Freedom and Risk

[Loki]

Sterilization after first birth. Works fine in China. Or something.

[Aimless]

Sterilization after first birth. Works fine in China. Or something.

Putting aside the cost of dramatically violating a person's body that does not in itself prevent STD:s, guarantee condom-usage or prevent an unplanned first pregnancy. The costs of implementation and administration would also be very high. You're better off just educating kids and giving them easy access to condoms and abortion methods. Or, you know, addressing social problems

[Enoch the Red]

Very, very very carefully of course! It's not something that should be done lightly.

Why not?

I'm glad you've at least come to appreciate the very real risks of pregnancy

I don't think I've ever denied that pregnancy is a risky endeavor. I think I have said that it is nowhere close to the most dangerous thing a woman can experience, and with the proper precautions most women in western societies will be able to bring their child to term safely and with limited medical complications. That doesn't mean risks don't exist, but there are risks associated with any choice, including, for that matter, abortions. I'm not opposed to risk though, nor do I think minimizing risk, (or rather, government mandated risk reduction) at all costs is a motivating factor for me.

I dunno what Nessie might say but for my part I don't think I could justify banning some people from having children, certainly not in any way that would be acceptable by most people's values. Every approach to such a ban would entail either cruelty and injustice or the violation of a person. Before you point out the problems with letting pregnancy be a "special case", I'd like to ask you what you think should be done in cases where a mother's behaviour seriously harms the health of a fetus that has passed the age limit for regular abortion.

So, is the ultimate arbiter for whether or not a law is just and good the gestalt currents of a society's morality?

You keep bringing up abortion in these discussions, but have you investigated the analogy? These are the important issues: a fetus before a certain gestational age has no legal rights that trump a woman's rights over her body; we generally have no right to jail or otherwise punish a woman for getting an abortion, and we don't; if there is no access to safe abortions then women will have unsafe abortions; the provision of abortion services is fairly well regulated.

Not sure I'm following the relevance here. You are saying a woman has rights over her body - unless that means she wants to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement with a reseller to purchase and ingest a sugary drink?

From where does she derive these rights? If we are only talking about rights that the state grants its citizens then it follows that if the state determines that a woman has no right to an abortion, or a fetus' access to rights begin at conception, then she is left with little to no recourse, right? If it was in the best interest of the state or the society in which she lives that she has, (or does not have the baby) would it be acceptable to legally limit her individual freedom on what she does, (or does not do) to bring that child to term? You seem to be arguing that the societal good trumps individual freedom, but how far does that extend? Are Chinese forced abortions trivial infringements on personal freedom because they have deemed it to be within the best interests of their society to do so? Is it right that children are abandoned or aborted simply because they had the gall to be born female in a society that places more value in men?

There is clearly no conflict between soda's rights and a fat person's rights. No-one but Loki is suggesting we jail fat people. I can't imagine there will be a huge safety issue where people will seek out illicit mob-operated establishments that serve large servings of dangerous illegal soda (if they crave soda that much they can just buy it at the store); it's not booze after all. The approach here is to regulate the providers to help reduce harm. I know you're opposed to this approach but you live in a society where people mostly appreciate the regulation of those who provide various goods and services. I reckon they may get upset when it's about soda but the principle is the same as it is for booze, milk and healthcare.

So because it is easy to pass tyrannical laws under the auspices of public health, it is just to do so?

The most important reasons for claiming a difference seem to have to do with the perception of a problem, the magnitude of that problem, the specific consequences of restriction vs. non-restriction and of course political and practical feasibility. I recognise that some people take a more black/white either/or approach.

What you are ignoring is the incremental effect this legislation has on what societies deem acceptable. This is readily apparent. Even back in the Atari days, there was a thread I created that explored these very issues, except they were linked to smoking bans. Then came the bans on transfats. Then came bans on sodium. Now it is sugar. Each subsequent law erodes away the concept of individual responsibility, and each law makes the next seem that much more progressive. Where the rabbit hole ends seems to be an open question, and that is where the danger lies.

Tough talk but kinda not very constructive or compassionate. Do businesses exist in society? Do they benefit greatly from society? Do they have any responsibilities towards the society from which they so greatly benefit?

You think what you are talking about is compassionate? You might be able to help, even save people if you placed them in empty padded rooms, maintained an even, healthy diet, and kept them on a strictly regimented schedule. Removing all choices might save and prolong the life of the population, and some might even be happy to live in such a society.

Does that mean it is compassionate to do so - or that you are lacking compassion if you find the idea repulsive? To assign an emotionally loaded term like compassion to this discussion does not strike me as right. There is no one route to compassion, and to say that opposing a bad law is somehow an opposition to compassion is lazy thinking.

What would really be compassionate would be to personally go out of your way to help the people who needed your help, and address the root causes of these problems, not to create a blanket law,* and pat yourself on the back for taking a stand against obesity.

*A nonsensical law at that. You can have a meal that consists of tens of thousands of calories, but the real danger lies in drinks larger than 16 ounces? Really?

I was merely poking fun of Loki's "lock up the fatties" argument. In truth bans like this primarily oppress the providers and even then not very much.

Just how much oppression should a good law have?

