To: ndt
Yea, I don’t see why they should receive a cent from the state. I also don’t see why the state should mandate the destruction of the herd. Just, IMO.
5 posted on
07/14/2007 11:58:31 AM PDT by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
To: traviskicks
I also dont see why the state should mandate the destruction of the herd. Didja know it can be passed to humans?
6 posted on
07/14/2007 12:08:23 PM PDT by
woofer
(Some strive to soar like an eagle, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.)
To: traviskicks
"Yea, I dont see why they should receive a cent from the state. I also dont see why the state should mandate the destruction of the herd. Just, IMO."
In the case of a disease like brucellosis, it is so infectious that the situation is a little like the TB guy that's in quarantine. Not limiting it would be so immediately devastating to the community that I have to agree that it is a valid govenment role to prevent it's spread.
I don't know why this type of scenario is not covered by insurance though. If it raises the price of beef, so be it. Otherwise we are essentially eating subsidized beef. You pay for it one way or the other.
7 posted on
07/14/2007 12:12:43 PM PDT by
ndt
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson