These people are our future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

No, I'm not entirely convinced that there will be more salt. I would think that everyone being able to take part in the salt gathering endeavor would more than counter any negative effects of demotivation from marginally smaller gains for the most wealthy. Your island analogy fails again, since it assumes there's one equal type of economical activity, that anyone can take part of without any assistance regardless of background and circumstances. Life isn't that simple. You're trying to assess a car by only looking at a piston.



Several studies have shown that harsher penalties do not affect crime rate and just having more salt on the island collectively doesn't achieve anything, unless each individual has more.

---

It's illogical. If we say "bad human!" every time a guy robs a bank, do you really think more banks won't be robbed?! Studies can be wrong, ad that one almost certainly is. If you could walk into any bank and walk out with 10 million bucks without jail time, what percentage of us would do so? Probably more than th 1% who currently rob banks!

Bill, we only have two men on the island. Do you think the island where charity is offered creates as much salt? Don't you think there is at least a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

It's illogical. If we say "bad human!" every time a guy robs a bank, do you really think more banks won't be robbed?! Studies can be wrong, ad that one almost certainly is. If you could walk into any bank and walk out with 10 million bucks without jail time, what percentage of us would do so? Probably more than th 1% who currently rob banks!

---

Well, the question was about more severe punishments, not less. I would assume the studies have been conducted comparing crime rates in certain areas before and after implementing more severe punishments. Getting 5 years, 15 years or losing your right hand doesn't really make a difference as a deterrent. I would also hope that there are less than 70 million bank robbers in the world.

Quote:

---

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by many disciplines. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

• Population density and degree of urbanization.
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
• Modes of transportation and highway system.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
• Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Bill, we only have two men on the island. Do you think the island where charity is offered creates as much salt? Don't you think there is at least a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs?

---

Of course there is. Now that both the men have all the salt they need, how does the extra salt benefit them?

i've only briefly read over....

but do you guys seriously think that monopolies are dreamt up by goverments and left wings idealists or are just slanderous sob stories??? Is this a level? Is Lyric a level? 10 posts....???

I'd be quite upset and maybe have a "sob story" to tell if my business had just been snubbed out by a huge corperation using saturation selling tactics to deliberatly destroy my way of making a living.


Also, more to with lifestyle:

How do you guys feel about the thought of going to different places around the world, but all you get is the same shit : McDonalds, Krispy Kremes, Burger Kings, Tescos in every mall, every high street and all the other bland shit that ruins modern life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Also, more to with lifestyle:

How do you guys feel about the thought of going to different places around the world, but all you get is the same shit : McDonalds, Krispy Kremes, Burger Kings, Tescos in every mall, every high street and all the other bland shit that ruins modern life?

---

1) It is not fact that those things "ruin modern life." This is your opinion (I for one wouldn't like it also though).

2) I believe that this wouldn't happen unless the significant majority of people demanded it.

Let me tell you a story about Mcdonalds. I was in Montpellier, a coastal town in France, during a euro trip I took last year. I was with a couple of friends and during our trip there we met these 3 girls from Northern France who were also sort of vacationing. First night we're with them, we're discussing where we want to eat. One girl goes, "How about Mcdonalds?" All the other girls nod in agreement. My friend is outraged, he says "Mcdonalds! Mcdonalds! You want to eat that crap while we're in a place that has such good food just waiting for us to find?"

They thought Mcdonalds was good and didn't see any problem with it.

But my friend refuses (I didn't really want to go either lol), and we decide to just go on a search for a good place to eat by walking around. We end up passing said Mcdonalds, and the line is fucking huge. It was out the door and hugging the block. And this isn't a very touristy town, from what I can see, most of the people in line are French.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people don't think it's, "ruining modern life."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

i've only briefly read over....

but do you guys seriously think that monopolies are dreamt up by goverments and left wings idealists or are just slanderous sob stories??? Is this a level? Is Lyric a level? 10 posts....???

I'd be quite upset and maybe have a "sob story" to tell if my business had just been snubbed out by a huge corperation using saturation selling tactics to deliberatly destroy my way of making a living.


Also, more to with lifestyle:

How do you guys feel about the thought of going to different places around the world, but all you get is the same shit : McDonalds, Krispy Kremes, Burger Kings, Tescos in every mall, every high street and all the other bland shit that ruins modern life?

---

McDonalds isn't force feeding the international public its food. The only reason McDonalds is put in the high street is because enough people are buying McDonalds to warrant running a business. I think its an exaggeration to say it ruins modern life? Just don't go to any fast food places if you don't like them. A lot of people like them a lot.

As far as the monopoly stuff goes, yes, I think the free market people on here are all in agreement that any business with no government intervention involved is not a monopoly. But there are plenty of government sanctioned monopolies around. I think Lyric summed it up pretty well though so if you have a dispute go back to his posts.

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Bill, we only have two men on the island. Do you think the island where charity is offered creates as much salt? Don't you think there is at least a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Of course there is. Now that both the men have all the salt they need, how does the extra salt benefit them?