[LittleFuzzy]

How would you go about making that work and how much would it cost? I eagerly await suggestions and numbers.

It doesn't matter how it would work. It's completely unacceptable.

[Loki]

Minx, tell me why there should be any restrictions on the power of the government at all? Is any governmental policy justified as long as you can claim that the benefit of that policy to society outweighs the cost to an individual?

[Aimless]

Why not?

Because I value most of the same things you value, I just don't automatically assign a value of "infinity" to everything and pretend I don't/shouldn't have to prioritise when the things I value come into conflict.

I don't think I've ever denied that pregnancy is a risky endeavor. I think I have said that it is nowhere close to the most dangerous thing a woman can experience, and with the proper precautions most women in western societies will be able to bring their child to term safely and with limited medical complications. That doesn't mean risks don't exist, but there are risks associated with any choice, including, for that matter, abortions. I'm not opposed to risk though, nor do I think minimizing risk, (or rather, government mandated risk reduction) at all costs is a motivating factor for me.

I'm glad you're at least willing to superficially acknowledge the importance of assessing risks, benefits and costs. (ps. abortions are safer and less damaging than pregnancies, on the whole. Esp. when compared to unwanted pregnancies)

So, is the ultimate arbiter for whether or not a law is just and good the gestalt currents of a society's morality?

I dunno 'bout "ultimate arbiter", but I think that should be factored in. Esp. when it comes what society will not accept rather than what society wants.

Not sure I'm following the relevance here. You are saying a woman has rights over her body - unless that means she wants to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement with a reseller to purchase and ingest a sugary drink?

From where does she derive these rights? If we are only talking about rights that the state grants its citizens then it follows that if the state determines that a woman has no right to an abortion, or a fetus' access to rights begin at conception, then she is left with little to no recourse, right? If it was in the best interest of the state or the society in which she lives that she has, (or does not have the baby) would it be acceptable to legally limit her individual freedom on what she does, (or does not do) to bring that child to term? You seem to be arguing that the societal good trumps individual freedom, but how far does that extend? Are Chinese forced abortions trivial infringements on personal freedom because they have deemed it to be within the best interests of their society to do so? Is it right that children are abandoned or aborted simply because they had the gall to be born female in a society that places more value in men?

Do you see any difference between forcing someone to do something against their will and making it more difficult for them to do something they want to do? Or between forcing someone to have an abortion vs. enabling them to have an abortion? Between forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy vs. enabling them to go through a pregnancy?

If you do then you'll realise that I don't think that forced abortions and forced sterilisations are okay and you'll also realise that a forced abortion is not analogous to being prohibited from buying/selling a certain serving size of soda. The latter is more similar to not being able to legally get an abortion due to laws against performing abortions. The similarities are not great eg. for the reasons I listed.

I say this because I would like for you to understand that I usually think it's a greater violation to force someone to do something against their will--esp. if it violates their bodies and minds--than it is to stop them from doing something that they want to do. That cost, to me, is greater than the imagined benefits to society. Perhaps you don't share that view but I think you can understand it on some level. To me, raping a child is worse than stopping that child from having sex. Forcing someone to drink soda is worse than preventing them from drinking soda. One might argue that by preventing someone from drinking soda I force them to drink water, and that's true. Then I and my calculating tyrants would discuss the impact of being forced to drink water.

As for state-derived rights, haven't you heard that there are people who actually believe that people don't have any right to eg. abortions or healthcare in general? They only believe people have the right to opportunity, but not even to real opportunity. Just to hypothetical opportunity that only exists in an imagined world of ideals. You tell me, what do you think of a world where a woman has no real right to an abortion and is left with no recourse but to carry an unwanted baby to term with all that entails?

So because it is easy to pass tyrannical laws under the auspices of public health, it is just to do so?

Are you asking me if I think it's just to regulate businesses in order to prevent them from doing harm to society while profiting greatly from that society? Because you already know the answer to that question, given what you know of my general views on the FDA, the USDA, etc. In principle I am not opposed to stopping businesses from providing harmful goods and services, although I think regulation should be limited to great and important problems rather than to small and unimportant problems like mountain-climbing. It's not only just but, when done right, also practical, constructive and liberating to those hundreds of millions of people who can spend their resources on thinking about more important things.

What you are ignoring is the incremental effect this legislation has on what societies deem acceptable. This is readily apparent. Even back in the Atari days, there was a thread I created that explored these very issues, except they were linked to smoking bans. Then came the bans on transfats. Then came bans on sodium. Now it is sugar. Each subsequent law erodes away the concept of individual responsibility, and each law makes the next seem that much more progressive. Where the rabbit hole ends seems to be an open question, and that is where the danger lies.

Erosion of the concept of individual responsibility, sure. Also an erosion of the notion/fantasy of the individual's power being almighty in all situations. Moreover, strengthening of the concept of businesses' responsibility to society and to the individuals that make up society.

You think what you are talking about is compassionate?

You might be able to help, even save people if you placed them in empty padded rooms, maintained an even, healthy diet, and kept them on a strictly regimented schedule. Removing all choices might save and prolong the life of the population, and some might even be happy to live in such a society.

