|
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
At what square footage does love it or leave it become valid? [/ QUOTE ] That's a good question. I've always wondered why some AC'ists are so quick to cry "ZOMG!! Love it or leave it argument is teh lamez!" when that idea is a pretty big component of capitalism. I'm sure the answer for a practical AC'ist like AlexM is something like "as small as I can get away with". |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Conservatives simply like to micro-manage other peoples' lives -- no surprise... Government says to use "religion X" morals, you use "religion X." Maybe it's easier for some people to live that way -- I don't know. [/ QUOTE ] Hippies don't have a monopoly on dumb legislation micro-managing your life. Does it get any more stupid than conservatives outlawing certain kinds of sex between consensual adults? I'm glad to see a couple AC'ists break from the fundamentalist ranks and admit that in the real world this is pretty much a non-issue if you don't live in SF. [/ QUOTE ] For the record, I'm not an ACist. I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
Wow. I can't believe so many people think this is a bad idea.
[ QUOTE ] I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are getting a little extreme here. First of all ,yes the city SHOULD be able to "mess" with private buisness. This is a good thing. I'm stretching here but should a buisness be allowed to dump toxic waste in your parks? Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? I think yes. I do not agree that the cost should be places on the businesses though ..but it dosn't have to. Simply charge the customer for these costly more "green" bags. If the customer dosn't want to pay then they can bring their own bags/boxes. Side note - Politics aside, if you don't think trying to minimize creation of plastic bags is a good thing then you are ignorant at best. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I'm not an ACist. I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. [/ QUOTE ] See also every other law. No murder? You're messing with my hitman private practice. No poker? What about my bankroll? No prostitution? But what will mom do now? If you're not an anarchist, then chances are you really do want to mess with private business to some degree. You just draw the line somewhere different than the folks of the fine city of San Francisco do. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. [/ QUOTE ] Can I pay you to come to my home and cook me some rotten dogmeat soup? Also, are there any things that should NOT happen even though 51% of the voters may support it? natedogg |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
See also every other law. No murder? You're messing with my hitman private practice. [/ QUOTE ] This is not a valid argument. "Private business" means trade of goods and services. You can have business and exclude violence. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] See also every other law. No murder? You're messing with my hitman private practice. [/ QUOTE ] This is not a valid argument. "Private business" means trade of goods and services. You can have business and exclude violence. [/ QUOTE ] See also the other two examples I listed. I'm not sure how you could read my post and infer that I define private business as "only ones that include violence" unless you're trying REALLY hard. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Can I pay you to come to my home and cook me some rotten dogmeat soup? [/ QUOTE ] Hmm. If I know that it will harm you, even if I know YOU KNOW it will, it leaves me in a tight spot. All of a sudden things like euthenasia come into play. Tough. I would decline on moral grounds. I also think that I should be bounded by some laws ( Im thinking of that case in germany where one guy signed a contract saying that he gives the other guy permission to kill and him eat) [ QUOTE ] Also, are there any things that should NOT happen even though 51% of the voters may support it? [/ QUOTE ] I think the obvious answer is no. Majority rules I guess. This is a very deep question that I'm sure has been debated ad naseum by people a lot smarter than myself. My take is that the 50% rule is the best humans have come up with , the problem is that some voters are not as informed as others. When people are ignorant/propogandianzied than 50%+ rule can be dangerous. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For the record, I'm not an ACist. I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. [/ QUOTE ] See also every other law. No murder? You're messing with my hitman private practice. No poker? What about my bankroll? No prostitution? But what will mom do now? [/ QUOTE ] One of these is not like the others... |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can I pay you to come to my home and cook me some rotten dogmeat soup? [/ QUOTE ] Hmm. If I know that it will harm you, even if I know YOU KNOW it will, it leaves me in a tight spot. All of a sudden things like euthenasia come into play. Tough. I would decline on moral grounds. I also think that I should be bounded by some laws ( Im thinking of that case in germany where one guy signed a contract saying that he gives the other guy permission to kill and him eat) [ QUOTE ] Also, are there any things that should NOT happen even though 51% of the voters may support it? [/ QUOTE ] I think the obvious answer is no. Majority rules I guess. This is a very deep question that I'm sure has been debated ad naseum by people a lot smarter than myself. My take is that the 50% rule is the best humans have come up with , the problem is that some voters are not as informed as others. When people are ignorant/propogandianzied than 50%+ rule can be dangerous. [/ QUOTE ] Another "best I could think of" = "best possible" fallacy. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay. [/ QUOTE ] Kaj, I don't disagree with this. However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree). Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications. I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive. Coercion is only inevitable because people choose to be coercive. It's not as if there is a hand of god making sure we will perpetually form governments. I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress? |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay. [/ QUOTE ] Kaj, I don't disagree with this. However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree). Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications. I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive. I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress? [/ QUOTE ] Who says I think local-level democracy is bad? |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay. [/ QUOTE ] Kaj, I don't disagree with this. However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree). Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications. I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive. I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress? [/ QUOTE ] Who says I think local-level democracy is bad? [/ QUOTE ] Ugh, that would be a different argument than what I quoted and replied to. I was just addressing the idea that if I don't like democracy I should maybe still be OK with local democracy since it's inevitable. Personally, I don't try to make any sense of what you actually do or don't stand for, because it's clear that you don't stand for much of anything beyond intellectual jack-offery. So I was just trying to respond directly to what you said in the post above. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I can't believe so many people think this is a bad idea. [ QUOTE ] I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are getting a little extreme here. First of all ,yes the city SHOULD be able to "mess" with private buisness. This is a good thing. I'm stretching here but should a buisness be allowed to dump toxic waste in your parks? Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? I think yes. I do not agree that the cost should be places on the businesses though ..but it dosn't have to. Simply charge the customer for these costly more "green" bags. If the customer dosn't want to pay then they can bring their own bags/boxes. Side note - Politics aside, if you don't think trying to minimize creation of plastic bags is a good thing then you are ignorant at best. [/ QUOTE ] This is a real tour de force. 1) imposition of personal subjective preferences gogogogo 2) magic handwaving away the costs 3) if you don't agree then (insert ad hominem of choice) |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. [/ QUOTE ] 1) We like coke, so pepsi should be outlawed. We don't want to accidentally drink pepsi. There are more of us, there's an implication that we could beat you up if it comes down to it, might makes right. 2) we're going to impose a health care system upon you and then use that as a basis for micromanaging all of your activity going forward. Skiing? Might break your leg. Cheeseburgers? Clog your arteries. Loud music? Might damage your hearing. Your fun activities might cost us money, so no fun for you. 3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Conservatives simply like to micro-manage other peoples' lives -- no surprise... Government says to use "religion X" morals, you use "religion X." Maybe it's easier for some people to live that way -- I don't know. [/ QUOTE ] Hippies don't have a monopoly on dumb legislation micro-managing your life. Does it get any more stupid than conservatives outlawing certain kinds of sex between consensual adults? I'm glad to see a couple AC'ists break from the fundamentalist ranks and admit that in the real world this is pretty much a non-issue if you don't live in SF. [/ QUOTE ] Such laws are also obviously absurd. Thankfully, there are essentially no conservatives pushing this kind of "missionary position only" type of life micromanagement for a long time now. The hippies take the cake for life micromanagement, these days (not to say that conservatives don't do other annoying crap). |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can I pay you to come to my home and cook me some rotten dogmeat soup? [/ QUOTE ] Hmm. If I know that it will harm you, even if I know YOU KNOW it will, it leaves me in a tight spot. All of a sudden things like euthenasia come into play. Tough. I would decline on moral grounds. I also think that I should be bounded by some laws ( Im thinking of that case in germany where one guy signed a contract saying that he gives the other guy permission to kill and him eat) [ QUOTE ] Also, are there any things that should NOT happen even though 51% of the voters may support it? [/ QUOTE ] I think the obvious answer is no. Majority rules I guess. This is a very deep question that I'm sure has been debated ad naseum by people a lot smarter than myself. My take is that the 50% rule is the best humans have come up with , the problem is that some voters are not as informed as others. When people are ignorant/propogandianzied than 50%+ rule can be dangerous. [/ QUOTE ] Another "best I could think of" = "best possible" fallacy. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. [/ QUOTE ] Which is worse than tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the individual how, exactly? Unless you have unanimity there is "tyranny" of consequences for some group. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wow. I can't believe so many people think this is a bad idea. [ QUOTE ] I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are getting a little extreme here. First of all ,yes the city SHOULD be able to "mess" with private buisness. This is a good thing. I'm stretching here but should a buisness be allowed to dump toxic waste in your parks? Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? I think yes. I do not agree that the cost should be places on the businesses though ..but it dosn't have to. Simply charge the customer for these costly more "green" bags. If the customer dosn't want to pay then they can bring their own bags/boxes. Side note - Politics aside, if you don't think trying to minimize creation of plastic bags is a good thing then you are ignorant at best. [/ QUOTE ] This is a real tour de force. 1) imposition of personal subjective preferences gogogogo 2) magic handwaving away the costs 3) if you don't agree then (insert ad hominem of choice) [/ QUOTE ] 1. Yeah I think plastic bags are bad. So what? I'm not imposing it onto people. The (assuming) over 50% of San Fransiconians are imposing it to the minority of their peers. Isn't that democracy? If you have any gripes with this than take it up with democracy. 2) How am I handwaving away the costs? Im not sure about the nitty gritty of the law but stating that the customer should pay for it is not washing it away. Quite the opposite I think. If people want the convenience then they should pay for it. (not to mention the costs associated of throwing these things in land fills) 3)I stand behind my statement. So what? I'm entitiled to my "moral" position. Did you see the "politics aside part"? Do you actually disagree with me or are you just being a donkey? I"m calling BS to this "subjective imposing". Everyones ideas are subjective even if 99% of people agree so it's useless in this argument. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that democracy? If you have any gripes with this than take it up with democracy. [/ QUOTE ] You must be new around here... Welcome to the 2+2 politics forum. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. [/ QUOTE ] 1) We like coke, so pepsi should be outlawed. We don't want to accidentally drink pepsi. There are more of us, there's an implication that we could beat you up if it comes down to it, might makes right. 2) we're going to impose a health care system upon you and then use that as a basis for micromanaging all of your activity going forward. Skiing? Might break your leg. Cheeseburgers? Clog your arteries. Loud music? Might damage your hearing. Your fun activities might cost us money, so no fun for you. 3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. [/ QUOTE ] 1. Yeah so again you have issues with democracy.If 51% want to ban coke than so be it. I'm not saying its right. I'm saying thats how it is. Are you disagreeing with me? 2.First off I think MY original point here is moot. I should NOT have included it. But your being dense. This debate is better illustrated by being forced to wear seatbelts. Cheezeburgers ..come on I think your smarter than that. 3. Hmm. Now I'm thinking of that poisonous fish they serve in Japan. I think THATS fine so I would be a little bit hypocritical of me to say no to the soup. I'm not sure if its the same. But if 51% of my peers say no than there isn't much I can do. To summarize... 1) in democracy the majority rules! 