---

Salt is another way of talking about wealth or money. Having all the salt they need is the same as saying "having all the wealth (money) they need." We are making progress and have agreed on two things:

1. Wealth = anything people value and can control or trade with other people. Anything valuable that you can own.

2. A island society without charity (forced or voluntary) has more wealth (as a whole) than an island with charity.

Now let's try to agree on another point. On which island would you rather be dropped with no possessions (assuming that the people who live there average people):

1. Ten people live on the beach in small huts and catch one fish per day to support themselves. All of them harvest a gram of salt per day, they have not yet created very much wealth.

2. Ten people have already created stockpiles of wealth (wine, cheese, beer, spices, salt, gold, lumber, medicines, plumbing and buildings, hunting weapons, buildings, roads, tamed animals and farms).

Remember, these are average normal people and you arrive with nothing. On which island do you expect to have a better life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Salt is another way of talking about wealth or money. Having all the salt they need is the same as saying "having all the wealth (money) they need." We are making progress and have agreed on two things:

1. Wealth = anything people value and can control or trade with other people. Anything valuable that you can own.

2. A island society without charity (forced or voluntary) has more wealth (as a whole) than an island with charity.

---

We have? Where exactly did we agree on this? Your argument is that the rich guy will stop working if someone touches his profits, and that the poor guy stops working if someone gives him something. My argument is that both of these effects are negligible, and far smaller than e.g. the effect of providing affordable health care to ensure the poor guy stays able to work.

Even assuming a large margin of error, where my argument turns out to be next to worthless and your argument spot on (all humans turn out to be lazy, selfish and greedy), your illustration about the differences of the outcomes of these islands is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Your argument is that the rich guy will stop working if someone touches his profits, and that the poor guy stops working if someone gives him something. My argument is that both of these effects are negligible...

---

You are exaggerating and generalizing Lyrics points way too much.

It's not "touching his profits." Think of how much added cost someone takes on with a business from government regulation and taxes. Its gigantic already.

And its not that the poor guy stops working if someone gives him something, its that giving people money for not doing anything is direct encouragement not to work. It's not that this is some bad choice from the poor person. Look at Africa, Clothing donations bypass the needy; African industries hurt as dealers profit. | Goliath Business News. Here you can clearly see an example of where donations have actually made people much worse off.

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Salt is another way of talking about wealth or money. Having all the salt they need is the same as saying "having all the wealth (money) they need." We are making progress and have agreed on two things:

1. Wealth = anything people value and can control or trade with other people. Anything valuable that you can own.

2. A island society without charity (forced or voluntary) has more wealth (as a whole) than an island with charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

We have? Where exactly did we agree on this?

---

On which point do you think we have not agreed?

Bill, here you are agreeing that an island without charity has more salt:

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Bill, we only have two men on the island. Do you think the island where charity is offered creates as much salt? Don't you think there is at least a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Of course there is. Now that both the men have all the salt they need, how does the extra salt benefit them?

And here we are agreeing on a definition of "wealth." Do you think wealth should be defined in a different way than what this dictionary says?

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Let's define the word wealth. According to dictionary.com it is:

a. all things that have exchange value.

b. anything that has utility and is capable of being exchanged.

This is a good definition and is in line with my previous assertion that wealth is anything that humans value. Wealth is not an abundance of free time per se. We value free time but it is only one type of "thing that has utility." We must stick with an economics definition to continue a meaningful discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

fine, we will stick with it. Do you see why you just made it far easier to prove that wealth is impossible with only one man?

---

Here are more definitions (top google dictionary listings) of wealth according to economics:

1. All goods and services with monetary, exchangeable, or productive value.
2. All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.
3. All property that has a money value or an exchangeable value.

So on which point do we not agree? Point one or two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

You are exaggerating and generalizing Lyrics points way too much.

---

That's mostly because his points are exaggerated and generalizing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

It's not "touching his profits." Think of how much added cost someone takes on from starting a business from government regulation and taxes. Its gigantic already.

---

Yet for some reason people start businesses, doesn't that prove the risk is worth taking for the possible higher profits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

And its not that the poor guy stops working if someone gives him something, its that giving people money for not doing anything is direct encouragement not to work. It's not that this is some bad choice from the poor person. Look at Africa, Clothing donations bypass the needy; African industries hurt as dealers profit. | Goliath Business News. Here you can clearly see an example of where donations have actually made people much worse off.

---

Direct encouragement to not work or providing necessary aid to survive. You seem to be against public services to the poor, charity and regulating immoral business practices. This leads me to believe that you think that most of us are just lazy and poor people don't really need any aid. Do you see why I called what you're endorsing a selfish system and the term social darwinism keeps popping up?

Are the people in Africa worse off because someone is giving them donations, or because poorly regulated companies posing as charity organizations are ripping them off? How would your system prevent companies from doing this? The donors should pay some independent research lab to conduct a study on them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

That's mostly because his points are exaggerated and generalizing.

Show me one.


Yet for some reason people start businesses, doesn't that prove the risk is worth taking for the possible higher profits?

I wasn't saying that. Very surprised you exaggerated my point here. I'm not saying its so bad that people won't start businesses, I'm saying it cuts into profits tremendously. This helps createshigher prices, low wages, etc.