Does that mean it is compassionate to do so - or that you are lacking compassion if you find the idea repulsive? To assign an emotionally loaded term like compassion to this discussion does not strike me as right. There is no one route to compassion, and to say that opposing a bad law is somehow an opposition to compassion is lazy thinking.

Do I think it's more compassionate to acknowledge and appreciate how difficult it is for some people to control their harmful behaviour than it is to say that if they're too weak for their lives they can go to jail or join the army? Yes, I do think so. I was addressing only your statement, not your general nature or your general views. I have no doubt you're a compassionate man.

I don't think it's compassionate to lock ordinary people up in empty padded rooms and to take away from them all their right to self determination. That would probably cause them great suffering. Do you imagine I think that causing great suffering is more compassionate than non-painful alternatives?

But there are some people for whom even your padded room may be somewhat compassionate, eg. some severely mentally ill/disabled people.

What would really be compassionate would be to personally go out of your way to help the people who needed your help, and address the root causes of these problems, not to create a blanket law,* and pat yourself on the back for taking a stand against obesity.

That might be compassionate, but who'd do that when there is the option of just telling people to go to jail or join the army? As for addressing root causes, I agree with you. I also think root causes should be addressed. I think they should first be identified and then tackled in a way that has some real hope of success, because addressing root causes is my prioritised goal--relying on the whims of a disorganised mass of do-gooders seeking feelgoods is not my highest priority. We both want root causes of important problems to be addressed, but our views on the best approach differ.

As for "taking a stand against obesity", this is as much a "stand against obesity" as it is a stand against irresponsible practices in the food industry. Same goes for high sodium, trans-fats, you name it.

*A nonsensical law at that. You can have a meal that consists of tens of thousands of calories, but the real danger lies in drinks larger than 16 ounces? Really?

It's not that the most important danger lies in the soda. It's that attacking soda serving size is probably the simplest, easiest and most acceptable way to curb calorie intake at restaurants, arenas etc. Trying similar approaches to other food would be more complicated and more difficult. Of course the point of contention here isn't that targeting fries would be better than targeting sodas, because you don't want them to target any part of any meal in this way. I'm just saying, going after the soda is the best start if you want to go after any part of these junk meals. We know exactly how many calories are in a given volume of soda, we know exactly what volume the cups hold, we know that people generally just drink what's in the cup, we know that you're more likely to get free refills of soda than of hamburgers, we know that sodas are cheap, we know that it's going to be more practical for most businesses--large and small--to just stop using giant cups rather than bothering with calorie-counting and measuring plates and the height of a stack of food etc. All of this is surely beside the point from your PoV.

Just how much oppression should a good law have?

A non-zero amount; I'd have to struggle to think of many laws that don't at least serve to restrict the freedom of those whose actions would restrict the freedom of others.

It doesn't matter how it would work. It's completely unacceptable.

You're right, it's completely unacceptable. It's also completely irrelevant because your example is not analogous in any meaningful way to stopping businesses from selling 16+ oz. sodas. I ask about implementation and costs because you can't think of any way to implement that idea without severely and cruelly violating people's right to privacy, because you can't think of any way to make it cost-effective, and because there are better options available.

Minx, tell me why there should be any restrictions on the power of the government at all? Is any governmental policy justified as long as you can claim that the benefit of that policy to society outweighs the cost to an individual?

Personal opinion? No. I value some things higher than others; if the cost to the individual is "death" or "torture" (for example) I would probably not see it as justifiable. If the cost to the individual is "a portion of your income" I might see it as justifiable.

I don't think there are many democratic societies today that would accept a true transition to a totalitarian system with no restrictions on government power, if for no other reason than that these huge costs could potentially be incurred by any member of that society. Anyone might be killed, anyone might be tortured, etc. Who wants that? Because I believe that government is essential to a good and productive modern society I do not want governments to exercise their power in ways that undermine people's support for the concept of government. Another practical reason why there should be restrictions on the power of government: if they abuse their power, they'll lose that power, including whatever power they may have to do good.

Isn't the government of New York a democratically elected one? Isn't it invested with power by the people to do things in the best interests of the people of New York? If the almighty rulers of NY act misuse their power, won't they simply lose their power? You don't live in a totalitarian nation Loki, and if I correctly remember a recent discussion then you don't even believe that you will end up living in a totalitarian state.

I can think of practical reasons for restricting the power of government, but like anyone else here I also have more fuzzy reasons for restricting the power of government, eg. I don't want govt. to control everything, I might not like what they do to me or to others with their power, they might do things that are cruel, unjust, wrong with their power, etc.

It's not as if I support a soda serving size ban. I don't. To paraphrase the great Chris Rock, I'm not saying they shoulda killed the giant sodas... but I understand. I understand, and I can't even say that it's wrong in principle because of my general views on the regulation of businesses eg. when it comes to cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, healthcare etc. I'd agree that it's inappropriate because it's not a good use of the state government's power and resources, but then someone may end up convincing me that it's the best and most feasible alternative.

