Shove Your Rights Up Your Ass

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I agree.

If I want trans fats in my food, that’s my goddamn fault. The government has no place stepping in.

Well, can’t blame this on the Democrats…old Bloomberg is a Giuliani republican…

Actually, I think you can - at least to the extent that Democrat = “progressive.”

If it weren’t for the fact the government is (and increasingly will be) picking up the tab for a lot of people’s medical care, this kind of stuff wouldn’t be tolerated. It’s justified in the minds of a lot of people based on the fact of who will pick up the tab - the government pays, so the government can take these actions to reduce its costs. Helmet laws, anyone?

Absolutely. Helmet and seatbelt laws are nothing more than CYA type policies for insurance companies, and oh yea, rvenue rakes for governments.

This, is not a good trend IMHO. I mean, where does the “it’s in your best interest” argument stop? I for one do not want the government to be my nanny.
[/quote]

I agree.

It’s even funnier when you consider how fucked up politicians are in their own personal lives- guys like Clinton, Delay, Foley, and the like- and yet they’ve somehow got the right to tell us what’s good for us.

I really am getting to be half an anarchist…

After reading what you have all said I am here to retract my statement of it being ok. I am now against this.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

No joke. You guys can flame away, but the reality is that the guy that REALLY set us down the socialist path was FDR. The man was a VERY bad thing for America.

mike[/quote]

He just followed Woodrow Wilson’s template…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

No joke. You guys can flame away, but the reality is that the guy that REALLY set us down the socialist path was FDR. The man was a VERY bad thing for America.

mike

He just followed Woodrow Wilson’s template…[/quote]

Who, in many ways, followed TR’s example–despite their differences, both perceived and actual.

I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?

[quote]orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.
[/quote]

In my opinion: If you care at all about your health, than you take the time to know what you are eating, and if a product is sold in such a way that finding out is impossible, than you don’t buy that product; but don’t tell others that they aren’t allowed to buy that product either.

[quote]orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?[/quote]

Ditto. Trans fat is artificial does not have ANY positive effect, while having plenty of negative effects. Banning it is the right way to go. Now when it comes to things that have both pros and cons (ephedra, pro-hormones, etc) it’s a slightly different question.

[quote]skor wrote:
orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?

Ditto. Trans fat is artificial does not have ANY positive effect, while having plenty of negative effects. Banning it is the right way to go. Now when it comes to things that have both pros and cons (ephedra, pro-hormones, etc) it’s a slightly different question.

[/quote]

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t a “pro?” That’s a rather subjective quality, wouldn’t you agree? Some people don’t like it when their peanut butter separates–I imagine they would consider hydrogenated peanut butter a “pro.” Is it your job to tell them otherwise?

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree with pat, we should have the right to destroy our health if we want to as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Removing all these things because they are bad for you is just the government treating us like children. Granted, many adults act like children, but to me this just plays into the big government taking care of your every need that the Dem’s sell. Government’s job is NOT to protect us from ourselves, look it up, that function is NOT in the constitution. Nor is income redistribution. We are slowly becoming mind numb, dumb, irresponsible subjects in a socialist society.

If you really think that Republicans are preserving liberty then you are going to have a serious wake up call soon. They are just the flip side to the coin of tyranny. The fact that we as Americans split ourselves upon such ridiculous party lines makes a populace more easy to conquer. Untied we stand, divided we fall, right?

mike[/quote]

No, I don’t think any party is really interested in preserving the rights of the people. I agree that having a two party system does make us weaker. However, how else would you handle differing philosophies?

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

No joke. You guys can flame away, but the reality is that the guy that REALLY set us down the socialist path was FDR. The man was a VERY bad thing for America.

mike

He just followed Woodrow Wilson’s template…

Who, in many ways, followed TR’s example–despite their differences, both perceived and actual. [/quote]

True, which really sucks because TR is my favorite president. That makes me something of a hipocrite, but what’s a guy to do?

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

No joke. You guys can flame away, but the reality is that the guy that REALLY set us down the socialist path was FDR. The man was a VERY bad thing for America.

mike

He just followed Woodrow Wilson’s template…

Who, in many ways, followed TR’s example–despite their differences, both perceived and actual.

True, which really sucks because TR is my favorite president. That makes me something of a hipocrite, but what’s a guy to do?

mike[/quote]

Really? Your favorite president? I mean, I admire certain of his qualities, but the guy, IMO, had very little regard for the Constitutional limitations placed on the executive branch–and for the limitations placed on the power of the federal government in general, for that matter. To each his own, I guess…

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
skor wrote:

Ditto. Trans fat is artificial does not have ANY positive effect, while having plenty of negative effects. Banning it is the right way to go. Now when it comes to things that have both pros and cons (ephedra, pro-hormones, etc) it’s a slightly different question.

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t a “pro?” That’s a rather subjective quality, wouldn’t you agree? Some people don’t like it when their peanut butter separates–I imagine they would consider hydrogenated peanut butter a “pro.” Is it your job to tell them otherwise?

[/quote]

Hydrogenated fats have a lot of benefits to both producers and consumers (none of them necessarily health related, though). Stabilizing foods like peanut butter is one. Shelf stability and longer freshness are others. Shortening has been added to cookies and other baked goods since it was invented because it works better than oils and doesn’t go rancid.

Before partially hydrogenated oils the only other option was lard, which has it’s own health issues. Is it better for you than Crisco? Pig farmer lobbyists probably will say so, but I doubt if it makes much difference.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
John S. wrote:

The worst tyrant of all is the one that thinks he is protecting you for he has no real limits and operates with a clear conscience.

This is the best quote I have heard in a looong time. You, Sir, are a poet. If you don’t mind, I am going to use this quote often. That sums up my feelings about much of the social legislation coming out these days, or actually for the last 35-40 years. I don’t need the government’s help, I can do it on my own.
[/quote]

I think Mikeyali was paraphrasing CS Lewis:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I really am getting to be half an anarchist…[/quote]

Kind of like this guy?

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

True, which really sucks because TR is my favorite president. That makes me something of a hipocrite, but what’s a guy to do?[/quote]

Well, many may not agree, but there is a difference in regulation that actually greases the wheels of commerce - as in, underwrites some of the risks, creates transparency in market information, etc. - and regulation that is positively nannying. There may be a slippery slope between the two, but I see a difference and always try and distinguish the two. TR seemed more interested in the former rather than the latter.

TR did a lot, in my view, to actually preserve capitalism, which was in danger of getting ‘voted out of office’ under the wave of growing industrial socialism, but that is for a different thread.

[quote]skor wrote:
orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?

Ditto. Trans fat is artificial does not have ANY positive effect, while having plenty of negative effects. Banning it is the right way to go. Now when it comes to things that have both pros and cons (ephedra, pro-hormones, etc) it’s a slightly different question.

[/quote]

i agree. when you sell people food there’s an implied warranty that it’s fit for consumption. trans-fat is proven over and over to have zero positives and many negatives. you can’t sell people rat poison and call it food either. does anyone even care ? i mean are there people out there saying "we want our trans-fat back " ?

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
You guys can flame away, but the reality is that the guy that REALLY set us down the socialist path was FDR. The man was a VERY bad thing for America.

Amen, yet he gets credit for being great though none of his plans worked in terms of moving the U.S. out of the Great Deppression.[/quote]

It’s true that FDR’s policies couldn’t really end the depression, it took the spending of the war effort to do that, as well as a turn-around in policy at the Federal Reserve.

On the other hand, a lot of Americans survived the depression years who might not have otherwise, due to FDR’s policies. I think he deserves some credit there, not only for things like WPA, but also for adroit collaboration in preventing a major collapse of the banking system.