Direct encouragement to not work or providing necessary aid to survive. You seem to be against public services to the poor, charity and regulating immoral business practices. This leads me to believe that you think that most of us are just lazy and poor people don't really need any aid. Do you see why I called what you're endorsing a selfish system and the term social darwinism keeps popping up?

I'm against public services to the poor. I am not against charity, although I personally believe the only charity that is worth anything is charity the contributes to someones means or ability to help themselves. I am against regulating immoral business practices if those practices are creating un-consenting physical harm to others.



Are the people in Africa worse off because someone is giving them donations, or because poorly regulated companies posing as charity organizations are ripping them off? How would your system prevent companies from doing this? The donors should pay some independent research lab to conduct a study on them?

---

The Africa example was pointless to this discussion, shouldn't have posted it. We're talking about taxes and forced charity not voluntary charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Bill, here you are agreeing that an island without charity has more salt:

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Bill, we only have two men on the island. Do you think the island where charity is offered creates as much salt? Don't you think there is at least a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Of course there is. Now that both the men have all the salt they need, how does the extra salt benefit them?

---

No, here I am agreeing that there is a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs. I agree that there _can_ be more salt overall under the right set of circumstances, but I do not take that as granted unless you're able to somehow prove it. You're struggling to prove it even in your oversimplified island scenario, so even the theoretical basis for this is perhaps questionable, but assuming it's a force overdriving all the mechanics of a modern society is at best a leap of faith. Even if there is collectively more salt, it will only be available to the rich guy, so it does not make everyone magically better off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

No, here I am agreeing that there is a small chance that the poor man will pull less salt from the sea now that he has all the salt he needs. I agree that there _can_ be more salt overall under the right set of circumstances, but I do not take that as granted unless you're able to somehow prove it. You're struggling to prove it even in your oversimplified island scenario, so even the theoretical basis for this is perhaps questionable, but assuming it's a force overdriving all the mechanics of a modern society is at best a leap of faith. Even if there is collectively more salt, it will only be available to the rich guy, so it does not make everyone magically better off.

---

Which island has a higher expected value for salt production? If there is even a small chance that the poor man stops working on the charity-island, the EV for total island-salt is higher on the no-charity island. The only way to logically refute this is to show that the poor man is equally likely to stop working in either situation, and you have already admitted that you think the man receiving charity is at least slightly more likely to stop working.

So I ask again, do you agree on these two points?

1. Wealth = stuff we value and can own.
2. Charity reduces total expected value of wealth on the island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

How do you guys feel about the thought of going to different places around the world, but all you get is the same shit : McDonalds, Krispy Kremes, Burger Kings, Tescos in every mall, every high street and all the other bland shit that ruins modern life?

---

There is a reason McDonald's is successful. They actively adapt their menu to customer demands. Have you ever seen a McDonald's menu summary from other nations? They look nothing like the ones we have.

Take a look at this:
Food Network Humor » McDonalds Menu Items From Around The World (40 Pics)

The truth is that McDonald's is an adaptive food manufacturing firm that asks the people near its store what they want to eat and makes it for them. They provide a valuable service to the community they enter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

There is a reason McDonald's is successful. They actively adapt their menu to customer demands. Have you ever seen a McDonald's menu summary from other nations? They look nothing like the ones we have.

Take a look at this:
Food Network Humor » McDonalds Menu Items From Around The World (40 Pics)

The truth is that McDonald's is an adaptive food manufacturing firm that asks the people near its store what they want to eat and makes it for them. They provide a valuable service to the community they enter.

---

What is a Tesco's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty3038

What is a Tesco's?

---

Let me google that for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

There is a reason McDonald's is successful. They actively adapt their menu to customer demands. Have you ever seen a McDonald's menu summary from other nations? They look nothing like the ones we have.

---

Err, except that they do. McDonalds obviously has to adapt their menu to local religious practice - beefburgers would not sell well in India. But the menus are pretty similar the world over. I guess you have not ventured outside of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

The truth is that McDonald's is an adaptive food manufacturing firm that asks the people near its store what they want to eat and makes it for them. They provide a valuable service to the community they enter.

---

This is complete nonsense. McDonalds sell burgers. They don't reflect the culinary history or culture of the country. They sell food that is high in saturated fat in countries that do not have a tradition of eating this food. A very valuable service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

Err, except that they do. McDonalds obviously has to adapt their menu to local religious practice - beefburgers would not sell well in India. But the menus are pretty similar the world over. I guess you have not ventured outside of the US.

Actually I've been to McDonalds in many other countries. They have staples on the menu but have added myriad products that people in that country want to eat, and it is certainly not based only on religion. Take a look at that link and tell me if spaghetti, bacon potato pie, fried pork sandwiches stuffed with cheese, mustard burgers on ciabatta bread, McLobster rolls, Lakse wraps, beer, pizza, and Shake Shake fries are on the menu in other nations because of religion. They serve these things because that's what people want to eat in that area. What is so hard to understand about that?

Food Network Humor » McDonalds Menu Items From Around The World (40 Pics)

This is complete nonsense. McDonalds sell burgers. They don't reflect the culinary history or culture of the country. They sell food that is high in saturated fat in countries that do not have a tradition of eating this food. A very valuable service.

