Yeah, More Nannyism

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh no surprise the authortarian left is on here thinking what a wonderful idea this is.

What idiocy. I suppose that banning the sale of whisky to 8 year olds, the requiring of accuracy in food ingredient lists, and requiring safety belts in cars is leftist authoratarianism.

What levels of hyperbole the fringe right have sunk to when they use the words for the horrific governments like Stalin's for democratically passed regulations for the public good.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz
So basically you're saying that you have nothing to contribute, just unrelated partisan name calling?

Nothing you would understand, apparently. My direct comments were in the first thread, and my debunking of the huge slippery slope fallacy by the right in this thread apparently was not understood by you as something to contribute. I'm sorry for you, but that doesn't mean it was not a contribution to others.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: halik
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.

I have no problem understanding externalities, so stop being an ass about it.

What I do have a problem with is using those externalities as a basis for constrictive laws. If all externalities must be taken into consideration then the butterfly effect opens the door for complete control of all human behavior.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: dna
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?

If that's the problem, why don't you work on fixing that instead of throwing out MORE laws?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: halik
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.

I have no problem understanding externalities, so stop being an ass about it.

What I do have a problem with is using those externalities as a basis for constrictive laws. If all externalities must be taken into consideration then the butterfly effect opens the door for complete control of all human behavior.

Well in that case you're just making a slippery slope argument:

"If we regulate X now, eventually they will want to regulate everything" ...definition of slippery slope.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: halik
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.

That's a horrible example of externalities, and your failure to understand libertarian principles is evident. Under a libertarian system, dumping chemicals in the river would be illegal. Unless you own every possible body of water land to which that river can flow and all the ground into which it could seep, then you're affecting the property of others and would be held fully responsible for it's cleanup.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dna

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?

Damn straight I want all cigarette regulations undone. You're slow, but at least you're starting to understand.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Here is the problem. 99% of people are not health experts (probably more than that actually). This means that they are not as acutely aware of what is good for them and what is not as they should be. The obesity rate lends some credence to this.

The problem is that Trans fats (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils) ARE NOT NECESSARY. In all cases, these artifically manipulated fats can be replaced with real, true fats (be them saturated / unsaturated etc..). THE ONLY REASON TRANS FATS ARE USED IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEAPER AND LAST LONGER ON THE SHELF THAN NATURAL FATS. Basically they are used to put corporate profits ahead of the health/lives of consumers on the priority list.

Basically the FDA failed us. It allowed itself to be lobbied by the food industry into allowing things into our food supply that are ACTUALLY VERY BAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. That is the WHOLE REASON that the FDA was put into existence to begin with. Instead of legislation like this, what really should be happening is that the FDA should be re-evaluating the use of trans-fats as ingredients in our food. Since the FDA will not do that (food lobby is too powerful), laws like this become the only alternative (unfortunately).

Many things are NOT NECESSARY, some of which I pointed out earlier. These items cause a certain amount of healthcare cost in this country. Additionally, I get very upset that a government can come into my private business and tell me what I can serve and what I can't, or (and this comes from a non-smoker) who is invited and who is not (leave the race issue out of this argument please, as it is a whole seperate discussion).

This is not a slippery slope either, we are already in the freefall. We will continue to see things banned or change "for the good of those who can't be an expert". The attack on McDonald's was the start. The media and people, unfortunatel, bought into it. McDonald's is NOT a salad bar, folks, it's a hamburger joint. Don't like it, don't eat there, and PLEASE, PLEASE leave me alone if I decide to eat there.

There are groups that want to ban everything from full-fat milk to advertising junkfood.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

Nice, you respond with an ad hom... real mature. You implied that the banning of trans fats is the border between having some choice and having none, I just found that statement to be a bit much.

Anyway, I'd like to consider the real effects that trans fat has: rising health costs for the government and insurance companies. Should I pay more money because people ingest crappy foods and get sick from it? Ideally I would not have to pay for this if the government didn't pay for any medical care or if insurance companies could keep track of what people but in their body, but this is not the case.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: halik
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.

I have no problem understanding externalities, so stop being an ass about it.

What I do have a problem with is using those externalities as a basis for constrictive laws. If all externalities must be taken into consideration then the butterfly effect opens the door for complete control of all human behavior.

