Yeah, More Nannyism

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 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.

You smoke? Damn you must have missed out on all those health education classes and DARE programs. If you only knew how bad smoking was for your health you'd quit.

I guess I ought to do something and save you from yourself... Let's ban tobacco! Who's with me!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 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.

prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
2. Philosophy. Of or relating to pragmatism.
3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.

So banning Trans Fat is unattainable? KFC has already shown it can be done, seems very attainable to me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: 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.

You smoke? Damn you must have missed out on all those health education classes and DARE programs. If you only knew how bad smoking was for your health you'd quit.

I guess I ought to do something and save you from yourself... Let's ban tobacco! Who's with me!

Hehe, noooooo!!!!!

 

[glutenberg]

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!

Yum Brand's voluntary removal of trans fats came after NY began legislating on the ban on trans fats. I wouldn't attribute their voluntary actions entirely on consumer actions but moreso their predictions that there will eventually be more and more regulations against the use of a product that has no benefit. If we left every issue for the common man and the market to take care of, we would have companies using the cheapest means possible for all products without any consideration to the side effects of using them, we would have impending, depleted rainforests, pollution spiraling out of control, etc. Not all things can be solved by a free market when imperfect information is something that can never be removed in a gray world. Libertarianism seems to rely on the world being black and white.

 

[Craig234]

Vic's not a utopian, he's an ideologue. That's why he says thing like 'all attempts to protect people from themselves are doomed to fail'. The fact that, say, laws requiring seat belts in cars, and requiring them to be worn, have unquestionably saved many, many thousands of lives, and the adoption rate was far lower without the laws.

The facts are irrelevant for him; that's an ideologue. He's simply decided that the way people work is that they'll rationally choose to buy a car with seat belts, or not to wear them and pay the consequences, and that's his preferred system. So, his preference results in many, many more thousands of people killed.

The defense of ideologues like him when confronted with this, since their position is basically indefensibel, is usually to make a fallacious attack by fantasizing about the law being extremely extended, so that all cars have to have training wheels or such. By that absurd straw man, they think they proved they're right on their seat belt ideology.

Meanwhile, the grownups are glad the *reasonable* use of the law for purposes like seat belts and banning trans fat is done.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 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.

prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
2. Philosophy. Of or relating to pragmatism.
3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.

So banning Trans Fat is unattainable? KFC has already shown it can be done, seems very attainable to me.

See bolded for why it is unattainable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Vic's not a utopian, he's an ideologue. That's why he says thing like 'all attempts to protect ALL people from themselves are doomed to fail'. The fact that, say, laws requiring seat belts in cars, and requiring them to be worn, have unquestionably saved many, many thousands of lives, and the adoption rate was far lower without the laws.

The facts are irrelevant for him; that's an ideologue. He's simply decided that the way people work is that they'll rationally choose to buy a car with seat belts, or not to wear them and pay the consequences, and that's his preferred system. So, his preference results in many, many more thousands of people killed.

The defense of ideologues like him when confronted with this, since their position is basically indefensibel, is usually to make a fallacious attack by fantasizing about the law being extremely extended, so that all cars have to have training wheels or such. By that absurd straw man, they think they proved they're right on their seat belt ideology.

Meanwhile, the grownups are glad the *reasonable* use of the law for purposes like seat belts and banning trans fat is done.

Fixed for you. You're not trying to save a few, you're trying to save everyone, whether they like it or not.
Thanks for lying about me. I have come to accept no less from you. You try to disguise the fact that it is you who is the ideologue, preaching that good word of hope and salvation for all humankind, but fail miserably.
BTW, the cars having training wheels argument would not be a straw man, but slippery slope.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 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.

prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
2. Philosophy. Of or relating to pragmatism.
3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.

So banning Trans Fat is unattainable? KFC has already shown it can be done, seems very attainable to me.

See bolded for why it is unattainable.

Parents are stupid? ... If you mean "Government", then what about the Parents?

 

[glutenberg]

I'm pretty sure everyone is an idealogue deep down but we all face reality and we make the best of what it is. In this case, the elected officials decided that this would be beneficial for citizens not only by limiting a harmful product in their food but it also creates enough shock value for people to understand that artificial trans fats are detrimental at any ingested amount. It, at the very least, opens up dialogue that someone has finally taken a stance instead of hearing two sides of the story and never getting a clear answer since so much of scientific data that the consumer hears has been tainted by science with agendas.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Parents are stupid? ... If you mean "Government", then what about the Parents?

