Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Why I Have This Blog
Is to point out news like this. This is just another example of government organizations making choices for me. If I ran a restaurant - I should be able to choose if I use trans fat. I should be able to choose if I want to put the number of calories next to my menu items. Then it should be up to the customers if they want to eat at my restaurant knowing that I do or do not use trans fat or if I do or do not display calories next to my items. This law says people are too stupid to know what is good for them, and they need to be saved by the goverment. Individual's choices are becoming fewer and fewer and it really really frustrates me. Why do liberal cities like this think goverments are better at making decisions as opposed to individals? What happened to personal responsibility? If the goverment left this alone then restaurants may have switched over on their own (KFC). The market is a powerful force and if people decided on thier own to eat at places that dont use trans fat then more and more restaurants would make the switch. I wish the goverment would just leave people alone, and let us make our own choices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"This law says people are too stupid to know what is good for them, and they need to be saved by the goverment."
Have you looked at people lately? The U.S. has an obesity problem and unfortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as educated as you or I and who are unable or unwilling to make healthy food choices.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something here but when I weigh the arguments for and against this ban, the arguments for it outweigh the arguments against it.
With as fat a society as we've become, the other health issues that are brought on by being obese are driving up healthcare costs (which directly affects you and me and any one else with health insurance). If a ban on these oils causes people to get healthier I'm all for it. Especially if it doesn't affect the taste of the food (which the article says McDonald's and I believe other fast food restaurants are trying to experiment with).
Generally speaking, I could give two shits whether or not someone wants to eat themselves into obesity, but when it affects me I think something needs to happen. This ban is the start of something.
"unfortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as educated as you or I and who are unable or unwilling to make healthy food choices"
Lol, wow Diatribe, is this person a plant to make my side look bad?
Anyway, I agree that this is over the line of what I would want the government to be doing (I guess we'll find out at the next election whether the majority of voters feel the same way). One thing I would point out from your post is that I WOULD be in favor of regulations making it illegal to lie about the calories in your food, but I assume you'd agree there.
here's a question though- how would you feel about this legislation if it were put directly to the people as a referendum that everyone got to vote on (I may not have the mechanisms right there but you know what I mean)? Are you ok with this type of social enginerring if it is voted for by a 2/3 majoriy of the actual people living in the city? If not, why do you want to deny people the power to make that type of decision about what they want their goverment doing?
So I get to have my choices taken away because we have an obesity problem in this country? I want to eat fatty fat food sometimes. But because other people eat it too much I have to suffer. As for your education argument - guess what they can get educated if they want. Who says they are not educated now but choose to fat. Some people just want to eat - they life their food - it makes them happy. Let them be. Let me be. Af for the health care argument - I need to see how much that actually affect me. How much do I pay extra becuaes people are getting fat. Then I can weigh the amount I am affected by that compared to how much I am affected by this ban. If I have to pay 1 dollar more a year becasue of this - then whippty freaking do. I want choices. By the way I can choose a health care provider that best fits my needs and expenses.
Darwin - if the people voted for it - I would be more comfortable with it. I might disagree with it -but I would feel better about it.
Darwin - as for that voting thing - Though i am more comfortable with that - I still dont like it. Because even though the majority are for it that leaves out those who still want it. Means there is a market for that product. The restaurant owners should be able to have the say and then the customers choose to go there or not. If many voters believe businesses shoud not have trans fat I am guesing some of those people own restaurants and others have friends that do. Hence some businesses on their own will make the switch - hence giving these people an option. In the end People should have Options. They should have choices. The market will take of it from there.
Heck - lets say all restaurant owners do not support the bill. Then someone who does support the bill can open their own place that does enforce the ban. And if many people come there then other businesses will open. Seems like simple capitalism to me.
I suspect I agree with you, but still feel like the issue deserves more exploration.
At a federal level I definitely want all choices left open, but at a local level, people always have the option of moving. Say that 90% of the people living in New York wanted to live in a place where they alwasy knew for sure that there wasn't trans-fat in their foods, without even asking, and where they didn't have to pay for obese people's health care due to trans fats. Why shouldn't that be a choice that's avaialble to them? Why shouldn't they be able to vote for a community that fits what they want, and anyone wo doesn't want it is totally free to leave or drive outside town limits for burgers or whatever.
A better example might be something like allowable noise levels. Let's say that the federal governemtn considers anything over 60 decibals for 5 minutes a nuisance and therefore illegal in residentail zones. What if 98% of people living in a suburban community all want it to be set at 40 decibals so no one wakes up their sleeping children? Why should it be impossible for them to create a community where that's guaranteed by law?
One place I think this argument falls apart is for children, since they can't just move and don't get a vote. Of course that's always a problem in any discusion like this, but the more laws can be passed the bigger that problem becomes (after a point).
Other than being pissed because the government is telling you what type of oil you eat, what else is there about this ban that you don't like?
You can still eat the same food, it's just cooked in different oil. If you want to eat yourself into oblivion, go ahead.
I personally have no problem putting this to a vote.
What I meant by "unfortunately there are a lot of people who aren't as educated as you or I and who are unable or unwilling to make healthy food choices." what I meant to imply was that there are a lot of people who rely on government (rightly or wrongly, and that I think is a whole different debate).
I'm obviously making some generalizations here but the people who tend to eat at fast food restaurants on a regular basis (and who are getting fatter because of it) tend to be the same people on government assistance. My tax dollars goes to these programs like medicare and medicaid and other government subsidized healthcare. If some of these people are able to get healthier and thus require less money spent on doctor's bills and prescriptions for their Lipitor because the government banned a substance that is widely credited with making people fat, then I'm all for it. I'm paying for fatty to get their Lipitor while they eat that cheeseburger and I'd like to pay less.
"So I get to have my choices taken away because we have an obesity problem in this country?"
Diatribe,
What choices are being taken away? You will still get to eat your fried food. It'll just be cooked differently.
Cooked differently - hence not the same. Same is what I like. I no longer have that choie.
The problem wiht that argument is how it generalizes. What if I tell you I can taste the difference between the two oils and it makes a big difference to how much I enjoy the food? What if the health nuts try to tell us that Diet Coke is indistinguishable from regular?
Personally I think there's probably some scientific way to mitigate this problem by getting survey data and so forht to see if people can really tell the difference and how many people it'll be a problem for, but this is where I'd like Sophist to jump in and explain how scientific consensus is impossible and some people will say that Diet Coke tastes like burning fire and we have no way to disprove that since science is just voting.
You summed up Sophist argument pretty good - no need for him to explain. Good job
Yea, maybe I should just start doing that from now on and he can save time for studying for the GRE's.
Technocratic asshole
The part were he talks about the new austere restrictions on smoking as saving 200,000 lives is grade a humor.
1. The first thing i thought was that he simply caused 200,000 people to move out of the city.
2. Secondly, if he was really interested in saving lives he should push to have legislation passed keeping the citizens of New York in cells. Presumably this would be the most effective way at saving lives.
Aside from coming up with rhetoric to counter libertarian arguments against his save New Yorker's Health at any cost programs, does anyone actually think he has thought about what it means to actually force people to live according to his standards. I'm sure that if i were to get a large political force together that passed laws heavily restricting non-smokers he would be the first to rely on the libertarian argument.
Everybody likes to force others according to their will while no one likes to be forced according to the will of another.
Post a Comment