Well in that case you're just making a slippery slope argument:

"If we regulate X now, eventually they will want to regulate everything" ...definition of slippery slope.

Ummmmm, yeah. That's my whole point. It is a slippery slope. Right now the focus is on trans fat under the guise of public health. Even in this thread many are defending it because of the monetary cost to society in the form of health care and insurance premiums. Well I've got news for you. Health problems don't stop at trans fat. If you passed a federal law tomorrow banning trans fat starting immediately, we'd still have massive health problems. Why? Too much fat of any kind, sugars of all kinds, lack of proper vitamins and minerals, hell simple overindulgence are all partly to blame for poor health in this country. So if we're willing to ban trans fat in the name of public health, why not place strict limits and requirements on those other items. One of these days someone will get the great idea to tie the computers in grocery store registers to your insurance company and physicians computers. Pretty soon we have government approved menus.

Go ahead, call me a "militant libertarian" or whatever silly jab you find amusing. But if someone had asked you in June 2001 if something like the Patriot Act and some of the other anti-freedom bullshit that Bush and the Republicans have pushed through would become law, you'd have called them crazy too. It's not often that freedoms are clamped down on brutally. They're chipped away slowly so that most don't even notice.

But hey, keep coming back with ad hominems if that's what turns your crank. It just makes you look desperate.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: dna

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?

Some, yes. but that's not the point.

In terms of your argument, we have come so dependent on the government providing us health coverage that now they use it as a basis for regulating food and many other areas of our life (smoking, seatbelts, etc.). I would hate to see what would happen if we went with a nationalized healthcare system.

Oh, and before you ask me, yes I believe that the government should stay out of providing healthcare. I also think that third party payees should be out as well. Let doctors and hospitals go back to a cash based system, like practically EVERY OTHER product in this country, and let competition regulate the prices.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jman19
Nice, you respond with an ad hom... real mature. You implied that the banning of trans fats is the border between having some choice and having none, I just found that statement to be a bit much.

You want to skip the ad homs, then keep your condescending smileys to yourself.

Anyway, I'd like to consider the real effects that trans fat has: rising health costs for the government and insurance companies. Should I pay more money because people ingest crappy foods and get sick from it? Ideally I would not have to pay for this if the government didn't pay for any medical care or if insurance companies could keep track of what people but in their body, but this is not the case.

There are thousands of things that millions of people do daily that cost society money. Trans fat is only one. How many of them are you going to ban? How many of them are things you do yourself? At what point can say that life is a matter of personal responsibility as an adult?

 

[Wreckem]

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

There are quite a number of people who would love to have unapproved drugs because it would save their lives.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jman19
Nice, you respond with an ad hom... real mature. You implied that the banning of trans fats is the border between having some choice and having none, I just found that statement to be a bit much.

You want to skip the ad homs, then keep your condescending smileys to yourself.

Anyway, I'd like to consider the real effects that trans fat has: rising health costs for the government and insurance companies. Should I pay more money because people ingest crappy foods and get sick from it? Ideally I would not have to pay for this if the government didn't pay for any medical care or if insurance companies could keep track of what people but in their body, but this is not the case.

There are thousands of things that millions of people do daily that cost society money. Trans fat is only one. How many of them are you going to ban? How many of them are things you do yourself? At what point can say that life is a matter of personal responsibility as an adult?

I wasn't attacking you with the smiley, I merely found the comment to be dramatic, which it is.

Yes, there are thousands of things that are bad for people that cost society, but as mentioned before, it isn't as if trans fats have no substitute. I don't see why companies should be lowering their costs at the expense of the health of the consumer when there is a substitute that provides the same experience. If you go to some diner or restaurant and you munch away at something with trans fat in it, you probably don't know any better that you are putting it in your body.

I'm not exactly championing this move, it's just that I don't see it as a great personal loss of liberty.

Don't get me wrong, if people eating crappy foods and putting drugs in their bodies had no effect on me, I wouldn't care.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you support outlawing sex to prevent the spread of AIDS? "Self love" is a reasonable alternative, and babies could be made in labs.

