I for one am not a fan of the use of Government Almighty as being the Arbiter of All Things...

  • mtrueman||

    "Yes, but who (and by what process) are we going to decide what is, and what is not, "inhumane", in this case or in general? "

    How about the Mass. State Legislature? They pass laws prohibiting all manner of activities. Murder, kidnapping and lots of less serious stuff.

  • SQRLSY One||

    The "...lots of less serious stuff" is where HUGE problems arise. See www.churchofSQRLS.com (or just Google) and research "lung flute", a cheap plastic flute that supposedly uses sound waves to help clear mucus out of your throat and lungs. In the USA (and in the USA only), one needs a doctor's permission just to buy a cheap plastic flute! This is the equivalent of a toy that helps one to "cough" (use sound waves , mucus, etc.)... We now need Government Almighty's helper's (doctor's) permission to cough, basically. This is just ONE absurd example!

    There is no end to the process, here, by which special interests turn us into helpless little babies. This process is BADLY broken!

  • mtrueman||

    I don't see the relevance of the lung flute. I don't think the mistreatment of animals is frivolous.

  • damikesc||

    I notice MA and CA allow PETA to exist in their states in spite of their abysmal record on killing almost every animal they take.

  • mtrueman||

    "I notice MA and CA allow PETA to exist in their states in spite of their abysmal record on killing almost every animal they take."

    Restaurants are also legal in these states even though they traffic in dead animals.

  • SQRLSY One||

    If Government Almighty can require me to get a doctor's permission to cough or to scratch my ass, then Government Almighty can require me (as a farmer) to brush the teeth of all my animals every day, and administer self-esteem therapy to each and every one of my plants and animals every day, as well. THAT is how the lung flute is relevant! Government Almighty knows no limits, is what I am saying...

  • mtrueman||

    Do you, as a farmer, need Government Almighty to tell you not to confine animals to small cages? Some farmers do, apparently.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.16.17 @ 2:25PM|#
    "Do you, as a farmer, need Government Almighty to tell you not to confine animals to small cages? Some farmers do, apparently."

    Do you, as a slimy piece of shit, need Government Almighty to tell others they must comply with your opinions? Some assholes do, apparently.

  • mtrueman||

    "Some assholes do, apparently."

    My point exactly.

  • Sevo||

    May as well start at the top.
    The scumbag trueman posts
    "My point exactly."

    As a scumbag, missing the point entirely.
    Fuck off slaver

  • mtrueman||

    ""My point exactly.""

    You're quoting me again.

  • JFree||

    That's not the legal issue here.

    Maybe it should be the legal issue. Maybe Sweeney Todd's Meat Pies should be required to label their ingredients as 100% humane or that labels should require some 'process' type label such as 'may contain peanuts cuz made in a factory that also processes nuts/grains'.

    But that's not the legal issue here and its not what either MA or CA are trying to do.

  • mtrueman||

    "But that's not the legal issue"

    I'm not arguing legalities, and I'm not about to start.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.16.17 @ 2:30PM|#
    "I'm not arguing legalities, and I'm not about to start."
    You are arguing exactly "legalities", you piece of shit.

  • mtrueman||

    It's a moral issue.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.17.17 @ 11:16AM|#
    "It's a moral issue."
    I is nothing of the sort, scumbag slaver. It is your lame attempt to frame your opinion as such.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • mtrueman||

    It's about preventing inhumane treatment of animals. A moral issue. Right and wrong, good and evil.

  • Finrod||

    Exactly the kind of thing that causes terrible laws to be written to placate idiots like you.

  • mtrueman||

    These laws need to be more than terrible if they are to be overturned. They need to be unconstitutional. I figure that they will be upheld, and they will spread to other states as well.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.18.17 @ 4:13PM|#
    "These laws need to be more than terrible if they are to be overturned. They need to be unconstitutional. I figure that they will be upheld, and they will spread to other states as well."

    Fucktard says his lame opinion should inform all laws, right, fucktard?

  • Rigelsen||

    "Farmers... don't have the right to keep animals under inhumane conditions."

    Pretty anthropocentric world view you go there. You should submit yourself to the court of intersectional justice for appropriating the power of the chickens to define what is "humane" (gallane?) for themselves.