[Aimless]

Btw, apropos of costs and benefits to societies and individuals... I'm not sure but I think I tend to compare costs with costs rather than with benefits. Eg. being locked up in prison is a great cost to an individual, but not locking up some individuals may cost society and other individuals in society far more. We lock up murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. Being taxed can be a great cost to an individual, but not taxing people can end up costing society and other individuals far more. Etc. I don't think most people here are opposed, in principle, to jails or to taxation.

[Loki]

Personal opinion? No. I value some things higher than others; if the cost to the individual is "death" or "torture" (for example) I would probably not see it as justifiable. If the cost to the individual is "a portion of your income" I might see it as justifiable.

I don't think there are many democratic societies today that would accept a true transition to a totalitarian system with no restrictions on government power, if for no other reason than that these huge costs could potentially be incurred by any member of that society. Anyone might be killed, anyone might be tortured, etc. Who wants that? Because I believe that government is essential to a good and productive modern society I do not want governments to exercise their power in ways that undermine people's support for the concept of government. Another practical reason why there should be restrictions on the power of government: if they abuse their power, they'll lose that power, including whatever power they may have to do good.

Isn't the government of New York a democratically elected one? Isn't it invested with power by the people to do things in the best interests of the people of New York? If the almighty rulers of NY act misuse their power, won't they simply lose their power? You don't live in a totalitarian nation Loki, and if I correctly remember a recent discussion then you don't even believe that you will end up living in a totalitarian state.

I can think of practical reasons for restricting the power of government, but like anyone else here I also have more fuzzy reasons for restricting the power of government, eg. I don't want govt. to control everything, I might not like what they do to me or to others with their power, they might do things that are cruel, unjust, wrong with their power, etc.

It's not as if I support a soda serving size ban. I don't. To paraphrase the great Chris Rock, I'm not saying they shoulda killed the giant sodas... but I understand. I understand, and I can't even say that it's wrong in principle because of my general views on the regulation of businesses eg. when it comes to cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, healthcare etc. I'd agree that it's inappropriate because it's not a good use of the state government's power and resources, but then someone may end up convincing me that it's the best and most feasible alternative.

History is replete with examples of majorities taking away the rights of minorities. Jim Crow comes to mind. As does the internment of the Japanese in WWII. Being gay was an offense punished by jail or worse in most of the West until quite recently. You'd have to be pretty deluded to think that having the government oppressing some segments of society will lose it support from the rest of the society (which benefits from the oppression). You'd also have to be pretty deluded to think people will punish governments for the types of oppression that they support or don't particularly care about (e.g. Patriot Act).

So what is your criteria for removing individual freedoms? If it's to have the government be viewed as being more legitimate, then I take it you support having the death penalty in any country where a majority supports it? If 51% of Swedes decided that the poor shouldn't get any help at all, you'd be fine with that as well? It doesn't seem to be straight out utilitarianism. So what is it, beyond you agreeing with each attack against liberty unless you happen to personally support that liberty for some emotional reason?

[LittleFuzzy]

You're right, it's completely unacceptable. It's also completely irrelevant because your example is not analogous in any meaningful way to stopping businesses from selling 16+ oz. sodas. I ask about implementation and costs because you can't think of any way to implement that idea without severely and cruelly violating people's right to privacy, because you can't think of any way to make it cost-effective, and because there are better options available.

Ok, perhaps my example was too egregious, draws too much on the reproductive control angle in some of the sci-fi I read. I wanted to play up the benefit to society angle since apparently that's what gets you going but I can go without it for now. Let's start with a more analogous example from US legal history from the last century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut. Connecticut's law wasn't preventing people from avoiding conception if they didn't want it, not forcing them to do anything, it was just making it harder to do so since the cultural gestalt was opposed to people avoiding conception. It wasn't severely and cruelly violating their right to privacy, since apparently forbidding commercial transactions of goods doesn't count as such.

[Enoch the Red]

I'm glad you're at least willing to superficially acknowledge the importance of assessing risks, benefits and costs. (ps. abortions are safer and less damaging than pregnancies, on the whole. Esp. when compared to unwanted pregnancies)

Okay? I'm sure there's some relevance to the discussion here, or previous discussions we may have had, but I'm not seeing it. The only time I ever remember commenting on pregnancy and risk was when I provided maternal mortality statistics when we were discussing whether or not the government not funding Planned Parenthood amounted to a ban on abortion.

I dunno 'bout "ultimate arbiter", but I think that should be factored in. Esp. when it comes what society will not accept rather than what society wants.

Then what is the ultimate arbiter? From where do you derive your rights as an individual, if you believe you possess those rights?

Do you see any difference between forcing someone to do something against their will and making it more difficult for them to do something they want to do? Or between forcing someone to have an abortion vs. enabling them to have an abortion? Between forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy vs. enabling them to go through a pregnancy?

There is undoubtedly a difference between limiting the consumption of a product and a forced abortion. There is nothing resembling moral equivalency. The thrust of my argument was not to create moral equivalency, rather to try and force you into analyzing the role of the individual and self-determination. If the individual has ownership of their body and actions then there are very basic things that they should be able to self regulate. I think most reasonable people would agree that the food they eat and reproduction fall into these categories.