At some point life comes down to personal choice. I'm just sick of being told what I can and can't do even if doesn't affect anybody else. Drug laws, food laws, gambling laws. It has nothing to do with how hard it is to find an alternative. It has to do with self-determination and the fact that I want to choose how to live my life even if it means shortening it by eating trans fats if I so choose.

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..

Really? Because the largest producer of potato chips Frito Lay has no trans-fats in ANY of their chips.

It's your kind of "the world is evil" line of thinking that leads to idiotic laws like these.

 

[Craig234]

It's the threat of laws like these that often plays an important role in companies' decisions to make 'better' products.

For another example, the availability of Japanese hybrid cars is primarily because they believed the US was going to require them under the law, and they prepared. The US car companies, on the other hand, successfully fought the laws and are unprepared for the demand.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you support outlawing sex to prevent the spread of AIDS? "Self love" is a reasonable alternative, and babies could be made in labs.

At some point life comes down to personal choice. I'm just sick of being told what I can and can't do even if doesn't affect anybody else. Drug laws, food laws, gambling laws. It has nothing to do with how hard it is to find an alternative. It has to do with self-determination and the fact that I want to choose how to live my life even if it means shortening it by eating trans fats if I so choose.

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..

Really? Because the largest producer of potato chips Frito Lay has no trans-fats in ANY of their chips.

It's your kind of "the world is evil" line of thinking that leads to idiotic laws like these.

Way to take one example that I pulled out of thin air and zoom in on it in specific, versus looking at what I was really trying to say. Maybe chips aren't the best example.

What I was trying to say, is that with everything else being equal, consumers would choose non-trans-fats over trans-fats. The problem is that there are A LOT of products out there where this choice is NOT available.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jman19
I wasn't attacking you with the smiley, I merely found the comment to be dramatic, which it is.

If I read more into the smiley than was there, I apologize for my subsequent ad hom. These kinds of threads just push my buttons.

Yes, there are thousands of things that are bad for people that cost society, but as mentioned before, it isn't as if trans fats have no substitute. I don't see why companies should be lowering their costs at the expense of the health of the consumer when there is a substitute that provides the same experience. If you go to some diner or restaurant and you munch away at something with trans fat in it, you probably don't know any better that you are putting it in your body.

And for that reason, I wholly support complete, accurate food labeling. Menus should list what's in the food just like labels in the store do. Free trade can't work without informed parties on both sides of the transaction. With no trust that you're getting what you expect, it opens the door for fraud, and the whole system falls apart

I'm not exactly championing this move, it's just that I don't see it as a great personal loss of liberty.

By itself, I probably wouldn't care about this either. It just seems that lately there has been a deluge of little chips at personal freedom that added together over time equate to large losses of freedom. I also don't think any law, no matter seemingly inconsequential or obviously beneficial, should slip by without debate. If it's important enough to create a law about then it's important enough to discuss the ramifications of the law, both positive and negative.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's the threat of laws like these that often plays an important role in companies' decisions to make 'better' products.

For another example, the availability of Japanese hybrid cars is primarily because they believed the US was going to require them under the law, and they prepared. The US car companies, on the other hand, successfully fought the laws and are unprepared for the demand.

Or, if one specific locale outlaws something, such that companies have to adopt 'better' standards for their products, it will likely be cheaper for them to only make the 'better' product vs. having to have two seperate product lines (manufacturing processes, distribution process, packaging, etc...) for different locations that are essentially identical.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Do you support outlawing sex to prevent the spread of AIDS? "Self love" is a reasonable alternative, and babies could be made in labs.

At some point life comes down to personal choice. I'm just sick of being told what I can and can't do even if doesn't affect anybody else. Drug laws, food laws, gambling laws. It has nothing to do with how hard it is to find an alternative. It has to do with self-determination and the fact that I want to choose how to live my life even if it means shortening it by eating trans fats if I so choose.

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..

Really? Because the largest producer of potato chips Frito Lay has no trans-fats in ANY of their chips.

It's your kind of "the world is evil" line of thinking that leads to idiotic laws like these.

Way to take one example that I pulled out of thin air and zoom in on it in specific, versus looking at what I was really trying to say. Maybe chips aren't the best example.