    Less flip, animals should not be kept in pain or under cruel conditions. However, I would suspect that animals' sensations of cruel conditions vary quite a bit from us humans. Ultimately, who is to be judge? For Libertarians, I would suggest that is a decision made by individual consumers at the time of purchase.

    But, certainly, a state may legitimately decide to presribe or proscribe specific manners of keeping or butchering animals within their borders. However, the US Consitution prevents them from doing so outside their own borders or even regulating the sourcing of meat for sale within their borders that comes from outside.

    Of course, farmers in those states won't like being at a disadvantage in selling meat compared to farmers in less enlightened states. If that's so important, they can try lobbying the US Congress on the matter. It's a legitimate exercise of its Interstate Commerse power.

  • JFree||

    Ultimately, who is to be judge? For Libertarians, I would suggest that is a decision made by individual consumers at the time of purchase.

    That's where I think ideological libertarians have lost their economic moorings a bit. When trade/production is purely local, there is a natural tendency for abhorrent practices to 'self-correct'. The local producer who pushes the ethical bounds of his local customers will tend to lose business because customer brings some of that knowledge of what is actually happening INTO the transaction because what is happening IS general local knowledge. A situation where Hayekian knowledge works and produces better results.

    Once market expands beyond local, that ceases to be fully true. The customer brings no real knowledge into the transaction. All they can know is what is on the product label. They have to assume that the label is both complete and true. The unethical producer then has an advantage over the 'local' producer - but not on any Ricardian comparative basis. They can ensure labels are incomplete - eg 'eggs' are the default label. Any producer who incurs the higher production costs deemed 'ethical' also has to incur higher labelling/knowledge costs (eg 'free-range' eggs). Hayekian knowledge no longer works because the KNOWLEDGE playing field gets distorted.

    That's one of the instances where ordoliberalism is actually the heir of classical liberalism.

  • Voxpo||

    It doesn't cost any more to print "cage-free" on a label than it does to print "super delicious!" There are, increasingly, customers, retailers, journalists, etc. asking questions about how animals are treated in agriculture. And they're getting more and more answers. In fact, it is often government acting or being urged to act by ag co's that threatens the flow of information: ag gag laws, legal actions against factual statements on labels that just happen to reflect poorly on old guard food companies, etc. (NYT on a label controversy: https://goo.gl/K35TiG)

  • JFree||

    I'm not talking about the printing. I'm talking about the cost of customer education/knowledge - ie what is 'free range'? What is 'cage-free'? It's the generic 'eggs' that can disguise crueler and more unethical production over time - but the label allows us to, by default, think that they are the sort of thing that has always been sold by default. You yourself seem to admit that. No one over the age of 5 needs to be educated about 'egg'. It's the adjectives that need answers.

    And why would it be a surprise that govt ends up on the side of the unethical and big and national - absent some specific accountability for govt to preserve a state of competition and free markets. That's a big difference between 'libertarian' and 'ordoliberal' - the former assumes that markets will always function freely absent govt, the latter doesn't make that assumption.

  • JFree||

    Actually in a very real sense, 'eggs' are as subject to devaluation and debasement over time as currency - or a 'meter' that can change in length or a 'pound' that can change in weight. And worse, that debaseable generic definition of 'eggs' will also tend to disguise the debasement of the currency once it is put into some commodity basket that defines 'inflation' and that is used to decide how tilted the competitive field is and in which direction. Those generic 'eggs' are not what was sold 100 years ago. They should be hedonically adjusted downward - as a deterioration in 'quality'.

  • JFree||

    Maybe we should pay more attention to the most famous (re # of legal and academic citations) egg of all - Humpty Dumpty.

    Alice:I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'
    Humpty Dumpty:Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'
    Alice:But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'
    Humpty:When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
    Alice:The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
    Humpty:The question is, which is to be master—that's all.

  • Sevo||

    Voxpo|12.17.17 @ 5:24AM|#
    "It doesn't cost any more to print "cage-free" on a label than it does to print "super delicious!""

    Were you born an imbecile, or did you study to become one?

  • mtrueman||

    "However, the US Consitution prevents them from doing so outside their own borders or even regulating the sourcing of meat for sale within their borders that comes from outside."

