Budge Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 You think this is bad, just wait til the UN enforces CODEX on American soil. no more over the counter vitamins. The UN is SOCIALISM xs 100. So wake up folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='1076888' date='Sep 27 2006, 05:20 PM'] The article Lounge Daddy linked to is about the state of New York proposing a ban, not the federal government. [/quote] fed, state, local... government is government and none of it has any place in my home or place of business. You mentioned health restrictions earlier in this topic, Era… bugs and drugs are one thing… but legal substances like tobacco use are nother… AND NOW [i]dictating[/i] to people what ingredients can and can not be used in food prepration– BY RULE OF LAW … this is socialism, fascism, whatever you wanna call it. It is anti-Capitalist in the worst way and, dammit, it is far from freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1076924' date='Sep 27 2006, 05:47 PM']fed, state, local... government is government and none of it has any place in my home or place of business. You mentioned health restrictions earlier in this topic, Era… bugs and drugs are one thing… but legal substances like tobacco use are nother… AND NOW [i]dictating[/i] to people what ingredients can and can not be used in food prepration– BY RULE OF LAW … this is socialism, fascism, whatever you wanna call it. It is anti-Capitalist in the worst way and, dammit, it is far from freedom.[/quote] Where does the Constitution say it's illegal to not wash your hands? Is there a law that makes it illegal to not wash your hands? So, basically, not washing your hands is a fully legally act. Except, of course, when you work in a kitchen, private or not. Not washing your hands is just as legal for the average citizen as is smoking a cigarette. But when the health of the general public is concerned, in a private establishment that serves the general public, then the public authorities have the duty to ensure their health, and that includes poisonous smoke or germs from not washing your hands. If your business is serving the general public, then the government DOES have a necessary place in ensuring that you respect the common good. If you harm the common good, then that is exactly the government's sphere, because it has been put in charge of the welfare of its citizens. If anything, the real threat here is individual anarchy where you are answerable to nothing except your own desire for capital, not even the common good or those placed in its charge. This is the kind of thinking that gets us pornography on demand all over the Internet, since what we do in our private homes and what people want to distribute on their private servers is their business; or so we're told. Besides, tobacco is not the only regulized legal substance. Prescription drugs are regulized legal substances, even in private pharmacies. And as I mentioned before, all private establishments must have a liquor license to serve the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 ummm... Era - washing hands is a bit different than a government regulating basic ingredients in food preperation don't you think? [quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM'] ...Not washing your hands is just as legal for the average citizen as is smoking a cigarette. But when the health of the general public is concerned, in a private establishment that serves the general public, then the public authorities have the duty to ensure their health, and that includes poisonous smoke or germs from not washing your hands. If your business is serving the general public, then the government DOES have a necessary place in ensuring that you respect the common good. If you harm the common good, then that is exactly the government's sphere, because it has been put in charge of the welfare of its citizens. [/quote] "washing hands" Era, the workers are not the smokers - the patrons are You also mentioned licensing alcohol earlier – again, the business isn’t selling tobacco…no license is needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Different from the trans-fat issue, yes, but I think second-hand smoke and workers who don't wash their hands are both the same kind of hazardous health issue. My point isn't that there HAS to be a ban on smoking or whatever. If you don't think there should be, that's fine. I happen to think there should be, for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it takes two seconds to walk outside a restaurant and light up. What I have a problem with is casting this all as some socialistic plot to undermine freedom. Not everything has to do with socialism or whatever it is you identify as liberalism. It's just an issue of ensuring the health of the general public. You don't have to agree that these measures are necessary, but just because you do doesn't mean you're advancing socialist ideas, anymore than questioning a decision of the legitimate public authorities means you're an anarchist. There are going to be many different approaches to public policy. That doesn't make one person's approach "socialism" and the other person's approach "anarchy". It just means they have two different approaches. As I said in my first post, Karl Marx isn't hiding behind every corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM'] If your business is serving the general public, then the government DOES have a necessary place in ensuring that you respect the common good. If you harm the common good, then that is exactly the government's sphere, because it has been put in charge of the welfare of its citizens. ...Besides, tobacco is not the only regulized legal substance. Prescription drugs are regulized legal substances, even in private pharmacies. And as I mentioned before, all private establishments must have a liquor license to serve the general public. [/quote] ummm... your implication is a bit mistaken A business open to the public is a bit different from, say a sidewalk that everyone has no choice but to walk through …and you seem to be implying that people have no choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM'] Besides, tobacco is not the only regulized legal substance. Prescription drugs are regulized legal