Yeah, More Nannyism

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Just answer the question, if you cant, your list must be very long.

As usual, you fail to make any point. We're discussing the trans fat ban, and you can't discuss that, but you ask what's the next substance to be banned.

There are two ways to interpret your question:

1. You are asking a rhetorical question to imply that there are bans to come that are unreasonable, in a slippery slope from this ban.

2. You are literally asking, what is the next substance to be banned. Well, that's an absurd question, since no one here would know the answer. It's like refusing to discuss Bush and Kerry in the 2004 election and demanding to be told instead who the nominees will be in 2008.

Either way, you have no point, and you failed to get the message in my post, apparently.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glutenberg
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.

Or Arsenic for that matter. Add Arsenic into foods in low enough doses that the Customer base won't die off quickly enough to hurt Sales. Extreme example, but if Freedom to add anything and only the Consumer has the ability to "Regulate", why not?

As long as consumer understands that he is infact buying food that contains Arsenic I don't see a problem.

Well, I do see a problem.

Okay, what?

Whether the Consumer is notified or not, Arsenic is still a poison unfit for Consumption.

Yes, arsenic is a poison and I wouldn't eat it.

So, what's the problem

On the aggregate level, there will always be a fraction of people that will.

Same reason why right now you eat foods with trans fats - it's got mostly to do with imperfect markets (will you drive another 15 mins to find a different restaurant?) and imperfect informatino (what was the last time you saw a restaurant with a nutritional breakdown of their menu)

After some time, you'll see healthcare cost increase due to problems from the peopel that actually do eat trans fats and that's exactly why gov't wants to regulate. It's always that something that's "your freedom" ends up costing us money. Same story with seatbelts, tough the economics of it are unclear.

 

[Martin]

This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: CPA

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.

What's the difference between banning trans fats and banning tobacco? Do you have a problem with banning tobacco?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Originally posted by: santer

Originally posted by: CPA

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.

What's the difference between banning trans fats and banning tobacco? Do you have a problem with banning tobacco?

With tobacco there's at least some sort of positive result from using it varying from feeling calmer to warming you up. It's still not a good substance for you but at least there's some form of "benefit." Plus, the tobacco industry's lobbying power is just ridiculous. Artificial trans fats, on the other hand, don't seem to offer anything outside of food longevity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[piasabird]

I was under the assumption that trans fats were also when oil was made by heating up the material it was taken out of, so it would release more oil. Like some vegetalbe oil is made that way. This is thought to be worse for you than just releasing oil from pressing the material to release the oil.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

fvk dude, chillax.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

fvk dude, chillax.

Oh no... Martin here is apart of the mass delusion that he knows what's good for us and the best way for all of us to live, and he wants laws dictated so that us ignorant peons have to live according to his ideals OR ELSE, but those of us who might disagree and want to choose for ourselves (or god forbid, just want the right to be allowed to disagree even when we do agree) are just paranoids living in a bizarro world.


BTW, I am relaxed. If you look closely, what I did exactly was mirror Martin's tone and manner, but presented the opposing viewpoint. I do that often here. Some the crap that gets posted here is so horribly repugnant, and yet so placidly accepted, that I think of it almost as a civic duty to show you what you look like.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

Not being a socialist, I really don't know what their utopia is exactly. What I do know, though, is that its spelled 'serfs' and that straw man arguments are a logical fallacy.

You know Orwell was a socialist, right? Well, think of me as a libertarian-esque, and much less eloquent Orwell - I love the basic idea and I really hate to see it ruined and discredited by extremists.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

Not being a socialist, I really don't know what their utopia is exactly. What I do know, though, is that its spelled 'serfs' and that straw man arguments are a logical fallacy.

You know Orwell was a socialist, right? Well, think of me as a libertarian-esque, and much less eloquent Orwell - I love the basic idea and I really hate to see it ruined and discredited by extremists.

I said a "nanny-state socialist," i.e. authoritarian. Orwell was a libertarian socialist. You are definitely not even remotely libertarian based on your comments in this thread.

Sorry for the misspelling, I typed quickly, but thanks for pointing it out. And no, I didn't resort to straw man, I used slippery slope. You were being an extremist and you were using straw man, ridiculing people who think that education is a better course of action that legislation, and accusing them of being paranoid and their arguments as being based off paranoia. Way to go dude. And now you want to come back and pretend to be the injured party...
:roll:

 

[GoPackGo]

Next thing you know is meat will be banned and then all restaurants will be Taco Bell.

Then the three seashells. :frown:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Next thing you know is meat will be banned and then all restaurants will be Taco Bell.

Then the three seashells. :frown:

We should pre-emtively ban the 3 seashells. They don't even make sense!