2) I think plastic bags can be outlawed in a way that will have insignificant economic effects. ( not saying san fran is accomplishing this) |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can I pay you to come to my home and cook me some rotten dogmeat soup? [/ QUOTE ] Hmm. If I know that it will harm you, even if I know YOU KNOW it will, it leaves me in a tight spot. All of a sudden things like euthenasia come into play. Tough. I would decline on moral grounds. I also think that I should be bounded by some laws ( Im thinking of that case in germany where one guy signed a contract saying that he gives the other guy permission to kill and him eat) [ QUOTE ] Also, are there any things that should NOT happen even though 51% of the voters may support it? [/ QUOTE ] I think the obvious answer is no. Majority rules I guess. This is a very deep question that I'm sure has been debated ad naseum by people a lot smarter than myself. My take is that the 50% rule is the best humans have come up with , the problem is that some voters are not as informed as others. When people are ignorant/propogandianzied than 50%+ rule can be dangerous. [/ QUOTE ] Another "best I could think of" = "best possible" fallacy. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. [/ QUOTE ] Which is worse than tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the individual how, exactly? Unless you have unanimity there is "tyranny" of consequences for some group. [/ QUOTE ] You can always limit the scope of the majority's authority with a consitution. Hey, the USA does that. What an idea. Even if the majority wanted to take away your right to a trial by jury they cannot. natedogg |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand - where did you read that the majority of San Fransisco residents support this? The news reports I've seen, every single person they've talked to, has been against this. Some old lady was sad because she cannot grip the paper type bags, but the plastic ones she can. Much like the recent trans-fat ban in NYC, where 85% of people polled were against it, and the recent licenses for immigrants, were again, sometihng like 80% were against it, just because a local government does something, doesn't mean its what the majority of citizens wanted done. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. [/ QUOTE ] 1) We like coke, so pepsi should be outlawed. We don't want to accidentally drink pepsi. There are more of us, there's an implication that we could beat you up if it comes down to it, might makes right. 2) we're going to impose a health care system upon you and then use that as a basis for micromanaging all of your activity going forward. Skiing? Might break your leg. Cheeseburgers? Clog your arteries. Loud music? Might damage your hearing. Your fun activities might cost us money, so no fun for you. 3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. [/ QUOTE ] 1. Yeah so again you have issues with democracy.If 51% want to ban coke than so be it. I'm not saying its right. I'm saying thats how it is. Are you disagreeing with me? 2.First off I think MY original point here is moot. I should NOT have included it. But your being dense. This debate is better illustrated by being forced to wear seatbelts. Cheezeburgers ..come on I think your smarter than that. 3. Hmm. Now I'm thinking of that poisonous fish they serve in Japan. I think THATS fine so I would be a little bit hypocritical of me to say no to the soup. I'm not sure if its the same. But if 51% of my peers say no than there isn't much I can do. To summarize... 1) in democracy the majority rules! 2) I think plastic bags can be outlawed in a way that will have insignificant economic effects. ( not saying san fran is accomplishing this) [/ QUOTE ] Democracy is not a majority rules system. That is why constitutions outline the scope of the government's power, so that the masses can't vote your kind into a concentration camp. And yes, people have tried to ban cheeseburgers and other unhealthy foods based on the justification that it costs us money to pay for your personal health choices. Once the government assumes the cost of something for you, your choices will cost your neighbor money and then begins the inexorable march toward removing all your free choice, in the name of "public costs". natedogg |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. [/ QUOTE ] this is a settled legal issue, it is public if anyone can come in. some membership deals are private though. think can restaurant owner not serve blacks. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. [/ QUOTE ] this is a settled legal issue, it is public if anyone can come in. some membership deals are private though. think can restaurant owner not serve blacks. [/ QUOTE ] No one is trying to ascertain what "is". The discussion is about what should be. natedogg |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Local government doing things that the people living there probably mostly support, because if they didn't they certainly wouldn't choose to live in San Francisco. Who cares? [/ QUOTE ] So if the majority favors a policy, the government should enact it and force it on everyone else? Isn't that in total contradiction to everything you've ever written on this site? [/ QUOTE ] What majority? It wasn't put on the ballot. The stupid supervisors enacted it. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] See also every other law. No murder? You're messing with my hitman private practice. [/ QUOTE ] This is not a valid argument. "Private business" means trade of goods and services. You can have business and exclude violence. [/ QUOTE ] See also the other two examples I listed. I'm not sure how you could read my post and infer that I define private business as "only ones that include violence" unless you're trying REALLY hard. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not arguing that private business includes "only" violence, I am saying the believing in free markets does not mean that one has to accept "market" exchanges involving the sale of violence. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Wow. I can't believe so many people think this is a bad idea. [ QUOTE ] I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are getting a little extreme here. First of all ,yes the city SHOULD be able to "mess" with private buisness. This is a good thing. I'm stretching here but should a buisness be allowed to dump toxic waste in your parks? Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? I think yes. I do not agree that the cost should be places on the businesses though ..but it dosn't have to. Simply charge the customer for these costly more "green" bags. If the customer dosn't want to pay then they can bring their own bags/boxes. Side note - Politics aside, if you don't think trying to minimize creation of plastic bags is a good thing then you are ignorant at best. [/ QUOTE ] This is a real tour de force. 1) imposition of personal subjective preferences gogogogo 2) magic handwaving away the costs 3) if you don't agree then (insert ad hominem of choice) [/ QUOTE ] 1. Yeah I think plastic bags are bad. So what? I'm not imposing it onto people. The (assuming) over 50% of San Fransiconians are imposing it to the minority of their peers. Isn't that democracy? If you have any gripes with this than take it up with democracy. [/ QUOTE ] So it's still imposition of personal subjective preferences. And yes, that's democracy. You're just going to beg the question there? [ QUOTE ] 2) How am I handwaving away the costs? Im not sure about the nitty gritty of the law but stating that the customer should pay for it is not washing it away. Quite the opposite I think. If people want the convenience then they should pay for it. (not to mention the costs associated of throwing these things in land fills) [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure who other than the consumer is going to pay for it. Let's go with another example. Outlaw internal combustion engine-powered cars. Only fuel cell or battery cars are allowed. It doesn't matter that they're more expensive, because the customer will pay for it! Poof, problem solved. If people want convenience then they should pay for it! Never mind that what they had before was cheaper and more convenient, they can't pay for that any more! [ QUOTE ] 3)I stand behind my statement. So what? I'm entitiled to my "moral" position. Did you see the "politics aside part"? Do you actually disagree with me or are you just being a donkey? [/ QUOTE ] "People who think there is a purpose for plastic bags = dumb" is a moral statement? I'm not sure what the "politics aside" disclaimer is supposed to do here. [ QUOTE ] I"m calling BS to this "subjective imposing". Everyones ideas are subjective even if 99% of people agree so it's useless in this argument. [/ QUOTE ] No, that's entirely the point. Even if 90% of people like coke, there still is no justification for denying pepsi to the remaining 10%. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing that private business includes "only" violence, I am saying the believing in free markets does not mean that one has to accept "market" exchanges involving the sale of violence. [/ QUOTE ] Nobody was even having that discussion. I wasn't saying that if you believe in free markets that you have to accept "market" exchanges involving the sale of violence. I was saying that if you believe in completely free markets that you better accept that government distorts markets. Somebody said they were not AC but wanted government completely out of private business. I pretty much said that you better go AC for that. I'm practically advertising for AC in the fact that they are the most consistent ideology I've heard for the goal of free markets, and you'd rather take issue with one of my dumb examples and turn me into an anti-free-market-jack-booted-thug. Take the murder thing out of there and reread the post in the context of every other post in the thread. Here', I'll fix my own post for ya: [ QUOTE ] See also every other law. No cars without seat belts? You're messing with Detroit's profit margin. No poker? What about my bankroll? No prostitution? But what will mosdef do when he needs money at a public rest area? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] If you're not an anarchist, then chances are you really do want to mess with private business to some degree. You just draw the line somewhere different than the folks of the fine city of San Francisco do. [/ QUOTE ] FMP |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Should the city step in when a restaurant is serving rotten dog meat? [/ QUOTE ] If I want to eat rotten dogmeat soup, who are you to stop me? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Although I dont want to get into the politics of it ( my goal is really just to express that I think banning plastic bags is a good idea) i will try to answer the question: 1.Because over 50% of your peers do not want rotten dog meat to be served in restaurants just in case they eat it by mistake or in case it contaminates other foods at the restaurant. This is a democracy , its not perfect but its better than most ways. 2. This is more a Canadian view- Because your peers don't want to subsidize your trip to the hospital. 3. If you want rotten dog meat then do it in your own home. [/ QUOTE ] 1) We like coke, so pepsi should be outlawed. We don't want to accidentally drink pepsi. There are more of us, there's an implication that we could beat you up if it comes down to it, might makes right. 2) we're going to impose a health care system upon you and then use that as a basis for micromanaging all of your activity going forward. Skiing? Might break your leg. Cheeseburgers? Clog your arteries. Loud music? Might damage your hearing. Your fun activities might cost us money, so no fun for you. 3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. [/ QUOTE ] 1. Yeah so again you have issues with democracy.If 51% want to ban coke than so be it. I'm not saying its right. I'm saying thats how it is. Are you disagreeing with me? [/ QUOTE ] Am I disagreeing that this is "how it is"? No, of course not. But this discussion isn't about the current status quo; that would be a pretty boring conversation. Eg: A: Pot should be legal. B: But it's illegal! THATS HOW IT IS DUMMY, ARE YOU DISAGREEING WITH ME??? [ QUOTE ] 2.First off I think MY original point here is moot. I should NOT have included it. But your being dense. This debate is better illustrated by being forced to wear seatbelts. Cheezeburgers ..come on I think your smarter than that. [/ QUOTE ] Why should people be forced to wear seatbelts? And yes, cheese IS under fire. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...01/njunk01.xml It starts off slowly, of course. [ QUOTE ] 3. Hmm. Now I'm thinking of that poisonous fish they serve in Japan. I think THATS fine so I would be a little bit hypocritical of me to say no to the soup. I'm not sure if its the same. But if 51% of my peers say no than there isn't much I can do. [/ QUOTE ] Then why even participate in discussion? Just poll everyone, impose the results on everyone, and get on with "important" stuff. [ QUOTE ] To summarize... 1) in democracy the majority rules! 2) I think plastic bags can be outlawed in a way that will have insignificant economic effects. ( not saying san fran is accomplishing this) [/ QUOTE ] lol. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup. [/ QUOTE ] this is a settled legal issue, it is public if anyone can come in. some membership deals are private though. think can restaurant owner not serve blacks. [/ QUOTE ] A: Pot should be legal. B: This is a settled legal issue, it's illegal. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Let's go with another example. Outlaw internal combustion engine-powered cars. Only fuel cell or battery cars are allowed. It doesn't matter that they're more expensive, because the customer will pay for it! Poof, problem solved. [/ QUOTE ] Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of? For the overwhelming majority of human history that we got along without them, were people being deprived in some way? Of course not. The right is to voluntary transactions, except you conveniently ignore that these voluntary transactions might be opposed by people not making the transactions. So who cares, right? Well, these voluntary transactions (just like many, many others) affect people beyond merely those who make them. I think you'd agree that you have no right to raise a skunk farm next door to me if it makes my land smell like [censored]. You have no right to play music loudly at 4 am just because it's in your apartment and not mine. So what gives you the right to pollute the environment that everyone else has to live in? Simply the fact that, guess what, the majority of people (and those who rule people) have decided that they are ok having cars and with others having cars. Some people believe that driving cars isn't alright, and that this, along with other forms of pollution, should all be made illegal. Tyranny of the majority... or is it ok because you drive a car (which I do as well, not trying to say that cars should be outlawed)? |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of? [/ QUOTE ] No. And there's no right to plastic bags. This has nothing to do with the point that you're derailing, though. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of? [/ QUOTE ] No. And there's no right to plastic bags. This has nothing to do with the point that you're derailing, though. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, it does. The point is that someone needs to decide where to draw the line. I personally feel that outlawing plastic bags is overboard, but if the people of SF really have a problem with it, I would recommend electing some new officials (or leaving). |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Let's go with another example. Outlaw internal combustion engine-powered cars. Only fuel cell or battery cars are allowed. It doesn't matter that they're more expensive, because the customer will pay for it! Poof, problem solved. [/ QUOTE ] Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of? For the overwhelming majority of human history that we got along without them, were people being deprived in some way? Of course not. The right is to voluntary transactions, except you conveniently ignore that these voluntary transactions might be opposed by people not making the transactions. So who cares, right? Well, these voluntary transactions (just like many, many others) affect people beyond merely those who make them. I think you'd agree that you have no right to raise a skunk farm next door to me if it makes my land smell like [censored]. You have no right to play music loudly at 4 am just because it's in your apartment and not mine. So what gives you the right to pollute the environment that everyone else has to live in? Simply the fact that, guess what, the majority of people (and those who rule people) have decided that they are ok having cars and with others having cars. Some people believe that driving cars isn't alright, and that this, along with other forms of pollution, should all be made illegal. Tyranny of the majority... or is it ok because you drive a car (which I do as well, not trying to say that cars should be outlawed)? [/ QUOTE ] Let these people file a claim in a private court and present their evidence that my use of a car (I don't drive by the way this is hypothetical) harms them. If a reputable private court finds that it does to the extent that damages must be awarded and I value interacting with society above cutting and running I'll stop using my car or pay damages determined by the court. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Let these people file a claim in a private court and present their evidence that my use of a car (I don't drive by the way this is hypothetical) harms them. If a reputable private court finds that it does to the extent that damages must be awarded and I value interacting with society above cutting and running I'll stop using my car or pay damages determined by the court. [/ QUOTE ] By what standard does your proposed court make decisions? Clearly your use of a car harms the people around you to some slight degree. How does one go about putting a monetary value on this? All you say is "reputable court", but that just means that the power of the court rests only in it's reputation. If you sue me and I say "[censored] that court", you have no power at all. Unless everyone in society agrees to ostracize me or punish me in some other manner, there is no punishment. And since everyone in society drives a car, nobody would support such a court. Which just means that the majority have managed to impose their preferences onto a minority, and in a case where they are actively harming society (the degree of harm is up to debate, it's existence is not). In this case, we have a system with courts and lawmakers and law enforcers. They pass a law, and if you value interacting with society above cutting and running, you'll stop using plastic bags... |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of? [/ QUOTE ] No. And there's no right to plastic bags. This has nothing to do with the point that you're derailing, though. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, it does. The point is that someone needs to decide where to draw the line. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, I see. The old "we can solve the slippery slope problem by drawing an arbitrary line" pipedream. [ QUOTE ] I personally feel that outlawing plastic bags is overboard, but if the people of SF really have a problem with it, I would recommend electing some new officials (or leaving). [/ QUOTE ] Ah, great idea. Obviously, nobody has a problem with Bush. If they did, they simply would have elected someone else. Interesting. |
Re: San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I see. The old "we can solve the slippery slope problem by drawing an arbitrary line" pipedream. [/ QUOTE ] I'd like you to expand on this. I've laid out my case in more than a single sentence, I'd appreciate it if you did the same. I believe that a voluntary interaction between A and B can affect C, and we must somehow decide what level of affect is socially allowable. Are you saying that there is some line that is not arbitrary? Are you saying that this line should be determined by the market (whatever that means)? Are you saying this isn't a problem in the first place (if so please explain)? [ QUOTE ] Ah, great idea. Obviously, nobody has a problem with Bush. If they did, they simply would have elected someone else. Interesting. [/ QUOTE ] You can't increase scale by several orders of magnitude and imagine that the same problems or difficulties arise. This would be like me saying quantum mechanics is obviously bogus based on watching a tennis ball. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.