Rachel Maddow becomes Ron Paul supporter

Quote from Deusxmachina : No, I didn't. I said, "We could argue about "directly" vs. "indirectly," but a big reason for the soda law and similar is said to be because unhealthy people cost "you" money in medical costs." And of course the "you" is in quotes to mean the generic you of people in general. There's also definitely not an "only" in there.

OK thanks for that clarification. And making my point that such regulations are for the common good of 100M or more citizens, cause they (potentially) save them from unnecessary expenditures and suffering as well.

Quote : The main current subject is you saying the government isn't threatening me on this.

The government is not threatening you at all. The only possible threat is to the vendor. Businesses are restricted from all kinds of activities which threaten the public health and rightly so.

Quote : And then when I probe further you call it a strawman like you call things so often when you don't want to legitimately answer them.

I've answered all your points.

Quote : I want to sell 16+ ounce sodas and donate all the proceeds to a sugarholics charity. Can I do it without government interference? Of course the answer is no because you want to use threat and force of government to deny me of free choice and free will, and free markets.

See above about threatening public health. You've no right to profit from that.

Quote : Such a "policy"/law shouldn't exist in the first place, so no.

The definition of an ideologue. You care not whether a policy is effective at reducing suffering.

Quote : Maybe if we used agents of government to threaten force against you if you don't make better deal decisions you'd make better deal decisions.

Unlike complex decisions of when to buy certain goods at what price, reducing sugar intake is a no brainer.

Quote from dollarbill : Yes I see it every election. Perhaps you should vote for them. After all you seem to know whats best for everyone

:confusion: Vote for who?

I don't always know what's best. Like I said, there are a lot of gray areas, but there are no upsides to obesity and diabetes.

Quote from Danman114 : Why does someone have to act rational all the time? People aren't robots you know.

Obviously. But I believe long term happiness is better served by rational non-self-destructive decisions.

Addicts are always trying to relieve short term pain at the expense of long term happiness.

Quote from yjeep93 : not those costs...I meant the cost of the airbag, the cost of the seatbelt. these things not only add cost to manufacturing and engineering, but they also add weight to the car which results in lower gas mileage (yes it's minimal, but multiply that by millions of people driving...it's substantial...not to mention the 1000's of other things the government requires to be on cars). the extra manufacturing of seatbelts/airbags results in additional energy consumption and air pollution also. Now, it's possible the marketplace may have come up with the same solutions without government force......but what if the marketplace could deliver better/safer alternatives? but their stuck using 50 year old technology because the government mandates they use it (because some corporate company who manufactures seat belts has bought off some government regulators)? What if we could actually be safer....wasn't that the original goal?

Contrary to your naive beliefs, the standards the government enforces do change with technology.

And saving lives is worth the minimal cost of slightly reduced fuel mileage IMO (and of those authorities making the decisions). If you don't like it, I hear they sell cheap tin can cars with no safety features in many third world countries. Maybe that's all you can afford.

Quote from 124nic8 : Obviously. But I believe long term happiness is better served by rational non-self-destructive decisions.

And how dare anyone challenge your desire to codify your own personal beliefs into law.



I don't care if it's "liberals" or "conservatives" trying to protect me from myself. Unless I'm directly causing physical or financial
harm to others, just leave me & my "irrational" decisions alone.

Quote : Addicts are always trying to relieve short term pain at the expense of long term happiness.

Haters of liberty are always trying to convince the world that they're only acting in the "best interests" of those they're attempting to control.

Quote from smegalicious : And how dare anyone challenge your desire to codify your own personal beliefs into law.

Are you really arguing that society has no interest in discouraging self-destructive behavior?

Quote : I don't care if it's "liberals" or "conservatives" trying to protect me from myself. Unless I'm directly causing physical or financial harm to others, just leave me & my "irrational" decisions alone.

Sorry, can't do that. If you're in your garage with the car running, I'm gonna drag you out.

Quote : Haters of liberty are always trying to convince the world that they're only acting in the "best interests" of those they're attempting to control.

And when they are, it is noble.

Quote from 124nic8 : {you] Are you denying that millions of US citizens make sub-optimal choices on a regular basis? {Me} Yes I see it every election. Perhaps you should vote for them. After all you seem to know whats best for everyone {you} :confusion: Vote for who? I don't always know what's best. Like I said, there are a lot of gray areas, but there are no upsides to obesity and diabetes.