 

[yllus]

THOU SHALT NOT DISPARAGE THE THREE SEASHELLS. :|

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: yllus
THOU SHALT NOT DISPARAGE THE THREE SEASHELLS. :|

TOILET PAPER FTW!!!!!!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: yllus
THOU SHALT NOT DISPARAGE THE THREE SEASHELLS. :|

TOILET PAPER FTW!!!!!!

Weren't they Profanity Citations or something like that?





For all you 3 Seashell lovers!

She sells 3 Seashells
Down by the Seashore

Repeat 30x as fast as you can

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

Not being a socialist, I really don't know what their utopia is exactly. What I do know, though, is that its spelled 'serfs' and that straw man arguments are a logical fallacy.

You know Orwell was a socialist, right? Well, think of me as a libertarian-esque, and much less eloquent Orwell - I love the basic idea and I really hate to see it ruined and discredited by extremists.

I said a "nanny-state socialist," i.e. authoritarian. Orwell was a libertarian socialist. You are definitely not even remotely libertarian based on your comments in this thread.

Sorry for the misspelling, I typed quickly, but thanks for pointing it out. And no, I didn't resort to straw man, I used slippery slope. You were being an extremist and you were using straw man, ridiculing people who think that education is a better course of action that legislation, and accusing them of being paranoid and their arguments as being based off paranoia. Way to go dude. And now you want to come back and pretend to be the injured party...
:roll:

Have you actually lived in a nanny-less society? I did, when I was growing up - although there were plenty of laws on the books, very few were actually enforced (or even enforcable) and there were very few implicit social norms that people were expected to follow. You know what I think about it? It was ****** awesome - my childhood was 100x better than you typical north american suburbanite and I feel very sad that my nephew (due tomorrow) will have to grow up in some bland, conformist suburb where everything is neat, tidy and parents rule their children with iron fists while constantly fretting over their safety.

But as fun as that was, the society as a whole wasn't that great (ie, its no coincidence my family moved to Canada). Things like requiring people to have a drivers licence, pass a test, get insurace, follow road markings and signs certainly take away their freedoms, but save many, many lives. Putting labels on cigarette boxes, banning smoking in workplaces, not allowing kids buy cigarettes and liquor etc certainly makes society a bit more stiffling but the benefits are immense.

When an issue comes up governments and societies should evaluate it to make sure they leave people with as much freedom as possible, while reaping as many benefits as possible from having order and conformity.

This, of course, needs a lot of thinking and good judgement and that's precisely what's missing from most libertarians and libertarian parties. They view everything, regardless of its merits, as some vicious attack on their freedom.

So when something like this comes up - with no practical cost to personal freedom but with a likely benefit to society - and someone declares it a "means to an end of our freedoms", I'll certainly call them paranoid, especially when its fits the very definition so well:

A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

 

[sandorski]

Paranoia doesn't need Grandeur? That sucks.....now i gotta devise a new plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :|

Next time put *******Spoiler******* before giving proper Definitions please!





...don't mind me, I'm going through nicotine withdrawal, gotta go get some cigs.

 

[marincounty]

A lot of you seem to think that the informed consumer is the answer. Present the consumer with all of the information about what is in the food they are eating, and let them make an informed choice.
This is a great idea in a utopian society. Unfortunately, most of the consumers of fast food are not so well informed. Children are consuming vast amounts of this fast food, and they are not informed, nor should they be expected to be.
The job to protect the children is the job of parents- and govt.
The sky is falling- if we remove trans fats from fast food. Remember KFC is removing the trans fat from its food by choice, no federal regulation banning trans fat is even on the horizon.
You are still free to buy fried chicken, hamburgers and fries, as many as you want. They just won't contain transfat, and you won't be able to tell the difference.
I have been frying chicken for years-in oil and it tastes great. Don't fear the oil.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Martin
This thread is a great example of what's wrong with libertarians. Libertarianism itself is probably as good as "isms" get and you'll find that some of the best countries in the world have governments that follow broadly these ideas (link), unfortunately most libertarians seem to be quite simply batshit insane - exceptionally paranoid people that see threats to their freedom in everything while lacking any semblance of pragmatism or good judgement. This is why strictly Libertarian parties will never be elected anywhere, and it is tragic, since I think a pragmatic, rational governemnt with libertarian instincts is the best one could hope for.

Libertarianism gives me the impression that it requires a perfectly educated and informed society. It also seems to emphasize a perfectly honest society where all intentions by both parties will always be known and if for some reason a misrepresentation is made, it is treated harshly. It just seems to desire a perfect world where everyone in it thinks in the exact same way.

Yep, that mass delusion about the world and human nature is one of the main reasons why I call Libertarians 'batshit insane'.