    The law is aimed at stopping people within Mass. from dealing with animals which are kept under inhumane conditions. I don't see how this infringes the rights of farmers from outside the state. They have no right to treat animals inhumanely.

  • JFree||

    They have no right to treat animals inhumanely.

    You're wrong. They DO have the right to treat animals in any way short of that state's animal cruelty laws. And they also have the right to not disclose anything at all about how they do treat animals since animals are, legally, chattel property in every state (including MA and CA). It may not be right (ethically) but it is right (legally).

  • mtrueman||

    "They DO have the right to treat animals in any way short of that state's animal cruelty laws."

    I'm not arguing the legality of the matter. I'm talking about the difference between right and wrong. These boundaries are always shifting, but it seems clear that we are moving in the direction against mistreatment of animals and the Mass and Cal state legislatures are reflecting the change in society morals.

  • JFree||

    MA and CA may well be reflecting the change in their CONSTITUENTS morals. But they have no legal (or ethical) right to impose those morals on anyone else - esp since they ain't elected by anyone outside MA and CA.

    Instead they are doing the typical sociopathic passive-aggressive move that is intended to coerce those outside one's sphere in the name of name the good feelz that is important to those inside one's sphere. That sort of move is itself also - unethical.

  • mtrueman||

    " that is intended to coerce those outside one's sphere in the name of name the good feelz that is important to those inside one's sphere"

    The farmers are not "outside one's sphere." They are within it. They are producers of food we eat. They rely on the money their customers give them in return for food. Together they constitute what one might call a 'socio-economic sphere'. or maybe you'd prefer different terminology, depending how much you want to quibble. We are thrown into communities that overspill artificial line on maps. If we want to change the world, we should be free to give it a try. Same if we want to change the way farmers package chickens.

    It is the Mass farmers who are being coerced here. They will presumably go to jail if they go too far in their animal packaging, which is after all simply an expediency of the market, a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the chicken selling operation. It's no excuse to subject millions of animals to cruel and degrading treatment.

  • Sevo||

    "If we want to change the world, we should be free to give it a try. Same if we want to change the way farmers package chickens."
    You slimy sack of shit, you want to use the government to force your opinions on the rest of humanity.
    I knew you were a pretentious twit, but did not realize you are a fucking asshole of that magnitude.
    Scumbag....

  • Voxpo||

    Are you saying supporting laws against cruel treatment of animals makes one a fucking asshole, etc.?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    It precisely does. Given that at least some animal lovers (that is, lovers as wiggling, farting, squealing beasts and not as BBQ) think that all exploitation of animals is wrong, and would support the death penalty for humans who eat meat, the deliberately vague criteria of "cruel treatment" invites assholeness.

  • mtrueman||

    "You slimy sack of shit, you want to use the government to force your opinions on the rest of humanity."

    Not just me. The voters of Mass and Cal also agree. We are all fucking assholes.

  • Sevo||

    Voxpo|12.17.17 @ 5:29AM|#
    "Are you saying supporting laws against cruel treatment of animals makes one a fucking asshole, etc.?"
    Yes, fucking asshole.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.17.17 @ 11:20AM|#
    "Not just me. The voters of Mass and Cal also agree. We are all fucking assholes."

    Yes, there are more than one fucking assholes. Does that make you happy, fucking asshole?

  • mtrueman||

    "Does that make you happy, fucking asshole?"

    Is there a reason you are asking me?

  • Sevo||

    "Is there a reason you are asking me?"

    Probably not.
    Posting stupidity seems to make you happy, shitbag.

  • Eidde||

    The government should steer clear of trying to meddle in the voluntary choices made in the private marketplace.

    It's not something to crow about.

    The state should get its snout out of the business of honest farmers.

  • mtrueman||

    "The state should get its snout out of the business of honest farmers."

    It's not the honesty of the farmers that's in question. It's their abuse of animals. Since when do Libertarians come down in favour of abusive practices towards helpless animals?

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.16.17 @ 12:26PM|#
    "It's not the honesty of the farmers that's in question. It's their abuse of animals. Since when do Libertarians come down in favour of abusive practices towards helpless animals?"

    Fucktard, your oh-so-wonnerful concern for how you think animals should be treated is the opinion of an ignorant piece of shit: You.
    So stuff it up your ass.

