Yeah, More Nannyism

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't want the FDA to protect me. Where's the opt out?

Move to another country?

You're the one claiming Bush isn't your president. You move, and take the FDA with you.

Listen here fvcker. I wasn't telling you to move to another country. I was suggesting that moving to another country is your "opt out". As far as GWB, he LOVES the FDA because they hook up his buddies in the drug industry with HUGE profits by approving drugs with minimal testing. So they won't be going anywhere for a long, long time.

And I do acknowledge that GWB is "THE" president. However, he is not "MY" president. It's basically a big disclaimer saying that I had nothing to do with his election to office, and I refuse to be held accountable for his neverending series of fvckups. So put that sh1t in your pipe and smoke it.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: ebaycj
The problem is that there are almost no "healthy" alternatives anymore because the whole damn food industry uses trans fats in just about everything. If there were a "non trans-fat" bag of chips right next to every "trans-fat" bag of chips, I don't think there would be as much outcry. This law is more to push the food companies into offering alternatives (by creating artificially high demand for "non trans-fat" chips) vs. actually limiting rights..
I guess those organic food sections in most grocery stores, and the vast array of natural food stores that are popping up nowadays don't offer alternatives? If people cared, they'd change their eating habits themselves.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,322
48,584
136
Man, Boberfett I agree with you in principle. Excessive regulations can definitely get stupid sometimes.

In this case though it's really just looking like common sense. This reminds me of those regulations that limited the amount of arsenic in drinking water. Can you get your water from somewhere else? Definitely! Does that mean we should be okay with arsenic in our water? Probably not.

I share some of your anger at laws encroaching into every aspect of life.... it is definitely a problem. I don't think this is the place to make your stand though, as I really see no downside.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Listen here fvcker... *pissy rant snipped*
Mee-ow. Strike a nerve, did I?

If people don't want to eat trans fats, they don't have to eat them. That's their opt out. Instead, a bunch of do gooders decided it was up to them to tell people how to live. Hey, I guess if that's what New Yorkers want from their elected officials, that's their business. I just hope it stays local so that at least some parts of this country can retain some semblance of freedom of choice.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Man, Boberfett I agree with you in principle. Excessive regulations can definitely get stupid sometimes.

In this case though it's really just looking like common sense. This reminds me of those regulations that limited the amount of arsenic in drinking water. Can you get your water from somewhere else? Definitely! Does that mean we should be okay with arsenic in our water? Probably not.

I share some of your anger at laws encroaching into every aspect of life.... it is definitely a problem. I don't think this is the place to make your stand though, as I really see no downside.

Absolutely, one does have to choose one's battles. It just seems that lately, every day brings a new assault on freedom in this country, so I tend to get defensive about every little thing. If it isn't the Republicans trying to track every move I make online to fight terror, it's Democrats tracking every move I make online to protect kids from predators. Republicans are more guilty lately because they've held full control, but I fully expect Democrats to continue the fight against freedom after the Republicans fade away.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
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.

HAHAHA!

Thanks, that actually made me laugh! Do you have any other good jokes?

I think the more pertinent question is whether you have any more 6th grade argument comebacks... I half expected "I know what you are but what am I".

And I expected rational thinking on you rpart, which seems to be lacking......

So, the .gov should regulate everything then by your own words. Interesting.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Man, Boberfett I agree with you in principle. Excessive regulations can definitely get stupid sometimes.

In this case though it's really just looking like common sense. This reminds me of those regulations that limited the amount of arsenic in drinking water. Can you get your water from somewhere else? Definitely! Does that mean we should be okay with arsenic in our water? Probably not.

I share some of your anger at laws encroaching into every aspect of life.... it is definitely a problem. I don't think this is the place to make your stand though, as I really see no downside.

Absolutely, one does have to choose one's battles. It just seems that lately, every day brings a new assault on freedom in this country, so I tend to get defensive about every little thing. If it isn't the Republicans trying to track every move I make online to fight terror, it's Democrats tracking every move I make online to protect kids from predators. Republicans are more guilty lately because they've held full control, but I fully expect Democrats to continue the fight against freedom after the Republicans fade away.


How is that all nutty libertarians make every single thing a struggle for freedom? How exactly is hydrogenated oil affecting your freedom is beyond me...