I think you would be very opposed to moves to limit or dissuade women from being able to have an abortion, even though one could easily imagining just such a thing happening under the system you advocate. Again, by allowing these laws to be used in ways you currently support, you are allowing the opportunity for later abuses of these laws in ways you might not.

If you do then you'll realise that I don't think that forced abortions and forced sterilisations are okay and you'll also realise that a forced abortion is not analogous to being prohibited from buying/selling a certain serving size of soda. The latter is more similar to not being able to legally get an abortion due to laws against performing abortions. The similarities are not great eg. for the reasons I listed.

The question isn't whether or not forced abortions are analogous to soda bans, the questions are more fundamental than that. What role/responsibility does an individual have for ensuring their health and well being? Should an individual have to bear the consequences for their actions? Does the state have a vested interest in mandating an individuals health choices? If so, to what degree? Is that a metric that can shift into tyrannical or oppressive laws? If so, is the juice worth the squeeze?

I say this because I would like for you to understand that I usually think it's a greater violation to force someone to do something against their will--esp. if it violates their bodies and minds--than it is to stop them from doing something that they want to do. That cost, to me, is greater than the imagined benefits to society. Perhaps you don't share that view but I think you can understand it on some level. To me, raping a child is worse than stopping that child from having sex. Forcing someone to drink soda is worse than preventing them from drinking soda. One might argue that by preventing someone from drinking soda I force them to drink water, and that's true. Then I and my calculating tyrants would discuss the impact of being forced to drink water.

I believe you are playing a semantic shell game. Let's rephrase your example to better illustrate. If a teenager wants to have sex and you prevent them from doing so, are you forcing them to adopt your standards against their will? You begin to acknowledge this, but what you are really saying is it's okay to force an individual to adopt practices or behaviors that are against their will if you think it is in their best interests to do so. This not only smacks of hubris, but it can lead to exactly the scenario I was describing at the onset.

As for state-derived rights, haven't you heard that there are people who actually believe that people don't have any right to eg. abortions or healthcare in general? They only believe people have the right to opportunity, but not even to real opportunity. Just to hypothetical opportunity that only exists in an imagined world of ideals. You tell me, what do you think of a world where a woman has no real right to an abortion and is left with no recourse but to carry an unwanted baby to term with all that entails?

I believe in the right to opportunity, while simultaneously denying that my rights are derived from the state. The state is established to preserve and uphold my natural rights, not to define and grant me its own.

To directly answer your question, I think that it would be a terribly sad thing indeed for that woman, nor is it the world I would advocate. I advocate personal responsibility, but also personal freedom. If a woman decides she has no other option but to have an abortion, I think she has that right, but I also think she has to live with the consequences of her actions. Likewise, I believe a woman should have the right to put that unwanted child up for adoption, and show compassion to people who are barren but would otherwise make excellent parents.

Are you asking me if I think it's just to regulate businesses in order to prevent them from doing harm to society while profiting greatly from that society? Because you already know the answer to that question, given what you know of my general views on the FDA, the USDA, etc. In principle I am not opposed to stopping businesses from providing harmful goods and services, although I think regulation should be limited to great and important problems rather than to small and unimportant problems like mountain-climbing. It's not only just but, when done right, also practical, constructive and liberating to those hundreds of millions of people who can spend their resources on thinking about more important things.

No, I'm asking you to gauge what role an individual has in making their own decisions. You seem to think the key to a happy and productive life can be found in regulating away all harm and potentially dangerous decisions. If we can't be trusted to purchase our own beverages, what can we be trusted with? Why do you think that is?

Erosion of the concept of individual responsibility, sure. Also an erosion of the notion/fantasy of the individual's power being almighty in all situations. Moreover, strengthening of the concept of businesses' responsibility to society and to the individuals that make up society.

Ah, so a restaurant selling a drink over 16 ounces is shirking their responsibility to society, but a store selling a keg of beer, a carton of cigarettes, or a two liter bottle of soda is not? I think you have a rather warped perspective on what constitutes responsibility, and where that responsibility lies.

Do I think it's more compassionate to acknowledge and appreciate how difficult it is for some people to control their harmful behaviour than it is to say that if they're too weak for their lives they can go to jail or join the army? Yes, I do think so. I was addressing only your statement, not your general nature or your general views. I have no doubt you're a compassionate man.

So, does it make sense to pass sweeping legislation in order to address the rare cases of individuals who are paralyzed by freedom? Should you treat everyone with chemotherapy and radiation because someone, somewhere might benefit from it?

I don't think it's compassionate to lock ordinary people up in empty padded rooms and to take away from them all their right to self determination. That would probably cause them great suffering. Do you imagine I think that causing great suffering is more compassionate than non-painful alternatives?

I'm not sure what you imagine. You seem to think that preventing suffering is the noblest possible goal, and I'm not certain what ends you think too extreme to achieve that goal. If you could make a person happy by making all their decisions for them, and controlling every aspect of their environment, would you?

But there are some people for whom even your padded room may be somewhat compassionate, eg. some severely mentally ill/disabled people.

And yet you seem to be saying that we should treat the general populace like we would the outliers. Is that sensible governance?