  • mtrueman||

    "Fucktard, your oh-so-wonnerful concern for how you think animals should be treated is the opinion of an ignorant piece of shit: You."

    Enough about this animal caging stuff. Let's discuss me.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.17.17 @ 11:26AM|#
    "Enough about this animal caging stuff. Let's discuss me."

    We have been, fucktard.

  • mtrueman||

    Some of us have been.

  • Voxpo||

    Good question.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    mtrueman and voxpo need some puppy tacos.

  • mtrueman||

    Earth skeptic needs to spend more time in a humane cage.

  • Sevo||

    "Earth skeptic needs to spend more time in a humane cage."

    Fucktard trueman needs to be thrown in jail for not agreeing with my opinion.

  • mtrueman||

    "Fucktard trueman needs to be thrown in jail for not agreeing with my opinion."

    You need to be thrown in jail and enslaved even more for not mentioning my blog.

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, shitbag, you keep hoping someone with make a mistake and click on your handle.
    Peddling your brand of stupidity, pretentiousness and slimbaggery really doesn't get clicks on your blog.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Waters thinks the poor should starve so she can eat her organic tofu. Except school kids, they should get if free!

    "Waters: I do feel like food should cost more, because we aren't paying farmers a living wage. It has to cost more. Even to arrive at the right price for conventionally priced food we have to pay more. But if we want organic food, if we want people to really care about nourishment and to take care of the land, we have to pay more for our food."
    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-t.....dren/4507/

    When cooks should STFU: Tonight on PBS!

  • Agammamon||

    If she doesn't think we're paying farmers a 'living wage', then how does she explain the size of their houses around here?

    https://tinyurl.com/ybnyxkuz

    That dude's house is bigger than my whole lot.

  • Sevo||

    The comment is even more laughable in that quite a few of the 'sustainable, organic, hippy-dippy' farmers live in Marin County - some of the most expensive real estate in the country.

  • mtrueman||

    How dare they!

  • Sevo||

    "How dare they!"
    Fucktard trueman attempts humor, makes an ass of himself again.

  • mtrueman||

    How dare he!

  • Sevo||

    Make an ass of himself again.

  • mtrueman||

    We Libertarians support government subsidies to the food industry. Cheap food is a right.

  • Finrod||

    I'm shocked you can even spell 'libertarian', slaver.

  • mtrueman||

    You're the victim here, enslaved by your inability to tightly pack animals in small cages. More whining is called for. Let us know your true feelings.

  • Sevo||

    "You're the victim here, enslaved by your inability to tightly pack animals in small cages. More whining is called for. Let us know your true feelings."

    My true feelings are simple:
    You're a fucking self righteous ignoramus.

  • James in Perth||

    It may be of interest only to me but in Australia one state (Victoria) prohibited dairy farmers from refrigerating eggs. This effectively prevented farmers in New South Wales from shipping their eggs to Victoria.

    The Australian Constitution has a provision similar to the U.S. Constitution which prevents restraints on internal commerce ["[T]rade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free." Section 92]. The High Court struck down the regulation as a restraint of trade.

  • Cunty Over Party||

    According to the letter of the law, the MA and CA restrictions apply to eggs, pork, and veal produced and sold in-state as well. So it does not appear to violate the "dormant commerce clause" as intrastate and interstate commerce are treated identically.

    Of course, if CA and MA also ban the practice of raising veal, pork, or eggs from animals in small cages for in-state producers, this law could be interpreted as an effective support for in-state producers. Just as New York banning apple cultivars that don't grow well in New York would be interpreted as effectively discriminatory against other states' apple farmers. But I'm not sure how big the livestock industries in MA and CA are, so that argument may not get far.

  • Juice||

    The question the Supreme Court is being asked to address, ultimately, is whether lawmakers in any one state—here, Massachusetts and California, respectively—may dictate how farmers in other states raise livestock.

    According to you, that's not what they did.

    Earlier this week, thirteen states, led by Indiana, sued Massachusetts in federal court, seeking to overturn a Bay State law that makes it illegal for a business operating in the state to sell veal, eggs in the shell, or pork which it "knows or should know" comes from an animal which was confined in a small cage or crate.