Ayn Rand types are unimpressed with FDR, because they fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not. For them, everything is neatly summed up by the DJIA. Also, of course, few alive today realize in any visceral way just how dreadful the Great Depression was.

The country needed a very strong and capable leader just to get through those years, never mind end them.

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
You guys can flame away, but the reality is that the guy that REALLY set us down the socialist path was FDR. The man was a VERY bad thing for America.

Amen, yet he gets credit for being great though none of his plans worked in terms of moving the U.S. out of the Great Deppression.

It’s true that FDR’s policies couldn’t really end the depression, it took the spending of the war effort to do that, as well as a turn-around in policy at the Federal Reserve.

On the other hand, a lot of Americans survived the depression years who might not have otherwise, due to FDR’s policies. I think he deserves some credit there, not only for things like WPA, but also for adroit collaboration in preventing a major collapse of the banking system.

Ayn Rand types are unimpressed with FDR, because they fundamentally don’t care if anybody else survives or not. For them, everything is neatly summed up by the DJIA. Also, of course, few alive today realize in any visceral way just how dreadful the Great Depression was.

The country needed a very strong and capable leader just to get through those years, never mind end them.[/quote]

Your point is well taken. I think the problem isn’t what he did then so much as what impact it had later, something he probably could forsee focusing on the present issues. After all he had to do something. I don’t think he was bad for the country because he was a dick. His policies just set us on the path to increased socialistic policies. Perhaps people more crooked than himself saw this as a way to create indebtedness (not sure that’s a word), which in the end secures votes and power. This in turn cause the creation of more social programs and hence greater dependence on the government.
If you really look at it the most dangerous populous in any region is the poor. They will support any regime or idology which promises them a leg up. Through out history, that is how some of the most vicious regimes came to power, through the poor. Venezuela is a great modern day example. Hugo appealled to illegal aliens mainly, columnbians and others who escaped to Venezuela to get away from other oppresive regimes. He promised them legal status, food, shelter, etc. In the end they are viciously defensive of him. They don’t care that he seizes land and wealth and reditributes it because they are the benifactors,and there are lots of poor fuckers in Venezuela. BTW, don’t think that this most recent election wasn’t rigged. I don’t think any South American election is strait up.
My solution is to implement time limits on laws and established government entities, say 10 years. After 10 years laws should be reviewed and revoted on to make sure they are still valid. That way perhaps we could have unloaded some of FDR’s social reforms in the '50’s. And in the end maybe we would not have such government intrusion into our lives.

[quote]swivel wrote:
skor wrote:
orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?

Ditto. Trans fat is artificial does not have ANY positive effect, while having plenty of negative effects. Banning it is the right way to go. Now when it comes to things that have both pros and cons (ephedra, pro-hormones, etc) it’s a slightly different question.

i agree. when you sell people food there’s an implied warranty that it’s fit for consumption. trans-fat is proven over and over to have zero positives and many negatives. you can’t sell people rat poison and call it food either. does anyone even care ? i mean are there people out there saying "we want our trans-fat back " ?[/quote]

I want my CLA!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

True, which really sucks because TR is my favorite president. That makes me something of a hipocrite, but what’s a guy to do?

Well, many may not agree, but there is a difference in regulation that actually greases the wheels of commerce - as in, underwrites some of the risks, creates transparency in market information, etc. - and regulation that is positively nannying.[/quote]

You don’t think threatening a privately owned business with a federal takeover (with armed troops, no less), borders on nannying? Where exactly in the Constitution is the executive given that power?

[quote]
There may be a slippery slope between the two, but I see a difference and always try and distinguish the two. TR seemed more interested in the former rather than the latter.

TR did a lot, in my view, to actually preserve capitalism, which was in danger of getting ‘voted out of office’ under the wave of growing industrial socialism, but that is for a different thread.[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with his motivation, but ends shouldn’t justify means. When they do, the law of unforseen consequences operates in full force. In his own words: “I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.” Wilson expanded on that theme, FDR took it a step further, and nearly every president since has progressed along that path.