You are obviously confused, I wont argue that. But how do you not understand I see sub-optimal choices in every election.Taking your viewpoint to it's ultimate conclusion. That is making all choices for people who's viewpoint differs from yours.
Examples of how your idea doesnt work:
1. Your child is hyperactive at school. School says give him Ritalin or child services will take him from you. This happened to my nephew even though his son had a bad reaction to the drug
2 War on drugs hasnt stopped drug usage. It has made alot of people wealthy at the tax payers expense
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

Quote from smegalicious : And how dare anyone challenge your desire to codify your own personal beliefs into law. I don't care if it's "liberals" or "conservatives" trying to protect me from myself. Unless I'm directly causing physical or financial harm to others, just leave me & my "irrational" decisions alone. Haters of liberty are always trying to convince the world that they're only acting in the "best interests" of those they're attempting to control.

bingo

Quote from 124nic8 : Are you really arguing that society has no interest in discouraging self-destructive behavior?

alcohol? cigarettes? I believe they are the top 2 killers in this country...

Quote from smegalicious : And how dare anyone challenge your desire to codify your own personal beliefs into law. I don't care if it's "liberals" or "conservatives" trying to protect me from myself. Unless I'm directly causing physical or financial harm to others, just leave me & my "irrational" decisions alone. Haters of liberty are always trying to convince the world that they're only acting in the "best interests" of those they're attempting to control.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote from 124nic8 : OK thanks for that clarification. And making my point that such regulations are for the common good of 100M or more citizens, cause they (potentially) save them from unnecessary expenditures and suffering as well.

Destroying free will and choice is not for the common good.

Quote from 124nic8 : The government is not threatening you at all. The only possible threat is to the vendor. Businesses are restricted from all kinds of activities which threaten the public health and rightly so.

I want to sell a 16+ ounce sugary drink and donate the proceeds to charity. Of course the government is threatening me.

And if I wanted to buy such a thing instead of sell it, of course the government is using threat of force to not allow me to do so. It may be indirect threat of force against me, but it is still threat of force.

Quote from 124nic8 : I've answered all your points.

Sure, after I have to put questions to you multiple times until you actually give a straight answer and not letting you get away with your typical changing the subject, ignoring the subject, or nitpicking to avoid the subject.

Quote from 124nic8 : See above about threatening public health. You've no right to profit from that.

I'm not profiting from it. I'm donating all proceeds to a sugarholics charity so I can help people. But you will still use governments agents to threaten force against me, won't you, because you want to control people, take away their free will and free choice, and make them slaves.

Quote from 124nic8 : The definition of an ideologue. You care not whether a policy is effective at reducing suffering.

We could have the government go around killing sick people to reduce their suffering. But we don't do that. You say you'd pull a person out of a garage with a car running. Maybe they're in tremendous pain every day due to an illness. Why are you forcing them to endure pain every day? Why don't you care about their personal policy of reducing their suffering?

You seem to be for wanting to effectively lobotomize people "to reduce their suffering," though. As long as they are mindless slaves with no free will, apparently that's good policy.

You're for legalized medical marijuana, right?

Quote from 124nic8 : Obviously. But I believe long term happiness is better served by rational non-self-destructive decisions. Addicts are always trying to relieve short term pain at the expense of long term happiness.

Someone can't be self-destructive and rational?

Quote from 124nic8 : Are you really arguing that society has no interest in discouraging self-destructive behavior?

Are you really arguing that society = government?

Society can discourage things all they want. But when that societal discouragement is transformed into government prohibition, that is a crucial distinction.

If you want society to discourage people from drinking sugary beverages, create a non-profit that seeks to educate people about the potential dangers. Hell, get volunteers to stand at the soda dispensers of restaurants across the country and discourage people from getting free refills.

But the minute you attempt to invoke the power of the government to *prohibit* people from engaging in actions that cause no direct physical & financial harm, you have taken a smelly dump on the Constitution & its principles of liberty & freedom.

Quote : Sorry, can't do that. If you're in your garage with the car running, I'm gonna drag you out.

Of course you would. Your arrogant belief that you know what's best for everyone, including complete strangers, would demand nothing less.

Btw, the irony doesn't escape me that, in a previous thread, you tried to claim that there was no similarity between your desire to codify your personal beliefs into law & the desire of pro-lifers to codify their personal beliefs into law. Yet, here you are, in this thread, trying to make a comparison btw banning certain sizes of soda with stopping someone from committing suicide.

Quote : And when they are, it is noble.

Right... Haters of liberty are *so* noble.

I'm sure the members of the Westboro Baptist Church tell themselves the same bullshit every day.

Smeg, I wish U would debate the other side (like you used to).

Quote from WindySummer : Smeg, I wish U would debate the other side (like you used to).

Huh?

Whatever my position, I always debate "the other side". It's no fun to debate myself.