    They aren't dictating what the farmers can do on their farms in other states. They are dictating what kind of products can be sold within their state.

    I don't see how this is unconstitutional.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.16.17 @ 12:20PM|#
    "I don't think the mistreatment of animals is frivolous."

    Goodie for you.
    It's none of your business, slaver.
    Fuck off.

  • mtrueman||

    "Goodie for you."

    Congrats, Sevo, it's about good and bad and the ability to see the difference between them.

    "It's none of your business,"

    It's not about business, it's about good and bad, right and wrong. Ask those state legislatures if you doubt me.

  • Sevo||

    "Congrats, Sevo, it's about good and bad and the ability to see the difference between them."
    Congrats, you self-righteous asshole, for trying to push your opinions on others

    "It's not about business, it's about good and bad, right and wrong. Ask those state legislatures if you doubt me."
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • mtrueman||

    ""Congrats, Sevo, it's about good and bad and the ability to see the difference between them."
    Congrats, you self-righteous asshole, for trying to push your opinions on others

    "It's not about business, it's about good and bad, right and wrong. Ask those state legislatures if you doubt me."
    Fuck off, slaver."

    Fuck off, slaver, yourself, even more.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.17.17 @ 11:28AM|#
    "Fuck off, slaver, yourself, even more."

    Scumbag trueman see a desire for liberty as "slaving"
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • mtrueman||

    What's so liberty about confining animals to small cages?

  • Finrod||

    What's so liberty about one state legislature telling the rest of the country what it can and cannot do?

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.18.17 @ 10:08AM|#
    "What's so liberty about confining animals to small cages?"

    What's so liberty about killing people if they don't agree with a fucktard's opinion, fucktard?

  • para_dimz||

    The "standing" ruling needs to be attacked. No citizen should have to suffer a loss in order to make a claim for relief where intent to inflict a loss or harm is evident. No citizen should have to fight the government charged with protecting liberty when that government plainly intends to abridge it.

  • Sevo||

    And in case anyone is not yet clear regarding the depravity of the asshole trueman, this is from above:

    mtrueman|12.16.17 @ 7:01PM|#
    "The farmers are not "outside one's sphere." They are within it. They are producers of food we eat. They rely on the money their customers give them in return for food. Together they constitute what one might call a 'socio-economic sphere'. or maybe you'd prefer different terminology, depending how much you want to quibble. We are thrown into communities that overspill artificial line on maps. If we want to change the world, we should be free to give it a try. Same if we want to change the way farmers package chickens."
    Happy horseshit masquerading as argument in attempting to justify enforcing his opinion with coercion.

    "It is the Mass farmers who are being coerced here. They will presumably go to jail if they go too far in their animal packaging, which is after all simply an expediency of the market, a way to squeeze a few more dollars out of the chicken selling operation. It's no excuse to subject millions of animals to cruel and degrading treatment."
    Yes, the slimebag is willing to put people in jail for raising chickens cheaply enough that poor folks can afford them.
    There is some limit which humans won't plumb in there stupidity and hubris, but the fucktard trueman has yet to find it.

  • mtrueman||

    Thanks for quoting me at such length and taking such an interest in my opinions.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.17.17 @ 11:32AM|#
    "Thanks for quoting me at such length and taking such an interest in my opinions."

    Thanks for making it clear you are a fucking asshole.

  • mtrueman||

    Thanks for thanking me.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck you with turd's dick

  • Brendan||

    Could a a state, pre-13th amendment, prohibit the sale of anything made with slave labor?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Are you seriously comparing the size of animal enclosures with slave labor? Are you related to truetardman?

  • Voxpo||

    Excellent 2016 documentary on this general topic: http://attheforkfilm.com/ By the guy who made the Hayek vs. Keynes rap videos.

  • Sevo||

    Kevin, I don't care who made a documentary.
    Your ill-informed opinions regarding animals in no way allow you or the fucktard trueman to use the power of the goverment to enforce them.
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • gordo53||

    California and Massachusetts are free to inform their constituents of certain products that they deem to be "unacceptable", but barring a danger to the public, regulating those products seems to be an overreach. Not sure exactly what the "Commerce Clause" has to say about this, but if the plaintiffs were to prevail, imagine how states might use this decision to pass legislation to protect their industries.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Hmm, if California and Massachusetts are justified in reaching outside their state borders in order to preserve the rights of farm animals, are Texas and Alabama justified in reaching into CA and MA in order to preserve the rights of people?

