News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
This shit should be illegal. If they want to lock him in to only selling to them, it should be required that they buy everything he's produced at an agreed on rate before he does any work.
It's a private agreement he signed voluntarily after he had the rights to grow and while he could sell to anyone for any price....
It's legal in the same way I can sell you my house for a dollar, I could do it, but I'd be an idiot.
He didn't have to sign that, he just did it.
There's shit that should be illegal no matter how a contract is written. An example that comes to mind is how landlords love to put things in a lease that aren't legally enforceable.
Then it sounds like you want an authoritarian nanny state...
Which actually isn't surprising
Pre-emptive edit:
The point being if "unfair" contracts are illegal, then the government is the one saying what contracts are fair.
And a single look in the general direction of the American government, should I dictate why that's a bad plan.
The most likely result, is the rich abuse it, and suddenly "fair" just means "fuck over the poors".
Huh? There are no contracts at all without a state.
Whether or not a contract is "fair" has absolutely nothing to do with legality.
If I want to sell you my house for a $1, then that's legal.
If you manipulate me, or coerce me, not legal.
That is how it is supposed to work.
If I can't sell you my house for $1, what price will the state let me sell?
$1k? 10k? 100k?
What happens when there's a market crash and the state doesn't want to acknowledge by letting homes sell for less?
What about the other way? What if they say 100k is too much and no matter what my house can only be sold for 10k? Do you think that would be a land of cheap houses or do you realize it would quickly lead to only rentals ever being available and shit benefits from property taxes while landlord income skyrockets?
And I know, a one time sale of a house isn't the same as contracted selling of a crop...
But trust me, this is easier to explain and pretty much the same thing.
Hell, I grew tobacco growing up, and like most crops the government will buy pretty much anything at below market price exactly for stuff like this. It's a hugely important part of being any kind of farmer to know about this program
I don't expect any of you to know anything about that
But a guy buying an orchard should.
And anyone signing any sort of sales and distribution deal, needs a lawyer.
If it's exclusive you need the most lawyer you can afford
Contracts are meaningless without the state as an enforcement mechanism. The state has an interest in contracts, which it defines in like, 'contract laws'. These laws put superseding constraints on contracts. I understand, that in the case of this farmer, no laws may have been broken. What I'm saying is that there could (and perhaps should) be such a law. Just like in a residential lease, the landlord can't override legal protections.
No one is disagreeing with you.
Based on what? Like, what should the law be about?
You're being vague and hand wavy and not thinking of what happens.
Are you banning exclusivity?
Are you saying the state needs to set "fair" prices?
What are you actually suggesting become illegal?
I was agreeing with a previous commenter, that if the company wants to enforce exclusivity, that should only be enforceable so long as they purchase his crop.
And you honest, hand to God...
Didn't see that a grower can then just sign it and provide shit quality produce and the company has to buy it?
Like, you've legitimately taken the time thru these replies to stop and picture you're idea, and that immediate problem didn't show up with a big flashing light in your brain?
There's already a federal government program that exists to buy below market value. I legitimately don't know if necteraines is included, but even tobacco is. No matter how shitty it is, there's a bare minimum the government will pay, and that goes in a giant warehouse in case there's a supply issue.
There is a system set up, better than what you just thought of.
But because you don't know anything about this you don't know that.
Hey dude. Just fuck off, OK? You are weirdly worked up about this, and now you're being an asshole because of what you imagine I did or didn't think of?
That is not what an authoritarian nanny state is. He wants a system where people don't get screwed by contractual abuse with no way out. It's entirely reasonable for a state to protect against abuse.
As painful as it is, this is true. Consumer protection protects consumers. Businesses are expected to do their own due diligence.
Trying to regulate this away will just encourage contract lawyers to be even more convoluted in their language.
Unfortunately a lot of people get burnt when they cross the line from consumer to business world and don't take on the due diligence aspect.
Basically, better education is needed on this, rather than government oversight. Regulatory capture would rapidly make it a stick to beat smaller businesses with otherwise.