It's not that the most important danger lies in the soda. It's that attacking soda serving size is probably the simplest, easiest and most acceptable way to curb calorie intake at restaurants, arenas etc. Trying similar approaches to other food would be more complicated and more difficult. Of course the point of contention here isn't that targeting fries would be better than targeting sodas, because you don't want them to target any part of any meal in this way. I'm just saying, going after the soda is the best start if you want to go after any part of these junk meals. We know exactly how many calories are in a given volume of soda, we know exactly what volume the cups hold, we know that people generally just drink what's in the cup, we know that you're more likely to get free refills of soda than of hamburgers, we know that sodas are cheap, we know that it's going to be more practical for most businesses--large and small--to just stop using giant cups rather than bothering with calorie-counting and measuring plates and the height of a stack of food etc. All of this is surely beside the point from your PoV.

I disagree, and I think you do too. This isn't about soda, or the difficulty in gauging which foods are highly caloric or otherwise unhealthy, (it isn't hard, it's something people do every day) it's about creating a gradual shift in what society views as an acceptable intrusion into our private spheres. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that if you could snap your fingers and create a law that would be widely adopted that only allowed restaurants and stores to sell healthy products, you wouldn't think twice about it. I'm not questioning your motivation, you likely don't want people to suffer, and you care genuinely about their health; I am questioning your willingness to achieve that goal by subverting their personal responsibility.

A non-zero amount; I'd have to struggle to think of many laws that don't at least serve to restrict the freedom of those whose actions would restrict the freedom of others.

Do you not see a difference between a restriction of freedom and oppression?

[GGT]

And the war on choice boldly marches on!

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.

I get outraged when any state legislature outright BANS medical procedures or medications for womens' reproductive healthcare....or tries to soft-ban by way of medical facility zoning codes, waiting periods, dispensing requirements, "religious exemptions", transvaginal probes or ultrasounds, "Personhood Amendments", etc.

It's particularly infuriating to me when people lump ALL body-related ingestion/consumption into one huge legislative glob. As if transfats or sugary drinks are comparative to Birth Control Pills and HRT, or that food vendor choices are the equivalent of physicians' prescriptions.

The public has a chance to state their opinion before these proposals become law. Unfortunately, womens' reproductive health restrictions didn't get as much media attention as....soda sizes.

[Enoch the Red]

I get outraged when any state legislature outright BANS medical procedures or medications for womens' reproductive healthcare....or tries to soft-ban by way of medical facility zoning codes, waiting periods, dispensing requirements, "religious exemptions", transvaginal probes or ultrasounds, "Personhood Amendments", etc.

It's particularly infuriating to me when people lump ALL body-related ingestion/consumption into one huge legislative glob. As if transfats or sugary drinks are comparative to Birth Control Pills and HRT, or that food vendor choices are the equivalent of physicians' prescriptions.

See, this is where you lose me. You are outraged by the government stepping in and telling a woman what she can or can't put in her vagina. Okay, fine, I can understand and sympathize with that. But when the government steps in and tells a woman what she can or can't put in her mouth you shrug meekly and offer excuses.

You think a woman can be trusted with her vagina but not her stomach? How much more outraged should you be that the same government that is telling a woman what she should or shouldn't do with her vagina very occasionally is stepping in and limiting her choices on what she can or can not eat on a daily basis?

The public has a chance to state their opinion before these proposals become law. Unfortunately, womens' reproductive health restrictions didn't get as much media attention as....soda sizes.

Eh? I don't seem to recall a lack of media attention whenever the issue of women's health has come up.

[GGT]

Then what is the ultimate arbiter? From where do you derive your rights as an individual, if you believe you possess those rights?


The thrust of my argument was not to create moral equivalency, rather to try and force you into analyzing the role of the individual and self-determination. If the individual has ownership of their body and actions then there are very basic things that they should be able to self regulate. I think most reasonable people would agree that the food they eat and reproduction fall into these categories.

Individual liberty and self-determination are directly related to their knowledge base, plus cultural values. I think you're vastly underestimating the relationship between individual knowledge and modern science. Example: stomach ulcers used to be attributed to diet or "stress", as if people with gastric ulcers could simply control their condition by avoiding spicy foods and "stress". Wrong. They were either harboring H pylori bacteria, had a functional GERD problem, or an endocrine malfunction of some sort.

Today's "self-determination" and individual liberty is inextricably linked to medical science, with all its progressions, and if "average" people are connected to that knowledge. Either through PSAs, commercial 'education', what's taught in schools, or access to physicians.

[GGT]

See, this is where you lose me. You are outraged by the government stepping in and telling a woman what she can or can't put in her vagina. Okay, fine, I can understand and sympathize with that. But when the government steps in and tells a woman what she can or can't put in her mouth you shrug meekly and offer excuses.

You think a woman can be trusted with her vagina but not her stomach? How much more outraged should you be that the same government that is telling a woman what she should or shouldn't do with her vagina very occasionally is stepping in and limiting her choices on what she can or can not eat on a daily basis?


Eh? I don't seem to recall a lack of media attention whenever the issue of women's health has come up.

Nanny Bloomberg's proposals aren't law. Cambridge city council proposals aren't law. They're only proposals.

However, several state legislatures have been enacting laws to subvert Roe v Wade and limit access to birth control.

