San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[Thug Bubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I'm not an ACist. I'm just a crazy person that doesn't think the city should be able to [censored] with private business.

[/ QUOTE ]
See also every other law. No murder? You're messing with my hitman private practice. No poker? What about my bankroll? No prostitution? But what will mom do now?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of these is not like the others...

[TomCollins]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

I don't disagree with this.

However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree).

Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications.

I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive.

Coercion is only inevitable because people choose to be coercive. It's not as if there is a hand of god making sure we will perpetually form governments.

I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

I don't disagree with this.

However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree).

Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications.

I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive.

I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says I think local-level democracy is bad?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you may not like local-level democracy, but no better alternative currently exists. And when an anarchist alternative does emerge, I wouldn't be shocked to see local communities develop and enforce their local values. In actuality, it would be inevitable, and that is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj,

I don't disagree with this.

However, the inevitability doesn't change the fact that it's still something I see as wrong (if even, in this instance, to a small degree).

Just because it would inevitably occur, if I think its occurrence is destructive, my opinion will still be that it's destructive. You will of course say this is dogmatic or simplistic. But to me it makes no sense to deny the true nature of our actions. From there, you can discuss the practical implications.

I have no problem with accepting the role of decentralized government as a more attainable solution. We only live so long. In fact, I'd be shocked and thrilled if the U.S. could even rediscover its respect for state rights and general regard for the Constitution in my lifetime. But objectively, if asked, I can't help but conclude coercion on even a local level is still destructive.

I don't really see what sense it would make to claim something is not bad just because you think it's inevitable (TODAY) that the badness will occur. How then could any progress have any sort of lasting effect, if you deny the root of what actually motivates your progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says I think local-level democracy is bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, that would be a different argument than what I quoted and replied to. I was just addressing the idea that if I don't like democracy I should maybe still be OK with local democracy since it's inevitable.

Personally, I don't try to make any sense of what you actually do or don't stand for, because it's clear that you don't stand for much of anything beyond intellectual jack-offery.

So I was just trying to respond directly to what you said in the post above.

[pvn]

[ 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)

[pvn]

[ 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.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives simply like to micro-manage other peoples' lives -- no surprise... Government says to use "religion X" morals, you use "religion X." Maybe it's easier for some people to live that way -- I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hippies don't have a monopoly on dumb legislation micro-managing your life. Does it get any more stupid than conservatives outlawing certain kinds of sex between consensual adults?

I'm glad to see a couple AC'ists break from the fundamentalist ranks and admit that in the real world this is pretty much a non-issue if you don't live in SF.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such laws are also obviously absurd. Thankfully, there are essentially no conservatives pushing this kind of "missionary position only" type of life micromanagement for a long time now. The hippies take the cake for life micromanagement, these days (not to say that conservatives don't do other annoying crap).

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[destro]

[ 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.
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)
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?

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.