I'm sure there are plenty of unfit parents in the US.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: sandorski


Parents are stupid? ... If you mean "Government", then what about the Parents?

I'm sure there are plenty of unfit parents in the US.

Definitely.

 

[Vic]

I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what makes the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I'm pretty sure everyone is an idealogue deep down but we all face reality and we make the best of what it is. In this case, the elected officials decided that this would be beneficial for citizens not only by limiting a harmful product in their food but it also creates enough shock value for people to understand that artificial trans fats are detrimental at any ingested amount. It, at the very least, opens up dialogue that someone has finally taken a stance instead of hearing two sides of the story and never getting a clear answer since so much of scientific data that the consumer hears has been tainted by science with agendas.

No law banning anything ever opened up such a dialogue. Do we currently have earnest discussion about egalizing heroin?
And is it "science with agenda" or "science that tells you what you don't want to hear"? Either way, you don't sound like a lover of science, or of logical thinking.


To the actual ideologues (beyond just who this post quotes), I suggest you go back to my first post in this thread for my position on this issue and review it, because obviously none of those arguing here against me have actually read it. All you appear to know is that I don't agree with 100% and that is unacceptable to you. You'd think I was selling trans fat in baggies on street corners next to schools. "Hey *psst*"

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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).

Then read up:
Text
Text
Text
Text

Those post-communist societies were about the furthest thing from libertarianism, I don't know who told you otherwise. Essentially it was mafia control, without representative legitimacy or established rule of law. The rest of your post is equally uninformed. Anarcho-capitalism is not liberalism or libertarianism, although it is an offshoot of it. Anarchy is anarchy. Libertarianism is minarchy. It reflects the need for people to be organized and have established rules amongst themselves for fairness, while recognizes the fact that all people are created equal, i.e. that none has the right to impose his morals on another, and the duty of government to protect the people from same.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

So we should have banned butter back in the 70s?

edit: You missed my point BTW. I should have known you would. The force of law does not allow for exception. All must comply. Get it? Meh, I feel almost (but not quite) happy knowing that your own ilk will come for your cigarettes next. But you're probably so weak and brainwashed that you'll be happy that they're coming to save you when you wouldn't save yourself. "Praise the Lord, we'll all be dry yet!"

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

So we should have banned butter back in the 70s?

edit: You missed my point BTW. I should have known you would. The force of law does not allow for exception. All must comply. Get it? Meh, I feel almost (but not quite) happy knowing that your own ilk will come for your cigarettes next. But you're probably so weak and brainwashed that you'll be happy that they're coming to save you when you wouldn't save yourself. "Praise the Lord, we'll all be dry yet!"

No, butter shouldn't have been banned and it wasn't! Like I said, Trans Fats didn't just pop up on the radar out of nowhere, it was discovered after the focus was placed upon Fat in general.

That's what makes Law so good. In one Pragmatic swoop a major Health Hazzard is eliminated. It is good that All must comply, because there is no reason for Trans Fats to be used in the preparation of Food.

If they take my cigarettes, they take them. However, Trans Fats and Tobacco are really 2 different things. Trans Fats are not Addictive and you won't find people looking for their Trans Fats Pusher to get their fix. They won't even know that Trans Fats are no longer in the Food they are eating. In short, banning Trans Fats is not a Rights issue in any way contrived.

 

[1EZduzit]

If they can ban smoking in resturaunts then they can obviously ban trans fats.

There seems to be a lesson to be learned here that I can't quite wrap my mind around. As technology has advanced and allowed people to be able to rely less on their neighbors and more on technology. That "technological independance" has caused a loss of in quality of life than we had l;earned because we were all interdependent on our neighbors. I think this used to be just a "big city" problem but as technology has advanced/spread the whole country has become less and less dependent on each other. It's turned into a "me, me, me" mentality because society provides us almost instantly with all the basic nessecities of life.

So why should we be tolerant of that SOB over there smoking that stinking cigar, we don't need him. Why should we put up with anything that we disagree with? Sadly, these days I think we ALL could use a lesson in tolerance. Send not to know for whom the bells tolls....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

So we should have banned butter back in the 70s?

edit: You missed my point BTW. I should have known you would. The force of law does not allow for exception. All must comply. Get it? Meh, I feel almost (but not quite) happy knowing that your own ilk will come for your cigarettes next. But you're probably so weak and brainwashed that you'll be happy that they're coming to save you when you wouldn't save yourself. "Praise the Lord, we'll all be dry yet!"

