Just out of curiosity do you support the state taking obese children away from t heir parents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Printable View
Just out of curiosity do you support the state taking obese children away from t heir parents?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
\Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Depends how obese, and how they got that way.
---Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
For the most part I agree with government staying out of people's life style and choices. However, on the seatbelt one you actaully do affect other people by the cost it takes on society to clean up your carcass from the roads etc... So while theoretically, and by in large you're just, taking a risk (kind of like choosing to drive a motorcycle over in a car is); however if it's going to cost society money, as in affect others then there can be a compromise made to be have to say wear a seatbelt or helmet.
Perhaps a system where they can front a deposit varifying that in the case of death, they can pay for all relevant expenses then they should be allowed to take whatever risk they want, seat belt, no seat belt, helmet or no helmet.
Wait a minute here. Lewk, I thought you believed in grass-roots local governance? :confused:
That's exactly what San Francisco's city ordinance on Happy Meal toys displayed. The class action law suit was dismissed, so that free toy ban only applies to McDonald's within SF city limits. That's hardly BIG GOVERNMENT, let alone regulations usurping freedom of choice. Parents can buy the damn toy, or drive across city lines to another McDonald's.
You went from laws requiring infant/child car seats....to fastfood and childhood obesity? :donkey:
I've never understood this line of thinking. Just because you support the principle of local governance doesn't mean you have to support every restrictive and overreaching law, right? You likely support the principle of local/state governance as well, but I know you don't agree with bans on same sex marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Okay, well that is very ridiculous, but what about the other stuff I mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You would have to be a pretty awful person to not understand there are times where the government needs to step in and seperate child from parent. But thats the problem, your lack of understanding for things that aren't black and white makes comprehending these concepts difficult. Sometimes the states needs to take custody, and sometimes they could use less extreme methods to protect the young ones. Sometimes, we call them laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
While it may be an overreach of protecting bad consumers, it has had zero effect on the market. They still offer toys, they are simply optional. For McDonalds, the kids meals are marked 10 cents cheaper, and the toys cost 10 cents. All McDonalds kids meals also come with apple slices now, so maybe san fan did help push us in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Honestly Enoch answered this better than I could but I'll add to it in two ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I like the idea of local government over national government intervention for two reasons.
1. Kansas is different than New York. Alaska is different from Florida. The one size fits all approach doesn't work as well as grassroots stuff.
2. If the laws are particularly bad it is MUCH easier to move to a different city than it is to move out of the country. In fact many businesses and people flee high tax states (like CA) due to the taxation and regulatory environment.
curious where you are pulling this from. I thought they had like the eighth largest economy in the world. Seems that would be hard to pull off if everyone fled as easily as you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Fled. Or are we still only correcting Lewk on basic spelling/grammar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
On a less snarky note, a cursory Google search yielded this, and this.
you'd have to ask someone else, I usually restrict my harping to his inability to properly use the quote function and tags.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Shouldn't that be balanced against new business? Or at least the general climate across the US, or perhaps the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Sure. Balance away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Ha, and I was asking Lewk to suss out his line of thinking. ;) Sure, I can support the principle of local governance, without supporting every ordinance a city council passes....or what covenants/restrictions a HOA implements. I think many communities have "restrictive and overreaching" zoning laws, but it's their place to decide if they want to limit/restrict/outlaw --- or allow --- certain things in their own areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Examples: skateboarding, public nudity, plastic grocery bags, fireworks, outdoor burning. Some ordinances apply to 'planned communities', or neighborhoods, and include house colors, fence types, clothes lines and above-ground pools. If people don't like them, they don't have to live there, or conduct business there. At least those residents can change rules by petitioning local officials, and putting it up for a vote.
It's not like getting a free toy with a Happy Meal is a civil right, while marriage equality IS.
And I'm asking why you used a local ordinance in SF, about free Happy Meal toys, as an example of BIG GOVERNMENT overreach? Why you lumped that in with....federal auto safety regulations, or state seat belt/helmet laws....and then switched over to The State taking obese children away from their parents? But wait, now it's about business TAXES? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
As others have said, none of this is black-and-white. Even your Stossel article (which was pretty lame) said not much is cut 'n dry, yet you keep conflating issues. You've mixed federal or state safety regulations with local ordinances, using examples of seat belts and Happy Meals as proof that teh evil gummint is taking away our freedoms in order to protect us. You're starting with the premise that all regulations are bad, or anything the government does is an infringement, and trying to work your way backward. I don't understand that line of thinking.