---

Are you implying that McDonalds is hurting people by creating food that the local population enjoys eating? Show me a culture that does not have a tradition of enjoying meals high in saturated fat. The only I can think of are Mediterraneans, and they have McDonalds there and live long healthy lives.

If you and I live on an island and I decide to heat up some oil and fry potato chunks, should I avoid trading them for a bag of salt that you collected? Would that be immoral for me to sell it to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Which island has a higher expected value for salt production? If there is even a small chance that the poor man stops working on the charity-island, the EV for total island-salt is higher on the no-charity island. The only way to logically refute this is to show that the poor man is equally likely to stop working in either situation, and you have already admitted that you think the man receiving charity is at least slightly more likely to stop working.

So I ask again, do you agree on these two points?

1. Wealth = stuff we value and can own.
2. Charity reduces total expected value of wealth on the island.

---

I don't recall complaining anything about the definition of wealth, even though ISF did include all collective values, morals and happiness in this at some point before you decided that they do not. Anyway, no, I do not agree with 2. Again, I have agreed that there is a small chance what you're saying can happen, nothing more, please don't put words in my mouth. Do you understand that a given situation can be affected by more than one variable? Do you understand the meaning of the following paragraph?

Quote:

---

Your argument is that the rich guy will stop working if someone touches his profits, and that the poor guy stops working if someone gives him something. My argument is that both of these effects are negligible, and far smaller than e.g. the effect of providing affordable health care to ensure the poor guy stays able to work.

---

Citing McDonalds as a beacon of culinary diversity is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Not even McDonalds themselves would claim that. Next you will be saying that they are the epitome of fine dining.

You have been to McDonalds in many other countries, but the only culture you can name that does not have a tradition of eating meals high in saturated fat is the "Mediterraneans". What about the Japanese, Russians, Turks, Indians, Africans... I am not sure where the "Mediterraneans" is to be found, but the fact they have McDonalds there and live long healthy lives is a non sequitur.

As has been pointed out previously in this thread, your island analogy is also ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Yet for some reason people start businesses, doesn't that prove the risk is worth taking for the possible higher profits?

I wasn't saying that. Very surprised you exaggerated my point here. I'm not saying its so bad that people won't start businesses, I'm saying it cuts into profits tremendously. This helps createshigher prices, low wages, etc.

---

I don't think my argument was exaggerated at all. If starting a business still is more profitable and desirable than working for someone else, it isn't taxed too high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I'm against public services to the poor. I am not against charity, although I personally believe the only charity that is worth anything is charity the contributes to someones means or ability to help themselves. I am against regulating immoral business practices if those practices are creating un-consenting physical harm to others.

---

What ensures then that the poor survive, or does it not matter? Do you consider business practices that create un-consenting financial or emotional harm acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Are you implying that McDonalds is hurting people by creating food that the local population enjoys eating? Show me a culture that does not have a tradition of enjoying meals high in saturated fat. The only I can think of are Mediterraneans, and they have McDonalds there and live long healthy lives.

If you and I live on an island and I decide to heat up some oil and fry potato chunks, should I avoid trading them for a bag of salt that you collected? Would that be immoral for me to sell it to you?

---

I think it might be best we start from some basics:

According to the Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Nutrition, fast food is especially high in fat content, and studies have found associations between fast food intake and increased body mass index (BMI) and weight gain.[25] A 2006 study[26] fed monkeys a diet consisting of a similar level of trans fats as what a person who ate fast food regularly would consume. Both diets contained the same overall number of calories. It was found that the monkeys who consumed higher level of trans fat developed more abdominal fat than those fed a diet rich in unsaturated fats. They also developed signs of insulin resistance, which is an early indicator of diabetes. After six years on the diet, the trans fat fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated fat group.

The director of the obesity program for the Children's Hospital Boston, David Ludwig, claims that "fast food consumption has been shown to increase calorie intake, promote weight gain, and elevate risk for diabetes".[27] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ranked obesity as the number one health threat for Americans in 2003.[28] It is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States and results in 400,000 deaths each year.[28] About 60 million American adults are classified as being obese with another 127 million being overweight.[28] Health issues associated with obesity causes economic despair regarding health care. According to a 2003 study conducted by RTI International in North Carolina, the cost of health care in America is said to increase by $93 billion a year, mainly from Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, both associated with obesity.[27]

Excessive calories are another issue with fast food. According to B. Lin and E. Frazao, from the Department of Agriculture, states the percentage of calories which attribute to fast-food consumption has increased from 3% to 12% of the total calories consumed in the United States.[25] A regular meal at McDonald's consists of a Big Mac, large fries, and a large Coca-Cola drink amounting to 1430 calories. A diet of approximately 2000 calories is considered a healthy amount of calories for an entire day (which is different depending on several factors such as age, weight, height, physical activity and gender).

Besides the dangers of trans fats, high calories, and low fiber, there is another health risk, food poisoning. In his book "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal", Eric Schlosser describes in gross detail the process of meatpacking. Meatpacking has become one of the most hazardous jobs in America, with the risk of injury being 3 times higher than any other factory work.[29] The meatpacking factories concentrate livestock into large feedlots and herd them through processing assembly lines operated by poorly trained employees increase the risk of large-scale food poisoning. Manure gets mixed with meat, contaminating it with salmonella and Escherichia coli 0157:H7. E. coli 0157:H7 is one of the worst forms of food poisoning. Usually spread through undercooked hamburgers, it's difficult to treat. Although antibiotics kill the bacteria, they release a toxin that produces hurtful complications. About 4% of people infected with E. coli 0157:H7 develop hemolytic uremic syndrome, and about 5% of children who develop the syndrome die. E. coli 0157:H7 has become the leading cause of renal failure among American kids.[30]

In a research experiment done by Pediatrics, 6,212 children and adolescents ages 4 to 19 years old were examined to find out some information about fast food. After interviewing the participants in the experiment, it was discovered that on a given day 30.3% of the total sample have reported to have eaten fast food. Fast-food consumption was prevalent in both males and females, all racial/ethnic groups, and all regions of the country. Children who ate fast food, compared with those who did not, consumed more total fat, carbohydrates, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Children who ate fast food also ate less fiber, milk, fruits, and non-starchy vegetables. After reviewing these test results, the researchers concluded that consumption of fast food by children seems to have a negative effect on an individual’s diet, in ways that could significantly increase the risk for obesity.[31]

Also: Peer Reviewed: The Role of Race and Poverty in Access to Foods That Enable Individuals to Adhere to Dietary Guidelines

Quote:

---

Results
The spatial distribution of fast food restaurants and supermarkets that provide options for meeting recommended dietary intake differed according to racial distribution and poverty rates. Mixed-race or white high-poverty areas and all African American areas (regardless of income) were less likely than predominantly white higher-income communities to have access to foods that enable individuals to make healthy choices.

Conclusion
Without access to healthy food choices, individuals cannot make positive changes to their diets. If certain eating behaviors are required to reduce chronic disease and promote health, then some communities will continue to have disparities in critical health outcomes unless we increase access to healthy food.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

There is a reason McDonald's is successful. They actively adapt their menu to customer demands. Have you ever seen a McDonald's menu summary from other nations? They look nothing like the ones we have.

Take a look at this:
Food Network Humor » McDonalds Menu Items From Around The World (40 Pics)

The truth is that McDonald's is an adaptive food manufacturing firm that asks the people near its store what they want to eat and makes it for them. They provide a valuable service to the community they enter.

---

Whislt I agree they are an adaptive food manufacturing firm (which is quite a restained way of descibing them), you surely can't think they provide a "valuable" service to any community?

McD's IMHO sell shit fatty food (that is I'd guess one of the main contributors to obesity in the US and UK) at cheap prices. There are various reasons it sells which we could go into.

Quick point - The 3rd world, is this what a devolping country needs? Any thoughts on how they operate. Or do you think they are creating jobs and this is a good thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

Citing McDonalds as a beacon of culinary diversity is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Not even McDonalds themselves would claim that. Next you will be saying that they are the epitome of fine dining.

You have been to McDonalds in many other countries, but the only culture you can name that does not have a tradition of eating meals high in saturated fat is the "Mediterraneans". What about the Japanese, Russians, Turks, Indians, Africans... I am not sure where the "Mediterraneans" is to be found, but the fact they have McDonalds there and live long healthy lives is a non sequitur.

As has been pointed out previously in this thread, your island analogy is also ridiculous.

---

Ad Hominem attacks work every time! McDonalds provides a service for the public at low cost, rich and poor members of society eat there, and they do so because they enjoy the service that McDonalds provides.

McDonald's would not be profitable in Japan, Russia, India or Africa unless they were offering a food product that each country wants at a price that is reasonable. If saturated fat is what people want, give it to them. Who are you do decide how quickly I die?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Ad Hominem attacks work every time! McDonalds provides a service for the public at low cost, rich and poor members of society eat there, and they do so because they enjoy the service that McDonalds provides.

McDonald's would not be profitable in Japan, Russia, India or Africa unless they were offering a food product that each country wants at a price that is reasonable. If saturated fat is what people want, give it to them. Who are you do decide how quickly I die?

---

people want heroin - why can't I take/sell this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I don't recall complaining anything about the definition of wealth, even though ISF did include all collective values, morals and happiness in this at some point before you decided that they do not. Anyway, no, I do not agree with 2. Again, I have agreed that there is a small chance what you're saying can happen, nothing more, please don't put words in my mouth. Do you understand that a given situation can be affected by more than one variable? Do you understand the meaning of the following paragraph?

---

Bill, I see your point. I'm trying to reduce this to the lowest common denominator in order to understand the situation. I am trying to solve a logic puzzle, and your suggestion that providing help for the poor or dying or sick/crippled etc is +EV is a valid point. I agree. We have to think about where the optimal "line" exists.

If two men are on an island and one is sick and dying, is it +EV to help to him survive? I would say that it is, and I assume you would as well. We do not have problem on this point.

