Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

View Poll Results: Idiotic or Genius?
Idiotic 14 93.33%
Genius 1 6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-21-2007, 01:15 PM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default San Francisco goes after trans fats too

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 ]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-21-2007, 06:08 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:10 PM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:17 PM
xorbie xorbie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: far and away better
Posts: 15,690
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-26-2007, 03:41 AM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ 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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-27-2007, 02:37 AM
fmxda fmxda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: AA
Posts: 3,757
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-27-2007, 03:45 AM
Ron Burgundy Ron Burgundy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ronpaul2008.com
Posts: 5,208
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-28-2007, 01:44 AM
natedogg natedogg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,570
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ 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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-28-2007, 01:56 AM
owsley owsley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: thank you
Posts: 774
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-28-2007, 04:32 AM
Low Key Low Key is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 548
Default Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too

[ 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.