San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[Barcalounger]

[ 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

[pvn]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[xorbie]

[ 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)?

[pvn]

[ 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.

[xorbie]

[ 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).

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[xorbie]

[ 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...

[pvn]

[ 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.

[xorbie]

[ 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.