So let's reformulate our question. We agree that if we are two men on an island and I get sick, it is +EV for you to help me. What if there are three? What if the third man sees me dying, you don't realize it's a good idea to help me live, and the third man invents a gun and demands that you help me. Is that a good idea for the three man island?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I think it might be best we start from some basics:

According to the Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Nutrition, fast food is especially high in fat content, and studies have found associations between fast food intake and increased body mass index (BMI) and weight gain.[25] A 2006 study[26] fed monkeys a diet consisting of a similar level of trans fats as what a person who ate fast food regularly would consume. Both diets contained the same overall number of calories. It was found that the monkeys who consumed higher level of trans fat developed more abdominal fat than those fed a diet rich in unsaturated fats. They also developed signs of insulin resistance, which is an early indicator of diabetes. After six years on the diet, the trans fat fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated fat group.

---

Bill, you did not address my question. If we are alone on an island and I fry some potatoes and offer to trade them for your salt, is that wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Whislt I agree they are an adaptive food manufacturing firm (which is quite a restained way of descibing them), you surely can't think they provide a "valuable" service to any community?

They most certainly give people what they want. I think that is value. If i want my car fixed and a firm creates an expert mechanic near my home, that is a "valued service." McDonald's is no different. They fill consumer desires. If you want to change my desire for trans fat and mayonnaise, talk to God. If you want to force me to stop liking shitty (tasty) food, fuck you.

McD's IMHO sell shit fatty food (that is I'd guess one of the main contributors to obesity in the US and UK) at cheap prices. There are various reasons it sells which we could go into.

It sells because people (like me) want the food. I'm not a fat fuck, I'm rich, I'm successful, intelligent, and lead a productive life. I want McDonald's near my home, just like most of my town. If you come to my town and destroy McDonald's because it's "shitty fatty food," you're lowering my quality of life along with every person in my town who likes good french fries. If you think you're "saving" me from myself you're exactly like someone who thinks alcohol or weed should be illegal.

Quick point - The 3rd world, is this what a devolping country needs? Any thoughts on how they operate. Or do you think they are creating jobs and this is a good thing?

---

"Third world" nations exist because they live in government oppression. Every donation we send to their country is confiscated by the mafia government and sold to the starving public at whatever price they can pay. Sending money to the third world is like suppressing a deadly disease with powerful opiates -- it dulls the pain but does not solve the problem of criminal and incompetent government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

people want heroin - why can't I take/sell this?

---

The people should have access to heroin. Heroin is no more dangerous than alcohol or myriad other drugs (and plants) on earth. About 5% of the population becomes addicted to any drug, including alcohol and nicotine. Heroine is in the same boat, along with cocaine, meth, and acid. Banning heroin is about as logical as banning aspirin. A daily aspirin user will develop intestinal bleeding 100% of the time within five years, and further use will eventually kill him.

Currently, daily low doses of aspirin are recommended by MDs to thin the blood and lower heart attack risk, and the only reason heroin is illegal is to protect drug makers, who literally take heroin and purify it into pretty little pills called Oxycontin and sell them through MDs.

Do you want the food really? Or have you just been decieved by a combination of advertising and the rush the shit food gives you.

I think that people do need protecting from crap food like this.
I don't mean making it illegal.

Regulate it like you would alchohol and tabacco - is it any coincidence that the US (with the UK rapidly catching up) are some of the fattest people on the planet and also consume processed food by the KFC bucketload?

Mcdonalds targets children and peddles their shit food to them.

3rd world countries - do we as the developed nations perhaps have a responsiblity not to help them out?
Would you say the US (including compaines like McD's) in anyway might have contributed and continue to contribute to the state they're in?

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to look?

wheres Wuf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

The people should have access to heroin. Heroin is no more dangerous than alcohol or myriad other drugs (and plants) on earth. About 5% of the population becomes addicted to any drug, including alcohol and nicotine. Heroine is in the same boat, along with cocaine, meth, and acid. Banning heroin is about as logical as banning aspirin. A daily aspirin user will develop intestinal bleeding 100% of the time within five years, and further use will eventually kill him.

Currently, daily low doses of aspirin are recommended by MDs to thin the blood and lower heart attack risk, and the only reason heroin is illegal is to protect drug makers, who literally take heroin and purify it into pretty little pills called Oxycontin and sell them through MDs.

---

I agree.

and I think fatty foods kills more people than heroin ever would.

If legal, would you have a prob with heroin manufacturers advertising to children? Up to the parents to protect them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Do you want the food really? Or have you just been decieved by a combination of advertising and the rush the shit food gives you.

I think that people do need protecting from crap food like this.
I don't mean making it illegal.

Regulate it like you would alchohol and tabacco - is it any coincidence that the US (with the UK rapidly catching up) are some of the fattest people on the planet and also consume processed food by the KFC bucketload?

Mcdonalds targets children and peddles their shit food to them.

3rd world countries - do we as the developed nations perhaps have a responsiblity not to help them out?
Would you say the US (including compaines like McD's) in anyway might have contributed and continue to contribute to the state they're in?

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to look?

wheres Wuf?

