teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
So banning activities is like ads? Lol? That is seriously dumb.
My comment stems from implementing social cost-benefit analysis. We ban bulk sale of ephedra based products because.... people do dumb ****.
Social cost-benefit analysis is something I reject so see if I care.
Your empty rejection in no way invalidates social cost-benefit analysis. There is no need to troll; perhaps you should utilize your freedom to not respond?
Did I try to invalidate it? Nope. If you think banning activities brings more gains than loses than I feel sorry for you.
What a moronic statement Henrin... You think that banning anything is so obviously always a bad idea that you don't even feel the need to give a reason? So, for example, banning murder is so obviously a bad idea that you wouldn't have to explain it?
You need to think much, much, harder.
Right to right violations. More weakness from teamosil.
Kiddo, somehow there is just this massive gap between what you think you are saying and what you actually say. You need to concentrate and really focus on what words you are typing. Re-read every post before you hit submit and try to figure out whether the actual words you are typing clearly communicate your position on the issue. You're just tripping over your own shoelaces all the time here. Your posts often don't make much sense and they very rarely clearly lay out your position. It's just a waste of time to post like that. Like a second ago you were saying that any ban of an activity leads to more losses than gains. You didn't present any explanation or argument supporting that proposition and it was an obviously ridiculous assertion. Now I have to guess what you mean here. I'm guessing that you are saying that you don't really mean that banning activities always leads to more losses than gains, you mean banning activities that don't infringe on the rights of others always lead to more losses than gains. Is that correct? I shouldn't have to guess at what position you're taking, you should just lay it out.
It's a bit obvious that I meant actions similar to the one in thread OP, but fine, my bad for not excluding the obvious so people like you could follow along.
If that is the position you are taking, obviously you would need to present a clear definition of exactly what you mean. For example, is somebody getting fat and causing the cost of health insurance to rise infringing somebody else's rights? I assume that if I stand on my property and hurl bowling balls at your property you would consider that infringing the other person's rights, but do you consider it infringing other people's rights if instead of bowling balls I hurl air pollution at their property?
Once you've clearly defined exactly what you mean and what your position is, then you would need to present your evidence or arguments supporting that position. For example, can you think of some instances where it seems like regulating activity that you don't consider to be infringing the rights of others would be beneficial, but in fact it isn't? Can you give your reasons for why you think it is always harmful? What sorts of harms are you talking about exactly?
Do you know why I didn't respond to this when you said it the first time?
I assume it is just another instance of the whole thing I'm talking about. You don't lay out your positions clearly and you don't provide support for them. You just kind of hint at what assumption you have made and then move on.
If the government is expected to bail people out of medical problems via Medicare and other public health programs, it certainly ought to reserve the right to put limits on those items that contribute to public health program expenditures, namely, high calorie foods.
I think New York ought to ban the sale of cartons of cigarettes, limit pack sizes to 10, and ban multiple sales of packs for good measure.
The only thing worth talking about is pollution in your comment but you already know of my position on pollution and how I have proposed solving it. Why exactly would I go over it again with you?
...This whole soda ban garbage is one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
No, it would. What you're referring to is called the "dormant commerce clause". As you say, it prevents states and local governments from putting burdens on the free flow of commerce. But, that isn't going on here. The types of burdens they look for are things that discriminate in favor of local products over out of state products or things that make the actual flow of commerce problematic. For example, if you have 49 states that require that trucks have mud flaps and one state that prohibits trucks from having mud flaps, then that one state is causing a massive hassle for interstate shipping, so that would violate the dormant commerce clause. If NYC had banned sodas from out of state, but allowed in state sodas or something, that would certainly be a dormant commerce clause problem. But, without discrimination or an impediment to the actual process of interstate commerce, it isn't. States are definitely allowed to decide what products are banned for health reasons and whatnot.
Prohibits certain cup sizes.
but I'm pointing out how completely mindless their logic is. This whole soda ban garbage is one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
As Thunder stated, NYC is not banning soda, and you didn't point anything out.
Henrin, you don't understand. You still haven't laid out your position. Those questions were examples of the sorts of details that are unclear about your position.
All we know, and even this took quite a bit of posting to drag out of you, is that you believe that banning activities that don't infringe other people's rights has more disadvantages than advantages.
We don't know what makes you think that, we don't know what you mean when you say infringing rights, we don't know what kinds of advantages and disadvantages you're talking about.
Rights are the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights.
how in the world did we go from "banning very large sugary drinks" to "banning soda"????????????
its like folks either refuse to read....or simply can't be honest about what they read.
Its a right violation to ban activities without a right violation being present. Again, it's obvious. I don't need to say anything else on that.
Rights are the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights.
Henrin, yes, you need to say A LOT more than that to have presented a position. You're assuming some list of rights that you haven't laid out. You're assuming that one of those rights is not to have your activities banned when you're not violating anybody else's rights without having given any reason to believe that statement is true.
Your statement could mean just about anything depending on what guesses I make about those things. Maybe you think that getting fat and causing other people's health insurance costs to go up violates their rights. Maybe you think that not seeing fat people is a right. Maybe have such a narrow idea of what are rights that what you're saying is essentially that the government can't regulate anything and maybe you have such a broad idea of what are rights that you are saying that government isn't regulating nearly enough.
To many people a "right" is something that the government can't prevent you from doing, not something relating to interactions between private individuals. So, if you were amongst them, your statement above would mean something totally different again.
You have some conception of what a right is that you buy into, but that conception is still stuck in your head. You haven't presented it. You just assumed that we think the same things are rights as you do.
This is another great example. From these sentences I am guessing that what you are announcing is that you believe in the concept of natural law. That isn't necessarily true. You could believe what you said in this quote and have reached very different conclusions than natural law people, but I'm betting that you are actually a natural law guy. So, there are many different schools of natural law theory. Some believe that god bestowed certain rights on us. Others believe that natural law is primarily about the "natural" order of dominance of men over women, adults over children and whites over non-whites. Some natural law people believe that Hobbes got it about right when he concluded that we could derive a set of rights from the assumption that people are more likely to be able to agree about negative rights than positive rights, and he came up with a list of what he thinks those negative rights are. If I had to guess, I'd guess that is the bucket you're in. But that's totally just a guess. There have been many natural law thinkers have come up with different lists and some include positive rights. For example, there is a whole school of natural law thinkers who believe that the right to food is one of the most fundamental rights. So, again, you've basically said nothing. All you did is to hint at a broad category of schools of thought on rights.
On top of that, you're making that sort of pronouncement like natural law is so well known and universally accepted as true that it isn't necessary to defend or explain your position. In reality the school of thought on rights you're referencing has essentially been discarded by the world for more than 100 years. There are virtually no philosophers or political theorists that would say that they believe in natural law any more. The core idea- that people will be more readily able to agree on negative rights- doesn't turn out to be true at all. On top of that, what rights one person happens to think they can derive from nature are often totally different than what the next guy thinks. How rights are supposed to be balanced against one another is equally subjective. The theory doesn't really buy you anything.
Give me an argument why you think you can ban anything then. I look forward to your logic behind it actually.
Why would you include the one and not the other? That makes no sense.
And just so you know, positive rights don't exist. That is where the confusion really is. People want them to exist so they cause all sorts of confusion on rights by doing it. Can't have positive rights and believe in what I said so big surprise that welfare states disregarded it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?