Why do we discuss whether people should be free to make bad choices when it is precisely that people who make them aren't free to do otherwise? People have this absurd notion that they have free will. There is no such thing. Free will is the rubric behind which we hide when we want to ascribe guilt and blame. It is vital to the prosecutor mentality that needs the inferior out there to justify and magnify the greatness purported to be in them. You are what you are totally by accident. We do not know what we feel but what we feel runs everything.
You can't extrapolate one case as a ban on all things. Trans fats have nothing to add other than money to line the pockets of large food companies. It tastes the same as other forms of oils and yet it's much more harmful. Where's the benefit? Are you advocating allowing harmful products in foods that offer no benefit just for the sake of "freedom" and "liberties?"
Yes you can using his examples. A lot of this big govt nannyism started back in the 70s when people went after the cigarette companies. Now they have a framework for taking away the freedoms of people and business in the name of "doing it for the betterment of society". This may be a trivial change but it is a change none the less. With each of these changes you can expect the next to be bolder.
This is the reason I ask what is next on the list. And when will you become alarmed? When they decide to ban you favorite food, drink, or activity because it is deemed harmful?
Your comments are an example of the cult-like thinking that forms a large part of the right-wing political culture.
You are unable to distinguish between the baby steps on a principle and going far further to abuse, incapable of weighing the tradeoffs, of avoiding fantasized extremism.
You should really read 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics' from nearly 50 years ago. It describes this mindset well and is free from Google sources.
You can make almost anything sound radical and extreme.
What are some of the most common things going on around us? I'll pick a few examples.
Police - if they didn't exist, how would it sound for every city in America to force the taxpayers to create 'modern day legionarres' who have the exclusive rights to patrol the citienry bearing arms - the same people who are in a position to vote them pay raises and such? You can make up dcary scenarios of abuse of power that 'might happen'.
Newspapers - when the Supreme Court ruled the government has no power of prior restraint of publication in the Nixon era, you could imagine all kinds of scenarios of the US being defeated by her enemies because the government was unable to prevent the newspapers from printing all of our nuclear secrets. Could happen.
Seat belt laws - what's next, thousands of laws so you get a ticket if you don't look both ways before crossing the street or don't wear a coat on a cool day?
Traffic signals - what if the government gave out special devices to the 'privilieged' to let them control the signals? Why should you be FORCED to sit at a red light with no other traffic around, or to come to a full stop at a stop sign when there's clear visibility what oppression is next? Stop signs with 60 second waits at every intersection in America?
You really need to do more than make up some extremist imagined scenario.
It's not that there aren't legitimate reasons to hold firm on some principles, not to allow even minor exceptions which really do become open doors to abuse.
But each one needs to be judged by its own merits, and you provide nothing but paranoia.
Of course you can't use it as an example. It's been treated as a case by case situation so far. It's not a total ban of trans fats, it's a ban from restaurants. You want your hydrogenated oils, cook with crisco. I might as well say that since LSD is a banned drug I can extrapolate that to aspirin. You're just being silly at this point.
The next thing on their list will probably be high fructose corn syrup if they're brave enough to fight against that industry. All of these items bring nothing to the table but health issues. Don't disillusion yourself into thinking that you've lost some sort of freedom here.
Had my post said otherwise, instead of being an analogy about the topic we were discussing, how local laws can spur technology improvements, you'd have a point.
Look up "analogy" and how pointing out irrelevant differences between the two things is irrelevant.
"A fine wine is like a fine woman, both develop new qualities with age."
"There is a huge difference between a bottle of liquid and a female person."
"Thank you, Bernard." (20 Brownie points to anyone who names the reference).
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Trans fats does indeed affect customers, but only through their personal choice to eat those foods. Nobody was coerced into eating greasy fried chicken. If KFC is forced through market pressure due to falling profits because people are avoiding trans fats, then good for the consumer.
