BF2S Forums California Bans Trans Fat From Restaurant Food

you only live once you twats.  enjoy life.  my god.  drink, eat, fornicate, drink, enjoy.

HurricaИe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

you only live once you twats.  enjoy life.  my god.  drink, eat, fornicate, drink, enjoy.

i can enjoy life without eating crappy food... that is to say, i eat real burgers instead of mickey d's

you dont eat wings?  pizza?

also, you live at home.  wait until you work 10 hours or more and see how much you feel like cooking.

usmarine2 wrote:

you only live once you twats.  enjoy life.  my god.  drink, eat, fornicate, drink, enjoy.

I'd rather enjoy it for twenty years, not two.

usmarine2 wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

you only live once you twats.  enjoy life.  my god.  drink, eat, fornicate, drink, enjoy.

i can enjoy life without eating crappy food... that is to say, i eat real burgers instead of mickey d's

you dont eat wings?  pizza?

also, you live at home.  wait until you work 10 hours or more and see how much you feel like cooking.

eh, only boneless wings (i'm picky). I fucking love pizza.

And ya I know I'll probably dread cooking - but if I'm frugal in other aspects of my finances I can afford better quality food when eating out. There are a few burger joints in DC (Five Guys being the most awesome of them all) that aren't much more expensive than mcdonald's but have way better quality burgers.

believe me I'm all for enjoying life when it comes to food... i just prefer tasty food that isn't loaded with artificial shit

Smithereener wrote:

I was referring to the part where it says the individual should be free to live as they wish. I always believed that the concept of social contract involves relinquishing some of our rights in order to enjoy the benefits of a society or structure. Why should the government prevent its citizens from taking narcotics like heroine or PCP; would you consider that a breach of rights? Perhaps it is, but would you rather have the government be apathetic or unwilling to legislate against these kinds of things that can potentially bring down any sense of social order?

Would you rather the government not give a shit about its citizens when they need help? An apathetic government isn't something I'd want to live under. Sure, they did butcher the relief effort with Katrina, but really, would you rather that the government just sit back because it doesn't really involve our rights? I don't believe regulation is entirely a bad thing. The negative externalities of certain behaviours, whether it be pollution from a factory, second hand smoke from smokers, or drunk driving from some drinkers are far more harmful to others than a simple overweight person - at this point, something should have to step in to reduce the negative effects of those behaviours. What about my right to be able to breathe the air outside without having to hold my breath when walking by someone who's got a cigarette in his mouth? If the action affects someone else in a harmful way, the government has every right to step in and protect the rights of the other people who don't want to be harmfully affected.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not too stoked about the idea of having the government tell me what to do or what to eat. I too think that whether or not to allow certain types of fat should be left to the restaurant itself. I mean, I want to eat some fattening stuff once in a while too. But with obesity as it is right now in the US, I can see why people might want to see some kind of change in the way that we eat. Still, I'd rather have this issue be left to the individual restaurant. A lot of them are going the healthier route in the first place, and getting fat doesn't quite adversely affect other people like smoking and drinking might.

You say social contract like it is some sort of universally accepted theory. From from it! The idea of the government having power over you for your own good is a fundamental argument that many do not agree with, including myself. I firmly believe in the teachings of Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, George Washingon, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith that "The power to do good is also the power to do harm." Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." This is an important point. You cannot have freedom without responsibility, they go hand in hand. Do you believe that the role of government is to control the people and decide what is best for them. Or do you believe that it is the role of government to protect the inherent rights of people as they choose for themselves how to live and what is best for them?

Adam Smith said in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations, that an individual who "intends only his own gain" is " led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good". Milton Friedman takes this anaylsis and applies it to those seeking to aid the public through government, "In the government sphere, as in the market, these seems to be an invisible hand, but it operate in precisely the opposite direction from Adam Smith's: an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interests, "which was no part of his intention."

I believe this wholeheartedly. I believe that the only role which the government has is to protect the rights of the individual through a court system, a military, and a local (non federal) police force. The government is not effective as, nor should have the right to, determining and enforcing what it believes to be the best for you. As John Stuart Mill put it, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. . . ." and "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Please consider these ideas.

HurricaИe wrote:

But what if 'the consumers' demanded that the government impose a regulation (included in the health code for the restaurants) that restricted the use of trans fats?

The government cannot strip away someone's rights. It does not have that right. The government is not all powerful, its only rightful power it to protect the rights of the individual, not to serve their interests. As I said above, "The power to do good is also the power to do harm".

paul386 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Banning trans fats is fine, provided it's not a blanket ban and is applied with a little common sense. You get trans fats in milk and banning that would just be stupid. Banning artificial trans fats that occur in nasty hydrogenated crap is a good idea. Non-hydrogenated oils are available for everything hydrogenated oils can do and having your food prepared in a healthier and tastier way can only be a good thing.

Other more direct and explicit bans that have gone on in the US regarding food (like this) have outraged me, but this is obviously a good thing. Regulation of what goes into what we eat and drink is not anything resembling a big brother state - it is a good thing which means we get better quality products.

It doesn't matter if trans fats are good or bad for you. It the fact that government has no right in doing it. Business appeal to their customers, and if their customers demand trans fat free products, then they will get it. A government mandate is illegal and morally wrong.

That's like saying regulations concerning stuff like lead in drinking water are wrong, because you should be allowed to have as much lead in your tap water as you like. Regulation on unnecessary toxins in food and drink can only be a good thing.

if california has to pay the healthcare costs for a bunch of fat fucks it's understandable that they want to reduce the use of this fat fuck causing substance.

I think the point is that most people are ignorant and don't even know what a transfat is. So in the general interest of the public, they ban it from restaurants. You can point out that people who don't know what a transfat is deserve to die from eating it, but that's just being ignorant yourself.

So.


stopping people making food with this shit in infringes upon your rights.

go complain to the water board, and tell em to stop filtering your water - that's infringing your rights too.


much ado about nothing

FatherTed wrote:

So.


stopping people making food with this shit in infringes upon your rights.

go complain to the water board, and tell em to stop filtering your water - that's infringing your rights too.


much ado about nothing

stop smoking.  ban smoking.  kthx.

anyone see a problem with that?  no, good.

usmarine2 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

So.


stopping people making food with this shit in infringes upon your rights.

go complain to the water board, and tell em to stop filtering your water - that's infringing your rights too.


much ado about nothing

stop smoking.  ban smoking.  kthx.

anyone see a problem with that?  no, good.

A smoking ban would kind of make sense given we've banned other shit like heroin and crack (I really don't see why cigarettes are legal yet marijuana is not). That said, I think the tobacco lobby is far more powerful than the uh, trans-fat lobby.

ban cars, they emit pollutants.  ban people from going to the beach, skin cancer.