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.
Printable View
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
Its a far cry from the 16oz limit, and its not uncommon to share sizes like that amongst a family.
That really wasn't the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I was worried you wouldn't recongize that obesity is a problem that the US may have to address in similiar manners that they addressed previous health concerns in, while acknowledging something this simplistic as splitting a super big gulp into two cups isn't the answer.
Yes, freedom can be dangerous. The question has never been can people who are given the option make a bad choice, the question is is it the role of government to decide what size beverage you can buy and consume. Should you be allowed to make a choice, even if it conceivably could be a bad one, or should you only be allowed to make government approved choices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
We also have an STD epidemic in this country. Should the government also be mandating what sex acts can be performed, by which groups, and with X, Y, or Z contraceptives?
At some level, nearly everything is a government approved choice, the question is how far should the public be allowed to go before that reach that point. Something thats as weak as this, where you would buy 2 cups instead of one doesn't seem like the best avenue to be traveling down, but who knows, the entire country may have benefitted from san fran's happy meal ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
and the government doesn't have to ban something to take a stance against it. proper education and testing have shown to do wonders with STD infection rates, but we all know how much idiocy is behind abstinence only education. And there are states that put limits on certain groups with infections. Porn stars regularly get tested and a positive result can shut down entire regions. Not to mention that courts have ruled against those that infect others without disclosure.
Because, given a non governmental solution, people would be pro-obesity and pro-STDs? Why not just regulate all restaurant foods, (or foods sold in the grocery for that matter) to make sure that only healthy, low sugar, low sodium goods are sold? I mean, there's an obesity epidemic in this country...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
This is, I suppose, the meat of my point: If you could ensure people lived a long, healthy life, but were not free to make their own choices in any meaningful way, would you do it? What is more important to you, health or individual freedom?
I like to strive for a balance, unlike the extreme examples you favor jumping to.
I don't have worldwide numbers to compare to, our fattest state in 95 was thinner than our thinnest state currently. I'm not going to automatically blame people for making themselves fat, but there are a lot of choices out there that people don't understand, either through habit, ignorance, or how ingredients are disguised. Then there is the huge price difference between 2000 healthy calories and 2000 junkfood calories.
It's not a question of balance, it's a strictly a question of principle. If you think it's your right to determine what you eat, among other choices that impact your life, then you are responsible for your own well being. If you believe it is up to the government to determine what food you should or shouldn't eat, you believe it is someone elses responsibility. After that you are only argument is degree. And if history is any indicator, enforcing the standards that one only thinks fair and reasonable today can quickly change into standards that seem absurd and overbearing tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't believe you can - or even if it was possible, should - regulate an individuals food and health choices any more than you should regulate how or who they have sex with.
I think Lolli did a pretty good job of debunking this last time around, but rice, beans, and other nutritious and energy dense foods are abundant and inexpensive, especially if you are buying in bulk. Is it easier to find calorie dense junkfood? Absolutely. Is it impossible to find and prepare something that is relatively healthy and inexpensive? Absolutely not.Quote:
The government already regulates our food, we already have foods that are banned or restricted; raw milk, absinthe, ackee, mangosteen, sassafras oil, puffer fish, etc. Hell, we even regulate what we can call our food, as seen with the recent HFCS ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
So its not a question of if or how, its a gauge of how far.
She responded to my exact meal options, now if you or her want to read the research on the topic that been done since then that shows the difference I poorly tried to convey, well, its already up there for you.Quote:
I think Lolli did a pretty good job of debunking this last time around
You realize that is essentially a restatement of what I've been saying, right? You seem to mistakenly be under the impression I am arguing for the status quo, which is true in this specific instance, (arguing against a needlessly restrictive health law) but not in general, (giving the government any say in what foods we do or don't consume).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
By research do you mean the NYT article you linked to? The one that said people will follow the path of least resistance, especially if that path also happens to be delicious? It's not news that cheap, highly caloric junk food is out there, or that it is a big seller, both with those who can afford better and those who can't. That does not mean that other, cost effective and healthier alternatives do not exist.Quote:
She responded to my exact meal options, now if you or her want to read the research on the topic that been done since then that shows the difference I poorly tried to convey, well, its already up there for you.
Nanny Bloomberg :p Interesting it has to be approved by health dept. officials that he appointed. It's a silly proposal, since folks can just buy two cups or more, with free refills. Or walk into a 7-11 and buy a 2 liter bottle of soda.
People tend to be lazy and seek short term gratification. But that's their choice, you can ask someone to change but *making* them change is tyranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Riiight. So where do you place the Insurance Industry in this tyranny of choice or change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Law is a game of words that reflects ideology of politicians. People took the risk of electing them and people took the risk of embracing democracy, and embracing its rule of law, where not everyone will be happy. Absolute freedom would be absolute anarchy where everyone may take your freedom away. Government is nobody, government is a chair where someone sits, someone from a political party. What must keep you upset is not government itself, but law. Right?
Don't you hate it when the slope gets ever more slippery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambridge City Government
Their city public health department is an arm of the MASS State Board of Health, and any "recommendation" they'd give would likely be consistent with their state health policy statements --- not necessarily what should be "legislated" or "banned" by legislators. Both cities will probably get carefully worded statements from their public health agencies, agreeing that obesity/diabetes is a public health concern, and high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages contributes to those medical conditions. Wow, stop the presses. My guess is they'd also suggest a public education 'campaign' that could reach ALL consumers, not limited to place-of-purchase vendors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Cambridge, MASS has a lot of highly educated tax payers. They should be asking WTF their city council members are doing by putting a NYC proposal on their agenda. If they don't, THAT is where the slippery slope begins. IMO.
And the war on choice boldly marches on!Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I can't help but wonder what your outrage would look like if this was the paternalistic misogynists in the GOP banning what perfectly legal substances a woman could or couldn't put in her body, instead of legislation crafted at the behest of caring and reasoned Democrats.
What's really happened is that they've voted in favour of asking their health department to investigate the pros and cons of banning certain serving sizes of sodas and other drinks with HFCS much like the NY "ban". I suppose an alternative might be to restrict the sale of such beverages to specially licensed trained medical personnel.
Why not just skip the intermediate step and ban fat people? Maybe you can put them into some sort of camp, where they can engage in activities consistent with the national interest!
Maybe you could point out in the resolution where they mentioned serving sizes or HFCS. I see "sugar-sweetened" and "ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless