More Goverment Knows Best

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
Post Reply
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 71814
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

We had a chain elsewhere about similar steps out in "Free California", but SF just passed a law in which they're banning toys in children's meals unless they're arbitrarily healthy.

Horseshit.

1. They have no right passing shit like this.
2. KIDS DON'T HAVE PURCHASING POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!

I cannot emphasis #2 enough!!! Stop blaming companies and try being a fucking parent!!!
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 58739
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

I'm actually for this.

I'd love more fruit and veggie options at fast food restaurants.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Apparently no one else cares, if the local government needs to legislate menus at restaurants.

San Francisco is good for that shit, though. They don't allow any chain restaurants in large parts of the city. If you are a visitor there, it is always a crap shoot whether or not you will like what restaurants are in the area, because you've never heard of any of them and you end up making blind guesses.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 58739
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

So is there a level at which it is OK for governments to make decisions like these? It's clearly one thing for the federal government to do it, but what about state/county/city?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

On one hand, no. The gov't has absolutely zero rights to impose dietary constraints except in circumstances where a particular crop of food is infected. They already steal my money & control other parts of my life, stay the fuck out of my digestive tract.

On the other hand, if the gov't foots the bill for the negative consequences of obesity/shitty nutrition, they've got a financial interest in keeping the numbers down.




Edited By Malcolm on 1286921566
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

TheCatt wrote:So is there a level at which it is OK for governments to make decisions like these? It's clearly one thing for the federal government to do it, but what about state/county/city?
Yes and no. Technically yes, it is something that state and local governments can do. But, no, it is not something I think any level of government should consider doing.

Market forces work. If enough people want fruit, there will be fruit. If not enough people care, then legislating fruit that is not widely desired just raises costs - thus driving up prices, because in the end even if the fruit rots from not being ordered the other customers will end up picking up the tab - so someone on the city council can claim to have accomplished something.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Malcolm wrote:On one hand, no. The gov't has absolutely zero rights to impose dietary constraints except in circumstances where a particular crop of food is infected. They already steal my money & control other parts of my life, stay the fuck out of my digestive tract.

On the other hand, if the gov't foots the bill for the negative consequences of obesity/shitty nutrition, they've got a financial interest in keeping the numbers down.
I would still say that is a no/no situation. Government shouldn't be in either situation.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Yeah, but if the later is assumed to be true, then they logically have a vested interest in keeping their costs low. Granted that's just one more reason for them to stay the fuck out of public health care.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 71814
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Post Reply