---

Yes, I of all people, actually enjoy McDonald's fries. I'm a fucking vegetarian, and I have studied dietetics more than 99% of the world. They make good fries. The best on earth, as far as I can tell. And I obviously don't go with the flow and believe anything I'm ever sold on TV. I don't watch TV. You're implying that McD sells fries via advertising propaganda/programming. That's a possibility, but hey -- the alternative is to put you on a throne and let you tell me what I can eat.

What's the alternative to all of the imagined problems you speak about? Who will decide what food is acceptable? Kim Jong-il?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

I agree.

and I think fatty foods kills more people than heroin ever would.

If legal, would you have a prob with heroin manufacturers advertising to children? Up to the parents to protect them?

---

I'd be fucking pissed off that they are advertising to my kids. I'd turn off the TV. However, I would be more afraid of you or anyone else filtering advertising. It's a recipe for disaster. The whole point of this is to give the common man control of his own life instead of allowing strangers to tell him how to raise his kids.

YouTube - Documentary - Welcome to North Korea - Part 1 of 6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Yes, I of all people, actually enjoy McDonald's fries. I'm a fucking vegetarian, and I have studied dietetics more than 99% of the world. They make good fries. The best on earth, as far as I can tell. And I obviously don't go with the flow and believe anything I'm ever sold on TV. I don't watch TV. You're implying that McD sells fries via advertising propaganda/programming. That's a possibility, but hey -- the alternative is to put you on a throne and let you tell me what I can eat.

What's the alternative to all of the imagined problems you speak about? Who will decide what food is acceptable? Kim Jong-il?

---

Maybe not Kim Jong-il. Call me crazy but I was thinking more along the lines of nutrionists, medical experts, scientists.

And then not allow lobbying by the interested parties (who have huge sums of money) to sway the decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

and I think fatty foods kills more people than heroin ever would.

---

Why? How do you know that fat kills? Most people believe this, and they received the information from government. The truth is that science is never settled; we don't know if fat kills because actually testing that idea is immoral. We would have to treat humans like lab rats, something only socialist and fascist and communist governments ever do.

I have no idea weather or not trans fats are harmful because I have not tested them myself. I suspect that heart problems are related to the ratios of trans, saturated, and unsaturated fat in my diet, but IDK. How do you ever know anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

I'd be fucking pissed off that they are advertising to my kids. I'd turn off the TV. However, I would be more afraid of you or anyone else filtering advertising. It's a recipe for disaster. The whole point of this is to give the common man control of his own life instead of allowing strangers to tell him how to raise his kids.

YouTube - Documentary - Welcome to North Korea - Part 1 of 6

---

Comparing North Korea to regulations is just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Maybe not Kim Jong-il. Call me crazy but I was thinking more along the lines of nutrionists, medical experts, scientists.

And then not allow lobbying by the interested parties (who have huge sums of money) to sway the decision.

---

There isn't any real way to stop the big money from influencing the people in power -- the nutritionists (dietitians school for years, nutritionists are a joke, btw), med experts, and scientists. People are people... offer them enough salt and they do whatever you want. I think it's best if the wealth cannot force anyone do do anything no matter how many people they bribe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Comparing North Korea to regulations is just stupid.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Why? How do you know that fat kills? Most people believe this, and they received the information from government. The truth is that science is never settled; we don't know if fat kills because actually testing that idea is immoral. We would have to treat humans like lab rats, something only socialist and fascist and communist governments ever do.

I have no idea weather or not trans fats are harmful because I have not tested them myself. I suspect that heart problems are related to the ratios of trans, saturated, and unsaturated fat in my diet, but IDK. How do you ever know anything?

---

Cereal?

I've never carried out my own research into whether smoking is harmful. Therefore I'm gonna keep smoking cause I just can't trust the government on this one.

Same with Aids - I haven't done the research myself, so I'm gonna fuck some hookers without condom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Why?

---

Because regulations does not a facist state make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

So let's reformulate our question. We agree that if we are two men on an island and I get sick, it is +EV for you to help me. What if there are three? What if the third man sees me dying, you don't realize it's a good idea to help me live, and the third man invents a gun and demands that you help me. Is that a good idea for the three man island?

---

What is your question exactly, is what a good idea? For the gunman to instead explain to me why helping you out benefits all of us, and for the 3 of us to make a mutual agreement to help each other out when in need? Yes, I think that's a great idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Because regulations does not a facist state make.

---

I don't agree. Regulations directly lead to a government that destroys quality of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Cereal?

I've never carried out my own research into whether smoking is harmful. Therefore I'm gonna keep smoking cause I just can't trust the government on this one.

Same with Aids - I haven't done the research myself, so I'm gonna fuck some hookers without condom.

---

I've done a lot of research on both topics. How often will you get AIDS if you fuck a girl (with no protection) who definitely has AIDS? (1 in 2000)

If you begin smoking two packs/day at age 18, how much does that increase your lifetime risk of cancer? (8%)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

What is your question exactly, is what a good idea? For the gunman to instead explain to me why helping you out benefits all of us, and for the 3 of us to make a mutual agreement to help each other out when in need? Yes, I think that's a great idea.

