[for weslinder] California Socialism (regulating fast food)

Edited to reflect the absurdity.

The right to eat trans fats in California isn't something I care much about, but statements like these are ridiculous. It's 1919 all over again, but this time with unhealthy foods instead of beer.

 

Arguably, one could extend the logic behind second-hand smoke too extremely unhealthy foods. They both lower the population's health and eventually drive up medical costs.

I'm just sayin'.

 

So what you're saying is that socialism begets the need for more socialism, right?

 

Awesome.


In seriousness, I draw my line regarding socialism if the activity in question has a direct, tangible harm on other people or the environment*. I support de-privatization of water, for example. I support banning styrofoam. I support banning smoking in enclosed public places.

This fails the above criteria, and I don't support it.

*I can, of course, be persuaded one way or the other as appropriate.

 

You're right. It does drive up medical costs. But at some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. There are a million things we do that are bad for us, but we can't allow the government to dictate what is and is not permitted. That's Big Brother territory.

 

Weslinder, are you against having sanitation laws and city restaurant or building inspectors and codes?

I knew a young libertarian who was. He believed you could just sue for damages after you ate unsafe food. No need for any government regulations.

How about banning the advertising of cigarettes on TV? I support that.

I guess everyone has their comfort zone. I am horrified that some of my friends think it is ok for private companies to not hire those who smoke cigarettes in their homes, to nicotine test them, because it can add to insurance costs.

 

What about healthy fast food places? Are they also banned? What about really unhealthy sit-down places?

 

I think the banning of fast food places was too much and your post shows the problem with the ban.

If it is true that no amount of hydrogenated trans fat is ok, it is probably wise to ban it, given that there are other choices. We do ban certain chemicals as being too dangerous.

 

A smoker is going to smoke somewhere. The issue with smoking is that non-smoking bystanders are subjected to second hand smoke. Maybe we should just ban trans fat food from being eaten next to healthier food, so the salad eaters won't be tempted to share the fries..??

 

See post 24.

 

Trans fats have been banned here in Montgomery County, Maryland since the new year. It's a DC subarb...kinda like Fort Bend County relative to Houston. I've eaten at fast food places in PG County, DC, and Montgomery County, oh and in Virginia too since the ban. I really can't tell the difference. I think it might matter in some rare foods, and I really do enjoy a variety of foods, but after the initial complaining of about a week, no one really talks about it anymore and no one from other counties and DC says anything bad about the restaurants in MoCo because of the lack of trans fats.

Now I'm not in favor of the law, but I'm just saying it's not really making an impact in terms of consumers having their food tastes and choices limited.

 

Not at all. I think a necessary function of governments is to protect individuals from damage caused by other individuals. That being said, government is a particularly poorly qualified organization to deliver these benefits. The insurance industry, through Underwriters' Laboratory, has given us 95% of the gains in electrical safety, because the insurance agencies have more motivation to keep buildings safe than governments. Similarly, a free press does more to keep restaurants clean by reporting on offenders than a government inspectors. I have seen restaurants shut down because good reporting killed their business, when city inspectors let them operate for months.

I believe these functions are quite good for a society, and despite government's inherent limitations, it should provide them.

I, too, have heard the fewer laws, more litigation argument from libertarians. I think history shows that has merit at times, but history also shows that it was not a good solution at all for protecting the environment.