What I was trying to say, is that with everything else being equal, consumers would choose non-trans-fats over trans-fats. The problem is that there are A LOT of products out there where this choice is NOT available.

Don't throw examples out there if you're not prepared to defend them. geesh, don't blame me because you didn't do your research.

edited: need to reword after reading you post again.

If there is one area of this country that has choice it's food. I defy you to find one food, one brand that doesn't have competition. Even ingredients have competition.

 

[glutenberg]

Economics aside, what's the benefit of keeping trans fats around other than to benefit business costs? Should we allow asbestos in paint as long as there are alternatives which are only obtainable upon special request? If the food tastes the same with saturated fat products versus trans fats, what's the economic benefit of allowing them? Any benefit you may see is merely short term and becomes a higher cost than benefit in the end.

Bobberfett, you argue that you should be able to do anything as long as it affects only yourself as it is your personal choice so why should businesses be allowed to use trans fats since it obviously affects the consumers? Personal responsibility is great but where is the responsibility of businesses? Are businesses not run by people? Where are these peoples' personal responsibilities? Obviously they're using trans fats not as a method of taste or enhancement but merely for cost purposes. Is cutting cost more important than general public well-being? Can restaurants start using carcinogenic ingredients on a widescale basis and avoid regulation just because it's the person's individual responsiblity to always be informed and to always make the correct choice. In the world that we live in with conflicting scientific data being consistently rolled out, how are we to expect the individual person to be able to make an informed choice?

The idea that economics will always correct itself works well on paper but is out of touch with reality. Free market economies are based on perfect situations where people aren't trying to pass off costs to each other with any means possible. Supply and demand only works when supply can't be artificially inflated by lobbying. You can claim that people need to fix the system but we all know that it won't happen.

Edited: Regarding your statement about having accurate labelling on menus at restaurants, wouldn't that just create a different sunk cost for these restaurants? The cost is now printing highly detailed menus versus reworking recipes. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your viewpoint as it intrigues me. Thanks.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's the threat of laws like these that often plays an important role in companies' decisions to make 'better' products.

For another example, the availability of Japanese hybrid cars is primarily because they believed the US was going to require them under the law, and they prepared. The US car companies, on the other hand, successfully fought the laws and are unprepared for the demand.

Or, if one specific locale outlaws something, such that companies have to adopt 'better' standards for their products, it will likely be cheaper for them to only make the 'better' product vs. having to have two seperate product lines (manufacturing processes, distribution process, packaging, etc...) for different locations that are essentially identical.

Right.

For another example, the federal government has long set federal minimums for pollution standards; California has long passed state laws with higher requirements, and it a big enough market to effect manufacturers. This was fine for decades until the Bush administration decided that it was pro-poullution enough to reverse the principle that states could not override the federal *mininum* standards, and to argue that the states had no right to *exceed* them. The case is going before the Supreme Court this year...

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's the threat of laws like these that often plays an important role in companies' decisions to make 'better' products.

For another example, the availability of Japanese hybrid cars is primarily because they believed the US was going to require them under the law, and they prepared. The US car companies, on the other hand, successfully fought the laws and are unprepared for the demand.

Or, if one specific locale outlaws something, such that companies have to adopt 'better' standards for their products, it will likely be cheaper for them to only make the 'better' product vs. having to have two seperate product lines (manufacturing processes, distribution process, packaging, etc...) for different locations that are essentially identical.

Right.

For another example, the federal government has long set federal minimums for pollution standards; California has long passed state laws with higher requirements, and it a big enough market to effect manufacturers. This was fine for decades until the Bush administration decided that it was pro-poullution enough to reverse the principle that states could not override the federal *mininum* standards, and to argue that the states had no right to *exceed* them. The case is going before the Supreme Court this year...

There is a huge difference between pollution and food consumption.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: CPA
See story here.

I know many of you will see this as a beacon of hope and triumph for humankind, but I see this as another means to an end of our freedoms and self-reliance. Thanks NYC for believing that I can't take care of myself.

"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson Self-reliance

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
If that's the problem, why don't you work on fixing that instead of throwing out MORE laws?

Fixing what? The fact that someone will have to pay, or fix his behavior?

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer my previous question.