San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[hmkpoker]

[ 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 ]

If people mostly supported it, people would do it anyways. Stores that provided these tree huggers with their hippie bags would have an edge over stores that didn't.

But it's a classic case of wanting something you aren't necessarily willing to pay for. Stores haven't made this decision on their own, because as much as people may mildly prefer hippie bags to dirty plastic bags, they don't prefer it enough to cover 15 cents a bag. So it's just people using government to force stores to give them what they aren't willing to pay for. As an ACist, you have no problem with that? You too hmk?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say the same thing of HOA's and condo associations, which pretty much behave like mini-governments, except for the fact that they are so decentralized and mobility is so easy that ACists all seem to recognize the social contract with them as legitimate.

you can pigeonhole me into the "ACist" label if you want, but honestly I'm just interested in breaking up the federal government. If the states (or better yet municipalities) had sovereignty, I think that would be a huge improvement.

[ConstantineX]

Are you (dangerously) posting again, HMK?

[ALawPoker]

Fair enough, I wasn't trying to "pigeon hole" you into anything, heh. Labels sort of suck; I am with you on that. I was just trying to be clear of what exactly your thinking was.

In principle, I certainly don't agree with the SF paper bag thing, and I despise the fact that the mentality that when you want something you're not willing to pay for you just ask for it in the voting booth is so accepted. But I agree with you that it of course isn't that big of a deal at a very decentralized level. I just don't see how the principle in any way changes (and based on your response it seems you agree).

[Kaj]

Where do all the plastic bags used in SF go (those not recycled)?

They go buried somewhere in SF. Where they stay for hundreds even thousands of years. Thus the true cost of plastic bags is borne out by future generations and the rest of society -- in other words, your cost analysis completely externalized the true cost of plastic bags.

Thus if SF'ans want to protect their citizens and future citizens from dealing with such external costs, there can be a legitimate case. There are thousands of cities to choose from if you disagree. And if you want to stay and persuade others to change the law, it is much easier at the local level. The knee-jerk reactions against the decisions of local govt fly in the face of real democracy. 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.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do all the plastic bags used in SF go (those not recycled)?

They go buried somewhere in SF. Where they stay for hundreds even thousands of years. Thus the true cost of plastic bags is borne out by future generations and the rest of society -- in other words, your cost analysis completely externalized the true cost of plastic bags.

Thus if SF'ans want to protect their citizens and future citizens from dealing with such external costs, there can be a legitimate case. There are thousands of cities to choose from if you disagree. And if you want to stay and persuade others to change the law, it is much easier at the local level. The knee-jerk reactions against the decisions of local govt fly in the face of real democracy. 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 ]

Are there any landfills in San Francisco? With the cost of real estate, I would be very surprised if there were. I'm sure they export their garbage somewhere else.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do all the plastic bags used in SF go (those not recycled)?

They go buried somewhere in SF. Where they stay for hundreds even thousands of years. Thus the true cost of plastic bags is borne out by future generations and the rest of society -- in other words, your cost analysis completely externalized the true cost of plastic bags.

Thus if SF'ans want to protect their citizens and future citizens from dealing with such external costs, there can be a legitimate case. There are thousands of cities to choose from if you disagree. And if you want to stay and persuade others to change the law, it is much easier at the local level. The knee-jerk reactions against the decisions of local govt fly in the face of real democracy. 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 ]

Are there any landfills in San Francisco? With the cost of real estate, I would be very surprised if there were. I'm sure they export their garbage somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I recall reading, the problem with the plastic bags was that people weren't recycling them, only about 2% were being recycled. The rest were being thrown out or just left to fly in the wind. Seems to me a recycling campaign would be better than flat out banning a commonly used item.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do all the plastic bags used in SF go (those not recycled)?

They go buried somewhere in SF. Where they stay for hundreds even thousands of years. Thus the true cost of plastic bags is borne out by future generations and the rest of society -- in other words, your cost analysis completely externalized the true cost of plastic bags.

Thus if SF'ans want to protect their citizens and future citizens from dealing with such external costs, there can be a legitimate case. There are thousands of cities to choose from if you disagree. And if you want to stay and persuade others to change the law, it is much easier at the local level. The knee-jerk reactions against the decisions of local govt fly in the face of real democracy. 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 ]

Are there any landfills in San Francisco? With the cost of real estate, I would be very surprised if there were. I'm sure they export their garbage somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I recall reading, the problem with the plastic bags was that people weren't recycling them, only about 2% were being recycled. The rest were being thrown out or just left to fly in the wind. Seems to me a recycling campaign would be better than flat out banning a commonly used item.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple solution- put a deposit on each plastic bag. Return bag, get deposit. If they are floating around, homeless people will actually catch them. Recycling plastic probably is very wasteful since no company pays you to turn in bags (unless they are subsidized to do so).

Also, plastic bags are useful. I save them and reuse them to throw out other trash. Is this recycling?

[Taso]

lol, I don't know Tom. My parents save them too, we usually have at least 20 of them under the sink, which we use to carry the stacks and stacks of newspapers my dad gets, to recycle.

[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?