Third Party & Independents Archives

Fat People Stay Away!!

Go home and stuff your face.
In the future you may not be allowed to eat in public.

Anybody else have a problem with legislatures passing laws against personal choice?

I can understand why they get away with all the anti-smoking laws, BUT I don't know a single smoker who says ..'Tough crap. If I want to blow my smoke in your face I will.'
Being a smoker is like having the plague .... and paying for it.

They make us wear our seatbelts. I am old enough to decide that for my self.
They ruined my french fries.

But fat people??
Can I say 'fat people'?? I'm borderline fat. So, yes, I can say it. (Had to add this before the PC Police jump me over it.)

Fat? No Food for You!
from above link:
'"This is the latest example of food cops run amok. Are waiters supposed to carry scales around the restaurant and weigh every customer? Give me a break," J. Justin Wilson, a senior research analyst at The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the restaurant and food service industry, said in a statement. "What's next? Will waitresses soon be expected to make sure we eat all our veggies?"

More helpful in the battle of bulge, say critics: programs directed at getting to the core of the problem, such as a law passed in Mississippi last year that requires kids in kindergarten through eighth grade to receive at least 150 minutes of physical education and 45 minutes of health ed instruction weekly; until then, gym had been optional.'

P.E. optional? That's a new one on me. It was mandatory where I grew up and is mandatory where my kids attend school.

Ok... so it didn't pass this time. But don't be surprised if it makes it through in the future. BTW- these same lawmakers are planning to give themselves a raise. No surprise .
11:00 a.m.: Mississippi Lawmakers May See Pay Raise

We were warned about our country turning into a 'Nanny State'.
Not to mention a 'Police State'.
My kid can't draw a picture of a gun without being ordered to years of therapy, my home searched for weapons & an FBI investigation done on my entire family.

It's well on it's way.

Any of the top three(four)candidates going to put an end to this?

Posted by Dawn at February 8, 2008 3:57 PM
Comments
Comment #244909

Dawn,

Welcome to the brave new world. A world ruled by the mentality of “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”. Right! As most thinking people know, this is the third biggest lie ever told, following “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning”, and “The check is in the mail”.

Unfortunately, this is just the latest example of good intentions run amok. Yes, this is in the same vein as frnch fries, trans fats, seat belts, anti-smoking laws, and all the other ways lawmakers of a certain mentality(and they are not all D’s, either) act. They know what is good for us and want to make sure we do what is good for us, or else! My reaction to this is, phone calls, letters, and voting against them the next time they come up for reelection.

Here in Kentucky, we just elected a new governor, a Democrat, replacing a Republican. Before he was elected, he had a laundry list of great ideas for the state. Unfortunately, when he was sworn in, he found out that the state was broke, and that there was a 500 million dollar shortfall in projected revenue over the next 2 years, something that law makers had been screaming for a year. His reaction? A 12 per cent cut in higher education, reducing scholarship money, reductions in Medicaid, cutting social services, reducing funding for K-12, and, no new taxes.
However, in his budget proposal to the Legislature, he increased funding for the prison system by a nice percentage, and found several million dollars to help fund the World Equistrian Games in 2010. He knows what’s best for the state! Education is not important but building prisons to house low level drug offenders is. The future of our state takes second place to an event that will attract a few hundred extremely wealthy horse owners. But, he knows what is best for us.Yeah, right!

Posted by: Old Grouch at February 8, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #244912

Come on Old Grouch - the horses have always been more important than people are in Kentucky!! You must not have grown up there.

They have to keep the non-violent low level drug offenders in jail …. they might get out and take those jobs the illegals fill.

Posted by: Dawn at February 8, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #244915
“I was trying to shed a little light on the number one health problem in Mississippi,” co-sponsor Republican Rep. John Read of Gautier, a former pharmaceutical company sales representative, told the Associated Press, acknowledging that at five feet, 11 inches (1.8 meters) and 230 pounds (104 kilograms), he might get the restaurant boot under his own bill.

Okay, that’s really funny, LOL!!

This is also:

fear not: state Rep. Steve Holland, the Democratic chairman of the House Public Health and Human Services Committee, pronounced the controversial bill “dead on arrival at my desk.” In other words, it will never even make it out of committee and onto the floor of the legislature for a vote.

Talk about a waste of time, just like this column entry. Since it’s not going anywhere. JMHO

Posted by: womanmarine at February 8, 2008 6:10 PM
Comment #244921

I don’t know what to say.

All you can do is ASK people to stop stuffing their faces.

But you can’t legislate it. It won’t work.

We’ve got bigger fish to fry.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #244930
All you can do is ASK people to stop stuffing their faces.

But you can’t legislate it. It won’t work.

That doesn’t seem to stop anyone…

We legislate all kinds of other things, why should this be any different? We already tell people what they can and can’t eat, what they can and can’t smoke, what they can and can’t drink, why is this so far fetched?

This is why principle is important. Drawing the line and saying ‘we are a free people and should be left to make these decisions ourselves’ isn’t a popular position to take, those on the left try to tell you you are a ‘throwback’ to a more quaint time in our history, those on the right try to tell you that you are defending all kinds of perverted behavior. But in reality, we have to protect our individual rights or the majority WILL come along and sweep them all aside, all in the name of good intentions.

I predicted these things years ago, it will happen some time, it’s just the way we allow our rights to be erroded for the ‘common good’. Little by little fewer people will put up a fights, deride those who do, and we will be more enslaved and oppressed than we ever thought of being in 1776. In fact, I suggest we already are.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 8, 2008 9:19 PM
Comment #244933

Womanmarine,

So you are ok with the government sticking it’s big fat legislature in every aspect of your life?
Do you not think that there is anything you do that they won’t try to regulate or outlaw?

Just look at the way the elections are dissected.
They practically know what color underwear a prospective voter wears. Polls are done and certain categories of people find out how they should vote. I still don’t know anyone personally that has been called for these election polls.
All we do is kept track of. Statistics for everything.
People worry about their phones being tapped? Your whole existence is being tapped, recorded, dissected & shared.
Nobody should have a problem with it because???

This isn’t just about taking food away from people because they are fat.

Posted by: Dawn at February 8, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #244936

Rhinehold:

those on the left try to tell you you are a ‘throwback’ to a more quaint time in our history, those on the right try to tell you that you are defending all kinds of perverted behavior. But in reality, we have to protect our individual rights or the majority WILL come along and sweep them all aside, all in the name of good intentions.

You’re really overreacting here. In fact, everyone but womanmarine and d.a.n. is. I’m solidly on the left, and I think this is all very silly and discriminatory against larger folks.
Surely they’re entitled to a side salad…

:D
Just kidding. Let ‘em eat till the whole family can’t move, and needs a special van to get around.
Our individual right to become porcine seems to be the American way.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 8, 2008 11:04 PM
Comment #244941

Well now, I reckon we do need to make all the fat folks loose weight. After all with the extra heat put off by their larger than normal bodies they just might cause global warming and ruin the environment.:) :>

Seriously now just who the hell do the Mississippi Legislature think they are? But then it doesn’t surprise me any that they’d try something this stupid. Nothing is more arrogant than a politician.
Sounds to me like the good folks of Mississippi need to do some house cleaning.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 9, 2008 12:06 AM
Comment #244942

Veritas Vencit,

It would be a great idea to get people to lose weight. However, it is better that they are obese than to lose their freedom to be so.

That’s the simple fact that isn’t perhaps true everywhere, but it should be true here, in the US.

That we are trying to change it is to me one of the saddest changes to our society that is happening today. That we can’t conceive of a way to resolve issues, solve problems and encourage people to live better healthier lives other than to use force speaks to the complacency that we have devolved this society into.

Overreacting? No. Unless individual freedom is of no concern, then perhaps…

It is issues like this that tell a lot about people, their party affiliations and their true motives. It is apparent that you don’t see individual freedom as an absolute.

So, welcome to our current world where the majority want us to be Christian and spied upon. And when you rail against those injustices, remember that you didn’t see any problem with the small ones that didn’t affect you… And when you are told that you are ‘overreacting’ because the government is just going to spy upon the bad guys, honest, you don’t have anything to hide do you? Remember this.

Enjoy your thin life, with jails full of the obese and pot smokers, giving you more room and the opportunity for more jobs.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #244947

Rhinehold,

Thank you.

I believe you have one thing wrong though…

It won’t be the obese in jail. It will be those that tried to feed them.

You are so right.
Nobody cares until it effects them personally. How else would they ——- the do-gooders- get away with taking our rights away - a little at a time.

Posted by: Dawn at February 9, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment #244948

Rhinehold:

It would be a great idea to get people to lose weight. However, it is better that they are obese than to lose their freedom to be so.

Yes, I agreed it is total BS, and therefore, I really don’t need the long lecture. That’s why I said I thought it was silly and discriminatory.
I just thought you guys were overreacting since it is exactly the kind of unnecessary legislation that makes people (of all sizes) go completely ballistic, when nothing ever comes of it in reality.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 9, 2008 1:18 AM
Comment #244949

veritas vincit,

But ‘stuff’ does come of it.

Did you read the link ‘Nanny State’?

from that link:
“That didn’t pass, but it always starts that way. It always starts with throwing something out there and then seeing, you know, what’s going on. And in ten years it will be law.”

Posted by: Dawn at February 9, 2008 1:26 AM
Comment #244950

Veritas,

It will come to pass. Not now, no it is too soon. But that is how these things work. They get offered up and shot down a few times until the mood of the country is right.

Why, just imagine what will happen once we have single-payer healthcare. The costs will increase and be too much for us to pay so we will start to look at why the costs are too high. And those who are obese will be one of the prime culprits for the high medical costs.

It is silly that we make smoking marijuana illegal. Alcohol has much worse effects on not just the people who use it but society as a whole, but it is legal and marijuana is not. Yet, it is illegal to grow and sell it.

It is silly that we make it illegal for banks to transfer funds to ‘online gambling sites’. We allow the lottery, brick and mortor gambling, but somehow doing it ‘online’ is the scourge of the decade, needing to be quelled. Nevermind that it can be easily gotten around by moving money out side of the US, great idea that… It is still illegal.

There are a lot of ‘laws’ that are silly, or were silly at one point, that are still in effect over our lives today. This one is just another and one day it will become law.

Unless we start moving the line back, start standing up for individual rights, those being attempted against and those already taken.

I ask that you don’t pass this off as ‘just a stupid law that won’t get passed’, because we need to be more dilligent than that, we need to make sure that even if it is a cause we believe in, we continue to make sure that we don’t allow our personal freedoms to be taken from us, or worse yet, freely given…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2008 1:28 AM
Comment #244962

I would be able to take all you Chicken Littles a lot more seriously if you all had taken the time to read the entire piece that Dawn linked to.