Almost all motorcycle laws are state laws. Government intrusion is government intrusion.
And again not all government regulation is bad. Regulation that is designed to protect you from yourself is all bad.
Most of the stuff you've mentioned is related to protecting kids, or others from adult reckless or risky behavior....not to protect you from yourself. You brought up high tax states 'driving away business', but in the past you've agreed that "vice taxing" can be effective to drive down harmful behaviors (tobacco/smoking, alcohol/drinking, lottery/gambling, etc.) Those also vary by state, so your broad brush doesn't paint so well. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You've also said it's fine for employers to regulate obesity, smoking, narcotic use, diet and exercise habits of employees....by charging higher rates through their health insurance premiums. You've also said it's okay for insurers to charge higher rates for 'known risk groups' of all sorts, from driving age/gender, type of vehicle, to wearing seat belts or helmets. Those are all forms of taxing or regulating behaviors, but as long as it's done by an insurance company, with approval from a regulating agency like the Insurance Commission, it's somehow different in your mind?
As your guru Stossel would say, give me a break. :rolleyes:
Are you deliberately obtuse? Private companies should have the right to do what they will. They do not have the ability to force people at the point of the gun to do something. This is why government is bad. It has a monopoly on force and its laws can't really be avoided. If you don't like the company stop doing business with them. If you don't like the government you can't stop doing business with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And don't even get me started on the utter nonsense of the Insurance Company having to approve premium increase - completely retarded.
Why don't they have the "ability to force people at the point of the gun to do something" ? Give us an answer please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There are many forces in play that mold the monopoly. Do you understand that government is YOU. Bitch all you want about government; without it you'll be just one more mouth sucking on the nipples of wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
By that logic, any company of which you hold exactly one share is YOU. Don't you dare complain about it doing anything you don't like!
In the Soviet Union, government *isn't* YOU.
It's been well established that you rarely understand anyone's logic unless you somehow make it conform to the reality of your tiny world. You might try getting a real job so you can experience the difference between business and government. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Says the guy who no one with an ounce of intellect will ever employ...You'd make a good union boss though.
I am a valuable commodity to people like you. Many dim people reap the rewards of my service...and they pay me handsomely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Private companies don't have the "right" to create monopolies, which is exactly what the Insurance Industry has done (especially in healthcare). With help from their lobbyists and campaign financing clout that influences lawmakers, of course. Conflicts of interest and croneyism is rampant in "government" policy decisions, but ignoring that private companies are complicit in that loop would make you obtuse. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No idea why you think labor laws or employment laws came about in the first place....if you truly believe employers didn't once have the ability to "force" people to do something. Sometimes it was literally at the end of a gun, or putting their lives on the line, or choosing between the job or destitution. Your notion that private companies have the right to do what they will is exactly why those worker-protection regulations were needed. They stopped things like child labor, sweat shops, sexual exploitation, locking/chaining exit doors, fire-trap factories, 80 hour work weeks, on and on.
Admit it, you're nothing but a shill for the Insurance Industry. :donkey:
Best way to create a monopoly is to allow the government to create barriers to entry. Next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So far you've said even state laws are gov't "intrusion". But not all laws are bad -- just ones to protect you from yourself. When that was challenged you said government is bad because it has a monopoly...on making and enforcing laws. Never mind that only "government" can make laws, forget those elections we have, or that laws are constantly changing over time for a reason. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But wait! Now those laws or regulations are creating "barriers to entry"...and the government's monopoly is creating other monopolies!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
In many ways I'd agree....but those barriers in politics/government are related to the gazillion campaign dollars required, and the influence private wealthy donors, special interest groups, and super PACs have on those elected. The barriers in healthcare are directly related to the Insurance Industry (thanks to lobbyists/legislators that protect that monopoly).
No, we can't just stop needing healthcare and stop doing business with insurance companies. Even with insurance people go medically bankrupt. But if we don't like "the government", or even how campaigns are funded, there's at least the option to vote and power in numbers. Well, as long as voter registration and ID laws aren't made more restrictive. Several state Republican led legislatures are doing just that, but I don't recall you condemning those governments fiddling with the freedom to vote. :bulb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/ny...inks.html?_r=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Wow...just wow.
That KFC cup is the size of a bucket of chicken :bulb:
So should it be banned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer