San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[Barcalounger]

[ 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]

[destro]

[ 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)

[natedogg]

[ 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

[Taso]

[ 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.

[natedogg]

[ 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

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[natedogg]

[ 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

[jogsxyz]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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%.