They already need to get a business license...
They're already going thru multiple state and federal steps and forms to establish themselves as a business...
Like, the end road all these people are walking down, is a "test" to see if someone is "smart enough" to be allowed to run a business
I'm fucking terrified about the future, covid really fucked up everyone's IQs somehow. Right/left, doesn't matter. Critical thinking has basically disappeared since 2020. Everyone is just running on vibes and historically that means they're being manipulated by the oligarchs again.
People need to actually start thinking, but they just refuse to.
I personally think it's data overload. The disruption of COVID pushed a lot of people over the edge. They went into a mental lockdown. Rather than filtering on importance, they instead filtered on whole topics.
It's worth noting that the right, in most countries, shifted to a gish-gallop information mentality. This happened around the same time as COVID (though the build up started before e.g Brexit). For those able to rapidly filter, it's just really annoying. To those who relied on authority to filter, it's devastating.
It's the same method as "brave new world" talked about. Swamp important information in a storm of noise.
Nah man, it's deeper...
And to be clear, it's not that I haven't seen it to similar degrees in myself. It's just (and believe me or not, I can't/wont prove it) my IQ before all this shit was higher than a normal IQ test could measure. Anything over 145 needs a more specific test, and my most recent one was like 2012 and I beat that threshold.
And I'm not where I was before COVID, and I didn't even fucking test positive for covid at any point. There could be other reasons for me personally, but again, it's fucking everyone.
It legit feels like we all had a substantial drop in IQ. And again, can't/won't prove it, but I spent a few years working with the special needs population, ranging from high 60s IQ and barely noticable, to completely non verbal and me changing adult diapers.
Everyone is acting substantially less intelligent than pre-covid. Not saying COVID did it, even though we always heard of neurological lasting effects like long COVID and brain fog. It's possible it's lack of socialization and that stuff...
But bro...
I really think the COVID brain fog never went away, I think we all got it to some extent, and just got used to it and stopped remembering what it used to be like.
And this is reflected in the standardized testing of gen z and alpha, it's a legit and measurable thing, although I think the fact that we only teach for standardized testing isn't just contributing to this, it's hiding it. If scores are bad now when standardized test scores are the only priority....
The metrics are hiding how bad the problem really is.
We're cooked, it's not a quick fix, people can't just pay attention and instantly be better. It's gonna take years/decades to dig us out of this. I just fucking hope it's not happening globally
I know about the brain fog. I was working in china when it started. I got an early dose, before it started to mellow. I'm also up at the extreme IQ wise (as well as a good example of the difference between "smart" and "capable")
I don't think mass brain fog is the main cause however. The very structure of society began to crack. The status it's stabilized in is so much worse for our cognitive health. We passed a tipping point where negativity became the dominant mindset.
Gen Z and gen alpha had their education massively disrupted. The cascade damage from that is only going to compound for a generation or 2. Disentangling the various factors is difficult to say the least.
Yes and manufacturing and mining occupations volunteered to work in horrible conditions before they were regulated. They had a choice. They could have just not worked those jobs. What idiots. /s
Or maybe he was coerced, or didn't have any other options, or trusted the company was going to give him a fair shake. Maybe he is an idiot. That doesn't mean that corporations with millions to spend on lawyers should be able to destroy peoples livelihoods because they can throw more money at the legal system. The law is supposed to protect everyone. And destroying perfectly good food on top of that?
Then it's illegal and not valid...
What? He could have sold to anyone, and signed an exclusive distribution contract...
He had every other option and threw them all away
Then he's a fucking idiot...
How the fuck are you this deep in this thread and still think food was destroyed?
Like, just in general, I'm not going to keep explaining the same shit, when you're clearly not understanding this. I don't even think you're reading these comments.
Literally the first line of the fucking article:
From the other article:
They fucked him.
And he didn't have other options, this kind of fruit is patented (also bullshit) and he had to sign on with this packer. Trees take years to grow, he can't just switch over to another one at the drop of a hat.