I don't see anything wrong, from a small "l" libertarian perspective, with a reasonable regime of licensing and inspection of stores selling and producing food to the public.
Individual consumers do not have the ability or expertise to figure out whether the food they are buying is dangerous (except in extreme situations). So, the burden needs to be shifted to the producer/seller to ensure that we're not unknowingly buying ratburgers and cockroach sausage.
I can see rules for co-ops being different, so long as the co-ops do not sell food to the general public.
>>>>>I can see rules for co-ops being different, so long as the co-ops do not sell food to the general public. <<<<<
The DA affidavit clearly states that an informant appeared at the co-op, paid $5, and was instantly a “member” and eligible to buy products at retail, which he proceeded to do.
By the reasoning on this thread, Costco and Sam’s Club are immune from food and health inspections in their stores.
Do I have that down correctly?
In principle, I think rules could be extended to cover co-ops and still be consistent with the "l"ibertarian perspective.
Even if the co-op itself isn't selling food to the general public, the co-op members will be intermingling with the general public after eating the co-op food (and any infectious bacteria present in that food). That means even if I never visit the co-op I could still be made sick because of their products.
That risk could justify requiring a license from the co-op. Of course, even if it was theoretically justified it still may not be practical to require a license if there aren't many co-ops and the food they sell isn't very bug-friendly.