[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not that I agree with the Anarcho-[fill in blank] position, but I am wondering what exactly makes you, Ryan, an ANARCHO-socialist?[/quote]
I am a communist, not an anarcho-anything.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I think you’re getting confused here. You started off talking about deception, but now you seem to be arguing “morality.”[/quote]
I’ve been talking about both. What’s so hard to understand?
You’re dodging the point here.
This has nothing to do with whether they can add salt to their food and everything to do with them already being content with the food they’re eating (whether or not they “think” about their contentedness is immaterial). It is an irrelevant point and I’m not saying that again at this point. Again, people ought to be free to not be nudged by the state into being healthy. I mean, I can only wonder if you have respect over your own and others’ bodies if you think this way. Of course this isn’t earth-shattering, but the principle of the matter nevertheless remains the same. It doesn’t matter if people notice the difference, the FDA has no business being here.
I fear we are at a philosophical stagnate here. I honestly don’t know how to convince you that you are wrong here. Even a MILD regulation eats away at freedom. And very few government regulations/programs ever stay within their original intended purposes. They almost always grow like a cancer.
If they tell companies to lower their sodium input, then they are in effect telling people how much sodium they can consume…from those companies. Because it is the consumer that keeps those companies in business and decides to buy their products.
[quote]Have you not heard of Medicare and Medicaid? Were you previously unaware of the large amount of taxpayer funds we spend on health care in this country? This argument you are trying to make is laughably pathetic, as you try to ignore the existence of society.
You seem to have softened your stance in this post (or maybe I was unclear previously), but before, it seemed like you were denying that a reduction in stroke, heart disease, and other effects of high blood pressure, to which the consumption of large amounts of sodium contributes, had any beneficial effect on society.[/quote]
The “intended” health effects were never even a huge part of my criticism, though like others have pointed out, they probably could be regulating other things that are more harmful. Again, I believe that people ought to be able to eat themselves to death, as long as they have the option of NOT eating themselves to death as well. Which they do.
I have already said that it is a small measure, but the principle remains the same. And you definitely showed scorn for my beliefs before, as you criticized me and straw manned my beliefs.
[quote]Tell me, what does the free market have to do with this? It is in the company’s best interest to do what is the most profitable, which doesn’t necessarily coincide with providing the customer the best service. Look at the airlines. Don’t you think that customers would prefer to pay less for tickets and not be subjected all sorts of fees? Probably. Yet lo and behold, look what’s happening. What about the health insurance industry? According to your theories, you’d think a company, after having covered a person for many years, would pay for their medical expenses once they got sick, since that is essential to maintaing the loyalty of existing customers and a good reputation for acquiring new ones. Yet lo and behold, look what’s happening. Similarly, you’d think an investment bank would try to make its customers money, so that they would continue to give them their business and because it would attract new customers. You would never expect for them to sell a client a product they knew to be garbage so that they could make a one-time profit on the back end by betting against it. Yet lo and behold…
The point, as I’m sure you see, is that this kind of stuff–presumed impossible, or at least unlikely in econ 101–happens all the time.[/quote]
These are all fallacies based on the presumption that we operate in a mainly free market. We don’t. It is not in the companies’ best interest to do what’s profitable (and ignore the consumers’ desires) UNLESS that can be sustained for a long time. As long as competition isn’t being blocked by the government, then those companies that don’t adhere to the consumers’ demands will eventually go out of business if they don’t change. This is not a fantasy, nor does it presume that things will work out perfectly or like this all the time. However, this is the norm when competition has free reign.
I guess it’s hard to understand on argument based mainly on principle, but that’s where I’m at. The FDA has already asked them, and are possibly at least thinking about forcing them to. I’m not sure why you refuse to admit that (if the situation that we are talking about were to occur), they would be forcing these companies, not asking.
Ok, these are just random assertions. You’ll need to be a bit more specific here, but in general I would say that you are wrong.
Whatever floats your boat.
[quote]“Marxism” has never been tried because Marxism is not an economic or political system. And no, Marxism is anti-utopian.
And pardon me, it only seemed like you were a complete laissez-faire guy, since, if you can’t mildly regulate sodium, what can you do?[/quote]
Well, I could say the same for the market. That it is not a political or economic system, but merely a way that human beings can voluntarily enter into contractual arrangements whereby each party involved intends to benefit from the exchange. But, out of curiosity, what would you consider Marxism to be? A sociological system?
I am mostly laissez-faire, but I do not believe that a 100% laissez-faire system is desirable or achievable at this point.
No, what I said was that it didn’t matter to me if they thought about it or not. The fact that they potentially choose not to think about it and to live unknowingly with potential health risks is still their choice to make and still means that they prefer high-sodium food generally, or that they simply don’t care/think about it enough to make a judgment. That is absolutely fine as well. If they thought about it and were unsatisfied with high-sodium food and decided they wanted a change, that would be fine too and the companies would respond accordingly. This doesn’t mean that we should be “ok” with people wanting to eat shit. We should try to educate them and warn them of health risks that they face from their food, but we should not forcibly tell food manufacturers (who serve the public’s food desires) that they must limit their sodium content.
It’s just unintelligible is all. Rephrase?
Not at all. The point stands, as you have done nothing to address it. You did try to excuse it, but nothing more.
Well then good news! You ARE free! Just add salt!
And it seems that, but now, you’ve figured out that the only way to make your argument tenable is to object about the “nudge,” as well, but I’m not sure you want to do that, as that would render your private food manufacturers liable to criticism as well, since they are “nudging” people into eating more sodium, a nudge which is actually unhealthy. If we shouldn’t be allowed to do anything to food that people are content with, then how is it acceptable for private industry to make changes? In other words, checkmate. But I’m sure you’ll show me how that’s completely different.
For crying out loud, you’re willing to excuse the stealthy addition of mounds of salt into foods by private industry, an unhealthy change, but not the slight reduction of the same salt by the government, a healthy change? And explain to me again how it is that you’re not just a corporate apologist? The FDA has no business regulating a substance that can produce harmful effects in the population?
It’s because, guess what! I’m not! It’s OK, you can admit you made a tiny little mistake. But if you continue down this road (which you will), what you are going to have to do is EXACTLY specify the freedom to which you are referring, and EXACTLY specify how the FDA is violating this freedom in a way that private industry is not. So far, you have been unable to do this, which is the reason for the “stagnate” (there is no impasse).
No poison in food. This “eats away” at my freedom. Let me anticipate your argument: “you can’t do that because that violates someone ELSE’s freedom.” OK, but how is salt any different? The only difference is that it takes much longer to kill you. Are you so confused by a little temporal difference?
No, they are not. How dishonest do you have to be here? You want more salt? Add salt. Please explain how this limits their freedom to gorge on high-sodium food? Because so far, all you’ve done is dance around the question.
Fine, but they still ARE free to eat themselves to death, and furthermore, you had absolute no problem with private manufacturers doing the exact same thing in reverse, so you’re still employing a double standard here which you have yet to explain.
Alright, I admit it. I scorn you, not because of your beliefs, but because of your refusal to answer questions and acknowledge basic facts. You’re a conservative, and all this is is a knee-jerk anti-government response, demonstrated nicely by the fact that you actually have no problem with the act in question as long as the government isn’t the one doing it.
No, it is not. I never once presumed the free market. Furthermore, it is irrelevant.
This is simply not true. Look around you. Things have never ever worked this way.
No, it is not the norm, and I defy you to point out a time when businesses were not routinely ripping people off.
I’m having a hard time understanding an argument that applies only to one particular entity, but not to others.
Again, I’m not sure where your mistake is. I clearly said above that, at this time, they are not regulating sodium (which is true), but that they may be planning to.
I don’t feel the need to be more specific until you are more specific. All you said was “government makes industry less efficient,” which is just a random assertion.
But that is by definition an economic system. Marxism is not. That’s the difference.
Marxism is a philosophy and a method of analysis.
Excellent, excellent! When they don’t think about it and food companies add sodium, that is implied consent, but when they don’t think about it and the FDA lowers sodium, it’s a violation of rights. Classic!
But why? You haven’t explained. They’re still free to eat salt. I want to know HOW is their freedom being limited?
No thanks.
More empty words and nonsense.
[quote]Well then good news! You ARE free! Just add salt!
And it seems that, but now, you’ve figured out that the only way to make your argument tenable is to object about the “nudge,” as well, but I’m not sure you want to do that, as that would render your private food manufacturers liable to criticism as well, since they are “nudging” people into eating more sodium, a nudge which is actually unhealthy. If we shouldn’t be allowed to do anything to food that people are content with, then how is it acceptable for private industry to make changes? In other words, checkmate. But I’m sure you’ll show me how that’s completely different.[/quote]
It is different. They are subject to the demands of the consumers.
Yes, I am excusing the supposed “stealthy addition” because the consumers tolerate it. It’s really that simple. The FDA has no business regulating a substance that can have harmful effects on the population IF the population is willingly consuming those unhealthy products. You are trying to cure laziness with control. It won’t, has, and never will work.
I have done this in every response I’ve given to you, but for my amusement I’ll do it once again.
In a free market the consumers at large decide what the companies produce for the most part because the companies rely on the consumers desires in order to make a sustainable profit. IF the present companies are not heeding to the majority of consumers’ demands, then (barring any inhibition of competition due to government controls) another company will step in and force them to through competition. That company will make a bigger and more sustainable profit because they conceded to the consumers’ demands and drew their attention away from the other companies which were not doing that. All of this means that it is really the CONSUMERS who decide what the company produces and how much of it to eat. Now, let’s suppose that what you’re saying is true, and that (for some odd reason, as if adding sodium will somehow make people more “hungry”) the companies decide to slowly and incrementally increase the sodium content of their foods in order to draw more consumption. The burden of stopping these companies still lies on the consumers because, whether they think about it or not, they are making a conscious, voluntary choice to consume those products which supposedly had stealth increases in sodium. IF the consumers really cared about health, then they would have been watching the labels as the increases went up and would’ve demanded that the food have lower sodium (by not buying that companies food or just telling them). Now if after all of these protests by the consumers, the companies still keep the sodium intake high or even raise it, then all it takes is one company to come along and take all of the business away from those “non-responsive” businesses and force them to concede to the consumers. But, of course we know in real life businesses aren’t non-responsive like this very often. They just aren’t doing what you would like.
