San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

So I can just ban one person and then it's not public and I can do what I want? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jogsxyz]

The supervisors claimed that streets would be cleaner without plastic bags. Now the streets have more doggie droppings than before the ban. Those bags did serve a purpose.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup.



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.



So I can just ban one person and then it's not public and I can do what I want?

[/ QUOTE ]

no I think if it is not open to the general public like if you need a membership to get in, that's how some bars used to operate in dry counties anyways.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a huge question you've begged. It's just yet another personal subjective opinion that someone wants to impose upon a bunch of other people.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that there is some line that is not arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a voluntary interaction between A and B affects C (and I agree this is possible), then you may very well have an involuntary transaction. In those cases, you now have a non-arbitrary "line".

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 ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so anyone who wants to can replace their *local* elected representative on a whim as you suggested they do if they aren't satisfied?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
3) Restaurants are private property, just like homes. The restaurant owner is on his own property when he makes the soup.



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.



So I can just ban one person and then it's not public and I can do what I want?

[/ QUOTE ]

no I think if it is not open to the general public like if you need a membership to get in, that's how some bars used to operate in dry counties anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize how much of a joke this is, right? I used to work in a dry county in Arkansas. There was a "private club" downtown, which not only accepted membership applications from anyone on the spot no questions asked, they went so far as to advertise. Technically, such advertising is against the rules, so they would take out billboard space and use it for "notices" for their members, not advertisement to the general public. You would literally have a billboard on the side of the interstate that said something like this:

(tiny 10 pt type) attention members and guests

(BIG HUGE LETTERS) ZOMG WE HAVE BOOZE DOWNTOWN

In practice, the only thing that made this a "private" club was that they said it was "private".

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize how much of a joke this is, right? I used to work in a dry county in Arkansas. There was a "private club" downtown, which not only accepted membership applications from anyone on the spot no questions asked, they went so far as to advertise. Technically, such advertising is against the rules, so they would take out billboard space and use it for "notices" for their members, not advertisement to the general public. You would literally have a billboard on the side of the interstate that said something like this:

(tiny 10 pt type) attention members and guests

(BIG HUGE LETTERS) ZOMG WE HAVE BOOZE DOWNTOWN

In practice, the only thing that made this a "private" club was that they said it was "private".

[/ QUOTE ]

hey bud, the whole legal system is a joke imo.

I'm just saying you could have a "whites only" membership dining club, but if you're a restaurant without the joke legal b.s. and you hang a "whites only" sign and enforce it, youre gonna be in big trouble.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You realize how much of a joke this is, right? I used to work in a dry county in Arkansas. There was a "private club" downtown, which not only accepted membership applications from anyone on the spot no questions asked, they went so far as to advertise. Technically, such advertising is against the rules, so they would take out billboard space and use it for "notices" for their members, not advertisement to the general public. You would literally have a billboard on the side of the interstate that said something like this:

(tiny 10 pt type) attention members and guests

(BIG HUGE LETTERS) ZOMG WE HAVE BOOZE DOWNTOWN

In practice, the only thing that made this a "private" club was that they said it was "private".

[/ QUOTE ]

hey bud, the whole legal system is a joke imo.

I'm just saying you could have a "whites only" membership dining club, but if you're a restaurant without the joke legal b.s. and you hang a "whites only" sign and enforce it, youre gonna be in big trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

I remember being in a gas station in town here (Whitewater, WI) and a customer asked the clerk if he could buy booze on Sundays. The clerk was some college chick who gave him a wtf look and said yeah, of course. I think his plate was from Arkansas. Dry counties are totally alien to Wisconsinites except for some village I've never heard of before (Ephraim). Suck it Arkansas/(Tennessee?)! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[pergesu]

I bought the reusable cloth bags, but I'm a SF hippie [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

This is a little bit off topic and a slight hijack, but I didnt want to start a whole new thread just to make a comment. I was watching PTI today, and while this is probably inexcusable, I was also studying at the time and wanted something mindless in the background. So anyhow, they start talking about the Green Bay/Dallas game, and the situation with the NFL Network. It was at this time that I realized that you AC guys wont ever win. Or at least not any time even remotely soon.

Both Wilbon and Kornheiser were railing against the greedy, evil cable companies...so far so good, I suppose. But then they started explaining how it was completely unfair and that these cable companies were holding the viewers hostage, and victimizing them. They used both of those phrases exactly. And they were serious. Of course they are prone to hyperbole but in this exchange it doesnt make sense if its just hyperbole, it was central to their complaint that these cable companies were actually IN THE WRONG because they were holding fans hostage, and that something needed to be done about this.

So I talked to some of my (sports loving) friends about it. They feel the same way. Cable companies are out of control, what are they supposed to do? They cant afford a dish, and they deserve to see the game too. People honestly feel like they have a RIGHT just because they have a WANT. I understand the confusion between these two concepts when we are talking about, say, healthcare (understand, not agree with) because health is extremely central and important for most people and they misunderstand what a right to life means. But people legitimately feel VICTIMIZED and held hostage by cable companies because they wont provide them what they want. I dont see how this is surmountable in anything but the long, long term. People are incapable of listening to, much less trying to understand, the arguments you put forward here when they are laboring under the impression that they have a RIGHT to the Packer game.

Just to be clear, this rant doesnt apply to the statists who post here, it wasnt meant to insult you or try to paint your arguments or positions as childish and stupid. You guys have nothing in common with the PTI guys/all of my idiot friends/family, and you guys really DO understand or try to understand the points made on this thread. And you have many good arguments. I was simply extremely disheartened by this series of events.