Not to defend politicians, but that's quite the logical leap there, Master of Ki. So would it be safe to assume that you're against the government helping raise a child that has parents? What about say... cocaine? Btw, I'm implying no such thing.
First off for the record since it's been correctly pointed out that this is a city law not a national law, I should have stated first hand that I'm not too opinionated on this law being applied on a local level, more my fear of it becoming a federal law and I'm speaking as if it were a national law. You honestly don't see having daily or weekly rations for stuff like alcohol and tobacco as a plausible scenario in the next few decades? I hope you're right. Ok, I'm not touching this (the school thing) with a ten foot poll in this thread, but I didn't skip reading it, if you want my opinion PM me. KI touched on it already, but a company choosing not to carry certain products is not an infringement on freedom and I am kind of flabbergasted that in your mind were able to relate the two. Just to let you know I also wouldn't get mad at a vegetarian restaurant for not serving me meat. Maybe I'm just not seeing something implied in your line of logic, but to me there's a difference between someone not selling something because no one wants to buy it or they don't want to offer it and someone not selling it because someone behind a desk not even tangentially involved in the supply chain thinks it's a bad idea.
Would you feel it to be a fundamental attack on your freedom to choose if churches simply stopped offering the Eucharist? Ought the churches be permitted to make such a decision? I think so. But why oughtn't the government which has the obligation to act in the interest of its citizenry, be so permitted?
I'm pleading the fifth on this one too, if you REALLY want to know PM me, but I don't think it would add to the discussion. I think I know where you're going with this though, at what point have we crossed the line of personal freedom and entered the land of child abuse? There's no clear answer, personally I'd argue that feeding a kid bread everyday is abuse, but I realize I am in the vast minority and to think that I should be making that decision for everyone around me is silly, kind of like trying to regulate how big sodas can be. Whether you intended it or not the implied tone of your original question sounded like the scenario we were dealing with was something along the lines of an honestly confused mother with an open bottle of Captain Morgan wondering if it was morally ok to split it with her kid.
Whoop. Well spotted. I'm being horribly stupid and didn't think that one through. Of course there's a difference. I would, however, point out that since this is a local law, arguably, one could say people have the freedom to move. The response might be that this would be an unreasonable choice with which to be presented, since the cost (moving) is too steep, but similar remarks could apply to market-entry costs when a product is pulled, and dominant market forces aren't strong enough to push for a consumer choice to be reinstated. The argument could also be generalized to larger, say federal, scales, and ought to give something of an idea of what barriers to market-entry we should be okay with. But yes, absolutely. The two are different things, and I was working the implication in the wrong direction in comparing the two. Also, mostly, typing without thinking. Sorry about that. I really, really don't. But I find it interesting that you do. I can't honestly see the motivation, and I think there are orders of magnitude of difference between trying to limit sugar intake in the middle of an obesity epidemic and rationing alcohol and tobacco for, what I can see to be, no reason. What are you seeing here that's worrying you, while I'm unalarmed?
Look, here's my point: This law is stupid and will solve nothing, but that doesn't mean all regulation is bad (not that you were arguing this, just the general tone of the thread). Our government sucks, but the answer shouldn't be to deregulate willy nilly. Yeah, there's some things that are too heavily regulated and there's some that aren't regulated enough. There's a happy medium between authoritarian nanny state and laissez faire government.
Ok, NOW I think I see where you were going with this, and yeah, like I said after your post, my bad for not specifying that my concerns were more on the national implications than on the local level (although I still don't LIKE this type of decision being made on the local level). I mean, prohibition happened, that's a fact. We already have limits on how strong most alcohol can be, most states have limits on how big a glass of beer in a bar can be etc... We already have an infrastructure set up that we could re-purpose track these things. Is it really that far of a stretch if the government says no more than a thirty rack of beer per person per day? I mean who needs that much? What about one every other day? Or one a week? What's the "reasonable" line? I guarantee you everyone has a different answer to that question, and those of us that hold liberty at the highest think it's a personal question, not a governmental question.
I never doubted this was your point in the first place, and I don't think your intentions are bad, but think about this, the happy medium you seek is supposedly what we have today. The system we have in place is there provide us with the ability to steer us in that direction. The problem is pretty much fucking no one is EXACTLY in the middle of our political leanings and any tilt in the direction against their wishes is seen as a governmental failure, corrupt politicians and so on. So to anyone not in that magical wheelhouse it seems like our government sucks specifically because it tries to reach that happy medium that no one can agree on.
Exactly, SUPPOSED to have, but it's not. This isn't the thread to argue about why government sucks, so I think we'll to agree to disagree. Edit: I fail at reading, you said "seems like". My bad.
What part? Hundreds of millions are spent annually by companies on lobbyists and special interest groups to influence politicians. And they work. This is pure economic reality. And you're in favor of it? I think everyone posting in this topic about the idiocy of this law, myself included, would agree with this. But as Frank noted, it's the specifics that people disagree on. That's why you have to consider regulations case-by-case. In this instance, it's a law that fixes nothing, hurts consumers, and financially benefits the government.
The part where you make about 3 assumptions based on something that hasn't happened yet. Find evidence of it in this case and then come back with that argument. Am I in favor of public schools, after school programs and not letting religious nutbags neglect their kids by not taking them to a doctor? Absolutely.