Ok, now we get to the FDA. Having said all of this (hence making clear that it IS the consumer who gets the final say), if the FDA decides to say, “No, we actually don’t agree with the decisions of the consumers at large and want to scale down the amount of sodium in their food, because we know what’s good for them,” then this certainly is a violation of their freedom…to CHOOSE. Yes, they can add salt, but the choice of sodium content in the foods they willingly buy is taken away. The relationship between consumer and producer is a contractual agreement whereby each party intends (but doesn’t always) benefit from the transaction. When an outside party intervenes in this contract, it reduces the freedom of choice of the individual to be confident and content in these transactions.
What on earth are you talking about? Why would any producer who wants to make a profit put fucking poison in food? For the rest of your nonsense, refer to my above post.
Cute. All you’ve done is try to distort my message by yapping about the same things that I’ve addressed over and over.
They should be free to die according to their own values. That is a fundamental human freedom. As long as they aren’t being coerced into death, then no problem. Of course, this doesn’t mean that it’s not a tragedy, it just means that it’s what that person valued most apparently (roughly speaking). I’m not sure what double standard you’re talking about. Please be a bit more specific.
Another strawman. When did I claim to be a conservative? You’re right, I’ll say it right here for all of the world to know: I ONLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING IT. That’s it. If you don’t know how the government operates, then that’s on you, not me. I’ll give you a hint: It involves men with guns.
Oh ok then, if you admit we don’t live in a free market then why even mention these things to someone who IS promoting a mainly free market?
Wake up. Things have always worked this way in a free market. Life isn’t pretty, and often people don’t take their health or others’ health into account. Just because of this, it doesn’t mean the market has “failed” or something. It just means people are imperfect.
This is just far too general and vague for me to give any reasonable answer which you couldn’t then twist to make it something it’s not.
What entity is this? Are you saying I’m only thinking about the companies concerns? If so, then I’ve already explained all of this to you and won’t again.
Ok, you were very unclear about this before. I thought you were saying that I still thought that this was a definite thing that was going to happen.
I only said that after you made a similarly random assertion.
Fine.
However, doesn’t Marxism also intend to change the economic and political system through this philosophy/method of analysis?
Uh, gee you are dense. The FDA would be using force to lower the sodium content. The companies cannot use force to raise it. It is still irrelevant whether the consumer thinks about it or not. Only the issue of force matters here.
[quote]But why? You haven’t explained. They’re still free to eat salt. I want to know HOW is their freedom being limited?
[/quote]
Well then my friend, I suppose you know my reasons by now. And, if you still don’t get it, then don’t even bother responding. I won’t explain all of this again.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
No thanks.[/quote]
Fine.
Don’t get mad at me simply because you’re unable to handwave your way out of this.
Again, what does this mean?
Well then as long as consumers tolerate the new regulations, you have no reason not to be fine with that.
It is very much within the purview of the FDA to regulate the substances. Your argument only works if they are attempting to deny access to the substance, which they are not. They would simply make it (ever so slightly) harder to get (in the same quantity).
No one is trying to cure laziness. They are trying to ensure that the great bulk of processed foods are not loaded down with sodium. You are trying to defend profit-making at the public’s expense.
[quote]I have done this in every response I’ve given to you, but for my amusement I’ll do it once again.
In a free market the consumers at large decide what the companies produce for the most part because the companies rely on the consumers desires in order to make a sustainable profit. IF the present companies are not heeding to the majority of consumers’ demands, then (barring any inhibition of competition due to government controls) another company will step in and force them to through competition. That company will make a bigger and more sustainable profit because they conceded to the consumers’ demands and drew their attention away from the other companies which were not doing that. All of this means that it is really the CONSUMERS who decide what the company produces and how much of it to eat. Now, let’s suppose that what you’re saying is true, and that (for some odd reason, as if adding sodium will somehow make people more “hungry”) the companies decide to slowly and incrementally increase the sodium content of their foods in order to draw more consumption. The burden of stopping these companies still lies on the consumers because, whether they think about it or not, they are making a conscious, voluntary choice to consume those products which supposedly had stealth increases in sodium. IF the consumers really cared about health, then they would have been watching the labels as the increases went up and would’ve demanded that the food have lower sodium (by not buying that companies food or just telling them). Now if after all of these protests by the consumers, the companies still keep the sodium intake high or even raise it, then all it takes is one company to come along and take all of the business away from those “non-responsive” businesses and force them to concede to the consumers. But, of course we know in real life businesses aren’t non-responsive like this very often. They just aren’t doing what you would like.[/quote]
You contradict yourself yet again. You are bordering on being incoherent. You claim that the consumers decide they want lots of sodium, then you say that you never claimed they thought about the subject at all, now you claim that whether or not they think about it, that still somehow proves they want sodium. You claim that this is the way the free market works, yet earlier you emphatically denied that we had a free market. Surprisingly (or not), no matter how twisted and contradictory your reasonings, they all end up defending corporations. I suppose that’s simply a coincidence, instead of the consequence of your actual principles, as opposed to your stated ones.
So, they can add salt, thereby having as much sodium in their food as they want, but one clause later this right has mysteriously evaporated? Not only that, but the increase in the first place, since they didn’t think about it and thus didn’t “request” it was not a violation of their right to eat low sodium foods?
