|
|
#181
09-13-2007, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] WTF? Nutrition labels? Let me guess, those wouldn't exist w/o the government either... [/ QUOTE ] No, they wouldn't, and in most jurisdictions they have no information on trans-fats at the moment anyway. This is a really weak snipe. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, they would, and I'm not sure what you mean by "most jurisdictions", but every single food in my apartment lists the trans fat. [ QUOTE ] Do you support the right of manufacturers to include poison in the food they sell without informed consent or not? If not, how is that different from trans fats? [/ QUOTE ]Yes, and since it sounds like such an incredibly successful business plan, I'm sure it will become wildly popular. [/ QUOTE ] Read http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/uplo...Lang_30-40.pdf for a history of food labeling and the battles governments have had to get food companies to include even the most basic information. 'In most jurisdictions' means in most places, worldwide, including where I am right now. The food companies have no incentive to include any information on their packaging that could influence people not to buy their products, so without coercion they will not include information on the presence of trans-fats. Regardless of your theories, this is what is occurring right now. Before regulations were introduced the situation was much worse, and processed food frequently contained poisonous ingredients. [ QUOTE ] Cliff notes / page numbers please. [/ QUOTE ] I'm basically making a statement about the whole of human history so that's not practical. If you're interested in laissez-faire economics then I recommend studying history, since it contains plenty of examples of why the regulations we have were brought about. It wasn't for the hell of it. [ QUOTE ] LOL, what externalities does this scenario involve? And how exactly will the government succeed where the free market fails? www.mises.org/asc/2003/asc9simpson.pdf [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] First of all, how would the government resolve this "problem" that you are describing? The market only "fails" in cases of poorly-defined property rights, which is most definitely not the case here. If you could prove that me smoking on my property was harming your health while you remained on your property, then you could claim negative externalities and sue me. [/ QUOTE ] The government solves it in the manner we have been discussing, wtf. You appear not to understand what an externality is. From wiki; 'In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit resulting from an economic transaction that is borne or received by parties not directly involved in the transaction.' I've shown exactly how this applies to second hand smoking. No you can't sue for it. [ QUOTE ] It sounds like you've never heard of the Austrian School of Economics, or Mises.org. I strongly recommend that you take a look at some of their teachings. It was really eye-opening stuff for me. They're definitely not a part of "mainstream" economics, but that's really not surprising since they so strongly support the free market. It's hard to gain government support when you're arguing against that very government's existence. [/ QUOTE ] LOL yes I have heard of the Austrian school. Firstly, success in the academic arena is not fundamentally linked to government approval, it's linked to the approval of your peers. The Austrian School is in the fringe because most people who are knowledgeable about economics think they're wrong. Secondly the Austrian School economists have had tremendous government support in the US! Both from Reagan and from Bush. Reagan sent them to Russia to advise on the changeover from the command economy to a free market economy, and GWB did the same in Iraq. In both cases the economy underwent immediate and catastrophic collapse. [ QUOTE ] P.S. As I mentioned earlier, you should start a thread in the Politics forum if you want to continue this discussion. There are a lot of guys much more knowledgeable than me over there... [/ QUOTE ] ty, but I don't enjoy being called a fascist. 
|
|
#182
09-13-2007, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
Smokers generally (as evidenced by some in this thread) will claim the limited smoke I inhale when they're smoking nearby outdoors is so small it doesn't matter. Well, no, on two counts. One, it smells awful. If I'm hanging around for a bus, or at a coffee shop, it just sucks to have you stinking up the place for everyone near by. Two, I'm mildly asmatic. Cigarette smoke sets it off (though, oddly, not so much with pipe smoke). I will, quite literally, have trouble breathing if I'm subject to 2nd hand smoke for any length of time (1 hour is about my max in a bar, couple hours in an outdoor smoking area). So, I'm all for banning smoking except within your own home. I'll agree, seems incredibly stupid to ban it within your own house. However, if you're renting, I'm in favor of the owner having the right to ban smoking in the house because smoking causes a lot of damage. Carpets have to be cleaned multiple times, the smell actually gets into the drywall and you can't really ever quite get rid of it. [/ QUOTE ] I dont give a F about ur retarded lungs.
|
|
#183
09-13-2007, 10:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
shipit, You need to realise this is a motion borught about by majority opinion. Prohibition was brought about by minority opinion. Comparing smoking bans to prohibition is stupid in every way possible. [/ QUOTE ] I forgot to mention: We did not vote on this 5 city officials decided to pass this ban. The people already voted on this issue and struck it down.
|
|
#184
09-14-2007, 12:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly the Austrian School economists have had tremendous government support in the US! Both from Reagan and from Bush. Reagan sent them to Russia to advise on the changeover from the command economy to a free market economy, and GWB did the same in Iraq. In both cases the economy underwent immediate and catastrophic collapse. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly which Austrians were sent to Russia and Iraq? Because the records of both presidents on foreign policy and economic policy are pretty un-Austrian.
|
|
#185
09-14-2007, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Secondly the Austrian School economists have had tremendous government support in the US! Both from Reagan and from Bush. Reagan sent them to Russia to advise on the changeover from the command economy to a free market economy, and GWB did the same in Iraq. In both cases the economy underwent immediate and catastrophic collapse. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly which Austrians were sent to Russia and Iraq? Because the records of both presidents on foreign policy and economic policy are pretty un-Austrian. [/ QUOTE ] There better have been a whole lot of smoking or a whole lot of complaining about second hand smoke during these goings ons.
|
|
#186
09-14-2007, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] shipit, You need to realise this is a motion borught about by majority opinion. Prohibition was brought about by minority opinion. Comparing smoking bans to prohibition is stupid in every way possible. [/ QUOTE ] I forgot to mention: We did not vote on this 5 city officials decided to pass this ban. The people already voted on this issue and struck it down. [/ QUOTE ] Do you live in a democracy? If No, go to "military coup" If Yes, did you ever vote on anyone vaguely in charge of your city/state/country? If No, you didnt vote and dont get to complain about the change. If Yes, you voted for the change. ----- Somewhere along the line, someone had to have run this policy up the flagpole and you all saluted it. Or in the very least, if it is unpopular (IE, not passed by a majority decision) then the people will turn out in their masses to protest at such a decision. By the same token, gambling when outlawed in the US in the 60s under the Wire Act was passed by the majority. The UIGEA was quite rightly a bill attached to the Port Security bill to stop money from being laundered out of your country by illegal offshore organisations and help in enforcing the wire act - as described by your dept of justice.
|
|
#188
09-14-2007, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
is mikecrooks banned [/ QUOTE ] Why would anyone care?
|
|
#189
09-14-2007, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BAN ON SMOKING
[ QUOTE ]
Smokers generally (as evidenced by some in this thread) will claim the limited smoke I inhale when they're smoking nearby outdoors is so small it doesn't matter. Well, no, on two counts. One, it smells awful. If I'm hanging around for a bus, or at a coffee shop, it just sucks to have you stinking up the place for everyone near by. Two, I'm mildly asmatic. Cigarette smoke sets it off (though, oddly, not so much with pipe smoke). I will, quite literally, have trouble breathing if I'm subject to 2nd hand smoke for any length of time (1 hour is about my max in a bar, couple hours in an outdoor smoking area). So, I'm all for banning smoking except within your own home. I'll agree, seems incredibly stupid to ban it within your own house. However, if you're renting, I'm in favor of the owner having the right to ban smoking in the house because smoking causes a lot of damage. Carpets have to be cleaned multiple times, the smell actually gets into the drywall and you can't really ever quite get rid of it. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