Sponsors of the legislation insist that it was designed to spark discussion on ways to get a handle on obesity: More than 30 percent of Mississippi’s adults are considered obese, giving the Magnolia State—where fried chicken and other greasy fare rule—the distinction of being the nation’s first in fatness, according to a 2007 study by the Trust for America’s Health, a Washington, D.C.–based research group that focuses on disease prevention.
This legislation was never intended to pass. It’s entire point was to bring this point out into the light: that we Americans are eating ourselves to death. We are falling behind Europe in life expectancy, over a quarter of our population, most of it in the Bible belt, is obese. This is a problem. Is legislation the answer? Of course not. But a solution is needed, and ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

I laugh a rueful laugh every time I see posts like this. Every Libertarian comes out of the woodwork, boxers in a bunch and spewing forth about how the nasty liberal Left is destroying the world, legislating our country into oblivion. Is liberty a fragile thing? Yes, and we must protect it. But I have a hard time equating legislation banning trans-fatty acids with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 9, 2008 10:45 AM
Comment #244968

leatherankh

“I have a hard time equating legislation banning trans-fatty acids with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

whats next? outlaw red meat because overconsumption may have harmful side effects? the point is we don’t need the nanny state telling us what we can and can’t eat. every time these do gooders pass another law to protect us from ouselves they also take away a little more of our freedom to decide our own fate, for better or worse. they quantify everything by telling us that there is a cost to society as a whole. this could be said about anytyhing, but what is the cost to society as a whole, as we slowly give up or freedom to decide our own futures, for a future where every aspect of our lives is dictated by a group of all knowing all powerful group of knowitalls. this IMO is worse than the socalled cost to society as a whole. the controlled substance act is a prime example. give me the information i need to make my own decision and then go away. they quit using trans fat in girl scout cookies. they don’t taste as good!

Posted by: dbs at February 9, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #244969
I laugh a rueful laugh every time I see posts like this.

And I cry a sad cry every time I see comments like this.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 9, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #244972


The left nor the right can force their particular brand of behavior on the people until the surveilance apparatus is in place and watching all the people all the time. That will take another decade or so to accomplish. That which makes you safe can also make you conform. Are you sure that you have nothing to hide?

Posted by: jlw at February 9, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #244974

jlw

i think 10yrs is overly optimistic. they already track most everything you do. unless your paying with cash, driving a car without gps equipt. of any kind, not carrying a cell phone, and i could probably think of more. what we’re doing right here can be monitored. the only thing left is video servailance in all public places, home monitoring is probably in the works. how safe do we realy need to be? who is the more dangerous enemy?

Posted by: dbs at February 9, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #244987

Lets see. The government forbids selling maggoty and tainted meat.Why should we allow this in a so called free country?I suppose if one wants to they could eat maggoty meat at home but the reason its sale is banned is because its bad for people. That is the exact same reason trans fat is being moved off the market.Making a big deal about it,complainning of an encroaching “nanny state” is just silly.
Ca. has a helmut law some bikers just hate. The reason it was passed was the number of brain damaged young people from motorcycle accidents meant that the rest of us taxpayers wound up paying for their long term care.Even if they had insurance all policies are capped. They become vegtables at 22 and live with permanent 24/7 care until they are 80.Is being sensable some great restriction of personal freedom?

Posted by: bills at February 9, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #244990

dbs,

they quit using trans fat in girl scout cookies. they don’t taste as good!
And that is the whole point. We live in a society where it doesn’t matter if something is bad for us, if it makes us happy we eat it smoke it drink it whatever, who cares what happens tomorrow. The only reason the companies use TFAs is because they are cheap, and the only reason we think they taste good is because we are used to them. What you call “personal freedoms” I call corporate programming. So who’s for freedom here?

Rhinehold,

C’mon, don’t weep for my delusions, discuss the points I make. I think that certain legislation is a good idea to protect us from our own stupidity. Seatbelt laws keep idiots from getting hurt worse in accidents, for example. This can be overdone, but I think discussion on these matters, which is exactly the entire point of Mississippi legislation, is important. So come down from on high and let’s hash this out.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 10, 2008 1:23 AM
Comment #244999

I get a laugh at all you people who want to have the freedom to become a vegetable and live (if you call that living) off of the rest of us taxpayers?
What am I talking about??

any of the nanny laws you complain about prevent
not death
but people from becoming disabled to the point of having to be kept alive on tubes, or other such things (this is a quick rant, don’t have time)

If the result of the stupid decisions were to only result in your DEATH — I would be all for alllowing you to make your own stupid decisions.
but
It isn’t that simple
too many become essentially wards of the state
no thanks
YOUR STUPID DECISION BECOMES MY LIFETIME BILL???
WITHOUT MY GETTING A SAY SO?????
NO WAY
Go home “libertarians” until you are willing to take FULL FINANCIAL responsiblity for the consequences of having the freedom to be stupid.

Posted by: Russ at February 10, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #245001

Russ,

The freedom to be stupid?

Is every law written to save the stupid person from himself?

We, in this country, have layer upon layer of laws that are not enforced, and all are written to protect the lowest common denominator from itself.

Do we truly have so little faith in ourselves that we must protect ourselves, from ourselves?

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #245003

“Go home “libertarians” until you are willing to take FULL FINANCIAL responsiblity for the consequences of having the freedom to be stupid.”

I’m willing to take FULL responsibility. Are you willing to give me FULL freedom?

Posted by: BOHICA at February 10, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #245005

russ

“YOUR STUPID DECISION BECOMES MY LIFETIME BILL???
WITHOUT MY GETTING A SAY SO?????
NO WAY”

i could say the same thing about people who live off of gov’t handouts, because of thier own poor decisions. after all thier basicly wards of the state too.

Posted by: dbs at February 10, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #245007

leatherankh

“if it makes us happy we eat it smoke it drink it whatever, who cares what happens tomorrow”

what is it you don’t like about personal freedom? there are many thing that in excess are not good for you. do really think the gov’t should be able to tell you what you can eat and how much? hell you can die from drinking to much water.

Posted by: dbs at February 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #245010

bills

“The government forbids selling maggoty and tainted meat.Why should we allow this in a so called free country?”

do you know some one who actually enjoys eating ” MAGGOTY MEAT”? is there a restaurant you know of that offers it on the menu? this is just another extreme argument for a nonexistent problem. if you truly want to know though, if someone actually wants to eat this stuff, as long as the the fact that it’s maggot infested is printed on the packaging in a way that it’s clearly understood, by all means let them eat maggoty meat.

“That is the exact same reason trans fat is being moved off the market.Making a big deal about it,complainning of an encroaching “nanny state” is just silly.”


no it isn’t. people like the way foods cooked in it taste, even if it’s an aquired taste. if you eat it every day 3 times a day ya your health is going to suffer. in small amounts your probably going to be just fine. i like fries, but i don’t eat them every day. because i could choose to eat them every day, and it could become a health problem, should we just ban them all together? take care of yourself and leave the rest of us alone.

Posted by: dbs at February 10, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #245042

Rhinehold said: “This is why principle is important.”

This is why principle in government can be important. Let’s take Huckabee’s Principle: “If you can’t pay, don’t ask. His plan calls for a national sales tax, ending all entitlement programs, and if after that a parent takes their child to an emergency room without insurance or money, the hospital has the right to tell the parent to go away, and the child to die for lack of resources in America.

That is a principle. One which many Ron Paul supporters adhere to as well. Ron Paul would eliminate all federal taxes, and deny everyone of anything if they don’t have the asking price, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Principle can be the most potent tool of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. Principle, without exceptions and absent common sense and moral sentiment, can and will lead to the grossest of inhumanities.

Hitler’s German nation populated by Germans of Germanic ancestry only was a principle with incredible appeal to most of the German people. It was applied pretty much without exception by 1945.

Principles can be very powerful for good or evil. The test is whether those principles allow within them, conditions for exception which seek the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest period. Principles, even good sounding ones, contrary to some people’s belief, require interpretation in application, toward a higher ethical standard than the principle itself. This is precisely the wisdom of the founders having established the Supreme Court, rather than simply a dogmatic set of rules and a federal police force charged with enforcing them, instead.

There is no rule one can make that cannot potentially produce evil or unethical results under specific sets of circumstances. Even the principle of the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest period can result in undesirable and unethical results under the right circumstances.

Black and white, principles and rules never are. For they are all conceived under one set of circumstances to meet those circumstances. In the real world, circumstances change, all the time.

America is dealing with this scenario at this very moment, with the prohibition against torture, a principle, and the ticking time bomb scenario, which has, and will again, present itself.

The only good principle is one for which exceptions are allowed. A concept libertarian populists like Ron Paul can’t seem to grasp with their black and white 2nd grade approach to solutions and principles. It is, it should be said, a concept some ultra left wing liberals and right wing conservatives can’t seem to grasp either. It’s as if their education in moral sentiment and ethical reason were halted in the 2nd grade.

Ask second graders if killing is wrong. They will say yes. Ask them if war is appropriate if our nation is invaded. They will say yes. Ask them if there is any inconsistency in their answers. They will ask: “What is inconsistency?”

I would include nearly all the last year’s and present presidential candidates in this group, save one or two, and a big question mark next to those one or two who have avoided inconsistency traps in their public rhetoric. A great leader, as I read history, is one who is not channeled into principle, but, guided by principles while reserving the mandate to except principle in order to achieve the principle’s intent. And the highest human ethical principle has always been, and will always be, the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest period, which available resources can provide. And even this principle can require exceptions to it, to fulfill its intent.

Which is why humanity and government are so vastly more important than popularity contests, which so many voters treat elections as. And raises the question of whether democracy by popular vote is even a desirable form of government. Our founders said it wasn’t. A very wise decision for their time.

Democratic elections produced Hamas as government of the Palestinians, Hugo Chavez the president of Venezuela, and Vladimir Putin the President of Russia, now putting the economic squeeze on Georgians for having claimed independence in lieu of servitude to mother Russia’s dictates.

I personally become very curious and skeptical about anyone claiming principle as their right to power. Too few understand the foibles of principles, and too many suffer the consequences of them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2008 6:03 AM
Comment #245044

Bohica Says
I’m willing to take FULL responsibility. Are you willing to give me FULL freedom?

Absolutely
Full freedom as long as I get to protect myself from YOUR actions
i.e. You do NOT have the feedom to put a toxic waste dump on your property next to mine.

get the point?

Full Responsiblity means, that if you decide to be fat, smoke, and not wear a helmet while riding your motorcycle
I nor any of my fellow taxpayers will pay for any of the resulting
Hospital bills
Rent
Utilities
whatever won’t get paid as a result of you becoming a disabled invalid — unable to work.

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #245046

i could say the same thing about people who live off of gov’t handouts, because of thier own poor decisions. after all thier basicly wards of the state too.