On the contrary. This government action will enhance freedom, because now, instead of having little choice in the matter, individuals can choose to add salt or not on everything.
No, you haven’t addressed the question. What if the poison tastes good? This is essentially what is happening. The only difference is the time it takes for the “poison” to work. Your fantasy economics won’t work here.
But you HAVEN’T addressed them. You simply chant over and over that is IS a violation of their freedom without ever explaining how, or even being consistent about it.
This right is still intact. The point, which you continue to sidestep, is that any FDA action would only be the reverse of the initial increase in sodium content, yet you have a problem with the one and not the other. Hence, the double standard.
At least you admit the double standard. But that still doesn’t explain why you think I ought to go along with your fantasies.
Because, you are concerned with a pretend economy, that has never existed and never will. Which is fine, have all the fun you want. But you would propose policies for the real world, based on an analysis of your fantasy economy. Therein lies the problem.
What? This doesn’t make any sense. You were just explaining to me how rosy everything looked under a free market, and now you’re attempting to excuse its failures and pass it off on human nature? I just don’t know where you’re going here.
I could “twist” it back into a realistic shape, I suppose. Wake up. Your free market fantasy land has never delivered the results you claim it does.
No, it’s the double standard to which you admitted earlier. Namely, its OK for private companies to “abridge” people’s rights, but not the government.
But that still doesn’t explain why, given two equally random assertions, you would demand proof of the one and not the other.
Yes, but there is not a blueprint.
But consumers can STILL add salt. You have yet to explain, in four or five posts, how their right to eat as much salt as they want is being infringed upon.
Again? I’m still waiting on the first explanation. And no, “The gubmint’s out to getchoo!” is not an explanation.
You are a walking strawman and contradiction machine.
Mad at you? Don’t flatter yourself.
This has been explained to you time and again. If you can’t get it, then take up a course on reading comprehension.
Here’s the difference: Consumers are FORCED to tolerate new regulations.
Ok, they are making it harder to get. I never said they were denying the substance outright. They are infringing upon contractual relationships that they have no business in.
Ah, the old fallacy that somehow “profit-making” is at the public’s expense. Nothing could be further from the truth. They can only profit if they serve the public’s demands. Also, like I said before, the consumers have already said that they are, for the most part, fine with high sodium (or at least don’t care enough to do anything), so the FDA has no right to impose its will.
No no you have it all wrong and have completely misrepresented my position as usual. I always stated that it was the consumers’ choice to care or not to care about the sodium (to think or not to think about it). I never claimed NECESSARILY that they want higher sodium, but that they are not driven enough to want to change it for the most part. It doesn’t prove they want sodium, it just proves that they obviously don’t value lower sodium enough to make it profitable for companies to produce those things. We have Capitalism in the United States. But we also have Socialism. And Fascism. And probably something else too. Is it really too hard for you to figure out that we have a mixed economy? Did I really have to explain that to you? I’m worried about you Ryan.
Who’s defending corporations? I’m defending the people, you are just too thick-headed to realize that sometimes what the people want is what you DON’T want. However, in a free market, everyone gets what he votes for (as opposed to a democracy), so the people that do want those things generally have access.
I’m not answering the first question for the thousandth time. To your second: No it wasn’t, because there were still low-sodium foods available and they tolerated the increase. The companies only increased the sodium content because they thought it would be profitable to do so.
The consumers have always had choice. No one forced them to go in there and buy high sodium food. And if they didn’t want those things, it wouldn’t be profitable to make them. One more time: if the companies hadn’t responded, a new company would have and then they would be forced to.
Well gee, with this logic, anything in excess could be poison. If the public honestly and knowingly is eating poison because they like the taste, then they deserve the consequences of their actions. Take your cradle-to-grave statist fantasies elsewhere.
Are you nuts? Seriously, at this point I’m wondering how you even made it on to the computer by yourself.
I’ve explained all of this to you before.
Huh? You don’t have to go along with my fantasies. That’s the great thing about a free market: You can vote for whatever you want. You need to stop living in some dream world where everyone has perfect 100% choice and everyone is safe and sound, tucked into their comfy beds at night. It ain’t for this world.
That’s what I thought you’d say. Free markets have existed and are the main reason for the well being of most of the people in the Western world today. Take a look at history and forget your Marxist fantasy for a minute. It is in the countries that were mainly Capitalist where the people were able to rise out of poverty, not in the Socialist countries. Oh, and before you ask, no this is not an argument for slavery.
What the hell? I never said everything was fine in a free market, I just said that it was better than your Utopian alternative. Yes it’s failures are almost directly attributable to human nature.
I wish that there had been more of a free market, but when the market was mainly free it certainly did deliver excellent results, compared to the rest of the world.
Private companies can’t legally abridge peoples’ rights. Only governments can because only governments operate through coercion. Companies operate through mutual benefit, from consumer to producer. Like I said before, it ain’t always pretty or perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than having someone send an armed man to my doorstep.
Uh, you were the one who emphatically stated that government regulations work. I asked you for proof. You have yet to provide it.
No wonder it’s attempted implementation has failed so often.
…I’m wondering if you’re being serious at this point.
I guess you don’t get it then. Oh well.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
You are a walking strawman and contradiction machine.[/quote]
Sorry, I’m totally consistent. You happen to disagree with me, but there is nothing inconsistent in my arguments. Sorry again.
