Muzman on 15/7/2011 at 02:54
"School Lunches are Commie Mind Control" - Michelle Bachman unnamed Military Socialism beneficiary
CCCToad on 15/7/2011 at 04:02
Junky, there's a simple solution to this.
Stay the fuck out of arguments that don't concern you.
If you're offended by that position enough to notice it, that position is pretty frequent here. Its taken in reference to everything from DRM in the gaming forums, to gun safety laws, and there's even people in this thread who agree its necessary to force school lunch on kids because they assume those families are incapable of making healthy choices on their own.
edit: did my daily news checkup, and stumbled across THIS story.
(
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/07/14/un-bee-lievable-nyc-fines-man-2000-for-not-watering-his-hive/)
I can't help but to wonder whether some of the stuff going isn't just pompous drivel, intended to obfuscate the underlying disposition towards using rules to make money, whether that be by means of collecting fine money or (in the first example) of kickbacks from the school lunch contractors.
Muzman on 15/7/2011 at 05:44
Quote Posted by CCCToad
there's even people in this thread who agree its necessary to force school lunch on kids because they assume those families are incapable of making healthy choices on their own.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but that really is a terrible straw man you're building there.
CCCToad on 15/7/2011 at 12:12
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Well I'm guessing there was some widespread problem of parents either not providing healthy lunches (lack of money? inclination?) or maybe just giving the kids money (which they invariably buy junk with).
.....
It doesn't look like a good place to pick a battle over nanny state issues. The important thing is that kids get a healthy lunch every day, which many might not if the school doesn't put one in front of them. The loss of personal liberty is not a major one here.
No, people actually do believe stuff like that is justified.
Quote:
Coase's Law, which says that undistorted, negotiating parties will always come to an agreement maximizing social utility is wrong in the real world because of differentials in negotiating power & relative knowledge of the parties. So there needs to be checks to actually make sure markets work towards maximizing utility.
Thats definitely a valid point, as illustrated by many of the goings-on surrounding the financial crisis. There's a number of investigations (both private and federal) that found banks using their understanding of financial dealings to mislead people, other businesses, and even governments(look up Jefferson County, Alabama) into business arrangements that had devastating results for their victims. Utility was definitely not maximized.
Quote:
- On the issue of gov't letting consumers make their own choices (just put labels and let them decide)... the issue is that, again, consumers don't have the information or expertise to make the best choice in their own best interest.
Thats becoming a bit outdated, with a slew of credible health sites making the information with a few seconds grasp for anyone who wants it. In fact, there's a growing trend of government health and food mandates facing pressure or even being reversed due to consumer awareness. (examples include flouride and the migration towards organic foods, which I'm a part of)
Quote:
- Not only that, the basic lesson of behavioral law & economics (another reason Coase's theorem doesn't work in the real world) is that in fact that humans have predictable cognitive biases that lead them to radically misread their own best interest and make terrible decisions that unwittingly hurt themselves, the key being if they knew their real best interest they wouldn't make that choice (availability bias, loss bias, status quo bias, endowment bias, etc etc).
There's some argument for that, but keep in mind that government agencies are human too. In many cases people are fully aware of the bad decision. For example, in this country you see quite a few dirt huts where the residents appear destitute but a satellite dish is installed on the roof. I read a magazine article some time back (about Africa, not here) where the interviewee stated that he valued having TV more than having better nourishment.
Stitch on 15/7/2011 at 14:58
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Junky, there's a simple solution to this.
I like the one that involves you not posting
Chimpy Chompy on 15/7/2011 at 15:15
Quote Posted by CCCToad
No, people actually do believe stuff like that is justified.
You're going to have to explain why it's idiotic, or some awful repression of your freedom, or whatever.
Gingerbread Man on 15/7/2011 at 16:19
Other people are stupid. I want someone to make them act sensibly. I am not stupid, so I don't want anyone interfering with my activities no matter how scatter brained or unwise they might seem. Because I'm not one of the stupid people who needs their hands held.
Have I got the gist?
Ulukai on 15/7/2011 at 18:09
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
HAHAAH. Have you ever taken a 530 horse 86 Camaro down the strip? You'd QUICKLY change your mind.
I would
not, each to their own though :cool:
Matthew on 15/7/2011 at 21:03
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Come on, name names.
Yeah, you know who else wanted that?
McCarthy. Point proven sir
Rug Burn Junky on 15/7/2011 at 23:14
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Stay the fuck out of arguments that don't concern you.
Oh I'm sorry, but I hadn't realized that CCCToad-posts-ridiculous-strawman-arguments-while-grinding-an axe-about-being-called-fucking-stupid was a restricted area of conversation.
You chose words for a reason. Given your past embarrassing displays (*cough*thread tagging*cough*), it's fair to say that you had a specific intent when you made that mischaracterization with the highlighted words "fucking stupid." So I ask again, to whom were you referring when you made the claim you did.