What has that got to do with this debate?
Where has anyone promoted the idea of supporting people who make bad decisions??
That’s exactly the point I am making — the laws and regulations help to prevent having to pay for the bad mistakes (try anywho)especially those thick-headed knuckle heads that want the freedom but aren’t willing to pay for it.
(by the way, these idiots are the most selfish I can think of, do any of them consider the cost to their families, friends and loved ones?? — not only emotional, but many times the family gets dragged into the whole mess of having to care for, pay for and live in poverty — just so you had the FREEDOM to be stupid)
Like I said, if the stupid person were the only one paying for the consequences of being stupid, let em — I don’t care — but these idiots don’t understand that their actions affect alot of people around them, including other citizens (employers, hospitals, doctors, whatever) and therefore we all should get a say as to whether or not WE want to be a part of their stupidity.

(oh yea, think about all the hospital beds occupied by people who are there due to THEIR decisions only — preventable stuff — adding to the rising cost of healthcare, taking up resources needed by those who are seriously ill thru no fault of their own — etc)

I am so sick and tired of people not even beginning to comprehend what is REALLY involved in regards to their own actions and WHINING that they are not allowed to have the freedoms to SCREW UP EVERYONE ELSE’S LIFE!!
Selfish SOB’s!

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #245048

Ya know
This is a stupid silly position
We are all connected in somehow, our society is so interconnected that we all affect everyone else, and there is a need to regulate and control that so as to minimise the effects of the actions of the stupid few on the majority of the population.
and like Stephen says, to do it with common sense and compassion

Bohica would like his freedom
Would his family like it if (under his style) his family would essentially be made homeless and destitute as a result of his decision to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (example only)

One could argue that the family (knowing what might result) could exert the necessary pressure — or leave —
but our society doesn’t work that way.

If, however, someone takes all the precautions, makes what should have been good decisions, and still something happens — are we not — as a society — going to want to help this person and his family to overcome the bad times??
We donate to people who have been burned out, or ruined by earthquake
We come to the aid of flood victims (even tho — in some cases — some would argue they made a bad decision to live where they do)
We help those less fortunate, or out of luck — its what we do, and many of us see a place for government to help out (our criticism of the Katrina response reflects that — by the way, does ANYONE feel that the private (volunteer) sector ALONE could have adequately responded?? — if nothing else, the professional, govt paid emergency personnel have the training and the planning necessary to at least provide the direction and control of such an effort)
So unless we are going to accept some process whereby we dictate who is deserving of receiving urgent medical care based on whether or not it was the result of being stupid, then society has a RIGHT to limit our exposure for having to pay for YOUR stupidity.
Helmet laws
Drivers license
seat belt laws
DUI laws
Smoking prohibitions
etc.

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 11:18 AM
Comment #245055

“Bohica Says
I’m willing to take FULL responsibility. Are you willing to give me FULL freedom?

Absolutely
Full freedom as long as I get to protect myself from YOUR actions
i.e. You do NOT have the feedom to put a toxic waste dump on your property next to mine.

get the point?

Full Responsiblity means, that if you decide to be fat, smoke, and not wear a helmet while riding your motorcycle
I nor any of my fellow taxpayers will pay for any of the resulting
Hospital bills
Rent
Utilities
whatever won’t get paid as a result of you becoming a disabled invalid — unable to work.

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #245046”


Russ, You say “absolutely” to full freedom for full responsibility then you add qualifiers to it. Which is it?


“i could say the same thing about people who live off of gov’t handouts, because of thier own poor decisions. after all thier basicly wards of the state too.

What has that got to do with this debate?”

This has everything to do with the debate. The person living off government handouts have to be supported which takes beans out of my kids mouths. Should they not be responsible for the bad and unhealthy decisions they made at a younger age that put them in that position? How about the person who wears perfume that I’m alergic to? Should they not be able to wear it around me in a public place? We all interact with each other. Where do we draw the line? If you climb a ladder to clean your gutters, should your neighbor be able to report you because your ladder is old and looks unsafe? After all, if you fall it might cost us all. Hou about when you change a light bulb? Unless you are a liscensed electrician you might be in danger of electrocution. Think of the hardship on your family and the rest of society if you were to die that way. Maybe you should hire one.


“Where has anyone promoted the idea of supporting people who make bad decisions??”

Every time an entitlement program comes up for debate.


“That’s exactly the point I am making — the laws and regulations help to prevent having to pay for the bad mistakes (try anywho)especially those thick-headed knuckle heads that want the freedom but aren’t willing to pay for it.
(by the way, these idiots are the most selfish I can think of, do any of them consider the cost to their families, friends and loved ones?? — not only emotional, but many times the family gets dragged into the whole mess of having to care for, pay for and live in poverty — just so you had the FREEDOM to be stupid)
Like I said, if the stupid person were the only one paying for the consequences of being stupid, let em — I don’t care — but these idiots don’t understand that their actions affect alot of people around them, including other citizens (employers, hospitals, doctors, whatever) and therefore we all should get a say as to whether or not WE want to be a part of their stupidity.”

Calling me names like “thick headed knucklehead” and “idiot” don’t help your argument or hurt me.

“(oh yea, think about all the hospital beds occupied by people who are there due to THEIR decisions only — preventable stuff — adding to the rising cost of healthcare, taking up resources needed by those who are seriously ill thru no fault of their own — etc)”

So lets take away all elective surgury from people because serously ill folks need the space. Makes sense to me, however, you might get some objection from the soccor moms who are in for a face lift or a boob job.

“I am so sick and tired of people not even beginning to comprehend what is REALLY involved in regards to their own actions and WHINING that they are not allowed to have the freedoms to SCREW UP EVERYONE ELSE’S LIFE!!
Selfish SOB’s!

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #245048”

There’s the name calling again. I also get tired. I get tired of people like you who think you know better than I how to live MY life. If you look after YOUR life, I will look after MINE.


“Ya know
This is a stupid silly position
We are all connected in somehow, our society is so interconnected that we all affect everyone else, and there is a need to regulate and control that so as to minimise the effects of the actions of the stupid few on the majority of the population.”

To a degree, but not to the degree that you want to take it.
and like Stephen says, to do it with common sense and compassion

“Bohica would like his freedom
Would his family like it if (under his style) his family would essentially be made homeless and destitute as a result of his decision to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (example only)”


“One could argue that the family (knowing what might result) could exert the necessary pressure — or leave —
but our society doesn’t work that way.”


Or the family could believe in freedom as much as I

If, however, someone takes all the precautions, makes what should have been good decisions, and still something happens — are we not — as a society — going to want to help this person and his family to overcome the bad times??
We donate to people who have been burned out, or ruined by earthquake
We come to the aid of flood victims (even tho — in some cases — some would argue they made a bad decision to live where they do)
We help those less fortunate, or out of luck — its what we do, and many of us see a place for government to help out (our criticism of the Katrina response reflects that — by the way, does ANYONE feel that the private (volunteer) sector ALONE could have adequately responded?? — if nothing else, the professional, govt paid emergency personnel have the training and the planning necessary to at least provide the direction and control of such an effort)


“So unless we are going to accept some process whereby we dictate who is deserving of receiving urgent medical care based on whether or not it was the result of being stupid, then society has a RIGHT to limit our exposure for having to pay for YOUR stupidity.
Helmet laws
Drivers license
seat belt laws
DUI laws
Smoking prohibitions
etc.


Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 11:18 AM “

I don’t accept your premise. We are a free society. Free to make mistakes and free to suffer the consequenses. That is how it should be and I will accept nothing less.

Posted by: BOHICA at February 11, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #245064

Bohica
I think we all agree that your right to throw a punch ends at the end of the other person’s nose.
So Yea, I put qualifiers on it
YOU are NOT FREE to do something that ultimately HURTS others around you. (Toxic waste dump next to a residential area example)

If you REALLY are promoting “Freedoms WITHOUT Qualifiers” than I take that to mean YOU are WILLING to accept a toxic waste dump next to YOUR house??
and if you ARE promoting that unlimited of a version of FREEDOM — methinks it will only make getting people to reject YOUR proposition all the easier!

And your last statement does not address what I have said
You wrote:

“We are a free society. Free to make mistakes and free to suffer the consequenses. That is how it should be and I will accept nothing less”

YOU are NOT “FREE to suffer the consequences” ALONE
That is MY point
if your were allowed to “FREE to suffer the consequences” ALONE
I would have no problem at all letting you do what ever you want.

But it doesn’t work that way does it?
WE the society you live in (tough, don’t like it — go live on a mountain top where you can suffer alone)will end up having to take care of you
after you “suffer your consequences”

and regarding your families participation — if your family agreed with INFORMED CONSENT — Great
But it doesn’t work that way does it?

I’ve seen too many families at the hospital wondering what they are going to do now, and how they TRIED to get dear old dad (hubby) to wear the helmet, quite smoking, control their diabetes, whatever it was that would have prevented their personal tragedy — but “dear ol dad” (or mom, let’s not be sexist, I’ve seen it both ways!!) knew best — and now the family is suffering — “Free to suffer the consequences”??
No thought to the family — and you wonder why I use names???
Selfish SOB — seems appropriate to me.
if it is uncomfortable, too bad
I am not trying to win you over — that’s a lost cause

I just want to make sure the “Libertarian position” is given FULL DISCLOSURE — cause the simplistic “FREEDOM to do what I want” and the “Gov’t interference” with MY FREEDOMS is a simplistic position that is essentially Fraudulent Advertising!

And regarding my other use of name calling
Sorry — we are talking about People’s right to be Stupid — and I was using it in General — if you see it applying to you — that is your reading of it dude — if the shoe fits,

Straight talk dude.
I will accept nothing less

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #245072

“Bohica
I think we all agree that your right to throw a punch ends at the end of the other person’s nose.”

It depends on where the other person’s nose is. My right to self defence trumps the other’s right to aggression.

“So Yea, I put qualifiers on it”

The problem with making a deal like that with you is you want to keep adding qualifiers. It starts with the toxic waste dump and goes to smoking to helmets to seat belts to now food. You never want to stop.


“YOU are NOT FREE to do something that ultimately HURTS others around you. (Toxic waste dump next to a residential area example)”

See above

“If you REALLY are promoting “Freedoms WITHOUT Qualifiers” than I take that to mean YOU are WILLING to accept a toxic waste dump next to YOUR house??”

I don’t know what you mean with “Freedoms WITHOUT Qualifiers”, I’m talking about Freedom with consequences.


“and if you ARE promoting that unlimited of a version of FREEDOM — methinks it will only make getting people to reject YOUR proposition all the easier!”

If they don’t love freedom the way I do.


And your last statement does not address what I have said
You wrote:

““We are a free society. Free to make mistakes and free to suffer the consequenses. That is how it should be and I will accept nothing less”

YOU are NOT “FREE to suffer the consequences” ALONE
That is MY point
if your were allowed to “FREE to suffer the consequences” ALONE
I would have no problem at all letting you do what ever you want.”

Of course you would. You are a liberal and it’s in your nature.

“But it doesn’t work that way does it?
WE the society you live in (tough, don’t like it — go live on a mountain top where you can suffer alone)will end up having to take care of you
after you “suffer your consequences””

It doesn’t work that way because you and people who think like you have thken the right of responsibility away from me and given it to our government.

“and regarding your families participation — if your family agreed with INFORMED CONSENT — Great
But it doesn’t work that way does it?”

It does in my family.

“I’ve seen too many families at the hospital wondering what they are going to do now, and how they TRIED to get dear old dad (hubby) to wear the helmet, quite smoking, control their diabetes, whatever it was that would have prevented their personal tragedy — but “dear ol dad” (or mom, let’s not be sexist, I’ve seen it both ways!!) knew best — and now the family is suffering — “Free to suffer the consequences”??
No thought to the family — and you wonder why I use names???
Selfish SOB — seems appropriate to me.
if it is uncomfortable, too bad”

So it’s all about what YOU’VE seen. I’ve heard just as many comments about how “dear old dad” died doing what made him happy. or “He enjoyed himself up to the end.”

And yeah I guess I do wonder why you feel the need to use names. It’s not really uncomfortable. I’ve been called worse by better.


“I am not trying to win you over — that’s a lost cause

I just want to make sure the “Libertarian position” is given FULL DISCLOSURE — cause the simplistic “FREEDOM to do what I want” and the “Gov’t interference” with MY FREEDOMS is a simplistic position that is essentially Fraudulent Advertising!”

Are you as determined to make sure the “Socialist position” is given FULL DISCLOSURE also?

“And regarding my other use of name calling
Sorry — we are talking about People’s right to be Stupid — and I was using it in General — if you see it applying to you — that is your reading of it dude — if the shoe fits,”


well, since the name calling was right after a reference to me and I am the only one referenced by name in your post, how could I not take it as being against me?

“Straight talk dude.
I will accept nothing less”


Not so straight talk. You seem to jump a few things.

Posted by: Russ at February 11, 2008 03:28 PM

Posted by: BOHICA at February 11, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #245089

BOHICA

no point in beating a dead horse. some get, some don’t. i guess i’de better stock up on hydrogenated oils now. i’ll get rich selling them after russ makes them illegal. oh and i’ll keep a little just for myself, never know when i might want to cook up a batch of illegal fries. ;)

Posted by: dbs at February 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #245120

Wow, take a few days off and looks what happens…

Russ, you say you want ‘full disclosure’ on Libertarianism, yet your comments on it displays a complete lack of understanding of what it actually is. So it makes it a bit hard for you to be the harbinger of it, doesn’t it?

When you say that if we are allowed full freedom we should be required to be responsible for those consequences, you’ve described what Libertarians believe, not the freedom without price notion that you suggest. From there, you descend into larger misunderstandings and misconceptions, as well buying full into the mistaken belief that defending individual freedom prevents us from dealing with each other in society as we have now.

You mention that we are all interconnected, that’s true. No where does libertarianism require a suspension of this fact. In FACT, it is BECAUSE of this interconnectivity that we NEED to have our rights defended so rigorously. If we all ‘lived on a hill somewhere’ why would we need to have the government defend our rights? No one would be there to attempt to take them away on a regular basis.

Some questions for you to think on…

Where do we get our rights from, do they exist because we exist as humans or does government grant them?

Is the constitution a document about the limits of the citizen ro the limits of the government?

If there are no consquences to an undesirable action, what is the motivation not to perform that action?

You see, you mention earlier that we should all be wearing our seat belts. In fact, I agree! But, should we be using the police force of the government to police this like the ghestapo? Or should we be responsible and those that choose not to be willing to pay the full price of that action? I would LOVE to see insurance companies say ‘we are not going to cover you in an accident if you are not wearing your seat belt’. The insurance would be much cheaper then, wouldn’t it? They would know that they are not going to be required to cover for someone’s stupidity and bad decisions. But there is no need to since it is illegal to not wear your seatbelt, the penatly being a $25 fine in most cases. Now, if you were facing either a possible small fine if you are caught or the knowledge that if you are injured in an accident you will have to pay the cost out of your own pocket (or convince other private individuals to assist you, which would be hard since it was your own STUPIDITY that caused your situation), which one is the stronger motivator do you think?

And you mention the decisions that a father has on his family. I am in that situation, my father who I love dearly, smoked most of his life, from the time he was 13 until a few years ago. He smoked two packs of Camel non-filtered a day. Needless to say, at 64, he now has emphasema and osteoperosis from the bleeching of calcium from his body by the cigarettes. He always said that he would rather die happy than to live miserable. And I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way, he made his decisions and those were his to make and *I* wouldn’t presume to know better about how he wants to live his life than he does. Unfortunately there are too many ‘do-gooders’ that think they have some moral right to do exactly that. They have always existed, the prohibitionists of the last century are a good example, they are not a new breed, and they are why we have the protection FROM them that we have today. Giving up on those freedoms is a road we can take, but the real problem is what is life worth living if it can’t be lived freely?

The mistake is thinking that making a law will solve something. When it comes to protecting rights, like private property rights and toxic waste, as you mention, then laws are necessary to ensure that everyone is on the same playing field and aware of the consequences of violating another’s rights. But when it comes to decisions an individual should be entrusted with making for themselves, we should be staying OUT of the business of making those decisions for them. We end up creating whole generations of people who don’t have to worry about responsibility, they know that no matter what they do they will be taken care of, so why should they?

If you really want ‘full disclosure’, we can have a good conversation on the subject. If you want to trash a philosophy that you know very little about and get your information from by those that brainwash their followers into giving up their rights on a consistent and ever increasing basis… well, you can count me out, it’s just a complete waste of my time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #245134

Rhinehold, take the following: “I have a right to your money because I define that as my right.”

Until you define rights, all you have is anarchy, with each person using might to make right as Exxon Mobil now does with its lobbying power to extract tax dollars from the individual citizens while raking in all time world record profits.

You tend to argue that private entities have a right to all the profits they can legally obtain. I contend that Exxon Mobil is legal in obtaining tax dollars subsidies during record profitable years, but, it is not their right.

Your nebulous reference to undefined rights, which we have debated endlessly before, continues to be the Achille’s heel of your argument. And why I contend that many Libertarians are anarchists in misguise. That want what they have and more, and want government to protect and defend their right to keep it, however obtained as long as government defines the means as legal, and regardless of the plight of the nation, its future, or fellow Americans.

It’s no accident Ron Paul is capable of luring Libertarians within the Republican Party and establishing a quasi Libertarian wing within the GOP. There is much common ground on these theses.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #245137
Your nebulous reference to undefined rights, which we have debated endlessly before, continues to be the Achille’s heel of your argument. And why I contend that many Libertarians are anarchists in misguise.

There is nothing nebulous about centuries of detailed human rights though philosophy and law. Further, the right to live your life as you decide as long as you do not infringe on another’s rights for the same is very specific and detailed.

You just choose not to accept it and want a listing of all rights granted by the government (rulers) to the citizens (subjects). The US is not set up that way, or it wasn’t until specific reinterpretations of the Constitution which now allows for someone like Robert Bork to say ‘there is no right to privacy in the Constitution’ when there is, it is just not specifically enumerated.

As for your contention that ‘libertarians are anarchists’, that is still an ignorant view of libertarianism and must by definition ignore the second half of the ‘as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others to the same’ part. In other words, you have to define libertarianism as something it is not in order to make that claim, which you do without a second thought, and that pretty much makes your argument invalid before even beginning, which is why we have ‘debated endlessly’ before, because you are doing the equivalent of telling a muslim that he is a terrorist because some muslims are terrorists and there is a small section of muslim law that could be interpreted to suggest it supports it, when taken out of context. Yes, there are capitalist-anarchists that call themselves libertarians, that is no different than communists calling themselves democrats, it doesn’t change what democrats list as their main platforms.

“Rhinehold, take the following: “I have a right to your money because I define that as my right.”

Sorry, David, but that dog does not hunt, because it violates the tennents of libertarianism AND human rights as understood by centuries of philosophy.

However, it does seem to be a good description of the progressive movement… And why they must redefine what a right is and eliminate the protection of some rights for the furthering of their agenda…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #245157

So all you libertarianss riddle me this:
Is driving a right or is driving a privlege? If it is a right then the seat belt thing is unconstitutional. If it is a privlege then what is your beef with the seatbelt laws?
Was transportation one of the inalienable rights in the US Constitution? If so why has it not been challanged and most driving laws overturned or at least questioned in the past 75 years or so?

Another thing I question is this:
“We are a free society. Free to make mistakes and free to suffer the consequenses. That is how it should be and I will accept nothing less.”

How deep does this position go. IN other words if you have a wife and a kid say 8 years old, who determines (using a seatbelt as an example) who wears the seat belt and who doesnt, assuming there are no laws to follow. If your wife decides not to wear a seat belt and you decide it is best does the child wear it every other time or when the child chooses? What happens when you have exercised your freedom to not wear the seat belt but your wife and child have decided to wear a seat belt. Your seriuosly injured(braindead)but still alive, your insurance says no seat belt no pay. Of course being young you havent saved enough to foot the bill to keep you going forever, and because we have all changed into libertarians and have removed any safety net and/or social requirements so we could all be free from taxes at the point of a gun, how do you pay for your upkeep at the 24/7 care facility, a roof over the wife and kids head, your childs necessities and education, etc. Now bear in mind I dont mean you personally because I know once we no longer pay taxes you will save that money and be rich before this happens but Im talking about me the guy that didnt make all the right choices the guy that made a mistake. Now I think I understand as part of accepting the consequences for my actions I will need to pull the plug on my self and I agree with that (afterall I made a mistake not you) who cares how that impacts the wife abd kid , but what about the wife and kid do they get tossed out of the tribe or do they just get their plug pulled as part of accepting the consequences for my actions. This seems to work only for those that are single or it gets real complicated when the whole family is considered doesnt it? See as a grandparent I would find it tough to throw out the grandkids cause the son in law wanted to exercise his freedom to not wear a seatbelt, do drugs, whatever, but then it would seem my freedom to not have to raise his kids because he exercised his freedom has been violated yet the grandkids right to life liberty etc is being violated… I dont know explain how this works in libertarian land to me please.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 12:14 AM
Comment #245162

“Another thing I question is this:
“We are a free society. Free to make mistakes and free to suffer the consequenses. That is how it should be and I will accept nothing less.”

How deep does this position go. IN other words if you have a wife and a kid say 8 years old, who determines (using a seatbelt as an example) who wears the seat belt and who doesnt, assuming there are no laws to follow. If your wife decides not to wear a seat belt and you decide it is best does the child wear it every other time or when the child chooses? What happens when you have exercised your freedom to not wear the seat belt but your wife and child have decided to wear a seat belt. Your seriuosly injured(braindead)but still alive, your insurance says no seat belt no pay. Of course being young you havent saved enough to foot the bill to keep you going forever, and because we have all changed into libertarians and have removed any safety net and/or social requirements so we could all be free from taxes at the point of a gun, how do you pay for your upkeep at the 24/7 care facility, a roof over the wife and kids head, your childs necessities and education, etc. Now bear in mind I dont mean you personally because I know once we no longer pay taxes you will save that money and be rich before this happens but Im talking about me the guy that didnt make all the right choices the guy that made a mistake. Now I think I understand as part of accepting the consequences for my actions I will need to pull the plug on my self and I agree with that (afterall I made a mistake not you) who cares how that impacts the wife abd kid , but what about the wife and kid do they get tossed out of the tribe or do they just get their plug pulled as part of accepting the consequences for my actions. This seems to work only for those that are single or it gets real complicated when the whole family is considered doesnt it? See as a grandparent I would find it tough to throw out the grandkids cause the son in law wanted to exercise his freedom to not wear a seatbelt, do drugs, whatever, but then it would seem my freedom to not have to raise his kids because he exercised his freedom has been violated yet the grandkids right to life liberty etc is being violated… I dont know explain how this works in libertarian land to me please.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 12:14 AM”

WOW!!!, That’s quite a strawman you’ve built there. I’m not about to try to take it apart straw by stray, instead let’s change the scenereo slightly and get your response. Let’s say you missed an insurance payment on your Prius because it’s April 26th and all your money went to pay your taxes, and of course you can’t miss the opening of the new Michael Moore movie that’s opening accross town. You take a chance, after all, you’ve been driving for 15 years now and never had an accident. You have a “safety net” that your taxes paid for and times like this are what it’s for. So you go accross town and have the a serious accident when you run a red light and get hit by the dump truck that disables you for life. Of course being young you havent saved enough to foot the bill to keep you going forever, How do you pay for your upkeep at the 24/7 care facility, a roof over the wife and kids head, your childs necessities and education, etc? Thge rest of your strawman can remain about the same.

I can build a one too.

By the way, I’ve never identified myself as a libetarian, republican, democrat or anything but an American.


You asked what happens to the wife and children in a scenereo as above. I can’t speak for others, and certainly don’t know about your family, but if something catastrophic happen in MY family, the entire family would help no matter the cause. We help each other where I come from, but NOT at the point of a gun, or threat of imprisonment if you perfer

Posted by: BOHICA at February 13, 2008 6:33 AM
Comment #245171

So even if your freedom causes this drain on the family its alright as long as yoju get what you want pure Ayn Rand.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 10:26 AM
Comment #245176

“So even if your freedom causes this drain on the family its alright as long as yoju get what you want pure Ayn Rand.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 10:26 AM”

Well, since you want to drag this strawman this far I’ll respond to this statement, but no others until you address my scenereo to you.

All members of my family agree that personal freedom is paramount to the likelyhood that we will have to support each other. Lets carry out your ideas a little. I used to skydive when I was younger, I have done a little white water rafting during my days, I like to swim in the ocean, fish in the streams and rivers and hunt in the forest. All of these things can be considered dangerous and could leave my family in the same position as you suggest above. Would you outlaw all of my hobbies? After all, My wife and kids will be drained by my actions.

Posted by: BOHICA at February 13, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #245177

Almost all of your freedoms could “cause a drain on the family” J2.
Do we allow others to take them all away because of what may come of them? Isn’t that based on fear? I thought giving up freedoms because of a fear of what may happen, was wrong?

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #245179


Soon, your car will have the ability to snitch you out. It will tell your insurance company that you aren’t wearing your seatbelt. Your insurance company will cancel your insurance and the state will revoke your license. You will pay major fines, increased insurance premiums and swear on a bible to wear your seatbelt, to get your license back. That goes for speeding as well. Rental cars can snitch you out for that now.

Before long, “Big Brother” will be watching you, watching you all. If you are doing nothing wrong, nothing that will raise the premiums or the prices for everyone else, then you have nothing to fear.

If you are cruising along at 85mph in a 55mph zone and your excessive speed causes an accident that maimes or kills people in the other vehicles, do you think they really care if the act that terrorized their lives was caused by an idiot rather than a suicide bomber?

Posted by: jlw at February 13, 2008 11:18 AM
Comment #245185

j2t2

“So all you libertarianss riddle me this:
Is driving a right or is driving a privlege?”

ok i’ll bite. it’s a privilege.


now you riddle me this:

is eating a right or a privilege?

Posted by: dbs at February 13, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #245229

dbs, depends on what or whom is being eaten, doesn’t it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #245232

Rhinehold said: “There is nothing nebulous about centuries of detailed human rights though philosophy and law.”

Sorry, bub, but philosophy isn’t enforceable under our Constitution, only law is enforceable. Last I checked, the only legal rights defined in law are the Bill of Rights and subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

Your reference to rights is “NEBULOUS”, as in extending beyond defined legal rights. A right isn’t a right if it is not enforceable under law. Which is another way of saying a person may deprive another of anything without legal retribution provided what they took is not protected by law.

Point in fact, abortion. Many view the fetus’ rights to life as paramount to a woman’s right to choose whether or not to become a mother. But, abortions occur without consequence because the law fails to acknowledge such a blanket right extended to fetuses. Hence, fetuses are routinely aborted by natural causes and women’s choices without consequence. Ergo, it cannot be defined as a right. Legal Rights have recourse when violated.

One can claim to have a right to not be offended by the flatulence of another on public transportation. But, it isn’t really a right, it is a preference. Hence, you once again attempt to define terms to suit your argument, rather than speak a language everyone else understands by common reference. This is a particularly worn tactic used by Ron Paul as well and the reason he has no credibility with the American people save for a few percent on the margins.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #245236

Rhinehold said: “As for your contention that ‘libertarians are anarchists’, that is still an ignorant view of libertarianism and must by definition ignore the second half of the ‘as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others to the same’ part.”

Tis you who does not understand the weak position of the Libertarian view. Not surprising, you claim to be one. Any law of any kind passed to benefit some in the society, will inescapably infringe upon other person’s perceived right to not be infringed upon.

Classic Libertarian example: Taxes. The majority consent to them. A minority insists it is their right to not pay for the decisions of others regardless of their majority status.

This libertarian assertion that individuals have a right to keep all of what they earn, both negates democratic and republican forms of government constituting majority consensus for government, and completely advocates for the basic anarchy principle that each person is on their own and are entitled to whatever their might, smarts, or clever designs are capable of garnering unto themselves, everyone else be damned.

Government of a people by definition requires the people support the cost of government and government decisions. A great many Libertarians are anti-government since they oppose subsidizing government by mandate, which is of course, the only way to insure all who benefit from government pay for government. Libertarians insist on being exempted from such structures. Ergo, Libertarians are anti-government. Anti-government by law and mandate is by definition, anarchy.

I know this intrinsically logical treatment of the subject will not change your view, but, perhaps it will expose to others finding some attraction to Ron Paul types, the fallacy of their arguments and compensatory defenses.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #245240
Last I checked, the only legal rights defined in law are the Bill of Rights and subsequent Supreme Court rulings

And, the 9th amendment says…

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So… YOU are saying that since they are not enumerated, they do not exist. Which goes directly against what the 9th amendment says. By stating that the citizens retain rights not enumerated, the amendment is clearly stating that those rights exist, correct?

How do you reconcile that, David?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #245241

Rhinehold, “others retained by the people” refers to rights the people shall define through the legislative process like Income Taxes was.

They exist, because they have become the law of the people through government legislation. A woman has a right to choose, because that is the law.

Hope this helps you understand the words of the Constitution a bit better. “Others retained by the people” is either undefined and “NEBULOUS” as you illogically interpret the words, or that phrase refers to other rights AS DEFINED by the people through their Congress. The latter is of course the correct understanding. Check out any non-libertarian text or Supreme Court rulings on the subject and your enlightenment on these particular words will be well-served.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:39 PM
Comment #245242

Just to inject a bit of humor Rhinehold, I assert that I have certain rights, but, I won’t tell anyone what they are. Just how in reality am I supposed to ask others to respect these unenumerated rights before enumerating them?

See the complete failure of the logic of your interpretation? Rights undefined are no rights to be observed at all. Ergo, before enumeration, they are not rights, at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #245245
Government of a people by definition requires the people support the cost of government and government decisions.

Yes, correct.

A great many Libertarians are anti-government since they oppose subsidizing government by mandate, which is of course, the only way to insure all who benefit from government pay for government.

No, most Libertarians are all for funding government, they just do not think that the size of government should be as large as it is, since it should be limited to the areas the Constitution dicates AND should be defending our rights, not walking all over them.

And they do not feel that an INCOME tax is moral. Hence, funding the government in other ways should be utilized, especially when a direct one for one funding can be utilized. Like our interstate system and other roads being paid for by a gasoline tax. That is the best way to ensure that those that USE the resource pay for it. Property taxes for local municipalities, etc.

Libertarians insist on being exempted from such structures. Ergo, Libertarians are anti-government. Anti-government by law and mandate is by definition, anarchy.

That statement is completely invalid and again, goes to the point of you having no actual idea what Libertarianism is about by making that statement, instead you invent what you think it is about and argue against it. Straw Men really don’t help if you are actually trying to debate honestly and get a resolution out of the discussion.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 5:44 PM
Comment #245246
Rhinehold, “others retained by the people” refers to rights the people shall define through the legislative process like Income Taxes was.

So, that was the purpose of the 9th Amendment? Interesting… let’s cast back and see what the poeple who WROTE the amendment have to say…

James Madison wrote:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Sorry David, but it is YOU who are making inventions since what James Madison says goes directly against what YOU assert the 9th amendment says.

Again, David, how do you reconcile?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #245248

Rhinehold said: “No, most Libertarians are all for funding government, they just do not think that the size of government should be as large as it is,”

It is pointless debating with you Rhinehold when you make things up like this with total abandon. Many Libertarians oppose taxation. Read the Libertarian blog comments left by self-proclaimed Libertarians. It’s an eye opener as to what Libertarians actually believe.

If you want to speak for your self in saying YOU believe government should be funded by the people, fine. But, don’t elect yourself Speaker for all self-proclaimed Libertarians, many of whom hold an entirely different view.

If memory serves me correctly, you yourself in these very WB archives have argued that the 19th Amendment was a violation of Libertarian principles, and Unconstitutional. Have you now had a change of mind on that perspective? Or are you again, just pulling out of thin air anything that you think will advance your counterpoint?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #245249
See the complete failure of the logic of your interpretation? Rights undefined are no rights to be observed at all. Ergo, before enumeration, they are not rights, at all.

No, the failure is misunderstanding the purpose of the Constitution. It was not, as you attest, a listing of the limits of the rights that citizens obtain from the government, all else being free to the government as deemed necessary. It was rather a document listing the hard limits that government had to work within, since in the view of the writers, the rights people retained were not issued by the government and therefore could not be revoked. These were ‘Natural Rights’ and an rudementary understanding of the writing of the constitution details this.

In fact, it is the right to Privacy that we have, which is not detailed in the constitution anywhere, that is a prime example of what I am talking about. It is found, as the Supreme Court has shown, in the 9th amendment, just as I detail.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #245252
It is pointless debating with you Rhinehold when you make things up like this with total abandon. Many Libertarians oppose taxation. Read the Libertarian blog comments left by self-proclaimed Libertarians. It’s an eye opener as to what Libertarians actually believe.

If you want to speak for your self in saying YOU believe government should be funded by the people, fine. But, don’t elect yourself Speaker for all self-proclaimed Libertarians, many of whom hold an entirely different view.

LOL, David, do you understand the legal difference between tax and ‘duties and fees’?

To say that Libertarians do not want the government ‘funded’ because they argue against taxation is to not only completely miss the point but to misrepresent what is being discussed.

Anarchy is NOT part of the Libertarian Party Platform, as we have detailed in the past, yet you continue to make your ignorant arguement based on Straw Man techinques.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #245255

Rhinehold, your arguments are absurd on their face.

The Constitution, creates a Congress which can enumerate additional rights of, for, and by the people. It is to that power the Founders refer when speaking of certain other unenumerated rights which implied quite directly that such rights would be defined by law by the Congress as the people warrant.

You just utterly fail to comprehend why rights no one knows about, can’t possibly be rights others must observe. The chasm of this lack of comprehension in your comments is truly remarkable. But, as the old saying goes, one can lead another to knowledge but, one cannot make the other understand it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #245256

David, you are the one detailing what the ‘Founders’ meant, yet when displayed what they actually meant, you ignore it and still profess to make the exact opposite assertion.

And you call my arguments, the detailing of what the intentions of the Founders actually were, as being absurd, holds about as much weight as your re-interpretation of the purpose of the 9th amendment.

Where in the Constitution is the right to Privacy, David? Do we have one or not? Is it enumerated or not?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment #245262

Rhinehold, don’t dodge my questions with questions of your own.

HOW can an undefined right be a right to be protected from trespass by others?

Your evasion says it all about your recognizing the illogical foundation of your comments while attempting to hide the fact. ANSWER THE QUESTION! Everything else you have to say is evasion of the fundamental flaw in your entire argument.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #245265

The Libertarian Party Platform implies anarchy to anyone capable of carrying the platform to its logical conclusions. And the Libertarian Platform no more represents the views of all Libertarians than the GOP platform represents the views of all Republicans.

The difference is what people say and what they do when given power. Libertarians say what will make their Party acceptable for public consumption. Ron Paul is the most Libertarian candidate most people are aware of and his agenda is not Libertarian at all.

Nor is yours by having previously attempted to argue that the 19th Amendment was unconstitutional. It was constitutional by virtue of its adoption by Constitutional means.

But answer the question. HOW can an undefined right be a right to be protected from trespass by others?

The obvious answer exposes the illogical foundation of your argument.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #245268

BOHICA I dont consider it to be a strawman at all. Im trying to ascertain what this Country would be like should the libertarian platform become the predominate rule of the land. I gave an example assuming that any social safety net that would involve taxes would become a thing of the past. Sort of like say 1800 America. No social security and such. I beleive this is the direction libertarians would like to head with this Country. So stop me if Im wrong but that is how I see it now.
However lets disregard the scenario I have described and discuss the question at hand:
“How deep does this position go.” The position of which I speak is “free to make mistakes and free to suffer the consequences”. Now I understand today there are government programs and SSN to draw from should I suffer the consequences of my actions. However in libertarian land there would not be. Your decisions have a profound affect upon your family. To what level of family does the consequences reach with possible life changing results? How does your decision intrude upon the freedom of other members of your family. Why would you object to something like SSN as a safety net for those that would suffer such traumatic consequences?

“All members of my family agree that personal freedom is paramount to the likelyhood that we will have to support each other. Lets carry out your ideas a little. I used to skydive when I was younger, I have done a little white water rafting during my days, I like to swim in the ocean, fish in the streams and rivers and hunt in the forest. All of these things can be considered dangerous and could leave my family in the same position as you suggest above. Would you outlaw all of my hobbies?”
BOHICA I dont want to take away any of your hobbies. I also would not want to see your kids paying off the consequences of you actions should tragedy befall you. But Im not in the libertarian camp. I support the government providing a social safety net for just such an occurance. I also support “socialized medicine as they have in Canada or France and SSSI. While I also think federal taxes are to high I dont think it is because of these programs, nor do I think these programs violate any of my rights nor are they unconstitutional. But thats just me.

dbs no need to bite just wondering :
If it is a privlege then what is your beef with the seatbelt laws? I dont see a loss of rights here what am I missing?
Eating is a necessity so I would consider that to be an unalienable right. But thats me. Guess that means if I cant feed myself then the government needs to make sure my rights are not violated doesnt it. Of course then your rights are violated if you have to pay taxes, such a complication isnt it. Whose rights are greater your right to not have to pay by force or my right to eat?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 9:04 PM
Comment #245269

jlw said “Before long, “Big Brother” will be watching you, watching you all. If you are doing nothing wrong, nothing that will raise the premiums or the prices for everyone else, then you have nothing to fear.”

jlw isnt this the insurance companies and not the government doing this? Should it be Big Business not Big Brother ?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 9:11 PM
Comment #245272
Rhinehold, don’t dodge my questions with questions of your own.

And yet you fail to answer my question twice now.

HOW can an undefined right be a right to be protected from trespass by others?

There is a difference between a right that government is charged to protect and those that are retained by the citizens from abuse by the government.

I use the example of Privacy, that you ignore more than once, to detail a right that the citizens retain and once ruled upon Constitutionally can be enforced by government.

ANSWER THE QUESTION! Everything else you have to say is evasion of the fundamental flaw in your entire argument.

David, you fail to accept that the right to privacy does not exist as an enumerated right in the Constitution but the Supreme Court has stated that it exists. It is a direct example of what I am stating, yet you ignore it. I’ve answered your question, will you answer mine? I suspect not…

Do US citizens have a right to privacy or not? If so, where is it defined, or do you join the Bork camp of calling the 9th amendment an ink blot?

The Libertarian Party Platform implies anarchy to anyone capable of carrying the platform to its logical conclusions.

Bullshit. Just because you state it it does not make it fact and the REALITY is that the Libertarian Party Platform requires a government to defend the rights detailed in it, which makes it illogical to state what you state. Not that that is anything new, your constant illogical attacks on the Libertarian party is old.

Libertarians say what will make their Party acceptable for public consumption. Ron Paul is the most Libertarian candidate most people are aware of and his agenda is not Libertarian at all.

Ron Paul is for making abortion illegal, it is not libertarian. You even admit to that and then say he is representing the Libertarian thought, THEN go on to say that the platform of the party doesn’t represent what the party believes. You sound like an anti-global warming nut or 9/11 truther conspiracy freak, David, when you twist so much to try to make reality fit your preconcieved attack on a philosphy that you can’t even grasp, as evidenced by your constant mistating of the party principles.

Nor is yours by having previously attempted to argue that the 19th Amendment was unconstitutional. It was constitutional by virtue of its adoption by Constitutional means.

You need to go back and reread what was said, David, because you are completely off base. I defended others for saying it was unconstitutional, I also stated during that debate that it is the current law of the land even though there are those that do believe it is unconstitutional. Much like there are those that believe the Patriot Act or Rico Statutes are unconstitutional, yet they accept that they are the law of the land and should be followed until such a time as they can be turned back or retried. Even *YOU* stated that just because a ruling was made doesn’t make it right when you suggested bringing arms against the government with their emminent domain decision.

But answer the question. HOW can an undefined right be a right to be protected from trespass by others?

The only party that can use force on another person is the government. Therefore, as long as we have in law that one can not use force on another, those rights are intact and protected because of that. It is the government that must be prevented from violating those rights because they CAN cross that use of force line. And the 9th amendment makes it clear that just because a right is not enumerated, that doesn’t mean that the government can violate those rights.

“the Ninth Amendment refers to “a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law….a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law”

“Originalist Randy Barnett has argued that the Ninth Amendment requires what he calls a presumption of liberty. Other originalists, such as Thomas B. McAffee, have argued that the Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated “residuum” of rights which the federal government was never empowered to violate.[9] Constitutional historian Jon Roland has argued,[10] that the Ninth Amendment included by reference all of the rights proposed by the state ratifying conventions, in addition to those enumerated in the first eight amendments.”

“It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights….that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse”

I’ve answered it (though you will no doubt not like it), now you answer my question.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 9:26 PM
Comment #245273
Now I understand today there are government programs and SSN to draw from should I suffer the consequences of my actions. However in libertarian land there would not be.

No, there would be no governmental programs, but there would be other programs, with money offered up free of will, not by the force of a gun.

For example, I am a disabled veteran, yet I do not accept any money from the government because of this designation. The money comes from the pockets of others against their will and not directly attributable to that effect, so I feel it is immoral to accept that.

However, were there a private organization that offered support to veterans that people freely gave money to to support people like me, I would accept that if the organization felt I deserved it.

It is argued (and I’m sure it will be by you) that people will not get help with private charity. Funny thing is, there are people who do not get help with governmental forced charity as well, but we don’t talk about that do we (how many homeless are there now?)

BUT, to alay fears, how about you accept this proposition. Let’s figure out how much of an individual’s tax dollar goes to these ‘safety nets’. THEN, let’s offer citizens a 1 to 1 tax deferrment for each dollar they give to charity up until that amount. Will you accept that direction? Or do you feel that forced charitable funding is the only way to resolve the issue of helping people (badly, I might add, from the looks of it)?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 9:32 PM
Comment #245281

Rhinehold It would seem this proposal for a 1 to 1 deferrment for charity dollars would just serve to confuse a tax system that is already disfunctional. Not that I am in disagreement with your solution. BTW Once you had your deferrment for the charity issue then I would want one for the military dollars I give in Taxes. Now Im not saying a 1 to 1 deferrment because I dont mind paying my fair share however I do beleive the federal government could provide for the defense of this country at half the cost of what we are paying. I also think that when we go invade other countries for oil rights the corporations that gain from this should foot the bill for the costs associated with securing the country and oil fields. So Im willing to do a 2 for 1 deferrment for this portion of the federal tax I pay.
Maybe instead of all the grumbling we should have a flat tax and a check off column for where we want our tax dollars to go. Then our elected reps could configure the federal budget based on input from we the people. But then what would we have to grumble about.
Forced charity funding, what strong words. But to answer your question no I dont think “forced charity is the only way to accomplish the task at hand. However I do believe it is a good base from which to start the task. “Unforced charity” can be the icing on the cake, so to speak, of the dollars that go to help those in need. I would doubt that “unforced charity” alone would solve the problem as both forced and unforced charity dont seem to do it today. I also dont see how it would work as a stand alone system if the combined systems dont satisfy the demand. Especially since charitable contributions are already tax deductible, which I would assume acts as an incentive to contribute to the worthy causes of our choice.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2008 11:12 PM
Comment #245283

j2t2,

It doesn’t work now because money is not the issue.

We, as Americans, are not worried about solving the problem, only how we can redistribute more wealth and use the issue to political gain.

As for ‘forced charity’ being harsh, I’m not sure how, since that is what it is, exactly. It is not a different way of looking at it, it is what it is.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2008 11:17 PM
Comment #245304

Rhinehold: Your reply is pathetically devoid of an answer to my question. Changing the subject is not answering the question.

HOW can an undefined right be a right to be protected from trespass by others?
There is a difference between a right that government is charged to protect and those that are retained by the citizens from abuse by the government.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #245305

Rhinehold said: “David, you fail to accept that the right to privacy does not exist as an enumerated right in the Constitution but the Supreme Court has stated that it exists.”

Again, your comments uneducated and ignorance of what the Supreme Court has said on this topic makes only one response possible. Go learn about what you speak. Privacy is an implied right of the Constitution so says the Supreme Court, as it underpins the protection of the enumerated rights.

Your comment’s ignorance is too tedious to continue to attempt to educate, so, I will just factually refute that ignorance when it appears, as in the paragraph above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 10:45 AM
Comment #245315

“As for ‘forced charity’ being harsh, I’m not sure how, since that is what it is, exactly. It is not a different way of looking at it, it is what it is.”

Rhinehold every law is by nature “forced” at the point of a gun if you will. How would you enforce laws in libertarian land? Voluntary compliance only works on some of us much like a lock only keeps the honest people out. Why is it only tax related laws earn the “forced” moniker and not forced DUI laws, forced burgulary laws, etc.?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #245317

“It doesn’t work now because money is not the issue.

We, as Americans, are not worried about solving the problem, only how we can redistribute more wealth and use the issue to political gain.”

Rhinehold I agree money doesnt solve all problems but then “unforced charity” is no answer then. Money is the tool we use to help those less fortunate, and by that I mean accident victims and such not 2nd and 3rd generation welfare types if they still exist.
In this day and age what political gain is to be had by wanting to help those less fortunate? It seems to be a detriment now and used like a hammer by those that consider taxes to be wealth redistribution to gain political clout.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #245324

j2t2

i have no problem with disclosure. if you use trans fats, list it like i described earlier. however you make the point that you should not have to actually enter the establishment to find out. why should the owner have to put it in the window simply because you don’t want to be inconvenienced? you have the right to choose not to enter if it’s not posted in the window. however if you were to go in and ask the owner would tell you. you could call ahead, or ask before you sit down. should the owner also have to list it in a phone book, or internet add, when you can very easily pick up the phone? disclosure is fine, but expecting someone else to be legaly bound to do your homework for you is not.

Posted by: dbs at February 14, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #245332

dbs You would think that this would not have to be legislated to accomplish such an easy thing as identifing transfats if you use them at your restaurant. Unfortunately the resistance to such a simple thing as notifying your customers you are substituting transfats for cream or butter makes laws necessary. Sad but true.
But lets think this out, why would I want to be notified before entering the restaurant that they serve transfats? Well lets take a typical trip to the restaurant . I enter the restaurant and am greeted by the hostess who leads me to my table and asks anything to drink sir. Well I then say coffee please as I take off my coat and sit down. Well a few minutes later here comes the buss boy with coffee and the sugar and cream holder. To my dismay its not really cream nor half and half its transfats. Well dbs who pays for the coffee when I walk out of the restaurant? Them or me. Now try this the next time your at a resraurant ask them if they serve cream for the copffee. 8 out of 10 waitresses will say yes. Over half will be wrong because its transfats they are seving. I just want a meal I dont want to be a detective. Put the sign out front and its done. What are you hiding it for if you have made the determination to serve it then be proud of your actions and accept the consequences of your actions. Afterall I accept the responsibility to not use the stuff why is it so unlibertarian for the Owner of the restaurant to accept the responsibility that comes with his right to serve the stuff?
Just put a sign out front. I dont want to and should not have to get into the restaurant and in the process of ordering food to find out that you have switched to transfats . When is the last time someone has asked you “transfats and sugar with that coffee sir?” Its always cream and sugar isnt it. When you ask for a coke and they serve a pepsi arent you notified upfront? Is lying about what you serve acceptable to the libertarians?

Seems to me you guys are all about fighting for the right to serve the stuff to strangers then blame the strangers for it. Yet when the stranger gets mad starts a SIG and fights to ban the stuff completely your the first to complain about the loss of your rights. Maybe its the extreme ideology getting in the way of using your head and notifying the customers at the front door and allowing everybody to have their rights upheld.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2008 4:11 PM
Comment #245334

j2t2

“Guess that means if I cant feed myself then the government needs to make sure my rights are not violated doesnt it.”

if that means to making sure no one tries to pass a law making it illegal for you to eat what you choose, then yes.


“Whose rights are greater your right to not have to pay by force or my right to eat?”

your right to eat does not obligate me to pay for your food if you are not able to provide it for yourself, only that you have the right to consume whatever you choose so long as you do no harm to anyone else in the process.

Posted by: dbs at February 14, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #245336

j2t2

“I enter the restaurant and am greeted by the hostess who leads me to my table and asks anything to drink sir. Well I then say coffee please as I take off my coat and sit down.”

since it’s you that is concerned about consuming trans fat, logicaly your next question would be; do you use real cream, or a substitute containing trans fat? real simple. if it’s noted on the menu , then all you have to do is ask that they prepare it for you with out the offending product, just like you would if you didn’t want MSG, i do this in chineese restaurants where they tend to use it in everything, it’s called being proactive. the problem is you want someone else to babysit you so you don’t have to ask. where does your personal responsibility start, and someone elses responsibility to babysit you end?

Posted by: dbs at February 14, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #245344

dbs I see why it must always come to a law to force the issue. We as individuals would rather argue about whose perceived rights are being violated rather than to assume reponsibility for our own actions. Your perceived right to put transfats into something you are serving to me and I am paying for doesnt really exist because it violates my right to not eat it. So keep fighting for your rights to transfats and I will fight for the law that bans them completely. How silly it has to come to that, yet when people are so full of themselves as you and I are in this case then I guess we can expect to have these SIG’s and nuisance laws to continue. Who knows I might even be able to get a good lawyer to sue your restaurant for slowly poisioning me and end up as part owner with you.:)
Then I would put the sign out front that this restaurant proudly serves real cream and butter not the transfat stuff. :)

“since it’s you that is concerned about consuming trans fat, logicaly your next question would be; do you use real cream, or a substitute containing trans fat? real simple.”
dbs re read the part about the waitress not knowing about half the time for the answer to this question.

“the problem is you want someone else to babysit you so you don’t have to ask. where does your personal responsibility start, and someone elses responsibility to babysit you end?” Its not really a matter of babysitting dbs it IMHO is more a matter of the Owner accepting responsibility for his actions and notifing me of his intentions of substituting near plastic in lieu of real cream to save himself a couple of pennies at my expense. It is in fact a simple common couretsy that the Owner should do to keep his customers happy. Do you think it benefits the Owner to have me there and start a big scene at his restaurant over not wanting to pay for the cofee? My responsibility is to not put the stuff into my body. If this place serves it and nothing else then its my responsiblity to go someplace else or stay and order sometning different. It seems you think only one person has a responsibility here but lets say its a poison in lieu of a transfat does the owner still not have a responsibility to notify me so I can make the decision to injest or not injest the substance? If its a matter of degrees where do you draw the line. To me its this simple, if the Owner has the right to serve the transfat then he has the responsibility to inform me of the fact. To wait until Im inside and sitting down makes it seem like Im babysitting him and he is not accepting responsibility for his actions.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #245351

j2t2

first you equate transfat with poison. while in large quatities, and eaten frequently it may be unhealthy, poison is not really an accurate term. many things in consumed in large quatities could then be called poison, alcohol comes to mind. when we talk about poison we generally mean something intended to do harm as in arsenic, cyanide. in that case you should be warned. i personally don’t know of, or have i ever heard of a restaurant that serves either, maybe if it were run by jim jones.

you then go on to say the waitress may not know the answer to your question. in that case ask for someone who does, or just say real milk or real cream please, disaster averted. i’ve stated that posting the fact in plain sight on the menu should suffice, but that would inconvenience you, and argue that you would refuse to pay for your coffee. would this be before or after you dump the creamer in it, and if you stated in the first place that you wanted real creamer, then why would you not want to pay for the coffee? you see you are responsible for knowing what you can and can’t have. many people are allergic to certain foods should all ingredients in each recipe also be posted on the window along with preparation techniques? maybe you should just ask, is there peanuts in that? is there shelfish in that? if we follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion, we would need extremely large window, or a set of books on every table that resemble a complete set of encyclopedias, in wich case most people would just ask rather that take the time search all the volumes.

sounds like a classic case of lazy.

“Who knows I might even be able to get a good lawyer to sue your restaurant for slowly poisioning me and end up as part owner with you.:)”

this would only be possible if you ate there for decades with out ever asking the all important question( at least in your eyes )do you use trans fats in your food preparation? in which case it would then be your own fault as i would have noted it on the menu, but you didn’t enquire any further. ;) CASE DISMISSED!

Posted by: dbs at February 14, 2008 7:19 PM
Comment #245361

dbs, You are missing the point here but lets keep going.

“first you equate transfat with poison.”

What I said was “It seems you think only one person has a responsibility here but lets say its a poison in lieu of a transfat does the owner still not have a responsibility to notify me so I can make the decision to injest or not injest the substance? If its a matter of degrees where do you draw the line. To me its this simple, if the Owner has the right to serve the transfat then he has the responsibility to inform me of the fact. To wait until Im inside and sitting down makes it seem like Im babysitting him and he is not accepting responsibility for his actions.”

So Im not equating the two, Im substituting poison for transfats and asking at what point does the reponsibility transfer from me to the Owner in your mind. I then explained how I felt about it.

“you then go on to say the waitress may not know the answer to your question. in that case ask for someone who does, or just say real milk or real cream please, disaster averted.” dbs Im actually speaking from experience as I have been avoiding transfats for several years now. During that time I have ate at restaurants to many times to count in many different cities in at least 10 states that come to mind. Without a doubt I can tell you that each and every restaurant will claim its half and half not transfats. Yet at least 6 out of 10 times it will be transfats. Also once again at least half of the waitstaff doesnt know the answer. Not only that if they only have the little containers they do not have any half and half, its one or the other at least 7 out of 10 times. Im not Lazy nor do I need babysitting by the restaurant. I usually do what you have said as fas as asking someone else. But once again why does the owner want the confrontation and the possible disruption of other customers in lieu of an easy fix to the problem?

“then why would you not want to pay for the coffee?” because Im going somewhere else to eat. I couldnt get anything but transfats, I dont want black coffee so they leave me no choice.

The other items you mention are different than transfats because transfats are not good for anyone whereas the other items are problems for a small minority of people that are allergic to them.

But once again the real issue is why the confrontation over something so easy to fix. Why do you think the Owner has rights but no responsibility untill it reaches a certain level of “poison” or a certain level of time to cause damage?

“Who knows I might even be able to get a good lawyer…”
“this would only be possible if you ate there for decades…” yes I know it was a joke not meant to be taken seriousy. I wouldnt really sue over it. I dont want your restaurant.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2008 9:22 PM
Comment #245364

j2t2

“What I said was “It seems you think only one person has a responsibility here”

where did i say that? i said the fact should be listed on the menu, thats your notification. you think it should be on the door, i say as long as it’s brought to your attention before you order thats sufficient.