I’m not even sure what you’re referring to. You need to write more than seven or eight words to get your point across.
Consumers are not FORCED to do anything since the regulation does not concern them. Try again.
For the last time,
a.) you can’t just say they are infringing upon a right, you must show how they are doing it, and
b.) sorry, the latter part of your statement is a value judgement that is no more legitimate than any other.
True, if you don’t mind the sloppy use of terms, but this ignores all kinds of market inefficiencies that don’t jive with the free market gospel.
Besides the fact that this is the same irrelevant value judgement, the consumers previously said they were fine with low sodium, and so by your logic, sodium should not have been increased to begin with, since there was no clamor for more salt.
Oh, now I see the source of your confusion. You are under the impression that you have a position, when you do not. You have a multitude of positions, which are irreconcilable with each other.
But if this is the case, then you must abandon your claim that the public “wants” high-sodium foods, as shown by the great quantity of it.
Not necessarily. It could show that they don’t think about it much at all, and may not even be aware of all the sodium in their food, which be an excellent reason to regulate.
Really? Where are the worker-owned and democratically planned sectors of the economy? We have no socialism.
A mixed economy is not socialism. I think your time would be better spent worrying about yourself.
What a load of crap. If you were defending the people, then your concern would stop at the point at which you were guaranteed of their ability to add salt or not at their discretion, as this constitutes the entirety of their freedoms in this narrow case. If interpreted in this way, your argument makes even less sense than before.
What does this mean? It certainly is not based on anything I wrote. All I said was that people should be able to decide how salty how they want their food to be, which freedom is completely intact. Yet this simple observation renders your argument ridiculous, and so somehow you have to find a way to disagree with me.
Not if there is insufficient demand.
Aha, I see you’d rather not discuss. I wouldn’t want to either, in your position.
So, as long as there are still high-sodium foods available (with the easy availability of salt, this means pretty much all food), you’ll tolerate the decrease?
Weak. What if I want Processed Food Item A, but there is no low-sodium version? I can’t buy it. But, with reduction of sodium, I can now buy this product, and anyone who objects to the new formulation can simply add salt. Boom, enhanced freedom.
LOL, statist fantasies. As if not giving giant corporations the freedom to do whatever they like with our food supply constitutes a “statist fantasy.” You are truly deranged. In any case, I accept your surrender.
Still dodging the question, I see. More than a little pathetic, but it probably is your best bet at this point.
I suppose that’s true, so I should clarify: please explain it to me in a way in which I will not able to poke all kinds of holes in it.
Another clasic fallacy. As if criticizing capitalism amounts to utopianism. Sorry, a system need not be perfect to be better than capitalism.
Again, this is a load of crap. Not only are you apparently unfamiliar with the history of capitalist development, but I guarantee I could say some things that would make you quickly reverse your statement that free markets “have existed.”
Maybe one day you’ll realize it’s not the Marxists who living in a dreamworld. Only the most utopian of ideologies could still cling to a system which has not been successfully implemented in over 300 years. But don’t listen to me–I’m sure they’ll get it right this time.
Can’t even keep up with your own posts, eh? You don’t remember telling me how the market was effective in meeting consumers’ demands? Because you definitely did.
And sorry, capitalism IS the utopian alternative, and you have an incorrect understanding of human nature. Maybe if you actually think about it one day you’ll understand why.
Ah yes, the great mass of society in poverty, 16 hour workdays, child labor, insalubrious working conditions. Unregulated capitalism was so GREAT! Truly a wonder why only the upper class liked it?
You are obviously unfamiliar with history. Private companies have used the army to enforce their will many times throughout history.
History. You might want to read some. And in any case, the fact remains that they are doing exactly the same thing as the FDA, yet in the one case it’s fine, but in the other, it is an abridgement of freedom. There’s the double standard.
But you neglect the fact that you made a similar statement which you have yet to prove. I don’t feel compelled to back up statements if you don’t have to. There’s another double standard.
There is no way to “implement” Marxism. My word, you’re confused.
Still dancing around the question. Expected, but still slightly irritating.
Right, I’m not telepathic. I know your conservative buddies don’t ask you back up the zany stuff that comes out of your mouth, but I do.
This is the last time I’m doing this. You really aren’t worth the time, but I can’t help but pick apart your nonsense.
Well maybe, I mean you are consistently Statist.
Well, what do you expect? I have to go through it again and again for you, so I end up having to spell it out in many words.
You are really fucking confused as to the relationship between consumer and producer.
[quote]For the last time,
a.) you can’t just say they are infringing upon a right, you must show how they are doing it, and
b.) sorry, the latter part of your statement is a value judgement that is no more legitimate than any other.[/quote]
I have addressed these already.
Oh they jive. Still, with all of its inefficiencies, it’s by FAR the best system yet.
No, obviously they were fine with the increases as well, to the point of ignorance or stupidity.
This is just a childish cop-out and neat way to try to ignore me while appearing smart.
Huh? How many times have I said to you that it doesn’t matter how they want it, if they want it out of stupidity, or don’t care out of ignorance, it doesn’t matter. Another misrepresentation on your part.
No it wouldn’t. Your statism shines through here. It doesn’t matter if they think about it much at all. They ought to have the right to be ignorant… so long as they have the right not to be as well.