In the Libertarian bizzaro world, consumers are well aware of what exactly transfats are and why they're bad (since, you know, they keep up to date on all research and know everything about everything). Those who choose not to consume them know which places use them and which don't and make a well infomed choice before each meal. Thus, the Government banning transfats is seen as one more oppressive yoke thrown onto people's backs. Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people don't know about transfats, banning them would not take anyone's freedom and it could benefit society.

Thank you for not contributing anything intelligent to this discussion and lowering it to the level of ignorant and prejudicial personal attacks.

In the nanny-state socialist bizarro world, the elite always know the proper courses of action and behavior to dictate to the ignorant surfs, and the surfs should mind their betters and like it. That's YOUR utopia. Is it any wonder why us lowly surfs fsckin' hate your kind?

<^> :roll:

Not being a socialist, I really don't know what their utopia is exactly. What I do know, though, is that its spelled 'serfs' and that straw man arguments are a logical fallacy.

You know Orwell was a socialist, right? Well, think of me as a libertarian-esque, and much less eloquent Orwell - I love the basic idea and I really hate to see it ruined and discredited by extremists.

I said a "nanny-state socialist," i.e. authoritarian. Orwell was a libertarian socialist. You are definitely not even remotely libertarian based on your comments in this thread.

Sorry for the misspelling, I typed quickly, but thanks for pointing it out. And no, I didn't resort to straw man, I used slippery slope. You were being an extremist and you were using straw man, ridiculing people who think that education is a better course of action that legislation, and accusing them of being paranoid and their arguments as being based off paranoia. Way to go dude. And now you want to come back and pretend to be the injured party...
:roll:

Have you actually lived in a nanny-less society? I did, when I was growing up - although there were plenty of laws on the books, very few were actually enforced (or even enforcable) and there were very few implicit social norms that people were expected to follow. You know what I think about it? It was ****** awesome - my childhood was 100x better than you typical north american suburbanite and I feel very sad that my nephew (due tomorrow) will have to grow up in some bland, conformist suburb where everything is neat, tidy and parents rule their children with iron fists while constantly fretting over their safety.

But as fun as that was, the society as a whole wasn't that great (ie, its no coincidence my family moved to Canada). Things like requiring people to have a drivers licence, pass a test, get insurace, follow road markings and signs certainly take away their freedoms, but save many, many lives. Putting labels on cigarette boxes, banning smoking in workplaces, not allowing kids buy cigarettes and liquor etc certainly makes society a bit more stiffling but the benefits are immense.

When an issue comes up governments and societies should evaluate it to make sure they leave people with as much freedom as possible, while reaping as many benefits as possible from having order and conformity.

This, of course, needs a lot of thinking and good judgement and that's precisely what's missing from most libertarians and libertarian parties. They view everything, regardless of its merits, as some vicious attack on their freedom.

So when something like this comes up - with no practical cost to personal freedom but with a likely benefit to society - and someone declares it a "means to an end of our freedoms", I'll certainly call them paranoid, especially when its fits the very definition so well:

A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

Wow...Did you even read my posts in this thread? It doesn't seem like it. I think you'll find very few libertarians who believe in anarchy or (worse yet) selective enforcement. That's not a "nanny less" state. A "nanny less" state is one where the people are treated as equal citizens, as opposed to a nanny state where there this wierd idea permeates that a few in power know what's best for everyone, and their opinion of what is best is forced upon by the people. You'll usually see the "nanny" word throw around in cases where morality is involved, for example, you shouldn't smoke dope because we think it's bad for you.
And while you're out educating yourself on what liberal principles really are (for example, warning labels and drivers licenses are considered that education thingie I meantioned earlier, and liberal/libertarian philosophy is based off this little thing called "the rule of law," whereas nanny-statism involves either the rule of the elite or the tyranny of the majority), I suggest you also educate yourself on the nature and purpose of government, what it is, what it does, and why it does it.
In the meantime, after this post of yours, I really don't think you should be bad-mouthing anyone.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty
A lot of you seem to think that the informed consumer is the answer. Present the consumer with all of the information about what is in the food they are eating, and let them make an informed choice.
This is a great idea in a utopian society. Unfortunately, most of the consumers of fast food are not so well informed. Children are consuming vast amounts of this fast food, and they are not informed, nor should they be expected to be.
The job to protect the children is the job of parents- and govt.
The sky is falling- if we remove trans fats from fast food. Remember KFC is removing the trans fat from its food by choice, no federal regulation banning trans fat is even on the horizon.
You are still free to buy fried chicken, hamburgers and fries, as many as you want. They just won't contain transfat, and you won't be able to tell the difference.
I have been frying chicken for years-in oil and it tastes great. Don't fear the oil.

The irony here is that you're the utopist, desperately trying to save everyone else from themselves. In the meantime, as you noted, KFC is voluntarily removing trans fat without federal regulation. Why? Informed consumers. But oh no, you still need the law... why? Because your utopian agenda requires that no one, not one single person, be allowed to do what you consider wrong. You must stop them. You must prevent them. And hey, we're still free, as long as we're doing what you think is right.

