New Year Brings New Laws

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

     I don't care about the government banning stuff just because it's dangerous. If someone understands the dangers of eating food with trans-fats or entering an establishment that allows smoking & wants to do so anyway, denying them the ability to do so is inexcusable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I find it interesting that Winston got a moderate PM score & retained the same views, whereas I kept the same PM score & moderated my views.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I find it interesting that Winston got a moderate PM score & retained the same views, whereas I kept the same PM score & moderated my views significantly.

My views aren't the same. I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. I moved significantly to the left economically.

     You're still an advocate of anarchism, which is what counts. In my view any anarchist, regardless of his/her economic philosophy, must be an anarchist-without-adjectives or else undermine his/her political goals.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I find it interesting that Winston got a moderate PM score & retained the same views, whereas I kept the same PM score & moderated my views significantly.

My views aren't the same. I used to be an anarcho-capitalist. I moved significantly to the left economically.

     You're still an advocate of anarchism, which is what counts. In my view any anarchist, regardless of his/her economic philosophy, must be an anarchist-without-adjectives or else undermine his/her political goals.

Meh, I guess. I put my anti-statism before my economic views anyway.

     Which is as it should be. Seek to achieve a volunteer society & then decide what you're going to do economically. However, I'm not an anarchist anymore, so I still find it amusing that I have a more extreme PM score than you do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

     I don't care about the government banning stuff just because it's dangerous. If someone understands the dangers of eating food with trans-fats or entering an establishment that allows smoking & wants to do so anyway, denying them the ability to do so is inexcusable.

How do you feel about making restaurants put up big posters proclaiming their foods contain trans fats instead of just banning them outright? Then people who want to eat trans fats (why anyone would I have no clue since they don't give flavor to food) will have the right to do so and those who don't want to will be informed.

     They're already required to have nutritional information either posted or available on request, so you can already be informed if you really want to know.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

     I don't care about the government banning stuff just because it's dangerous. If someone understands the dangers of eating food with trans-fats or entering an establishment that allows smoking & wants to do so anyway, denying them the ability to do so is inexcusable.

How do you feel about making restaurants put up big posters proclaiming their foods contain trans fats instead of just banning them outright? Then people who want to eat trans fats (why anyone would I have no clue since they don't give flavor to food) will have the right to do so and those who don't want to will be informed.

     They're already required to have nutritional information either posted or available on request, so you can already be informed if you really want to know.

No I mean making them advertise that fact. Most people are too busy or in a hurry to ask for the nutritional info and then look and see if they have trans fats. I am not saying they need to have all their nutritional info on some huge poster, just have them advertise the fact they are putting a poison (which kills you slowly) in their food. And if people still want to eat it then more power to them. I agree with the California ban but I can see how they are taking away our freedom to eat trans fats. This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

     Tell it to someone who wants the sarcasm.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

     I don't care about the government banning stuff just because it's dangerous. If someone understands the dangers of eating food with trans-fats or entering an establishment that allows smoking & wants to do so anyway, denying them the ability to do so is inexcusable.

How do you feel about making restaurants put up big posters proclaiming their foods contain trans fats instead of just banning them outright? Then people who want to eat trans fats (why anyone would I have no clue since they don't give flavor to food) will have the right to do so and those who don't want to will be informed.

     They're already required to have nutritional information either posted or available on request, so you can already be informed if you really want to know.

No I mean making them advertise that fact. Most people are too busy or in a hurry to ask for the nutritional info and then look and see if they have trans fats. I am not saying they need to have all their nutritional info on some huge poster, just have them advertise the fact they are putting a poison (which kills you slowly) in their food. And if people still want to eat it then more power to them. I agree with the California ban but I can see how they are taking away our freedom to eat trans fats. This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

     Tell it to someone who wants the sarcasm.

Sorry for being sarcastic or whatever but there is absolutely no reason to put trans fats in food. You can load up your food with sugars and fats to make it taste better, but putting trans fats in doesn't accomplish anything. I sincerely believe anyone who willingly eats it (and isn't forced to due to their financial situation) is an idiot. And since I am not a fan of banning things, making restaurants advertise it clearly seems like a reasonable compromise.

     As BRTD points out, the public backlash against trans-fats makes a ban unnecessary anyway. That is capitalist theory in action, FWIW. I suppose I should also mention that the California ban is on artificial trans-fats. Restaurants & bakeries can still make food with non-artificial trans-fats.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

     I don't care about the government banning stuff just because it's dangerous. If someone understands the dangers of eating food with trans-fats or entering an establishment that allows smoking & wants to do so anyway, denying them the ability to do so is inexcusable.

How do you feel about making restaurants put up big posters proclaiming their foods contain trans fats instead of just banning them outright? Then people who want to eat trans fats (why anyone would I have no clue since they don't give flavor to food) will have the right to do so and those who don't want to will be informed.

     They're already required to have nutritional information either posted or available on request, so you can already be informed if you really want to know.

No I mean making them advertise that fact. Most people are too busy or in a hurry to ask for the nutritional info and then look and see if they have trans fats. I am not saying they need to have all their nutritional info on some huge poster, just have them advertise the fact they are putting a poison (which kills you slowly) in their food. And if people still want to eat it then more power to them. I agree with the California ban but I can see how they are taking away our freedom to eat trans fats. This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

     Tell it to someone who wants the sarcasm.

Sorry for being sarcastic or whatever but there is absolutely no reason to put trans fats in food. You can load up your food with sugars and fats to make it taste better, but putting trans fats in doesn't accomplish anything. I sincerely believe anyone who willingly eats it (and isn't forced to due to their financial situation) is an idiot. And since I am not a fan of banning things, making restaurants advertise it clearly seems like a reasonable compromise.

     As BRTD points out, the public backlash against trans-fats makes a ban unnecessary anyway. That is capitalist theory in action, FWIW. I suppose I should also mention that the California ban is on artificial trans-fats. Restaurants & bakeries can still make food with natural trans-fats.

Interesting, I didn't even know about the difference. Moreover it turns out that natural trans fats are actually much better than artificial trans fats produced through hydrogenation.

     Which is good since banning non-artificial trans-fats would be problematic since you then couldn't use butter. That would probably be the death knell of bakeries.