No, butter shouldn't have been banned and it wasn't! Like I said, Trans Fats didn't just pop up on the radar out of nowhere, it was discovered after the focus was placed upon Fat in general.

That's what makes Law so good. In one Pragmatic swoop a major Health Hazzard is eliminated. It is good that All must comply, because there is no reason for Trans Fats to be used in the preparation of Food.

If they take my cigarettes, they take them. However, Trans Fats and Tobacco are really 2 different things. Trans Fats are not Addictive and you won't find people looking for their Trans Fats Pusher to get their fix. They won't even know that Trans Fats are no longer in the Food they are eating. In short, banning Trans Fats is not a Rights issue in any way contrived.

So you admit cigarettes are worse but you're probably headed outside to light one up any minute now. Uh huh.

Restating my position, this ban assumes that we know everything. So we can go ahead and pass whatever Nanny-knows-best draconian laws we want because we won't be wrong tomorrow, right?
Notwithstanding it was pushed through by that worst of self-righteous moral authoritarians, Michael Bloomberg.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

So we should have banned butter back in the 70s?

edit: You missed my point BTW. I should have known you would. The force of law does not allow for exception. All must comply. Get it? Meh, I feel almost (but not quite) happy knowing that your own ilk will come for your cigarettes next. But you're probably so weak and brainwashed that you'll be happy that they're coming to save you when you wouldn't save yourself. "Praise the Lord, we'll all be dry yet!"

No, butter shouldn't have been banned and it wasn't! Like I said, Trans Fats didn't just pop up on the radar out of nowhere, it was discovered after the focus was placed upon Fat in general.

That's what makes Law so good. In one Pragmatic swoop a major Health Hazzard is eliminated. It is good that All must comply, because there is no reason for Trans Fats to be used in the preparation of Food.

If they take my cigarettes, they take them. However, Trans Fats and Tobacco are really 2 different things. Trans Fats are not Addictive and you won't find people looking for their Trans Fats Pusher to get their fix. They won't even know that Trans Fats are no longer in the Food they are eating. In short, banning Trans Fats is not a Rights issue in any way contrived.

Whatever happen to the right of the business owner to run his business as he pleases assuming he isn't violating anyone else's rights?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If they can ban smoking in resturaunts then they can obviously ban trans fats.

There seems to be a lesson to be learned here that I can't quite wrap my mind around. As technology has advanced and allowed people to be able to rely less on their neighbors and more on technology. That "technological independance" has caused a loss of in quality of life than we had l;earned because we were all interdependent on our neighbors. I think this used to be just a "big city" problem but as technology has advanced/spread the whole country has become less and less dependent on each other. It's turned into a "me, me, me" mentality because society provides us almost instantly with all the basic nessecities of life.

So why should we be tolerant of that SOB over there smoking that stinking cigar, we don't need him. Why should we put up with anything that we disagree with? Sadly, these days I think we ALL could use a lesson in tolerance. Send not to know for whom the bells tolls....

Smoking laws are fvcking bullshit! :|

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

So we should have banned butter back in the 70s?

edit: You missed my point BTW. I should have known you would. The force of law does not allow for exception. All must comply. Get it? Meh, I feel almost (but not quite) happy knowing that your own ilk will come for your cigarettes next. But you're probably so weak and brainwashed that you'll be happy that they're coming to save you when you wouldn't save yourself. "Praise the Lord, we'll all be dry yet!"

No, butter shouldn't have been banned and it wasn't! Like I said, Trans Fats didn't just pop up on the radar out of nowhere, it was discovered after the focus was placed upon Fat in general.

That's what makes Law so good. In one Pragmatic swoop a major Health Hazzard is eliminated. It is good that All must comply, because there is no reason for Trans Fats to be used in the preparation of Food.

If they take my cigarettes, they take them. However, Trans Fats and Tobacco are really 2 different things. Trans Fats are not Addictive and you won't find people looking for their Trans Fats Pusher to get their fix. They won't even know that Trans Fats are no longer in the Food they are eating. In short, banning Trans Fats is not a Rights issue in any way contrived.

So you admit cigarettes are worse but you're probably headed outside to light one up any minute now. Uh huh.

Restating my position, this ban assumes that we know everything. So we can go ahead and pass whatever Nanny-knows-best draconian laws we want because we won't be wrong tomorrow, right?
Notwithstanding it was pushed through by that worst of self-righteous moral authoritarians, Michael Bloomberg.

I don't know if Cigarettes are worse than Trans Fats. :shrug; I smoked one awhile ago...Inside!

We can't know everything. It is ridiculous to wait until that point to act on anything(something that is repeatedly stated on a number of issues, but is nonetheless true). If that was the criteria Central Sewage systems would still be just a controversial idea to this day. There comes a time when you got to quit hummin and hawin and just start doin.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
I meant that the force of law does not allow for exception. That is what make the knee-jerk mentality non-pragmatic (and definitely ideological).

This is not a knee-jerk move. The first indications of a health risk with Fats occured way back in the 1980's. If a ban had been implemented way back then, you might have a case(in retrospect you would be right). However, since that time the Research into the found Health Risk back then has finally narrowed the problem down to Trans Fats. It is Pragmatic at this time due to that.

Also note, that back then the only Knee-Jerk reactions were actually by Food Producers(Industry) themselves(and often is). Suddenly there were all sorts of Fat Free or Fat Reduced products. Governments haven't acted on it until the Research was more specific.

So we should have banned butter back in the 70s?

edit: You missed my point BTW. I should have known you would. The force of law does not allow for exception. All must comply. Get it? Meh, I feel almost (but not quite) happy knowing that your own ilk will come for your cigarettes next. But you're probably so weak and brainwashed that you'll be happy that they're coming to save you when you wouldn't save yourself. "Praise the Lord, we'll all be dry yet!"

No, butter shouldn't have been banned and it wasn't! Like I said, Trans Fats didn't just pop up on the radar out of nowhere, it was discovered after the focus was placed upon Fat in general.

That's what makes Law so good. In one Pragmatic swoop a major Health Hazzard is eliminated. It is good that All must comply, because there is no reason for Trans Fats to be used in the preparation of Food.

If they take my cigarettes, they take them. However, Trans Fats and Tobacco are really 2 different things. Trans Fats are not Addictive and you won't find people looking for their Trans Fats Pusher to get their fix. They won't even know that Trans Fats are no longer in the Food they are eating. In short, banning Trans Fats is not a Rights issue in any way contrived.

Whatever happen to the right of the business owner to run his business as he pleases assuming he isn't violating anyone else's rights?

Putting other Peoples Health at risk is violating their Rights.

 

[Vic]

I think it's funny that I'm simultaneously arguing against fast food breakfasts over in OT (albeit weakly, as fast food is well-loved over there) and against nanny-statism over here in P&N (sadly, similar audience issue).

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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).

Then read up:
Text
Text
Text
Text

Those post-communist societies were about the furthest thing from libertarianism, I don't know who told you otherwise. Essentially it was mafia control, without representative legitimacy or established rule of law. The rest of your post is equally uninformed. Anarcho-capitalism is not liberalism or libertarianism, although it is an offshoot of it. Anarchy is anarchy. Libertarianism is minarchy. It reflects the need for people to be organized and have established rules amongst themselves for fairness, while recognizes the fact that all people are created equal, i.e. that none has the right to impose his morals on another, and the duty of government to protect the people from same.

As I mentioned rule of law and role of government wasn't the point of my post - everyone other than anarchists wants a rule of law - you're simply trying to distract from what I'm actually saying, which is about freedoms in society. The one I grew up in was in A LOT of respects defacto libertarian. Here we have jaywalking laws, however everybody ignores them and its exceptionally rare for someone to get cited, so practically speaking jaywalking is ok here. It was like this there as well, except with a lot more of the laws.


let me demonstrate with an example taken from this thread, specifically the first 2 positions. When businesses started opening in the early 90s, there certainly weren't any rules about whom you could hire or fire - minorities had little chance, but good-looking women certainly found it much easier. Did that make society better? No, not at all and they're trying hard to fix this these days.

What about things like liquor laws? They certainly existed on the books (like jaywalking laws here), however the reality on the ground was that there was absolutely no regulation of anything. And while me and my friends certainly enjoyed the freedom of being able to skip class and go have some beer in the pool hall when we were 13, the alcoholism and health problems it caused society as a whole weren't that swell.