Huh? Isn’t that more like anarcho-syndicalism? Socialism is when the state owns the means of production. Unless you have some super cool, groovy definition of it!
I never said it was. Try again.
You just simply have no respect for contractual agreements. Not surprising, since you seem to have a raging hard-on for anything labeled “government”.
LOL, you have no respect for peoples’ choice. Don’t even pretend you do.
Well good news then! There isn’t, at least not for low-sodium. Yeah, most people want high sodium. So there’s a lot of that. But some also want low-sodium, so there’s some of that too.
You got it right here. It is frustrating explaining these basic concepts to you over and over and then seeing the dumbfounded expression in your writing.
What? The FDA decrease? No, I won’t. Already explained to you the difference.
Wrong. All you are doing is shifting the public’s demands to something else that they apparently don’t desire much.
They can’t do whatever they like. They are subject to the peoples’ will. If you could understand this, then you would realize that your entire argument is false. You’re problem seems to be a lack of belief in freedom, which often lies beneath a lack of belief in the free market.
No, that’s you. You just keep saying things like this because I guess you’re afraid to truly address my points, so you resort to petty shit like this.
Dude, just admit it, any holes you have poked have been answered fully. It’s ok, you can still be a Communist.
Another demonstration of your lack of historical understanding. How pathetically sad.
They have existed, but they have never been completely free. I never said they were. In any event, that’s just an argument for less government anyways.
Capitalism has been the most successful system so far developed. Can’t say the same for the Socialist systems. Unless grinding poverty and famines are your thing.
It is more effective than any other system. So, in that sense, yes it is effective.
This is just patently and historically false.
What are you talking about? It was the fact that they had these economic freedoms that led to our present state of wealth. See, you have to look at it comparatively. What system has brought people out of poverty faster than Capitalism? 16 hour workdays were often simply necessary at one point, unfortunately, but times were shit back then. We stand on their shoulders. It is because of the people that worked their asses off that we are able to have the wealth we do today. It wasn’t so great, but again, it was better than any other system. If it was so fucking bad, why did immigrants flock from all over the world, risk them and their families lives, and scrape everything together just to make it here? Do you really believe they came here simply to be exploited? You have no sense of proportion whatsoever.
Where exactly has this happened? And if it has, I would be ardently opposed to it. And by the way, that’s an abuse of government power then.
I’ve already told you that I’m fine with my double standard, because it’s not really a double standard when one group has power that the other doesn’t.
Uh, no, you made the statement that I then responded to. Burden of proof is on you.
Wow, this Marxism thing sure sounds complicated! Gee, I hope it’s not bordering on becoming a, “Utopian Textbook Theory”!
Well, I’m flattered that I’m actually having an effect on you. Can’t say the same for you, however.
And, for some icing on the cake you claim that I’m a conservative yet again! Never said it, but you sure do love to claim it!
Salt has not been proven to be directly correlated with high blood pressure.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Salt has not been proven to be directly correlated with high blood pressure.[/quote]
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955384,00.html
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yeah, what a terrible idea for the government to make sure companies can’t put a bunch of shit in your food…
I’m sure that people going to the hospital with blood pressure-related conditions doesn’t cost us any money, either.[/quote]
?! You’re an athlete, aren’t you?
I need to manage my own sodium level thank you very much because the biggest health problem I have in hot weather is hyponatremia – a sodium deficiency.
The fundamental question is not if regulating something harmful is necessary. I expect law to keep errant rat poison out of my food. The issue is if a substance that is not harmful is so abused by unthinking people that those of use who are responsible have to have the ability to run our own lives removed in the name of the greater good.
This is a typical political gambit of moralizing about a supposed problem then presenting yourself as the solution.
Sorry, but nope, this is goofy and sets a dangerous precedent. In any case, if people like salt and it is available in any capacity they will eat it up. (All the ventilation about low fat eating did nada to my bacon intake.) So when sodium intake doesn’t really drop, what do we do? Declare salt a controlled substance? Are we ready for an illicit Kikkoman cartel?
– jj
Go ahead, claim the high ground and go on.
If by that you mean I am against letting corporations control the country, then fine, I’m a statist.
Then enlighten me. Explain to me how the consumer is FORCED to EAT LESS SODIUM, since that’s your complaint. I ask you yet again to explain it to me.
The fact is, I am not confused, I simply refuse to let you dodge this question.
And I quickly pointed out your errors. Explain it to me in a way that is not riddled with contradictions and questionable conclusions.
Except that facts do not at all support you. Economies are far more efficient when the government takes an active hand in stabilizing and directing them.
And they will be fine with the new regulations. Unless they are not, in which case they can simply add a dash of salt.
I merely point out your conflicting statements.
But “want” and “don’t know, don’t care” are not the same thing. If they don’t think about it, which you suggest, then it totally voids your argument that the market reflects their preferences. How do you not see this?
It’s quite funny watching you try so hard to hold your argument together while it comes apart at the seams. They DO have the right to be ignorant. You STILL refuse to admit this or, failing that, to explain how they are NOT free to care or not to care. The fact is, they ARE free, YOU KNOW they are free, and you simply are too proud to admit you are wrong and too scared to question your inculcated beliefs.
