Yeah, More Nannyism

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

It is my experience that bad laws are almost impossible to get off the books, even after the mistake is realized. For example, I think homosexuality is still illegal in several states.

Is it really? I thought those laws have been removed for quite awhile now.

This is vic we're talking about, the guy who posts to correct my use of 'your' and 'you're', but oops, he's the one who got it wrong.

All laws criminalizing private, consensual homosexual acts were made void by a Supreme Court decision against Texas (the buttocks of the US) in 2003.

Of course, the right wingers prevented it from being unanimous as Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas voted to uphold the discrination (Roberts and Alito weren't yet on the court).

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: halik
I think it's a brilliant idea!

Self reliance? This country has demonstrated it can't handle nutrition (comapre obesity rates to the rest of the world). So I don't see a reason why not let the gov't take care of this externality.It's better for all of pragmatically and financially, as heart disease is a cost driver in medicare.

So, why not ban saturated fats? Oh, and high levels of sodium and sugar and sugar substitutes and everything else that is bad for you. Hell, just wipe out the whole junk food industry while you are at it because there is absolutely no nutritional value there. That would include chips, ice cream, candies, etc.

b/c trans fats are a man-made substitute. you can't really ban naturally occuring substances. see, i told you people to stop eating margarine...

also, cutting off trans fats will do nothing for your weight. it's all about your heart. enough of that ****** will clog your system up so much that you'll turn as pale as conan o'brien. (lame, i know...).

banning synthetic substances simply makes sense, and this is not the first time a sythetic substitute has been banned after it was found to be detrimental to health (worse than what it hoped to solve).
...all this means is that restaraunts will go back to butter. and yes, people will actually get fatter because of the ban.
how's that for irony?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

It is my experience that bad laws are almost impossible to get off the books, even after the mistake is realized. For example, I think homosexuality is still illegal in several states.

Is it really? I thought those laws have been removed for quite awhile now.

This is vic we're talking about, the guy who posts to correct my use of 'your' and 'you're', but oops, he's the one who got it wrong.

All laws criminalizing private, consensual homosexual acts were made void by a Supreme Court decision against Texas (the buttocks of the US) in 2003.

Of course, the right wingers prevented it from being unanimous as Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas voted to uphold the discrination (Roberts and Alito weren't yet on the court).

Ah yes, it required an act of the Supreme Court because the legislative bodies wouldn't anything. Thanks for correcting me on that. Now, what does your needless and inaccurate personal attack have to do with my point besides confirming it?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Tab
So, Martin the problem isn't an indiviual's poor eating decision it's when the indiviual's eating decision affects others correct? As for the rest of the above, do you have a better idea of how society should be run?

Is there even a decision made in this case? Can I go to the store and ask for fries without transfats, while my friend orders ones with? When you think about all the combinations actually possible when you consider several substances like this, you'll see choice often becomes impossible (bsobel's list has 15 additives - 32000 combinations).

So in this case, does the cost outweight the benefit? yeah, seeing as how there is no practical cost, its an easy answer...

There are various companies that are already removing "trans-fat" without any federal ban. The corporation is changing for the consumer. Education before legislation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Tab
So, Martin the problem isn't an indiviual's poor eating decision it's when the indiviual's eating decision affects others correct? As for the rest of the above, do you have a better idea of how society should be run?

Is there even a decision made in this case? Can I go to the store and ask for fries without transfats, while my friend orders ones with? When you think about all the combinations actually possible when you consider several substances like this, you'll see choice often becomes impossible (bsobel's list has 15 additives - 32000 combinations).

So in this case, does the cost outweight the benefit? yeah, seeing as how there is no practical cost, its an easy answer...

There are various companies that are already removing "trans-fat" without any federal ban. The corporation is changing for the consumer. Education before legislation.

They're not just removing it, they advertise the fact. "ZERO trans fat!!" etc.

Those evil corps...

 

[glutenberg]

It's also arguable that they only starting banning trans fats on their own due to news that trans fats were going to be banned in NY. If you watch the first sign of news about Yum foods banning trans fats, it comes after NY had announced their decision to consider the banning of trans fats in restaurants. If a company sees a trend coming, their obviously going to try to gamble the right direction and be the first one to capitalize on the new ban. With their voluntary removal of trans fats, they can claim to be the first ones to do so which is a big deal when dealing with the fast food and consumer goods industry. First in class or something more to offer is what they strive for.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
It's also arguable that they only starting banning trans fats on their own due to news that trans fats were going to be banned in NY. If you watch the first sign of news about Yum foods banning trans fats, it comes after NY had announced their decision to consider the banning of trans fats in restaurants. If a company sees a trend coming, their obviously going to try to gamble the right direction and be the first one to capitalize on the new ban. With their voluntary removal of trans fats, they can claim to be the first ones to do so which is a big deal when dealing with the fast food and consumer goods industry. First in class or something more to offer is what they strive for.

I'll admit that's a good point but this isn't the only thing. Don't you know McDonalds displays nutritional information in everystore and on their website. Not to meniton they've ended the supersize option and have added some more heathly choices to their menu.

 

[glutenberg]

Very true. I have no doubt in my mind that they're moving towards healthier trend but what worries me is how many people will develop heart disease from trans fats before the market corrects the mistake. Items like their fries, which is probably one of their best selling items, is still cooked heavily in trans fats and really there aren't too many alternatives to them other than just not eating them.

The thing with all the posted nutritional data requires that people already have a general understanding, if not a thorough one, of what it means to control their diet. I can imagine that people (in particular those in poorer socio-economic conditions) will not understand the nutritional information. I don't really want to get into it but there are also other factors that affect poorer families in regards to what they choose to eat. I'm all for an incredibly well informed, intelligent society, but I'm also not going to cover my eyes when I see reality and realize that even if every program was designed to inform the public, there just wouldn't be enough time (not to mention, priorities in learning material to emphasize) nor funds to inform the consumers of every product. But I don't know, maybe it's possible. It's hard to try because of the high costs for restructuring a very broken system that we currently have (in particular, lobbying by large industries).

Also Tabb, do you play WoW under the same user tag (just curious)?

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

It was addressed and immediate dismissed admist a hail of personal attacks.
Trans fats are not necessarily cheaper. They were developed with government support as a supposed healthier alternative to saturated fats, like animals fats and butter. That turned out not to be true. Now... imagine if people with the pass-a-law-to-protect-everyone mentality had banned butter a couple of decades ago? Between fighting off personal attacks, that and what ayabe said has been my point since I entered this thread.

Hey Vic, I agree with you that knee-jerk responses can result in bad decisions in hindsight... but what if it turned out that butter was banned and it really was worse for you? By taking action now you use the information you have available to you - if you are wrong you can always unban something I suppose. Of course, you always have to weigh the potential costs of banning/restricting something in a knee-jerk fashion as well...

It is my experience that bad laws are almost impossible to get off the books, even after the mistake is realized. For example, I think homosexuality is still illegal in several states.

Blue laws. Since we never codify our laws, they never are removed.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Another thing I'm curious about is how does a one's actions, no matter how personal, not affect others? If you smoke in your house, you are exercising your liberty but if you get cancer, are you not infringing on other peoples' liberties (in particular, family members) of avoiding emotional hardship? This probably comes mainly from my confusion about what liberties Libertarians support specifically.

There is no right to be protected from emotional hardship. That would be completely unreasonable and impossible. There would have to be laws like your girlfriend couldn't break up with you or something ridiculous like that.

No, of course that would be silly.

She'd simply need to find a suitable replacement.

Preferably with 1/3 less trans fat.