Why don't you just leave people alone, I wonder? Oh that's right... THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty
A lot of you seem to think that the informed consumer is the answer. Present the consumer with all of the information about what is in the food they are eating, and let them make an informed choice.
This is a great idea in a utopian society. Unfortunately, most of the consumers of fast food are not so well informed. Children are consuming vast amounts of this fast food, and they are not informed, nor should they be expected to be.
The job to protect the children is the job of parents- and govt.
The sky is falling- if we remove trans fats from fast food. Remember KFC is removing the trans fat from its food by choice, no federal regulation banning trans fat is even on the horizon.
You are still free to buy fried chicken, hamburgers and fries, as many as you want. They just won't contain transfat, and you won't be able to tell the difference.
I have been frying chicken for years-in oil and it tastes great. Don't fear the oil.

The irony here is that you're the utopist, desperately trying to save everyone else from themselves. In the meantime, as you noted, KFC is voluntarily removing trans fat without federal regulation. Why? Informed consumers. But oh no, you still need the law... why? Because your utopian agenda requires that no one, not one single person, be allowed to do what you consider wrong. You must stop them. You must prevent them. And hey, we're still free, as long as we're doing what you think is right.

Why don't you just leave people alone, I wonder? Oh that's right... THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Not Utopian, Pragmatic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty
A lot of you seem to think that the informed consumer is the answer. Present the consumer with all of the information about what is in the food they are eating, and let them make an informed choice.
This is a great idea in a utopian society. Unfortunately, most of the consumers of fast food are not so well informed. Children are consuming vast amounts of this fast food, and they are not informed, nor should they be expected to be.
The job to protect the children is the job of parents- and govt.
The sky is falling- if we remove trans fats from fast food. Remember KFC is removing the trans fat from its food by choice, no federal regulation banning trans fat is even on the horizon.
You are still free to buy fried chicken, hamburgers and fries, as many as you want. They just won't contain transfat, and you won't be able to tell the difference.
I have been frying chicken for years-in oil and it tastes great. Don't fear the oil.

The irony here is that you're the utopist, desperately trying to save everyone else from themselves. In the meantime, as you noted, KFC is voluntarily removing trans fat without federal regulation. Why? Informed consumers. But oh no, you still need the law... why? Because your utopian agenda requires that no one, not one single person, be allowed to do what you consider wrong. You must stop them. You must prevent them. And hey, we're still free, as long as we're doing what you think is right.

Why don't you just leave people alone, I wonder? Oh that's right... THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Not Utopian, Pragmatic.

Okay... I don't think you know what that word means. Pragmatism is opposed to chasing after ends that cannot be acheived (i.e. seeking to make belief real). Would you call the drug war pragmatic? I hope not. Neither is any agenda that seeks to protect people in spite of themselves.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow...Did you even read my posts in this thread? It doesn't seem like it. I think you'll find very few libertarians who believe in anarchy or (worse yet) selective enforcement. That's not a "nanny less" state. A "nanny less" state is one where the people are treated as equal citizens, as opposed to a nanny state where there this wierd idea permeates that a few in power know what's best for everyone, and their opinion of what is best is forced upon by the people. You'll usually see the "nanny" word throw around in cases where morality is involved, for example, you shouldn't smoke dope because we think it's bad for you.
And while you're out educating yourself on what liberal principles really are (for example, warning labels and drivers licenses are considered that education thingie I meantioned earlier, and liberal/libertarian philosophy is based off this little thing called "the rule of law," whereas nanny-statism involves either the rule of the elite or the tyranny of the majority), I suggest you also educate yourself on the nature and purpose of government, what it is, what it does, and why it does it.
In the meantime, after this post of yours, I really don't think you should be bad-mouthing anyone.

And here I was, thinking Libertarianism is about increasing an individuals's personal/social and economic freedom. :roll:. You missed the point of the post - it is not about the role or government, the rule of law, etc. It was about why I attack Libertarianism so: post-communist societies were libertarian-like, not by design but because of circumstance. No, it was not anarchy, but it did provide more personal and economic freedom than the US or Canada does. Having seen so much freedom (an approximation of what libertarians actually want) it becomes obvious that it doesn't work well, yet Libertarians pretend it could, if only given a chance. (Reminds of the people who complain how communism would work if only it were given a chance... right :roll

And sorry if don't know anything about Vic-nism - because its certainly the first time I've read anywehre that anarcho-capitalists are not libertarians and that libertarians support mandatory safety, warning and food labels (here I assume you meant mandatory, since asking companies for voluntary and unverifiable lables will produce no practical effect and will not be different from not having labels at all).