“Without a doubt I can tell you that each and every restaurant will claim its half and half not transfats. Yet at least 6 out of 10 times it will be transfats.”

so you can tell the difference? ok, in that case they say it’s half and half, but it’s actually a substitute that contains trans fats. you have a right to be angry. you were lied to. that isn’t what we’re talking about here though. we’re assuming you told them you want half and half, and thats what they should give you.

““then why would you not want to pay for the coffee?” because Im going somewhere else to eat. I couldnt get anything but transfats”

you took my statement out of context. if you asked for, well you know, and you got what you asked for, why make a scene. thats actually what i said.

“Why do you think the Owner has rights but no responsibility untill it reaches a certain level of “poison” or a certain level of time to cause damage?”

i thought it was you who originaly refered to it as poison, if ti wasn’t i apologize, but i was using it as an example. the owners responsability is to tell you before you order. you’re the one that demands it be before you enter the establishment. either way your told before you actually order or eat.

” yes I know it was a joke not meant to be taken seriousy.”

i’m aware it was a joke i was putting my own little spin on it.

“I dont want your restaurant.”

thats good because i don’t have one.

Posted by: dbs at February 14, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #245376

What a long and strange trip this tread has taken to reach the uninspiring position of arguing over the price of a cup of coffee.

To weigh in the real world of consumable goods first (remember we did want some coffee):
I would view any coffee from a restaurant that couldn’t round up some actual half and half with a jaundiced eye anyway figuring that it probably was so far removed from actual ground beans that granting it a status of drinkable was questionable at best.

From a practical viewpoint: I would expect that after living this many years, I would have entered the establishment with a preformed expectation of the likelihood of receiving non-swill coffee with real cream, ideally a ceramic cup. If this is an important quality of life issue for me, then it behooves me to develop the skills to anticipate the possibility of success. It seems infinitely easier for me to develop the skill package to meet my quality of life issues than to farm this mission out to an external government agency. If I was in error, I would note this and adjust my model of expectations as I assume any thinking being does. I would probably accept the cost of the coffee as penalty for having a faulty model of reality.

Finally, on the abstract level:
Give me break. We are not discussing the disposition of nuclear waste, this issue falls slightly above the tempest in a teapot raised over wearing too much cologne at a City Council meeting. In times of actual societal stress, I expect we will all be more occupied with issues import, than the proper procedure for posting transfat usage notices.

Good night citizens.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 15, 2008 4:17 AM
Comment #245449

Dawn,

I agree on the absurdity (and atrocity) of police-state type laws that take away freedom of choice, such as barring obese people from restaurants.
However, (in regards to things like trans fats) please don’t confuse keeping toxic materials out of the food supply with disrespecting individual choice, which is what those with less than honorable intentions want us to think. On the contrary, it’s about ownership of your body and health and being free from being slowly poisoned without your knowledge or consent. Trans fat for example really is a poison, it’s not just something natural that’s not good for you if you get too much. Medical researchers now even quite bluntly say NO amount of trans fats have a proper place in the human diet. Trans fatty acids are not a natural product and they have no benefit for the consumer. They simply provide convenience, save costs, and have a longer shelf life for those selling it. If you look into this matter more, you’ll find out there are many, many other things just as bad which likely play a large part in the obesity epidemic and America’s health decline. Some like MSG might even make trans fats look innocent. MSG is a hidden ingredient often in nearly all processed junk food. It causes people to eat more, wreaks havoc with their health, and is basically the food industry’s nicotine. Anyone interested more in this type of thing might try reading “The Hundred Year Lie” which details some of the ways synthetic chemicals in the food supply and environment cause tremendous harm to all of us.

I believe in individual responsibilty, however I also believe in responsibility on the part of food manufacturers. This means we should have the right to know what we are putting in our bodies and to not be poisoned without our consent (thus manufacturers should accurately label what they put in their food). To argue that they are completely innocent to me is like saying if a waiter served you a cup of coffee and dropped some radioactive waste in it, then arguing since you paid for and drank it with your own free will it’s really your fault. This is of course extreme but it’s not too dissimilar to what goes on.

Also, I understand your concern with food nannyists but I think this is smokescreen. The big problem in America is the exact opposite, a corrupt FDA colluding with corrupt food conglomerates to help them maximize their profits at the expense of the public. In America we’re not in danger of “nagging nannies” who have good intentions but are too restrictive, but swindlers who want us fat, dumb, and happy and to just shut up and consume their products with glee. And face it, with over half the US population now overweight, if restaurants here actually banned fat people, they’d all go out of business!

Posted by: mark at February 16, 2008 1:12 AM
Comment #245454

dbs,

“whats next? outlaw red meat because overconsumption may have harmful side effects? the point is we don’t need the nanny state telling us what we can and can’t eat. every time these do gooders pass another law to protect us from ouselves they also take away a little more of our freedom to decide our own fate, for better or worse.”

Our society is NOT being run by ignorant do-gooders who essentially mean well. No one is proposing outlawing eating meat. I think the point may be that it seems a little odd for libertarians to be so concerned about little things like this but not far worse things that really threaten freedom, as well as our future, thus not seeing the forest for the trees. Sort of like how all the “libertarian” think tanks claim any measure to ameliorate global warming will end in a police state (as if we aren’t already there), yet they say absolutely nothing about the patriot act, or the fact that Bush has ended the bill of rights, etc. It’s all a scam to get people worked up over non-existent (and if existent, powerless) do-gooders pushing non-existent measures, while the real crimes are being committed by those the fictional “nagging nannies” oppose. And it’s amazing how some will always side with obviously corrupt con men over the people they harm, as long as it’s framed in “free market” terms.

Posted by: mark at February 16, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #245478

mark, spot on comments. It seems that the libertarians believe in personal responsibility until you incorporate and then you enter the realm of the “free market” and responsibility for your actions as they apply to others is no longer required. Seems when they say responsibility they think it only applies to the corporate responsibility to maximize profits not the corporate responsibility to consider the effects of their products on the consumers of this world. But then what the hell responsibility to others gets in the way of your rights, what a nuisance.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #245493

mark

first off, i never said i was a libertarian. i also never stated my opinion of the patriot act. why not just adress my comment? do all democrats agree on every issue? you’ll notice i’m adressing you and your post, not trying to demonize an entire party, or political philosophy. give it a shot. i stated that the use of trans fats in food preparation should be disclosed. if you choose not to consume them, you should know if they’re present so you can make that decision.

the red meat was an example. french fries could be another. ANYTHING in excess can be harmful. that doesn’t mean it should be made illegal. trying to control the choices of others in order to save them from themselves is nonsense.

Posted by: dbs at February 16, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #245561

dbs said: “ANYTHING in excess can be harmful. that doesn’t mean it should be made illegal.”

It does if the excess impinges upon the safety, prosperity, or well being of others. Hence, the fact that safety belts reduce the costs to others for insurance, and ER treatment of those injured without insurance, has a justifiable logic in the protection of prosperity of others.

Mandated auto insurance is another example. Choice over auto insurance directly harms the prosperity of others who are victims of an uninsured driver. Alcohol abuse while driving is yet another. There are a host of examples where choice has the consequence of depriving others of life, liberty, or property without consent or due process, and hence, such choice can be, and should be, legitimately limited for the general welfare of the entire population.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 17, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #245565

david

“There are a host of examples where choice has the consequence of depriving others of life, liberty, or property without consent or due process, and hence, such choice can be, and should be, legitimately limited for the general welfare of the entire population.”

this could be said of all most anything, and this argument could then be used to justify the infringement of individual rights by gov’t in the name of serving the greater good. i’m sorry david but trying to control someones diet, because they may become obese and somehow become a drain on society is not a legitimate argument. this could then be expanded to include sexual behavior, and a host of other activities, and would be subject to the whim of whomever is in power, and the flavor of the day. the bill of rights was designed to protect the rights of individuals from the will of the majority. do you believe that the protection against unlawful search and seizure can be taken away if the majority wills it? remember the founders believed that our rights originated from our creator, not gov’t, therefore the gov’t, or the will of the majority if you prefer, does not have the right to infringe, or take them away in the name of the greater good. this is a socialist concept.

Posted by: dbs at February 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Comment #245585

I guess this all leads up to the question…is eating out a right or a privledge?????

Personally I think all this hooplah over restaraunts is silly…one would be lead to believe that unless you eat out, you will starve..eat at home and then this debate is over and done with. I tend to believe that if you are eating out 3 squares…then you should be treated like us smokers…no sympathy. But, heres the real deal….if someone has health problems because of obesity, I’m guessing hey are just as irresponsible at home as they are when they eat out…….HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY LEGISLATE ON THAT?

Posted by: Traci at February 18, 2008 2:31 AM
Comment #245604

traci, depends on where you go to eat doesnt it? If you go to a restaurant in liberal land or libertarian land the answer may differ. The issue is more about rights and responsibilities. So if the owner has the right to put harmful ingredients into the food he serves does he have the responsibility to notify you prior to eating it or entering the establishment. Does that responsibility change depending upon the degree to which the ingredient is harmful? What about your responsibility to take care of yourself, at the restaurant what rights and responsibilities do you have as far as the harmful ingredients are concerned?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #245655

j2t2

“does he have the responsibility to notify you prior to eating it or entering the establishment.”

yes and no respectively.

Posted by: dbs at February 18, 2008 7:17 PM
Comment #245656

traci

“I guess this all leads up to the question…is eating out a right or a privledge?????”

a better question would be, do you have the right to choose where you would like to eat? at home, or in a restaurant. i’de say yes you do.

Posted by: dbs at February 18, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #245680

I guess it all just boils down to choices…

My whole life I have made decisions about which businesses I will patron and which I will not based on my personal likes and dislikes….BUT…never once did I decide to demand that they conform to suit my needs…I just simply don’t go and figure it will work itself out, if a lot of people feel the same way…it will close or change, if not…it will remain in business or continue status quo.

I understand TO A POINT what j2t2 is saying. BUT…I feel stronger that you just decide not to eat out…if more people feel the same way and do the same thing…those businesses will most definately post that on their doors….if no one else seems to have a problem with it and continue to go there than you are trying to force the will of the minority on the majority. I mean, let’s face it ALL businesses are about making money.

Posted by: Traci at February 18, 2008 11:35 PM
Comment #245714

Traci

you’ll get no arguments from me. thats what i’ve said all along. putting the fact that trans fats are used in some products on the menu should suffice. you can then ask if it’s used in your selection, if it’s a concern. otherwise let the market take care of it.

Posted by: dbs at February 19, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #245949

i think that if you are fat you should get off the couch and go outside and do something. its your fault your fat not ours so why would we feel sorry for you. fat ass

Posted by: Dustin Bornhorst at February 21, 2008 8:55 AM
Post a comment