This is neither crazy republican power grab or democratic assault weapons "think of the children" debacle. It's no different than ban on lead based paint or asbestos. I stand by my assessment that militant libertarians know nothing of economics or policy.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,537
4,623
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't want the FDA to protect me. Where's the opt out?


Stick any unapproved by the FDA chemical additives down your cake-hole...enjoy!

Or:

Self prescribe any FDA banned prscription medications you can get your hands on.


Don't forget to give your pregnant wife some Thalidamide; who the hell is the EPA to tell you what causes birth defects?



another alternative:


Eat, sniff and be merry with all the lead paint you want...you'll soon be opted out.

Dammed EPA, grumble, grumble
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
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.

HAHAHA!

Thanks, that actually made me laugh! Do you have any other good jokes?

I think the more pertinent question is whether you have any more 6th grade argument comebacks... I half expected "I know what you are but what am I".

And I expected rational thinking on you rpart, which seems to be lacking......

So, the .gov should regulate everything then by your own words. Interesting.


Of the two of us, I am the one that put forh an actual argument in this exchange. I suggest you look up the defition of "externality" and then re-read what I said.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,222
654
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Listen here fvcker... *pissy rant snipped*
Mee-ow. Strike a nerve, did I?

If people don't want to eat trans fats, they don't have to eat them. That's their opt out. Instead, a bunch of do gooders decided it was up to them to tell people how to live. Hey, I guess if that's what New Yorkers want from their elected officials, that's their business. I just hope it stays local so that at least some parts of this country can retain some semblance of freedom of choice.

So the banning of trans fats is the border between some freedom of choice and none? Talk about dramatic :laugh:

I personally don't think this is a big deal. The government already does plenty to protect people, and this really isn't much different. In general I oppose government intervention unless I feel it is somewhat reasonable. Transfats offer nothing to the consumer other than a (potentially) cheaper way to ingest unhealthy foods.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
How is that all nutty libertarians make every single thing a struggle for freedom? How exactly is hydrogenated oil affecting your freedom is beyond me...

Restaurant offers food with trans fat. Customer willingly accepts the trade. We are no longer free to make this trade.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Restaurant offers food with trans fat. Customer willingly accepts the trade. We are no longer free to make this trade.

Let me know when was the last time you specifically ordered item X in a restaurant because it had hydrogenated oil in it.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
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.

HAHAHA!

Thanks, that actually made me laugh! Do you have any other good jokes?

I think the more pertinent question is whether you have any more 6th grade argument comebacks... I half expected "I know what you are but what am I".

And I expected rational thinking on you rpart, which seems to be lacking......

So, the .gov should regulate everything then by your own words. Interesting.


Of the two of us, I am the one that put forh an actual argument in this exchange. I suggest you look up the defition of "externality" and then re-read what I said.

You would love Old Mother Russia.
Damn our freedoms to choose. Drives you nuts doesnt, comrade.

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: halik
How is that all nutty libertarians make every single thing a struggle for freedom? How exactly is hydrogenated oil affecting your freedom is beyond me...

Restaurant offers food with trans fat. Customer willingly accepts the trade. We are no longer free to make this trade.

You're describing the imperfect information. Ceteris paribus, the consumer would choose non-hydrogenated oil to hydrogenated oil, as the lateris a "bad".

Due to this imperfection information, the restaurants are able to pass on their costs to our helthcase system and since the market doesn't address this, it is by defintion a negative externality.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Man, Boberfett I agree with you in principle. Excessive regulations can definitely get stupid sometimes.

In this case though it's really just looking like common sense. This reminds me of those regulations that limited the amount of arsenic in drinking water. Can you get your water from somewhere else? Definitely! Does that mean we should be okay with arsenic in our water? Probably not.

I share some of your anger at laws encroaching into every aspect of life.... it is definitely a problem. I don't think this is the place to make your stand though, as I really see no downside.

Absolutely, one does have to choose one's battles. It just seems that lately, every day brings a new assault on freedom in this country, so I tend to get defensive about every little thing. If it isn't the Republicans trying to track every move I make online to fight terror, it's Democrats tracking every move I make online to protect kids from predators. Republicans are more guilty lately because they've held full control, but I fully expect Democrats to continue the fight against freedom after the Republicans fade away.


How is that all nutty libertarians make every single thing a struggle for freedom? How exactly is hydrogenated oil affecting your freedom is beyond me...