*or teaching Abstinence Only in public schools, denying students comprehensive sex-ed, de-funding student health clinics that test for STDs or provide contraception, defunding Planned Parenthood and Family Planning, etc.*

[Enoch the Red]

Nanny Bloomberg's proposals aren't law. Cambridge city council proposals aren't law. They're only proposals.

Many of Nanny Bloomberg's crazy ideas are law, GGT. There are currently bans on transfats, foods donated to the cities homeless shelters, (the city would have no way of tracking the amount of salt and fiber in donated food), and recommendations for salt content. For that matter, all that is left before this proposal becomes law is a final vote by the city Board of Health, every member of which was appointed by Bloomberg. Many of which said the only problem with this proposal was that it didn't go far enough.

But I don't think any of that really matters to you, as I don't believe you have a problem with an overly intrusive government. You seem to care about interference when it comes to abortion, sex ed, and Planned Parenthood, but little else.

[GGT]

Many of Nanny Bloomberg's crazy ideas are law, GGT. There are currently bans on transfats, foods donated to the cities homeless shelters, (the city would have no way of tracking the amount of salt and fiber in donated food), and recommendations for salt content. For that matter, all that is left before this proposal becomes law is a final vote by the city Board of Health, every member of which was appointed by Bloomberg. Many of which said the only problem with this proposal was that it didn't go far enough.

But I don't think any of that really matters to you, as I don't believe you have a problem with an overly intrusive government. You seem to care about interference when it comes to abortion, sex ed, and Planned Parenthood, but little else.

I wasn't a fan of Bloomberg when he extended his own term limits. That he's appointed a bunch of lackeys doesn't gain him any more favor. However, other US cities don't operate like NYC, or have multi-billionaire mayors that wield as much power as governors. At least not yet....

[ar81]

Individual liberty and self-determination are directly related to their knowledge base, plus cultural values. I think you're vastly underestimating the relationship between individual knowledge and modern science. Example: stomach ulcers used to be attributed to diet or "stress", as if people with gastric ulcers could simply control their condition by avoiding spicy foods and "stress". Wrong. They were either harboring H pylori bacteria, had a functional GERD problem, or an endocrine malfunction of some sort.

Today's "self-determination" and individual liberty is inextricably linked to medical science, with all its progressions, and if "average" people are connected to that knowledge. Either through PSAs, commercial 'education', what's taught in schools, or access to physicians.

Bacteria takes people's freedom away... they do not allow people to choose if they suffer stomach ulcers or not.

[Enoch the Red]

Individual liberty and self-determination are directly related to their knowledge base, plus cultural values. I think you're vastly underestimating the relationship between individual knowledge and modern science. Example: stomach ulcers used to be attributed to diet or "stress", as if people with gastric ulcers could simply control their condition by avoiding spicy foods and "stress". Wrong. They were either harboring H pylori bacteria, had a functional GERD problem, or an endocrine malfunction of some sort.

Today's "self-determination" and individual liberty is inextricably linked to medical science, with all its progressions, and if "average" people are connected to that knowledge. Either through PSAs, commercial 'education', what's taught in schools, or access to physicians.

I think this is the most baffling bit of logorrhea I've seen in quite some time. Individual liberty and self-determination have absolutely nothing to do with clinical science, ulcers, bacterium, or endocrine malfunctions. There is absolutely no logical connection between these disparate concepts, and no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from this line of reasoning.

I am completely at a loss.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's particularly infuriating to me when people lump ALL body-related ingestion/consumption into one huge legislative glob. As if transfats or sugary drinks are comparative to Birth Control Pills and HRT, or that food vendor choices are the equivalent of physicians' prescriptions.

It is not and has never been on legislative glob, it's a judicial glob. From the perspective of jurisprudence they are *roughly* equivalent because there aren't specific reproductive rights or ingestive rights in this system, there's the right to privacy protecting control over one's own body, and that covers all those areas.

[Aimless]

Let's start with a more analogous example from US legal history from the last century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut. Connecticut's law wasn't preventing people from avoiding conception if they didn't want it, not forcing them to do anything, it was just making it harder to do so since the cultural gestalt was opposed to people avoiding conception. It wasn't severely and cruelly violating their right to privacy, since apparently forbidding commercial transactions of goods doesn't count as such.

Thank you for the reference. As I understand it, that case is not applicable to eg. the NY soda ban. The Connecticut law made it illegal for married couples to use contraception:

"any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days."

The sanctions against those aiding contraception were based on this notion of contraceptive-use being illegal. The court found that law to be invalid on the grounds that the constitution asserts for people in general--and married couples in particular!--a right to privacy, esp. in some contexts (eg. marriage), and that enforcement of a law banning contraceptives must of necessity be a violation of that right to privacy.

The case would perhaps be equivalent if it were illegal to drink large amounts of soda in NY--which it isn't--or if there were some equivalent of a blanket "right to privacy" for businesses--which, to my knowledge, there really isn't. As I understand it, more applicable cases are the long string of cases setting precedent for permitting the regulation of economic activities as long as there's a rational basis for such regulation. Eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ne_Products_Co.

