Printable View
And furthermore, maybe if the gov't didn't subsidize the corn that makes the HFCS to begin with then the additional cost might nudge people in a better direction in terms of what they eat/drink. I suspect most conservatives would also get behind that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
You have just given the classic liberal view of things. Simply put, the ends justify the means. So if it would be a good thing for society if everyone drank little sodas then it's ok to make a law outlawing big sodas. And yes, personally I agree with you that it would be a good thing if everyone drank smaller sodas. I personally only drink soda rarely and then sparingly. But as long as drinking soda is legal I'll support the right of people to sell sodas in whatever size they feel they can do most profitably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
By the same token would you also say that a law making it illegal to drive a vehicle that gets only 12 mpg, unless driving it was necessary for some reason, would also be ok. Personally I wouldn't. If someone is willing to pay for the gas to drive that car I don't think it's my, or government's, place to stop them. I'm mostly ok with things like the CAFE standards that help steer car manufacturers into producing more efficient cars. But if someone wants to buy an old gas guzzler or a modern one that has CAFE penalties built into its price then I think they should be able to. After all, what's next. Telling people how many therms of natural gas they can use each winter to heat their homes? You like living in the UP of Michigan? Sorry. Unless you have a super efficient or super small house you'll be cold next winter. I guess you need to move somewhere more temperate. After all, it's for the good of society for you to not use so much natural gas.
The other end of the "government control" spectrum is anarchy (no government controls) - is that where we should be going? Or do the "government control is bad" folks actually think some government controls are good?
I'm not sure that is traditionally a liberal position, I mean I really don't want to debate terms and their meanings (as they are mostly meaningless), but what I'm trying to say is: I don't think that has historically been the position of the moderate left within the United States to be concerned that much about individual behavior that mostly harms the individual themself (as opposed to corporate behavior and broad social policy - systematic things). So to be concerned about the conditions of slaughterhouses or something (or at least PRETENDING to be - activists are sometimes sincere, politicians aren't always), well yea .... that has presidence. But whether you smoke a joint or drink a coke less so ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It could have easily have been a decade since I've had a soda, that's how little it really affects me.Quote:
And yes, personally I agree with you that it would be a good thing if everyone drank smaller sodas. I personally only drink soda rarely and then sparingly.
No, I didn't try to indicate that liberal thinking (or more accurately liberal law making) has anything to do with the individual, but rather that liberal law making tends to ignore the bigger law of the constitution in order to try and 'do good'. That's what I meant by the ends justify the means. An example from modern history being the mandate in obamacare that one buy insurance from a private corporation. Clearly, at least in my opinion, something way beyond the scope of the powers the constitution gave congress.
Sure, some government controls in the society in which we live are necessary and expected. Fewer, however, certainly not more.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
To me the proper question isn't "government control or anarchy?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
It is "what is the proper domain of governmental control?"
Some folks wrote up a Constitution for our nation, delegating specific powers to the government, reserving the rest to the states and the citizens....
"Governmental control" of how I have sex with my partner, or what sort of toilet I decide to flush, or how large my hamburger is, seems outside the bounds of what government should be involved in.
Control of my raw sewage spilling into a river, that seems sensible.
Me, too. I think we would all agree some government controls are necessary (any true anarchists, here?) - we just disagree on which ones are. I would think even the more general argument for fewer has some controls in mind which are necessary and would not be the ones to toss to get to fewer.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I think there are dangers when the whole concept gets reduced to black and white, control or not. The arguments for or against something end up being based on things like "less government", "protecting the people", etc, instead of the merits or detrements of the actual issue at hand. It also (unintentionally or I often think intentionally) becomes a distraction from other, probably more important issues.
I don't know the true motives for ban - whether it's for health as Bloomberg is saying, or its maybe from businesses quietly lobbying to increase their own sales by removing a competitor's successful product. I think the city could work on issues more important than the sizes of plastic cups. But maybe that's the whole point.
Well, sure again. Let's say "effective and necessary" regulation rather than expressing it as numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I actually agree with this, mostly. I do believe some powers that are in the states domain should be federal simply because this is such a huge, populated complicated country, nothing like the founding fathers knew, or probably could even imagine. Education, for instance, should be mandated at the federal level. If we left it up to the states only, well, then the education of our nation would be subject to local school boards who just might decide that science isn't so important, or who really needs math beyond adding and subtracting, or no one really needs to learn how to work computers. Now I'm all for local experiments or implementation of programs and charters, and fast tracking proven successful programs locally and hopefully nationally, but the standards should be uniform throughout the country. We need a well educated populace to move forward in this modern world, and really, better educated people in W. Virginia will benefit me in the long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
And with health care. Yes, I know the argument against Obamacare, and I've read all the quotes from the founding fathers (and Ayn Rand) that I care to, but the REALITY remains. Until we actually let people DIE in the hospital parking lot because they don't have coverage, I say everyone should pay because EVERYONE will need care, at some point. EVERYONE. I'm actually a practical person. I am covered, and I wish everyone else was responsible enough, or could afford, to be covered. But they are not. That is reality. Not that everyone should /do take care of their own, or that the good neighbors will pitch in and pay for your heart surgery, or you will never need health care.
But everyone is not covered, it's expensive (even just a broken arm), and everyone WILL need it. Period. And I don't want to pay for the slackers who want to exercise their personal freedom by not having insurance. (but who expect to be treated when they show up in the emergency room, and they DO expect to be treated.) Didn't this used to be the republican stance? Personal responsibility?
So, again, until/unless I hear of people dying in the parking lot because they were refused treatment, I expect everyone to pay.
But, toilets and burgers and sodas, those are over the top ridiculous.