  • Cunty Over Party||

    Good idea. Maybe a ban on any product produced by workers whose gun rights were curtailed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    THAT is the best idea in ages! Find me off-blog and I'll make proper attribution after stealing the idea. I can't very well add "Thanks and a tip of the old Hatlo hat to Cunty over Party and Earth Skeptic"!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Just wait 'till officious California and Massachusetts legislators find out how patê de foie gras and terrapin livers are enlarged!

  • mtrueman||

    "Just wait 'till ..."

    Don't wait. If tormenting helpless animals is your idea of sound Libertarian practice, start now.

  • Sevo||

    "Don't wait. If tormenting helpless animals is your idea of sound Libertarian practice, start now."

    Don't wait. If using the power of the government to enforce your half-baked desires, well, start now.
    Brought to you by scumbag trumen.

  • mtrueman||

    "Don't wait. If using the power of the government to enforce your half-baked desires, well, start now."

    Too late. I've already instructed the Mass and Cal legislatures to enslave their citizens and the process is well on the way.

  • Sevo||

    "Too late. I've already instructed the Mass and Cal legislatures to enslave their citizens and the process is well on the way."

    No, slimy piece of shit, you can only dream of such slimness, piece of shit.

  • Sevo||

    Let's be clear here.
    A pretentious twit with the handle "mtrueman" and a newcomer "Voxpo" both are arrogant assholes presuming that that THEY know right and wrong regarding the treatment of farm animals.
    Do I have that right, arrogant assholes?
    What's more, they are more than happy to propose the coercive use of government power to enforce their bogus opinions of the treatment of farm animals.
    Do I have that right, arrogant assholes?
    And it's an odds-on bet that the ignorance of both the arrogant assholes was such that both of the arrogant assholes never bothered to consider the cost of food and its effects on those who buy food at the margins.
    Do I have that right, arrogant, ignorant, self-righteous, slimy assholes?
    Just want to be clear about the issue....
    (if it isn't clear, I despise such pathetic excuses for humankind)

  • mtrueman||

    I know the difference between right and wrong.You know how to babble about being enslaved.

  • Finrod||

    So to you enslaving others isn't wrong. Fuck off, slaver.

  • mtrueman||

    Idiots like you and Sevo are born to embrace your slavery. You refuse to lift a finger to free yourself, and whinge about me, instead.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|12.18.17 @ 4:26PM|#
    "Idiots like you and Sevo are born to embrace your slavery. You refuse to lift a finger to free yourself, and whinge about me, instead."

    So, you fucking piece of shit, you admit you're willing to toss people in jail based on your opinion, fucking piece of shit?
    Obviously, you are also willing to have them killed, you fucking piece of shit, since trying to escape from prison means being shot.
    All because a slimy piece of shit presumes that the slimy piece of shit's opinion is worth killing people, slimy piece of shit?

  • EscherEnigma||

    California has required higher safety and emissions standards then the rest of the US for decades, impacting the supply chain for cars sold all across the US.

    So it's not like one state's standards impacting products for other states is new or anything.

    And yeah, being a large share of the market means that your choices will impact more then just you. That's how markets work. But jumping to "it's unconstitutional for you to regulate product sold to you because you're big" is kind of a jump.

    And while I get that libertarians are going to say a state shouldn't be regulating anything, that's probably a bridge to far for most folks.

  • mtrueman||

    "And while I get that libertarians are going to say a state shouldn't be regulating anything"

    Libertarians want the market to decide. The market incentives reward inhumane treatment of animals.

  • Sevo||

    "The market incentives reward inhumane treatment of animals."

    And the slimy piece of shit presumes to KNOW what "inhumane" means. Right, slimy piece of shit?
    And is willing to kill people who don't agree, right, slimy piece of shit?
    Oh, and is willing to starve those who can't afford what the food costs as a result of slimy piece of shit's new 'we'll kill you if you don't agree' edicts, right, slimy piece of shit?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online