Specific cases aside, laws such as this soda-selling ban are clearly legal in principle given the large number of other laws that regulate business practices. One might argue that such laws are wrong, while others might argue that such laws are very right if, for example, one takes a social contract approach to these matters. But if you can regulate smoking in bars, the serving of alcohol, age limits for ciggies and booze, the particulars of pharmaceuticals, etc. then I get the impression you can legally regulate the sale of giant servings of soda.

[Aimless]

*added IANAL reminder*

[Wraith]

The sanctions against those aiding contraception were based on this notion of contraceptive-use being illegal. The court found that law to be invalid on the grounds that the constitution asserts for people in general--and married couples in particular!--a right to privacy, esp. in some contexts (eg. marriage), and that enforcement of a law banning contraceptives must of necessity be a violation of that right to privacy.

So you'd have been alright with that law if it illegalized procurement instead of use?

[Aimless]

So you'd have been alright with that law if it illegalized procurement instead of use?

Hypothetically speaking I may have been more okay with a law that illegalised the sale of contraceptives. I just don't think they would have made a case for such a ban that I'd find persuasive unless by some strange chance I happened to believe that it was unethical by all standards to prevent the conception of a child. But I'll concede that there is a possibility that I'd be able to support in principle the restriction of contraceptives in that way. More to the point however is that I would indeed distinguish between a ban on selling contraceptives and a law that makes it illegal to use contraceptives, viewing the former as a legitimate--if misguided--law and the latter as illegitimate.

[LittleFuzzy]

Interestingly, the portion of Griswold you like is the part that could be bad jurisprudence and the part that you think could possibly have been legitimate is the one where the Court was on really solid ground. The latter was definitely justiciable, it was the matter directly before the Court, while the former is a potential overreach that the majority chose to address to make their views completely clear.

[Aimless]

Hmmm I'm not sure if I understand. I "like" the part about the right to privacy and understand the challenged law as being illegitimate (and thus not a legitimate reason for punishing those who provide contraceptives), but I don't see Griswold as being relevant to the case of the NY soda ban. I'm a little tipsy so maybe my understanding of your post will grow

[Loki]

Hypothetically speaking I may have been more okay with a law that illegalised the sale of contraceptives. I just don't think they would have made a case for such a ban that I'd find persuasive unless by some strange chance I happened to believe that it was unethical by all standards to prevent the conception of a child. But I'll concede that there is a possibility that I'd be able to support in principle the restriction of contraceptives in that way. More to the point however is that I would indeed distinguish between a ban on selling contraceptives and a law that makes it illegal to use contraceptives, viewing the former as a legitimate--if misguided--law and the latter as illegitimate.

I.E. You'd be happy knowing that people are forced to obtain the goods illegally, making law-abiding citizens into criminals who have to watch their back vis-a-vis the police.

[Aimless]

That is not in fact what I said.

[LittleFuzzy]

Hmmm I'm not sure if I understand. I "like" the part about the right to privacy and understand the challenged law as being illegitimate (and thus not a legitimate reason for punishing those who provide contraceptives), but I don't see Griswold as being relevant to the case of the NY soda ban. I'm a little tipsy so maybe my understanding of your post will grow

Griswold dealt with two issues, the commercial end and the ban on use. You're entirely behind its actions regarding use but that's the shakier part of the decision *not because the ban on use was ok but because that wasn't really the issue before the court* No one was being punished for using contraceptives, not in any case that SCOTUS was addressing, the challenge to the law was from a pharmacy violating the commercial side of the law.

[Loki]

That is not in fact what I said.

Would you be ok with the legislature passing a complete ban on the sale of soda?

[Aimless]

Griswold dealt with two issues, the commercial end and the ban on use. You're entirely behind its actions regarding use but that's the shakier part of the decision *not because the ban on use was ok but because that wasn't really the issue before the court* No one was being punished for using contraceptives, not in any case that SCOTUS was addressing, the challenge to the law was from a pharmacy violating the commercial side of the law.

The challenge concerned this part of the statute:

Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.

That part hinges on the previous portion of the statute that asserts that the use of contraceptives is a punishable offense. Otherwise what would be the meaning of prosecuting and punishing the provider of information and materials "as if he were the principal offender"?

The court said:

Certainly the accessory should have standing to assert that the offense which he is charged with assisting is not, or cannot constitutionally be, a crime.

[...]

We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation.

[...]

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

[...]

Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

I can't see anything in the ruling that supports the applicability of this case to the giant-soda-ban. And, while I am not a lawyer, the evidence from reality also suggests to me that Griswold vs. Connecticut is not applicable to cases similar in principle to the GSB--if it had been then other laws that regulate what may be sold by whom/when/where/how would surely all have been struck down by now. I'm still tipsy but I'm fairly sure that rulings in those cases where such laws have been challenged have made it clear that, at least according to the US Supreme Court, such laws are not unconstitutional even if they may be dumb as hell, and that the SC should in general defer to the judgement of the state legislatures which are in principle fully within their rights to enact laws banning the sale of this or that substance or service or what have you eg. out of public health concerns.

Would you be ok with the legislature passing a complete ban on the sale of soda?

Hypothetically, maybe; in reality, no.