If consumers don't care what they eat, why should KFC? Essentially what the citizens of New York are saying is that they're too lazy to change themselves, so they're going to force somebody else to change to accommodate them. Yes, businesses are run by people, people who do bear responsibility. They bear the responsibility of providing the product for which the other party has paid. If a business claims to sell chicken with no trans fat and they're lying, then they have failed to fulfill their responsibility. As long as they aren't misrepresenting their product then the customer has gotten what they want. That's where labeling comes in but I'll get to that later. (On a side note, some may consider commercials with healthy looking people gobbling up fast food misrepresentation, but that's a whole separate issue)
Obviously cost is important, but again that's not the sole fault of the business. Customers demand cheap goods. There are countless restaurants which serve hamburgers in this country, but look at which ones are the most successful. The ones with the cheapest goods.
I'm sure a lot of people hate me for it, but I think cancer sticks... errr cigarettes should be 100% legal to sell. And if people wanted to eat at a restaurant which served charred black steaks and allowed smoking they should be able to. Again, this is dependent on truth in labeling. If people know what's in cigarettes and still choose to use them, they have accepted the transaction with full knowledge. On that fact, I do think the tobacco companies were guilty of not fully disclosing what was in their product. However their responsibility in my eyes is still capped at 50%. Maybe slightly higher due to their non-disclosure of facts. Still, the attorney general has been telling Americans for 40 years that cigarettes are harmful. If people chose to ignore those warnings, they accepted that transaction with the knowledge that they were and have to accept some blame.
That just flat out confuses me. You say that people can't be expected to stay up to date in a world with constantly changing scientific data, but yet have no qualms passing laws based on that same unstable information. If the information isn't reliable or stable enough to expect people to know about and make an informed decision, how can we expect the other party in the transaction - the business (run by people) - to abide by laws based on unstable, unreliable information?
Lobbying? That's a problem with government being too big and controlling, not a problem with the free market. As for passing costs off, that's the externalities that halik was referring to earlier. Those externalities are eliminated when both sides of a transaction understand what is being traded, which I'll go into now.
A free market is only as stable as the trust it's built on. Whether it's a barter system or a monetary system, both sides need to know that what they're receiving is what they expected from the transaction. If I buy a computer at Best Buy that says Intel Inside, and I get home and open it up and it's got a Via chip, I was defrauded and should rightly expect my money back. If when I buy a computer on eBay which only has the description 'Computer' and nothing else, I receive it and it's identical to the one I bought at Best Buy right down to the Via chip, was I defrauded? No! Even though I received the exact same product from both sources, one was presented as being something it was not, while the other was exactly what was advertised. The same holds true for food. If you buy food without knowing what's in it, caveat emptor. Having a restaurant list all ingredients in their products is no different than listing the features of a computer, car, or home. If the business selling the food gives you a complete list of the ingredients and you still buy food containing trans fats with full knowledge of it's presence, then you have accepted that part of the transaction and along with it the externalities (passing of costs) it includes.
In a transaction where both parties to are aware of those externalities, both have agreed to those externalities as a part of the transaction. If you go to a fast food restaurant, they sell you their food knowing that there is a good possibility you're going to throw the garbage away in their establishment. It's an externality, but it's expected and built into the price. The restaurant has to pay for their garbage removal. The garbage company has to dump the garbage somewhere, and whatever city has allowed the dump has charged the garbage company money which covers the externalities of their dumping garbage in a pit, namely the environmental impact. If any link in that chain fails to understand and appropriately evaluate the conditions under which they're making a trade, that's not the fault of anybody else in the chain. If the city didn't charge the garbage company for dumping their waste, but instead gave them free reign to dump, is it the responsibility of the customers who purchased food to clean up the mess after the garbage stew seeps into the groundwater? No, the customer fulfilled their end of the transaction by paying more for the burger to facilitate waste disposal. The restaurant fulfilled their externality by paying for waste removal. It was the city who failed to take into account the fact that garbage is nasty business. They should probably rework the garbage contract when it's up. In the opposite direction when a customer buys that greasy food, assuming the restaurant informed them of the fat content of their food and didn't commit fraud, then the customer is accepting with full knowledge the externalities of their choice. When their insurance premiums go up because they have clogged arteries, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
That leads us back to the packaging. I don't see the printing of detailed menus as just a "different sunk cost", instead I see it as a valuable part of the transaction. The packaging on a computer box listing the features isn't just a sunk cost, it's what gives the buyer confidence in the transaction. It's the difference between buying a box that says 'Computer' and one that says 'Intel Inside'. In the case of food, I actually wouldn't have a problem mandating all food be properly labeled. With a typical consumer product, it's fairly easy for the buyer to inspect the product and see what it's made of. Intel, yep, Nvidia, yep, 1GB memory, yep. Food can't be inspected easily, and so to create a stable market built on trust, it's even more important to list what the product contains. If I see a hamburger joint has 'Up to 1% animal feces' listed in the ingredients, I may choose to go across the street to the place that's more expensive, but leaves out the rat droppings. If I do choose to eat the cheaper poopburger, and I get sick that night, I have nobody to blame but myself. At that point the consumer has a reliable scale with which to weigh their choices.