This is neither crazy republican power grab or democratic assault weapons "think of the children" debacle. It's no different than ban on lead based paint or asbestos. I stand by my assessment that militant libertarians know nothing of economics or policy.

Economics is simple as long as you keep it out of the hands of authoritarians who think they know best. Two people have items. They trade them. They now both have the item they wanted. That's economics. Anything beyond that is just meddling.

Policy? Please tell me, oh great guru of all that is public policy, what is it that us militant libertarians don't get? We don't get that we want to be told how to live like we were children? You're right, we don't get that.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
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.

HAHAHA!

Thanks, that actually made me laugh! Do you have any other good jokes?

I think the more pertinent question is whether you have any more 6th grade argument comebacks... I half expected "I know what you are but what am I".

And I expected rational thinking on you rpart, which seems to be lacking......

So, the .gov should regulate everything then by your own words. Interesting.


Of the two of us, I am the one that put forh an actual argument in this exchange. I suggest you look up the defition of "externality" and then re-read what I said.

You would love Old Mother Russia.
Damn our freedoms to choose. Drives you nuts doesnt, comrade.

Why can't you just simply admit you lost the argument? The above had no value what so ever.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
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.

HAHAHA!

Thanks, that actually made me laugh! Do you have any other good jokes?

I think the more pertinent question is whether you have any more 6th grade argument comebacks... I half expected "I know what you are but what am I".

And I expected rational thinking on you rpart, which seems to be lacking......

So, the .gov should regulate everything then by your own words. Interesting.


Of the two of us, I am the one that put forh an actual argument in this exchange. I suggest you look up the defition of "externality" and then re-read what I said.

You would love Old Mother Russia.
Damn our freedoms to choose. Drives you nuts doesnt, comrade.

Why can't you just simply admit you lost the argument? The above had no value what so ever.

Lost? With your idiotic thinking there was never a beginning to lose.

"Gee, people are dumb so lets regulate it!"

Mother Russia looks forward to you coming. You place the burden of responsibility on the government, not the individual. Thats the very opposiite of what this country was founded on.

I ask again, what argument were you winning? Because no matter how many intelligent sounding sentences you try to bang out, its all gibberish that comes down to "The .gov should control everything". That simple.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't want the FDA to protect me. Where's the opt out?


Stick any unapproved by the FDA chemical additives down your cake-hole...enjoy!

Or:

Self prescribe any FDA banned prscription medications you can get your hands on.


Don't forget to give your pregnant wife some Thalidamide; who the hell is the EPA to tell you what causes birth defects?



another alternative:


Eat, sniff and be merry with all the lead paint you want...you'll soon be opted out.

Dammed EPA, grumble, grumble
Why would I take medications I don't need? And unless I'm licking the walls, lead paint won't be a problem.

There's a difference between being an informed, intelligent adult who can make their own choices and one who has to be told what he can and can't do like a child. I do my best to be the former. You must be quite happy to be a naive, ignorant child; dumb and happy, content to have mommy to tell him to look both ways every time he crosses the street. Oh, and little boy, don't eat the paint chips.

I have no problem with the government doing research to enable people to become informed. I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and can't do, assuming my actions only affect me.

So before you make yourself like an even bigger ass, stop with the red herrings and address the actual argument.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Man, Boberfett I agree with you in principle. Excessive regulations can definitely get stupid sometimes.

In this case though it's really just looking like common sense. This reminds me of those regulations that limited the amount of arsenic in drinking water. Can you get your water from somewhere else? Definitely! Does that mean we should be okay with arsenic in our water? Probably not.

I share some of your anger at laws encroaching into every aspect of life.... it is definitely a problem. I don't think this is the place to make your stand though, as I really see no downside.

Absolutely, one does have to choose one's battles. It just seems that lately, every day brings a new assault on freedom in this country, so I tend to get defensive about every little thing. If it isn't the Republicans trying to track every move I make online to fight terror, it's Democrats tracking every move I make online to protect kids from predators. Republicans are more guilty lately because they've held full control, but I fully expect Democrats to continue the fight against freedom after the Republicans fade away.


How is that all nutty libertarians make every single thing a struggle for freedom? How exactly is hydrogenated oil affecting your freedom is beyond me...

This is neither crazy republican power grab or democratic assault weapons "think of the children" debacle. It's no different than ban on lead based paint or asbestos. I stand by my assessment that militant libertarians know nothing of economics or policy.

Economics is simple as long as you keep it out of the hands of authoritarians who think they know best. Two people have items. They trade them. They now both have the item they wanted. That's economics. Anything beyond that is just meddling.

Policy? Please tell me, oh great guru of all that is public policy, what is it that us militant libertarians don't get? We don't get that we want to be told how to live like we were children? You're right, we don't get that.


Well for one, I've been trying to explain the idea of negative externalities across 5 different posts. You don't seem to be able to understand that there exist market transaction that bear external effects (positive or negative) to other parties.

If I some kid $25 to spray paint all over my house, a net positive transaction has occured. I got done what I wanted to get done and guy got the money he wanted.
This, however, creates negative value to all of my neighbors, because their house value decresed. That very decrese is the negative externality and also a reason why many places have neighborhood comitees / associations.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Mee-ow. Strike a nerve, did I?

If people don't want to eat trans fats, they don't have to eat them. That's their opt out. Instead, a bunch of do gooders decided it was up to them to tell people how to live. Hey, I guess if that's what New Yorkers want from their elected officials, that's their business. I just hope it stays local so that at least some parts of this country can retain some semblance of freedom of choice.

So the banning of trans fats is the border between some freedom of choice and none? Talk about dramatic :laugh:

I personally don't think this is a big deal. The government already does plenty to protect people, and this really isn't much different. In general I oppose government intervention unless I feel it is somewhat reasonable. Transfats offer nothing to the consumer other than a (potentially) cheaper way to ingest unhealthy foods.
Obviously comprehension is not your forte. Try to read the whole thread. Sound out the big words, ask an adult for help if you need it.

Yes, the government does plenty to protect people from themselves. I don't want them to protect me from myself. If I want to gamble, I should be able to gamble. If I want to drink alcohol, I should be able to drink alcohol. If I want to eat unhealthy food, I should be able to eat unhealthy food. None of those things affect you, so mind your own damn business.
 

amish

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
4,295
6
81
just a quick question, is non-organic peanut butter now banned?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Specop 007
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.

HAHAHA!

Thanks, that actually made me laugh! Do you have any other good jokes?

I think the more pertinent question is whether you have any more 6th grade argument comebacks... I half expected "I know what you are but what am I".

And I expected rational thinking on you rpart, which seems to be lacking......

So, the .gov should regulate everything then by your own words. Interesting.


Of the two of us, I am the one that put forh an actual argument in this exchange. I suggest you look up the defition of "externality" and then re-read what I said.

You would love Old Mother Russia.
Damn our freedoms to choose. Drives you nuts doesnt, comrade.

Why can't you just simply admit you lost the argument? The above had no value what so ever.

Lost? With your idiotic thinking there was never a beginning to lose.

"Gee, people are dumb so lets regulate it!"

Mother Russia looks forward to you coming. You place the burden of responsibility on the government, not the individual. Thats the very opposiite of what this country was founded on.

I ask again, what argument were you winning? Because no matter how many intelligent sounding sentences you try to bang out, its all gibberish that comes down to "The .gov should control everything". That simple.


In a capitalist market, the job of the government is to control externalities. That's what I've been trying get across this whole time and also the part you seem to miss.

If I'm in the business of making industral solvents and you need industral solvent, I might be secretly duming the waste into the river and it woldn't change the pending transaction. Or if you're in a different region, you might not care at all. This is precisely where gov't comes in... and it's got nothing to do with personal responsibility or freedoms. It's just an alignment of economic incentives that works out in a particular way.

But, you know, feel free to continue with the ever so ignorant "Gov't is taking my freedoms!" / "Gov't thinks it knows better than I" spiel. Like I said, militant libertarians know nothing about economics. Your Mother Russsia quips demonstate furhter how little you know about the topic.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If I want to gamble, I should be able to gamble. If I want to drink alcohol, I should be able to drink alcohol. If I want to eat unhealthy food, I should be able to eat unhealthy food. None of those things affect you, so mind your own damn business.

Are you trolling?

If you don't have health insurance and you eat unhealthy food, as well as drink excessively, then someone will have to pay for your hospitalization, treatment, and possible surgery, and even organ transplant.

Would you also support undoing all the regulation imposed on cigarettes?