Oh? Feel free to inform me what these 3 "assumptions" are in the quoted portion below. You have made a lot of posts in this topic, but all I have read is vague disagreement, nothing concrete. And yes, the first two statements have happened already, while the third is imminent; "Just as much soda gets consumed because there are infinite refills or you can buy 2 16-ounce cans instead of 1 20-ounce can. Consumers lose money because buying 2 16-ounce cans is more expensive than 1 20-ounce can. Government makes more money because it's a clear signal to the fast food places that they need to step up lobbying efforts, which go to the corrupt politicians who passed this bill." This is a very dishonest way of arguing a point, and I think you're well aware of it. When Frank mentions the perils of government gaining more power and regulating private decisions by its citizens, you immediately counter with "should children be allowed to drink alcohol?" When the answer is that yes, this actually works in many European nations, you then move on to "should children be allowed to do cocaine?" Meanwhile, when it comes to the government, your only examples are modest, widely accepted things like after-school programs and not letting "religious nutbags" not take their children to a doctor. By the way, the only religious people that don't take their kids to doctors are Christian Scientists, who make up a whopping 0.000267 of the US population. You're using cartoonishly extreme examples and absurd strawmen to argue your point. Again, no one is saying to abolish everything that the government does with schools. We're talking about government telling private businesses what to do even when their actions are safe, followed health code, etc. In the process, the "problem" is not fixed, consumers lose money, and government gains both money and control. The latter is the only reason said law was passed, by the way.
Yup, not so cool when someone uses bullshit rhetoric and hyperbole when arguing is it? BTW, don't bother responding to that. Arguing with you is like bashing your head against a brick wall.
I haven't been sick in ten years. Not a runny nose. Not a cold. Not any trip to the doctor. NOTHING. It is not governments responsibility to protect the citizens from themselves. Freedom is what it is. Free to make choices that enhance..........or free to make choices that don't.
I was curious what you specifically disagreed with, and considered my "assumptions" above. If you just wanted to write some childish insults instead, why even bother responding to every post Frank and I made? Exactly. Just because I love the quote so much, I will repeat what Penn Jillette said; "Freedom means the right to be stupid."
We're all free to make choices, the problem isn't that freedom. The problem is the lack of information available to the people making the choices. I know it is crazy for us to think that there are people out there who are completely ignorant of how bad soda can be for someone (as an example), but its true. Just like there are people who have no idea that a large big mac meal from McDonalds around almost 1300 calories (over 1/2 of what a person should be taking in daily, on average). Companies prey on the misinformed masses. It is the Government's job to do two things: inform and protect the people. The problem is two fold. One: people don't really want to seek out the information, and Two: The companies aren't exactly eager to give that information out, either. That is where restrictions and regulations come in. Here is an analogy: As a parent, would you allow you child to shove a fork in an electric outlet? No, right? You're a parent, it is your job to keep your kid safe. Your kid doesn't know any better, and the outlet sure as shit won't say "hey, kid, don't stick a fork in me, it'll hurt you!" So, how far will you go to keep your kid from doing something harmful? Will you post a sign near the light socket that says "please do not put a fork in the outlet"? You know your kid won't read that, that isn't doing enough. Do you take all forks away from your kid? That is a bit extreme, isn't it, and now you're doing too much. They need to learn to use forks. Instead, you regulate the outlets by putting covers on them. If your kid asks why, you tell them "because shoving things in the outlet that shouldn't be there can get you hurt." Well, its the Government's job to protect us. They can take away all our forks, but we'll all be screaming about how the Government is limiting our freedom. They can place signs on all the outlets, but lets face it, most of us will ignore those signs anyway. So what choice to they have? Regulation. I think what this all eventually boils down to is this: there is a grey area in there somewhere between a Government that is completely hands off and a Government that is tyrannical. Our nation used to have two parties that negotiated to find that happy medium. It was always contentious, don't get me wrong, but we didn't view the other side as outright evil, as we seem all to happy to do now. The problem is, our nation is so polarized (and I'd argue our nation is currently the most polarized it has been since the Civil War) that any slide in either direction regarding a topic like regulation is met with such fervent uproar about how horrible the other side is and how it is all going to lead to the end of the United States as we know it that the hyperbole machine nearly explodes with its output. The next thing you know, every President is "the most Leftwing/Rightwing President ever!" and if so-and-so is elected, "They'll destroy America!" This whole soda debate is just a microcosm of that. Half the people will view it as the Government of a city doing what is necessary to curb obesity and educate people on the harms of Soda, while the other half will view it as the first step on the road to 1984esque Government crackdown on freedoms. If it went in the other direction, half the people would view it as just another example of big corporations buying Government favor to do whatever they want, regardless of the effects on the consumer, while the other half would see it as the Government finally learning to let businesses have the freedom they deserve to grow and thrive. In either case, one side is going to be pissed, and they're going to be vocal about it. And that is over Soda. Imagine if this were, you know, something fucking important.
See, this is where the fundamental disagreement occurs. I don't believe it's government's job to inform anyone, and they should only "protect the people" through a standing military. It is not their job to protect people from their own life decisions. While that's at least debatable when it comes to marijuana or alcohol, it seems very clear to me when it comes to soda or fast food intake. Edit- I agree, and should have clarified. I have no problem with them releasing this information, either. Rather, I disagree with government "informing" its citizens by telling them what they should or shouldn't do. The billions of dollars poured into anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, and in some states, anti-sex "education" and PSAs is what I was thinking of.
I do think the government has the duty to keep its citizenry informed. I think demanding that ingredients, and caloric value are readily available to the consumer are good things. I also think the FDA should exist, and ensure that poisonous shit doesn't get sneaked into our food or drink. However I think once the information is out there, the governments job is done. It is not the governments job to make sure my kids don't get fat. That's on me. To take it to it's extreme, I don't feel it's the governments job to make sure I, or my children don't smoke crack. That is, once again, on me. The information to make healthy decisions is out there. If I choose not to make healthy choices, I am the one who should have to deal with the consequences. To paraphrase KIMaster, Frank, and others, if you don't have the freedom to make some stupid ass choices, that don't affect anyone else, do you really have freedom?
All Bullshit. It is not governments responsibility to protect the citizens from themselves. Freedom is what it is.