Um, no, the state owning the means of production has nothing to do with socialism. That’s merely a different form of capitalism (or fascism, if you like). Socialism has always been about worker ownership and producing products to meet needs, not to make profits.
So no, no groovy definition, simply the same 200-year-old one.
Sorry, wrong again. The issues you bring up are utterly irrelevant in this case. What you mean is I’m not willing to claim that the sky is green in order to defend corporations. My statement stands.
How? You get more and more ridiculous. Explain to me, just once, how a person’s freedom to have salty food is in any way lessened by this potential regulation? Unless the government locks up all the sodium, all your braying is utterly baseless. The really sad part is, you know this, yet you refuse to admit it or rethink your position.
But now, people will have the choice to make ANYTHING low-sodium or high-sodium as they see fit. Who lacks a respect for people’s choices again?
Regressing deeper and deeper into your fantasy world, I see. Or maybe, you’re simply trying to save a little face after I’ve made an ass of you.
Ah yes, I remember. Government bad! Corporations good! Even when they do the same thing. Got it.
And we’re back with the claim that they DO think about it! This is fun, watching you cross and recross your path.
Yes, they are, as exerted through the government.
Perhaps if you could explain it to me in a reasonable intelligent manner, but so far you have been unable to do this.
Instead of bandying about insults like a jackass, perhaps you could actually substantiate a claim? I believe if we really get down to it, I will be a bigger supporter of freedom than you, since I support freedom even when it goes against the interest of corporations, unlike their faithful apologists, whose support is contingent upon profitability.
The problem is, you trot out arguments that a child could refute, yet you refuse to acknowledge the correction. This is nicely illustrated by the fact that in, what? five or six repsonses now, you STILL have not been able to explain to me how people’s freedom is being reduced. They can still eat as much salt as they want on anything they want, yet you still make mysterious claims about a tyrannical government.
But they HAVE NOT been. You STILL WILL NOT ANSWER ME. How exactly are people’s freedoms being abridged? Don’t just mumble something about the free market, or individual liberty, or any of that ridiculous libertarian bullshit you throw out when you’ve been beaten in an argument. Quit pouting and explain yourself.
Another criticism with no substance. How predictable.
No, that’s just a baseless assumption you make.
Again, you display your ignorance of history. The Soviet Union was the most productive, fastest-growing economy in history, lifting its people out of poverty and repairing a shattered country faster than any other nation in history, and they did it with no access to foreign loans. Capitalism has only approached its success by incorporating elements such as government direction of the economy. Even now the “communist” Chinese run a much more effective capitalism than the West.
Keep repeating that, but be sure not to read any history–you’ll be in for an unpleasent surprise.
Wrong again. After so many failures, can there be any doubt that free-marketers are hopeless utopians? If the free and unregulated market were half as great as you say it is, it wouldn’t be so rare.
“Socialism” (the answer depends on how socialist you consider the USSR to have been; either way, the fastest growing economies have never done things the way Uncle Milton advised). And do you mean the “freedom” to work all day next to your child, for $3 to $5 per week? I’ll pass.
16 hour workdays were never the norm before the advent of mechanization which was supposed to lighten labor. As John Stuart Mill said, “Hitherto, it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.” If 16 hour days were not necessary before, why did they become necessary after the huge increase in productivity associated with mechanization?
It is because of that, and, importantly, the many reforms won through the hard work and sacrifice of the working class. See, higher wages, better work conditions, more comfortable lives, are not only NOT the natural consequence of capitalism, they were obtained at high costs against the capitalists, which fought them at every turn.
They came for a variety of reasons. But working conditions were essentially the same here as in western Europe.
This has happened in many strikes throughout US history, many of them at coal mining companies or railroads. The Pullman Strike and the Homestead Strike are two well-known examples off the top of my head.
And calling it an abuse of government power completely misses the point. It is the nature of the government to protect the capitalist class interests. There is no way to avoid this type of government favoritism under capitalism. I think if one thing from history is clear, it is that the powerful will exploit the weak. This is why all of society must take control of the state, thereby changing its character, and laying the foundation for its eventual dissolution after it is no longer needed.
The one should have power that the other doesn’t. Otherwise, there’s no need for the government.
Um, no, go back and look. You said the government makes things less efficient, I said the opposite, and all of a sudden you took an interest in rigor.
You’re making it more complicated than it needs to be by trying to find some way to blame Mao and Pol Pot on it.
That’s fine, you don’t have to say anything, except in order to explain yourself, which you still haven’t done.
I figured five or six baseless allegations deserved one in kind.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:?! You’re an athlete, aren’t you?
I need to manage my own sodium level thank you very much because the biggest health problem I have in hot weather is hyponatremia – a sodium deficiency.[/quote]
Well then add salt. Problem solved.
This substance was not “abused” by people before it began showing up in huge quantities in a large portion of foods. All this is is a way to prevent manufacturers from making their food more appealing by putting public health at risk.
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?
We wouldn’t want the government taking an interest in people’s health! That’s dangerous!
Laughable.
This then removes any reasonable objection one could have to this regulation. As you said, if people want salt, it will do nothing to reduce their intake. At that point, it will truly be their fault, and they’ll have no excuses. We need to do nothing more then.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Everything in the store is full of sodium? Umm, have you been to a grocery store lately? [/quote]
There’s almost nothing in the grocery store worth eating. I can have all the nutritional education in the world, but if nothing healthy is offered for sale, I am screwed.
