San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[natedogg]

However, in this case they take the right approach.

article

Restaurants which are certified by the city to be "trans fat free" will get a nice pretty certificate to post in their window.

So, my question for the nannies is, how hard was that? Why do you nannies always immediately jump to the full-fledged coercion solution?

I can't help but wonder if those who usually favor of heavy-handed coercion do so out of a desire to coerce regardless of the issue. In other words, power-trippers. Or maybe just a lack of imagination? Hard to say, but they must be stopped. And of all places, San Francisco has taken a reasonable approach.

natedogg

PS: Obviously, I don't support the city spending my money on this silly certificate program but that is a lighter shade of coercion than an outright ban so I'm pleased. If being trans-fat free was important enough to consumers then restaurants would publish that fact on their own. oh wait, they do: (from the article)
[ QUOTE ]

Palio D' Asti restaurant in San Francisco has been trans-fat free for years -- no margarine or vegetable shortening are ever used.
...
While there are no hard numbers, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association says most restaurants have already given up on trans fat.

"My guess is that 80 percent of them don't use any trans fats, but the ones that do, tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum," says Kevin Westlye, Golden Gate Restaurant Associaeion[sic].



[/ QUOTE ]

And this last one is just funny, cause it highlights the typical case of government solving a problem that doesnt' exist:

[ QUOTE ]

The proposed legislation wants to see trans-fats out of San Francisco schools as well. However, the district says, as of 2005-2006, no trans-fats are ever added to meals.


[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The proposed legislation wants to see trans-fats out of San Francisco schools as well. However, the district says, as of 2005-2006, no trans-fats are ever added to meals.

[/ QUOTE ]

you realize this statement by the district is a legalese type statement that really can probably mean just about anythign.

[natedogg]

I'd really like to hear from all the ardent nannies like Copernicus, LowKey and DVault and others who were cheering the NYC trasnfat ban. I'd love to hear an explanation as to why the approach taken by SF is one that doesn't go far enough.

natedogg

[xorbie]

It's a shame that you had to start this thread.

edit: To clarify, there's no need to treat the people you want to debate/discuss something with like immoral, idiotic, unimaginative twits. No sport in that.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to hear from all the ardent nannies like Copernicus, LowKey and DVault and others who were cheering the NYC trasnfat ban. I'd love to hear an explanation as to why the approach taken by SF is one that doesn't go far enough.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, *no one* is willing to defend the transfat ban anymore? Honestly, if there's anyone left who will defend a transfat ban I'd love to hear the reasoning.

Am I to assume that they have seen the light? All the overly zealous nannies who are too quick to jump to a coercion solution for any problem now realize that a ban on things like transfats is inappropriate?

In the future, please try to keep in mind that this kind of approach used by SF is relevant and effective in nearly every case of something you would like to see banned, not just this one issue of transfats.


natedogg

[fmxda]

I support this over a ban of trans fats as well, but

[ QUOTE ]
If being trans-fat free was important enough to consumers then restaurants would publish that fact on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is about legislating the desires of consumers, it's probably more about protecting (nannying as you say) people ignorant of the health risks of trans fats as well as possibly some externality considerations regarding health care.

But the certificate legislation is much better considering it has a demand-pull aspect with a thought-provoking sign over an invisible ban, as well as a supply-push incentive for restaurants to comply.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but wonder if those who usually favor of heavy-handed coercion do so out of a desire to coerce regardless of the issue. In other words, power-trippers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think there's only a very small number of people who want power over other people just for the hell of it. I think most people are inherently compassionate and are concerned about others' well being. I couldn't be a libertarian if I didn't believe that.

The difference between the libertarian and the do-gooder nanny statist is in how they think the well-being of others can be best achieved.

The libertarian believes that each individual knows what's best for themselves. The do-gooder believes that other people are either not smart enough, or just ignorant of the facts about trans fat/smoking/whatever. I think the thought process of the do-gooder goes something like this: "these people smoking and eating trans fat don't know how bad it is. I went to college, and I read books, so I know how unhealthy this stuff is. It's up to me to SAVE them from their bad habits. One day they'll thank me..." It's a bit of a hero complex.

Where the do-gooder logic fails is in their assumption that everyone else has the exact same values they do. You may think that eating cookies with partially hydrogenated oil is dumb and not at all worth the pleasure of eating, but maybe other people don't. Maybe some people actually *gasp* like to smoke, and don't care if it gives them a slightly higher chance of getting cancer.

The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but wonder if those who usually favor of heavy-handed coercion do so out of a desire to coerce regardless of the issue. In other words, power-trippers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think there's only a very small number of people who want power over other people just for the hell of it. I think most people are inherently compassionate and are concerned about others' well being. I couldn't be a libertarian if I didn't believe that.

The difference between the libertarian and the do-gooder nanny statist is in how they think the well-being of others can be best achieved.

The libertarian believes that each individual knows what's best for themselves. The do-gooder believes that other people are either not smart enough, or just ignorant of the facts about trans fat/smoking/whatever. I think the thought process of the do-gooder goes something like this: "these people smoking and eating trans fat don't know how bad it is. I went to college, and I read books, so I know how unhealthy this stuff is. It's up to me to SAVE them from their bad habits. One day they'll thank me..." It's a bit of a hero complex.

Where the do-gooder logic fails is in their assumption that everyone else has the exact same values they do. You may think that eating cookies with partially hydrogenated oil is dumb and not at all worth the pleasure of eating, but maybe other people don't. Maybe some people actually *gasp* like to smoke, and don't care if it gives them a slightly higher chance of getting cancer.

The do-gooders don't wish to gain power, they wish to impose VALUES onto others in a deranged effort to help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, honestly, I can't say I know the mind of a nanny, whether they're a well-intentioned do-gooder or a sneering contemptuous paternalist or a simple power-tripper. I don't know what motivates someone to ban donuts. I really don't.

natedogg

[owsley]

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
However, in this case they take the right approach.

article

Restaurants which are certified by the city to be "trans fat free" will get a nice pretty certificate to post in their window.

So, my question for the nannies is, how hard was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I prefer the term "Nancy" or "Nancies".

Second, that idea never occurred to us. Our bad. Please forward this thread to the City of New York. Thanks in advance.

Love,

The Nancies