Finally... (I'm sure you'll all be glad to know this post is almost over) Lots of people seem to think that libertarianism is anarchy. Some people seem to think it's pro-corporation. In reality, neither of those is even remotely true. A libertarian (should) realize the truth stated above, that free markets will collapse without confidence in the system. That's why a libertarian system will not tolerate fraud, which would be punishable and/or actionable. If you falsely represent your product and it causes harm, you will be sued and/or prosecuted depending on the severity of your negligence. In addition a libertarian system protects individuals from coercion, as that's the heart of the libertarian philosophy. Without coercion, it can then be presumed that all transactions are entered into with agreement on both sides, and that as long as both sides were honest in the representation of their offer, both sides have gotten exactly what they bargained for.
* Note - This post was written over the course of about an hour, with numerous interruptions, and I haven't slept since yesterday afternoon. Please excuse poor grammar, spelling, etc. and I hope it's at least somewhat clear. I'll be back tomorrow to continue the debate/respond to flames.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,677
- 6,250
- 126
We've had this discussion before, but essentially: This ban has no affect in any way on what Foods that one can eat or Sell. It only affects what Ingredient can be used to make this Food. That Ingredient is not essential as there are many alternate Ingredients that do the same thing, but are far less harmful. Tempest in a tea cup and in no way a Rights issue.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Central sewage systems? Terrible example to begin with, since many places can divert off of that system and use a septic tank. It's common sense - not nannyism - makes us realize that costs and efficiencies can be improved with a central system.
Traffic lights? Even more absurd. If you own a stretch of property, go ahead and build a racetrack on which you fly around at 400 km/h. If you're the only person on that road, do whatever the hell you want on it, including ending your life against a pine tree. That's your choice to endanger yourself and only yourself. But on a public road that belongs to all of us, obviously your recklessness should be reigned in because it could potentially affect another. It's common sense - not nannyism.
Where's the thread lamenting Nannyism over [insert benefit to Society through Regulation here]? My answer: Is it really so hard to understand the concept that the state has no business knowing or regulating what you put in your own body, just as long as it does not affect others? The old, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose (but otherwise go nuts)" is that alien a concept today?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,677
- 6,250
- 126
None of my examples are absurd, stupid, or otherwise. Perhaps they are not applicable in every circumstance, but they are all imposed Regulations for the Benefit of Society as a whole.
What is Absurd is trying to make the issue of Trans Fats a Rights issue. No ones Right is being curtiailed, unless Trans Fats is to be deemed a Person.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
No, your examples are absurd, and stupid, and other choice terms. You also made an even more ignorant statement with your last sentence in your latest post.
Not only are your examples completely incorrect - nobody is forcing you to use the central sewage system, nor drive the roads of the nation - but you also completely mistake their purpose, and the entire purpose of this argument.
If a choice you make only affects you, what business is it of another person to limit you from that choice?
Finally, good lord, your last sentence.
"Unless Trans Fats is to be deemed a Person."
Twice in two days, I'm agape at your complete inability to reason. Even with Steeplerot gracing these forums, it's hard to think of something dumber that I've read here. Okay, forget all that - that's me being emotional and whatnot. Let's look at this transfat issue.
1. John decides to get some chips.
2. John likes Brand X Chips. He finds they taste the best.
3. John has no weight or health problems. Or possibly he does. Maybe he's hanging on an inch from death. In any case, unless you're about to move into his place and run his life, that's no business of yours or mine.
4. John arrives at the supermarket to find that Brand X Chips have changed to remove trans fats. Not due to customers voting with their pocketbooks and not buying it anymore. No, a few (or many) people have decided that John shouldn't be allowed to consume anything he likes.
5. John's right to choose as a consumer has been violated. For the greater good.
BoberFett:
Thanks for the summary of your viewpoint. Through a libertarian standpoint, how do you regulate what goes into a food if it's based on trust. It's hard to compare fries with a computer that is clearly labelled. If I buy a computer and the chip inside isn't what I purchased, I'll know from the labelling (in general, unless the defrauder goes to extreme means). If a restaurant claims they don't use trans fats but still does, how do you expect the average person to test for this? You would need a regulatory body to come in and check for it at which point, the restaurant could just make an item without trans fat just for them. I'm just curious how, in a reality based world, you can rely on a philosophy that's based purely on absolute trust? In theory, Communism is great. In real world application, it cannot succeed.
Regarding the science behind trans fats. As you can tell just from some of the posts regarding it (in particular the Off Topic version of this thread), there are plenty of people that aren't even aware of the differences between trans fats and beneficial fats. The reason I brought out the example of how hard it is for consumers to make choices when there are so many differing scientific opinions is similar to what happened in the cigarette industry. You have one surgeon general telling you it's bad to smoke, then you have another community of scientists telling people that it's not bad, then you find that a new surgeon general is in place and he finds that the results are inconclusive. What are people supposed to believe? The egg industry is the same. Just a few years back everyone was against the consumption of eggs and yet now we have bulletins about how eggs have zero harmful effects. The Libertarian system (granted, my experience is minimal and based mainly on the opinions of those that consider themselves libertarin on this board and post their views) seems to emphasize trust but as a daily consumer, there's an unlikely chance that the consumer will be informed of every bad ingredient out there especially when there are so many conflicting viewpoints.
As a side note, it seems that Yum Brands and to some extent McDonalds (who claims they're working on a solution) are understanding that they're fighting a losing battle in keeping trans fats in their food and are trying to take early steps into changing their image (especially Yum Brand which has eliminated trans fats in their KFC and Taco Bell brands). I mainly think that the marketing power of these large corporations are strong enough that they typically can suppress scientific data by releasing their own data which negates the whole idea about trust. A good example of a current, ongoing debate is the debate on whether humans have a heavy hand in global warming. Even if every consumer was as informed as possible, all you would have are people splitting 50/50. Neither side seems to be right or wrong as they only argue points that favor themselves. I don't know what else to say for now but I'd appreciate your comments or corrections (regarding Libertarianism) that you have. Sorry if I didn't cover all of your points as I'm typing this on a slow day at work.
Thanks for the summary of your viewpoint. Through a libertarian standpoint, how do you regulate what goes into a food if it's based on trust. It's hard to compare fries with a computer that is clearly labelled. If I buy a computer and the chip inside isn't what I purchased, I'll know from the labelling (in general, unless the defrauder goes to extreme means). If a restaurant claims they don't use trans fats but still does, how do you expect the average person to test for this? You would need a regulatory body to come in and check for it at which point, the restaurant could just make an item without trans fat just for them. I'm just curious how, in a reality based world, you can rely on a philosophy that's based purely on absolute trust? In theory, Communism is great. In real world application, it cannot succeed.
Regarding the science behind trans fats. As you can tell just from some of the posts regarding it (in particular the Off Topic version of this thread), there are plenty of people that aren't even aware of the differences between trans fats and beneficial fats. The reason I brought out the example of how hard it is for consumers to make choices when there are so many differing scientific opinions is similar to what happened in the cigarette industry. You have one surgeon general telling you it's bad to smoke, then you have another community of scientists telling people that it's not bad, then you find that a new surgeon general is in place and he finds that the results are inconclusive. What are people supposed to believe? The egg industry is the same. Just a few years back everyone was against the consumption of eggs and yet now we have bulletins about how eggs have zero harmful effects. The Libertarian system (granted, my experience is minimal and based mainly on the opinions of those that consider themselves libertarin on this board and post their views) seems to emphasize trust but as a daily consumer, there's an unlikely chance that the consumer will be informed of every bad ingredient out there especially when there are so many conflicting viewpoints.
As a side note, it seems that Yum Brands and to some extent McDonalds (who claims they're working on a solution) are understanding that they're fighting a losing battle in keeping trans fats in their food and are trying to take early steps into changing their image (especially Yum Brand which has eliminated trans fats in their KFC and Taco Bell brands). I mainly think that the marketing power of these large corporations are strong enough that they typically can suppress scientific data by releasing their own data which negates the whole idea about trust. A good example of a current, ongoing debate is the debate on whether humans have a heavy hand in global warming. Even if every consumer was as informed as possible, all you would have are people splitting 50/50. Neither side seems to be right or wrong as they only argue points that favor themselves. I don't know what else to say for now but I'd appreciate your comments or corrections (regarding Libertarianism) that you have. Sorry if I didn't cover all of your points as I'm typing this on a slow day at work.
It seems a more accurate analysis should be:
1.) John decides to get some chips.
2.) John likes Brand X chips. He finds they taste the best.
3.) John has no weight or health problems. Or possibly he does. Maybe he's hanging on an inch from death. In any case, unless you're about to move into his place and run his life, that's no business of yours or mine. Unfortunately, John doesn't realize that trans fats are not removable by the body once ingested thus causing the slow deterioration of his cardio-pulmonary system. Conflicting results from scientists confuses John more about whether trans fats are actually bad for him.
4.) John arrives at the supermarket to find that Brand X Chips have changed to remove trans fats. Not due to customers voting with their pocketbooks and not buying it anymore. No, a few (or many) people have decided that John shouldn't be allowed to consume anything he likes. John realizes that not all changes in life are bad things and gives the chips a try. He finds they taste the same (and if forced to take a blind taste test, would not be able to tell the difference) but has the added precaution that he will live longer to continue eating his favorite chips. Luckily, a government body has stepped in to hinder the commercial propaganda laid out by Fritos-Lays to avoid changing their cost structure at the cost of the general public health. John wishes he knew more about trans fat that would allow a solid opinion but the information out there always seems to contradict each other. Also, John realizes that these few (or many) people haven't restricted from eating anything he likes because he can consume the same chips that still taste the same as long as he's not fooled by fancy new labelling.
5.) John's right to choose has been changed but not limited. If he chooses that he loves trans fats and can't live without them (even though the chips will probably taste the same), he can find a can of crisco to coat his chips with. Everyone benefits for the greater good and John's rights remain intact.
6.) John realizes that this ban is only for restaurants and that this example doesn't apply to chips at grocery stores.
7.) Consumers and taxpayers rejoice that heart disease rates have reduced thus allowing a surplus of funds for publicly funded health services. Three cheers for a better society.
Yllus, this is an exaggeration but the examples everyone has been giving seem to be loopy, so I figured I'd add my own.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
John's level of ignorance is not fodder for the government to step in and decide what's 'right' for John. John's life is for him to make informed decisions, and if confronted with conflicting reports to make a risk or not as he so wishes. He doesn't need a nanny.
John is an adult who can drive, be called upon to serve in the army, be placed on a jury to determine another man's life, and is surely able to decipher "customer propaganda" for himself. If John wishes to acquire more information about trans fat, he recognize that a PC and an Internet connection can lead him to it.
John's right to choose has indeed been limited, as a product previously offered has been taken away from him because others have decided he's a baby who needs help choosing what to put in his mouth. The "everybody" that benefits from this "greater good" are the people who've decided that their lot in life is to make the world nice and cheery and safe for the rest of us, in every possible way.
John thinks that's an even dumber ban for that. Restricting business unnecessarily FTL.
Three cheers are soundly raised for this victory for "the greater good". Red meat is tabled as the next target for elimination in order to better boost that public fund surplus.
So, if we're above banning and we're all about consumer choices, why not allow foods with some ecstasy in it. That will only make the food taste better and now there are more consumer choices. Yay. Who cares if ecstasy can cause health problems, the informed consumer would know better. Both directions of the issues can be easily exemplified with extreme examples.
By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.
By the way, if propaganda did not have an effect on you because you're an informed adult, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The internet is just as filled with propaganda as the billboards and commercials are. This topic is becoming trite. You will have your beliefs, we will have ours. The only person that has been somewhat convincing is Boberfett whereas everyone else is merely arguing with extreme examples of what could possibly happen, which gets us nowhere but more examples.
John the guy who eats at many fast food places would not notice. The fast food corporations would notice when they find out how much more they have to spend on supplies.
Corporations are legal persons, does that count?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter