Yeah, More Nannyism

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

So we outlaw eggs and bacon next? I mean, obviously that's a violation of rights, no?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Translation: I'm a hypocrite in denial... we don't care if we're wrong, that's not the point... straw man about sewage systems... our moral agenda will triumph over yours...

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

So we outlaw eggs and bacon next? I mean, obviously that's a violation of rights, no?

Those ar eFoods, Trans Fats are not.

 

[Vic]

But the bacon, I love it, it is so addictive, ahhh, my arteries, they are clogged... my rights! my rights!!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

Translation: I'm a hypocrite in denial... we don't care if we're wrong, that's not the point... straw man about sewage systems... our moral agenda will triumph over yours...

Got it. Thanks.

Huh.

You said you needed to know everything. It would still be debated today whether Sewage running down the street in a 6" ditch negated the Ill effects of it running down the surface of the street. IOWs we can continue moving the goal posts until the Universe collapses back into itself. Or we can act when it becomes clear where a problem lies.

Trans Fats are where the problem lies, we know that. Could happen that in 10 years someone discovers that a slight change to Trans Fats makes them perfectly safe for Consumption, but until then it makes n osense to allow such a harmful substance to continue to be used.

You have no "moral" agenda. What you have is a pollyanna view that all will be well when nothing changes because all the facts never come in. The Super Consumer aware of everything so thoroughly that an FDA or other Regulatory body become unnecessary is an impossibility. People are overworked, lack time, over stressed, and simply need a rest as it is. Making them know everything or put their life at risk with dangerous Food, get ripped off by the unscrupulous, find a Doctor/Professional that's not a complete quack, etc will never happen and is where your Utopian view falls apart. It is no mystery why every Civilization develops the same way, over and over again, it is out of Necessity.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

When I was Mexico, I saw a kid was probably around the age of twelve with a beer walking his small dog past a cop. About a half a hour later I saw him walk into a house and kiss what I presume to be his mother on the cheek.

I also understand that many european countries don't have or enforce any drinking laws. Yet, those countries don't seem to be in ruin from booze...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

When I was Mexico, I saw a kid was probably around the age of twelve with a beer walking his small dog past a cop. About a half a hour later I saw him walk into a house and kiss what I presume to be his mother on the cheek.

I also understand that many european countries don't have or enforce any drinking laws. Yet, those countries don't seem to be in ruin from booze...

Being european myself, I can tell you there is definitely enforcement and drinking age hovers around 18. When I was around 15, I had no problems getting beer at the pub - this was culturally acceptable. However, no one would sell me a a fifth of vodka if I tried. This has very little do with libertarian policies, but rather with cultural traditions.

But to chime in on the whole debate, non-centris Libertarianism is just the opposite fringe of communism. One believes that all the actors will have the perfect information to do everything for the collective, where as the other thinks you always have the perfect information to do everything for yourself. Neither one is realistic, both ignore market forces and externalities and neither one is long term sustainable in the real world.

 

[mithrandir2001]

This is good news.

I don't see it so much of a rights issue. It is not about banning fast food but about forcing restaurants to stop using harmful oils in their food preparation. You can still sell french fries and fried chicken, just not with partially hydrogenated oils.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

When I was Mexico, I saw a kid was probably around the age of twelve with a beer walking his small dog past a cop. About a half a hour later I saw him walk into a house and kiss what I presume to be his mother on the cheek.

I also understand that many european countries don't have or enforce any drinking laws. Yet, those countries don't seem to be in ruin from booze...

Being european myself, I can tell you there is definitely enforcement and drinking age hovers around 18. When I was around 15, I had no problems getting beer at the pub - this was culturally acceptable. However, no one would sell me a a fifth of vodka if I tried. This has very little do with libertarian policies, but rather with cultural traditions.

But to chime in on the whole debate, non-centris Libertarianism is just the opposite fringe of communism. One believes that all the actors will have the perfect information to do everything for the collective, where as the other thinks you always have the perfect information to do everything for yourself. Neither one is realistic, both ignore market forces and externalities and neither one is long term sustainable in the real world.

No one is saying you'll have the all the accurrate information or even listen to that information. What we are saying is that we believe the best option is to let people decide what they feel is the best decision.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

When I was Mexico, I saw a kid was probably around the age of twelve with a beer walking his small dog past a cop. About a half a hour later I saw him walk into a house and kiss what I presume to be his mother on the cheek.

I also understand that many european countries don't have or enforce any drinking laws. Yet, those countries don't seem to be in ruin from booze...

Being european myself, I can tell you there is definitely enforcement and drinking age hovers around 18. When I was around 15, I had no problems getting beer at the pub - this was culturally acceptable. However, no one would sell me a a fifth of vodka if I tried. This has very little do with libertarian policies, but rather with cultural traditions.

But to chime in on the whole debate, non-centris Libertarianism is just the opposite fringe of communism. One believes that all the actors will have the perfect information to do everything for the collective, where as the other thinks you always have the perfect information to do everything for yourself. Neither one is realistic, both ignore market forces and externalities and neither one is long term sustainable in the real world.

No one is saying you'll have the all the accurrate information or even listen to that information. What we are saying is that we believe the best option is to let people decide what they feel is the best decision.

That's literally the same thing - either due to asymmetric information or externalities, the individual's "best decisions" negatively impact the collective.

You might think that you don't need a seat belt in your car, but the first time our firefighters have to come out to scrape your bloody carcass off the tarmac, your "best choice" cost us money.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

When I was Mexico, I saw a kid was probably around the age of twelve with a beer walking his small dog past a cop. About a half a hour later I saw him walk into a house and kiss what I presume to be his mother on the cheek.

I also understand that many european countries don't have or enforce any drinking laws. Yet, those countries don't seem to be in ruin from booze...

Being european myself, I can tell you there is definitely enforcement and drinking age hovers around 18. When I was around 15, I had no problems getting beer at the pub - this was culturally acceptable. However, no one would sell me a a fifth of vodka if I tried. This has very little do with libertarian policies, but rather with cultural traditions.

But to chime in on the whole debate, non-centris Libertarianism is just the opposite fringe of communism. One believes that all the actors will have the perfect information to do everything for the collective, where as the other thinks you always have the perfect information to do everything for yourself. Neither one is realistic, both ignore market forces and externalities and neither one is long term sustainable in the real world.

No one is saying you'll have the all the accurrate information or even listen to that information. What we are saying is that we believe the best option is to let people decide what they feel is the best decision.

That's literally the same thing - either due to asymmetric information or externalities, the individual's "best decisions" negatively impact the collective.

You might think that you don't need a seat belt in your car, but the first time our firefighters have to come out to scrape your bloody carcass off the tarmac, your "best choice" cost us money.

Why the hell did I underline the above?

So, Martin the problem isn't an indiviual's poor eating decision it's when the indiviual's eating decision affects others correct? As for the rest of the above, do you have a better idea of how society should be run?

 

[daveshel]

Transit farts bad.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

When I was Mexico, I saw a kid was probably around the age of twelve with a beer walking his small dog past a cop. About a half a hour later I saw him walk into a house and kiss what I presume to be his mother on the cheek.

I also understand that many european countries don't have or enforce any drinking laws. Yet, those countries don't seem to be in ruin from booze...

Being european myself, I can tell you there is definitely enforcement and drinking age hovers around 18. When I was around 15, I had no problems getting beer at the pub - this was culturally acceptable. However, no one would sell me a a fifth of vodka if I tried. This has very little do with libertarian policies, but rather with cultural traditions.

But to chime in on the whole debate, non-centris Libertarianism is just the opposite fringe of communism. One believes that all the actors will have the perfect information to do everything for the collective, where as the other thinks you always have the perfect information to do everything for yourself. Neither one is realistic, both ignore market forces and externalities and neither one is long term sustainable in the real world.

No one is saying you'll have the all the accurrate information or even listen to that information. What we are saying is that we believe the best option is to let people decide what they feel is the best decision.

That's literally the same thing - either due to asymmetric information or externalities, the individual's "best decisions" negatively impact the collective.

You might think that you don't need a seat belt in your car, but the first time our firefighters have to come out to scrape your bloody carcass off the tarmac, your "best choice" cost us money.

Why the hell did I underline the above?

So, Martin the problem isn't an indiviual's poor eating decision it's when the indiviual's eating decision affects others correct? As for the rest of the above, do you have a better idea of how society should be run?

The reasoning behind that has little to do with good intentions - if the owner got caught selling me a a fifth of hard liquor, he'd be in deep sh!t. Cops don't generally enforce the drinking age for beer (cultural reasons), but they would come down *hard* on things of that nature.

In any case, you'd be a fool to think that the store owner didn
t sell me hard liquor for moral reasons or because it was the "best thing" to do. The have an obvious economic incentive to sell stuff...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

Unless I'm really confused, I'd have to say your argument is laughable. Consumer protection against fraud is one of the strongest of libertarian positions. And yet you bring that to me as if it should surprise me, apparently because you confuse restricting free choice with protection. The problem here, it seems, is your lack of basic comprehension skills. What part about "We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation" did you not understand?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Tab
So, Martin the problem isn't an indiviual's poor eating decision it's when the indiviual's eating decision affects others correct? As for the rest of the above, do you have a better idea of how society should be run?

Is there even a decision made in this case? Can I go to the store and ask for fries without transfats, while my friend orders ones with? When you think about all the combinations actually possible when you consider several substances like this, you'll see choice often becomes impossible (bsobel's list has 15 additives - 32000 combinations).

So in this case, does the cost outweight the benefit? yeah, seeing as how there is no practical cost, its an easy answer...

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
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.

Okay, that thread nor liquor laws is related to this issue, however, I explained my position on those 2 points quite well. For one thing, I value my right to potentially tell my employer to "take this job and shove it" should I feel like so much that I reserve for him his right to do the same to me.
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Your rights protect my rights, and vice versa. When you attack anyone's rights, no matter how you feel about them or what they do, you only attack your own. This is self-evident.

The issue being why I rag on non-centrist libertarians, they're quite relevant. My point with those examples is that A LOT of what libertarians push for has already been tried and the results haven't been that great. If centrist-libertarian came up and said "lets allow sale of alcohol on sundays, let bars open past 2am and lower the drinking age to 18", I'd totally agree with him. If an actual libertarian says "government should have nothing to do with liquor", I'd call him an idiot. Now, because libertarian parties are full of the latter kind, no one takes them seriously and no one votes for them, and until they learn moderate their positions, they'll remain a laughable fringe. Think I'm exaggerating? A quote from the canadian libertarian party

Consumer Protection
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade, and limits the ability of injured parties to sue.

http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

Unless I'm really confused, I'd have to say your argument is laughable. Consumer protection against fraud is one of the strongest of libertarian positions. And yet you bring that to me as if it should surprise me, apparently because you confuse restricting free choice with protection. The problem here, it seems, is your lack of basic comprehension skills. What part about "We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation" did you not understand?

No, you're just reading the part the wrong. This part is relevant to my post:

We oppose all regulations which dictate to consumers ... define standards for products, or otherwise restrict free choice. We oppose so-called "consumer protection" legislation which restricts voluntary trade

is the one which I wanted to use to show you that most libertarians and their parties are definitely of the nuttier variety I referred to. Hence why their fringe and will remain there until they get in touch with reality.

 

[Vic]

Freedom is slavery?

 

[marincounty]

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!

No, I'm not trying to save people from themselves, I'm trying to save them from huge corporations that are trying to poison them.
And KFC is not removing transfat because of informed consumers, they're removing it because they can see the transfat bans coming. Informed consumers? They're still pouring into KFC and McDonalds and eating transfat.
Yes, think of the children. If it were only adults consuming transfat it probably wouldn't be necessary to ban them, informed consumers would eventually stop buying them and companies would remove them from the food voluntarily.
However, children consume vast quantities of this stuff and are not informed, making a ban necessary.
In other words, Vic is in favor of poisoning children.
And you still can buy crisco, or other trans fats at the store, and fry your food in that if you wish, no one has stopped from doing anything.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty

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!

No, I'm not trying to save people from themselves, I'm trying to save them from huge corporations that are trying to poison them.
And KFC is not removing transfat because of informed consumers, they're removing it because they can see the transfat bans coming. Informed consumers? They're still pouring into KFC and McDonalds and eating transfat.
Yes, think of the children. If it were only adults consuming transfat it probably wouldn't be necessary to ban them, informed consumers would eventually stop buying them and companies would remove them from the food voluntarily.
However, children consume vast quantities of this stuff and are not informed, making a ban necessary.
In other words, Vic is in favor of poisoning children.
And you still can buy crisco, or other trans fats at the store, and fry your food in that if you wish, no one has stopped from doing anything.

I think you should know that, with this one post, you have just proved practically all my points about you and your moralist ilk. Thanks.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

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!

No, I'm not trying to save people from themselves, I'm trying to save them from huge corporations that are trying to poison them.
And KFC is not removing transfat because of informed consumers, they're removing it because they can see the transfat bans coming. Informed consumers? They're still pouring into KFC and McDonalds and eating transfat.
Yes, think of the children. If it were only adults consuming transfat it probably wouldn't be necessary to ban them, informed consumers would eventually stop buying them and companies would remove them from the food voluntarily.
However, children consume vast quantities of this stuff and are not informed, making a ban necessary.
In other words, Vic is in favor of poisoning children.
And you still can buy crisco, or other trans fats at the store, and fry your food in that if you wish, no one has stopped from doing anything.

I think you should know that, with this one post, you have just proved practically all my points about you and your moralist ilk. Thanks.

And you just proved why Libertarians can't win an election in the US, because your ideological rigidity opposes even small practical steps that might benefit people.

 

[Vic]

I hate children.

:roll:


Actually, marin, when you figure that you are a Democrat in name only and that the extremist views you post here do not represent that of mainstream Democrats, it seems that your radical authoritarian brand of socialism isn't winning any elections either. While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country, the most successful in history. Fascinating...

And my "ideological rigidity"?? I get this from a mental puppet who posts nothing but rhetoric and talking points? STFU.
And has no one else here noticed that supposed poor-loving/rich-hating Democratic faithful are rabidly defending the agenda of a rich Republican? Sometimes this place is just a bit too much...

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
I hate children.

Best news all day!

Do your community a favor: Don't forget to spay and neuter your Libertarians before they go rabid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
I hate children.

Best news all day!

Do your community a favor: Don't forget to spay and neuter your Libertarians before they go rabid.

OMG you people are hilarious. You keep supporting that rich Republican mayor now.