And at the grocery stores I have in my area, almost nothing healthy is for sale. I’d say 80% of the store is pure shit.
It’s funny because people on this website complain about fat people all the time… apparently, those people are fat not because they eat shitty food (which is literally everywhere, and far cheaper than healthy food) but because they are bad people who don’t control their own destiny, or some similar Ayn Rand highschool philosophy bullshit.
[quote]Artemisia wrote:
it’s a stupid substance to target.
Of all the things to go after…they ignore questionable chemical additives and trans-fats (allowed to say “0 g trans-fats” on the label if it’s less than .5 g trans-fats per serving) in favor of effing salt. [/quote]
Not really a bad target… high blood pressure is spiking, and is more likely the older you get. It’s also a complicating factor in other diseases like diabetes.
Also, you object that trans fats were not targeted first… so for you, it’s mainly a matter of the order of importance?
BTW, there has already been a lot of voluntary improvements regarding trans fats. Apparently, that is less true with salt.
If the government has no role to play in attempting to protect peoples’ health, then why not take the warning labels off cigarettes, lets allow liquor advertising next to our elementary schools, lets remove the fetal warnings on alcohol, and so on. Lets bring back “Joe Camel”. Oh, I know there are some dopes who post here, who will dumbly agree to that, because rigid ideology is easier than applying logic and sensible judgement.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
[quote]Artemisia wrote:
it’s a stupid substance to target.
Of all the things to go after…they ignore questionable chemical additives and trans-fats (allowed to say “0 g trans-fats” on the label if it’s less than .5 g trans-fats per serving) in favor of effing salt. [/quote]
Not really a bad target… high blood pressure is spiking, and is more likely the older you get. It’s also a complicating factor in other diseases like diabetes.
Also, you object that trans fats were not targeted first… so for you, it’s mainly a matter of the order of importance?
BTW, there has already been a lot of voluntary improvements regarding trans fats. Apparently, that is less true with salt.
If the government has no role to play in attempting to protect peoples’ health, then why not take the warning labels off cigarettes, lets allow liquor advertising next to our elementary schools, lets remove the fetal warnings on alcohol, and so on. Lets bring back “Joe Camel”. Oh, I know there are some dopes who post here, who will dumbly agree to that, because rigid ideology is easier than applying logic and sensible judgement.[/quote]
Sure I am one of them.
Get this:
YOU ARE NOT MY MOTHER.
I know that this is very dumb and ideological of me, but your completely unideological point of view will lead to a society where nannies just like you will tell us when and how to wipe our own asses.
Thank you for your concern, but step away from my salt shaker please.
And yeah, those warning labels really do a world of good, because the problem is that people just dont know that smoking and drinking is bad for them.
You could but a skull and crossed bones on cigarette packs and call them “coffiin nails” and some people would still want to smoke.
Awesome, more power to them, may they life shorter but happier fat, drunk and free lives and may they die quickly of a heart attack whereas you will probably live ten years after your mind as gone because your body is so swesomely healthy.
Damn fucking busibodies, I sometimes wonder whether people all live such troublefree lifes that they just have to bully their neighbors into doing the same.
[quote]orion wrote:
Thank you for your concern, but step away from my salt shaker please.
[/quote]
Histrionic much? Must be the rational Libertarian side of you. Go ahead and salt your food as much as you want. Lets reduce ‘hidden’ sodium that is included in the manufacturing process. Why should people have to be nutrition experts, just to have a reasonably healthy diet?
Lets encourage manufacturers (who spend billions on advertising - more than we spend on political advertising, by far) to stop selling us SHIT.
Our “free market choices” shouldn’t be shitty food, or less-shitty food.
[quote]orion wrote:
And yeah, those warning labels really do a world of good, because the problem is that people just dont know that smoking and drinking is bad for them.
[/quote]
You really screwed up when you picked tobacco as an example.
It was only about 40-50 years ago that tobacco companies were spending millions of dollars advertising cigarettes as being HEALTHY. Many people who saw those ads are still alive - but only if they didn’t believe those ads. It was only 15 years ago that cigarette manufacturers denied knowing that cigarettes caused cancer, in court and under oath (perjury). You don’t have any context on how the tobacco companies have actually done business in America, up until just recently.
Only an ideologue or an immature dolt would argue that the tobacco companies need freer reign, to sell highly addictive products that they know will kill tens of thousands of people every year.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Thank you for your concern, but step away from my salt shaker please.
[/quote]
Histrionic much? Must be the rational Libertarian side of you. Go ahead and salt your food as much as you want. Lets reduce ‘hidden’ sodium that is included in the manufacturing process. Why should people have to be nutrition experts, just to have a reasonably healthy diet?
Lets encourage manufacturers (who spend billions on advertising - more than we spend on political advertising, by far) to stop selling us SHIT.
Our “free market choices” shouldn’t be shitty food, or less-shitty food.
[/quote]
I do not care about sodium because I do not eat packaged food.
This is also not that expensive, you can easily afford a healthy diet if you are not a complete idiot and for those that are idiots none of your nannying will do any good.
It will just make people like me resent people like you and you do seem to forget that you require our cooperation.
What will you do when we start to shit on your laws because that is the only route left?