substances, even in private pharmacies. And as I mentioned before, all private establishments must have a liquor license to serve the general public. [/quote] A liquor license? We are talking about an owner allowing smoking in a restaurant, and then government restriction on ingredients in food… and you equate that with liquor license? A license to SELL alcohol Sure, if the eating establishment is SELLING alcohol A license to SELL tobacco, sure ..if the place is SELLING it, Era But they are not, they are allowing people to smoke it... if the owner chooses this. If the owner of the property - NOT the government. *BTW _ The government is not supposed to own us, Era - it is supposed to protect us. We are not slaves to government, it is supposed to be slave to us. Pharmaceuticals may well be used anywhere at any time …why? LICENCE to sell it, not use it… not yet. So today, yes my friends you can safely use your prescription meds that you bought at LICENCED pharmacy, and smoke tobacco that you bought at LICENCED retailers. ...well, you could until the past few years... Now you can't even prepare food the way you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 the state can regulate things to some extent for the public good-- like you said, a liquor licence. but this is not regulation, this is an outright ban. the state could say "you must place a warning outside your restaurant that smoking is allowed inside" and maybe even require you to have smoking and non-smoking sections, make you have a licence before you sell tobacco products as well, but it cannot say "you are not allowed to have a business where people are allowed to smoke" it's socialist fascism, this is not taking things to the extreme this is calling them what they are. you said it could be called "anarchism", well, no it actually couldn't. in fact nearly everything you said here has been quite false. it is a socialist policy because it gives the government rights over private businesses that only business owners should have: ergo making the government de facto a partial owner of that business. it is fascism because it imposes unjust absolute laws against things which ought to be in the realm of freedom. when a business is not permitted to open which allows people to smoke and purchase food, the government has overstepped its boundaries. when a business is not permitted to choose the types of foods, healthy or unhealthy, which it will serve then government has overstepped its boundaries. the government could require a warning label on the menu, perhaps, but banning such things is not the government's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM'] If anything, the real threat here is individual anarchy where you are answerable to nothing except your own desire for capital...[/quote] Anarchy? Sure – it’s called “people don’t have to do business with me, so I had better meet the perceived needs of my clientele.” And if I don’t, then I don’t eat. Law of the jungle. [quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM'] This is the kind of thinking that gets us pornography on demand all over the Internet, since what we do in our private homes and what people want to distribute on their private servers is their business; or so we're told. [/quote] Porn? No, Era – porn is illegal when it comes to forced victims, such as children and human trafficking. As far as the sad cases of “willing victims” there are still age limits, and after that it is up to the retailer – as far as I know… Again – this is sale of it not use of it, Era. But this is off topic... If a business owner chooses to allow cigarettes to be taken in and smoked, that is the owners choice. If the owner chooses to allow porn magazines to be brought in and read at the tables, that is the owners choice. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE A LEGAL CHOICE IN AMERICA As long as he is not forcing harm on other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Well, we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the responsibilities of private business to respect the common good. I guess that's all that can be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 Besides… I love McDonald’s fries …and this ban will force McDonald’s to change their recipe in affected areas. They aren’t going to be the yummy fires that people wish to pay $$$ for. This is simply bad for business, thus bad for the employer, thus bad for the wage earner, thus bad for the spender… How is it so hard for some people in government to understand basic economics? They should at least understand “negative for economy” = “negative for tax revenue” But maybe some people value scoring the short-run political points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='1077047' date='Sep 27 2006, 07:31 PM'] Well, we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the responsibilities of private business to respect the common good. I guess that's all that can be said. [/quote] ok, Era I guess so... but do we at least agree with this: [quote]"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association. He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves. The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts. [/quote] Do you agree with me that this government restriction is a bit much, to say the least? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Perhaps. Maybe there can be a law to require alternatives, rather than banning this particular unhealthy fat. But, I would not call it "socialism" or "fascism" to ban it. If you did disagree, I think it would be fair to say it's not "prudent" or "acceptable", like the man in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 well I personally think it's not only that, it's immoral and unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I can't get on board with that. There is nothing "immoral" about it. There is nothing in the moral law that gives private business owners immunity from civil oversight of public health issues. You may not believe this is a necessary public health issue, and that's fine, but others do, and they are within the boundaries of legitimate disagreement. Freedom also encompasses the right to disagreement and diverse public discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now