---

Jesus. No. I'm asking if the third man should point the gun at you, take your shit, and give it to me. IDK the answer, I can only guess, but let's think about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

I've done a lot of research on both topics. How often will you get AIDS if you knowingly fuck a hooker (with no protection in the vagina) who definitely has AIDS? (1 in 2000)

If you begin smoking two packs/day at age 18, how much does that increase your lifetime risk of cancer? (8%)

---

you've reserached it yourself or its what the goverment told you? I thought you diodn't believe what the government tells you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

you've reserached it yourself or its what the goverment told you? I thought you diodn't believe what the government tells you?

---

Meh. Good point; this is what I personally decided is probably correct. I admit it may be completely wrong; look it up and read for awhile, let me know what you come up with.

Great point tho... endlessly depressing to realize that most of what we believe involves trusting someone else. Watch the N. Korea video. It's traumatic but makes one realize that we would be in the same boat were we born in N. Korea, and may be in the same situation now, with our current gov't. We always think we are right and moral and that the world should conform to our belief system. I am in favor of avoiding that fate.

I believe in my goverment on the whole - though I do think they are capable of "sexing" things up to quote a quote.

Our goverments are largely accountable.

With regards the fat issue - loads of info on the BBC. UK government might well do something about it. Fat tax? could work...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

With regards the fat issue - loads of info on the BBC. UK government might well do something about it. Fat tax? could work...

---

Why should the government try to stop people from being fat, assuming there is no public health care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Why should the government try to stop people from being fat, assuming there is no public health care?

---

Public healthcare mainly - it costs the NHS here millions, but also:

Health insurance companies are looking into this pretty hard. You eat shit food, you gonna get ill. Insurers will stop covering alot of cases of diabetes etc if you've been eating badly.

Work - why should a fatty have more time off me than me because they can't eat properly?

Education - crap food is bad for kids. They concentrate less at schoool because they're body is full of nasty e numbers and coming off sugar and fat rushes.

Even crazier idea:::: Look at the bigger picture - you tax the shit out of processed crap and fast food places, give tax relief to local growers and local food places. How could this not be a good thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

What's the alternative to all of the imagined problems you speak about? Who will decide what food is acceptable? Kim Jong-il?

---

Not who but what: scientific data. Almost all scientific data and breakthroughs come through publicly funded research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

I'd be fucking pissed off that they are advertising to my kids. I'd turn off the TV. However, I would be more afraid of you or anyone else filtering advertising. It's a recipe for disaster. The whole point of this is to give the common man control of his own life instead of allowing strangers to tell him how to raise his kids.

---

So are you going to monitor all the time what your kids will watch, effectively becoming the filter yourself, or ban them from watching tv (and radio, and internet, and looking around ads when walking around town etc) at all? How else would you ensure some cockroach company doesn't sell him whatever bullshit they feel like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Why? How do you know that fat kills? Most people believe this, and they received the information from government. The truth is that science is never settled; we don't know if fat kills because actually testing that idea is immoral. We would have to treat humans like lab rats, something only socialist and fascist and communist governments ever do.

I have no idea weather or not trans fats are harmful because I have not tested them myself. I suspect that heart problems are related to the ratios of trans, saturated, and unsaturated fat in my diet, but IDK. How do you ever know anything?

---

Science is never settled, yes, but it is our best collective understanding of what's going on. It's far better imo to base policy decisions on observable and verifiable data rather than guesswork. There are numerous other ways to test a scientific theory other than using humans as lab rats, although why should this be banned under your system, shouldn't people be free to volunteer for this if they want? The current scientific consensus pretty clearly states that trans fats and high fructose corn syrup are causing obesity.

I do find it hilarious though that you think testing with humans somehow relates to political ideology, or that socialist, communist and fascist governments were doing this or the only ones doing it. Have you ever heard of clinical testing? Do you think e.g. China is oppressing human rights because of communism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Jesus. No. I'm asking if the third man should point the gun at you, take your shit, and give it to me. IDK the answer, I can only guess, but let's think about this.

---

Are you kidding me, why should I or anyone be in favor of that, NRA members and the Taliban excluded? Also please explain what was wrong with my suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Why should the government try to stop people from being fat, assuming there is no public health care?

---

Cardiovascular diseases are the number one killer in the 1st world, do you consider a shorter lifespan physical harm?

I do find it hilarious though that you think testing with humans somehow relates to political ideology, or that socialist, communist and fascist governments were doing this or the only ones doing it. Have you ever heard of clinical testing? Do you think e.g. China is oppressing human rights because of communism?



I can speak a bit to this too, my ex's sister had her child on welfare, and during her pregnancy, to get welfare to cover more of the medical costs and upgrade her to a better experience (things like a private room) she was asked to test two experimental medicines during her pregnancy, and volunteered to do both. One made her sick as hell, puking constantly and the other worked fine. So yes, the US government does allow human testing... though it has to have passed a lot of animal testing first.

And yes, I fully support animal testing. I'm a little torn on the testing on welfare recipients... but I do understand why it is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillburForce

Public healthcare mainly - it costs the NHS here millions, but also:

Health insurance companies are looking into this pretty hard. You eat shit food, you gonna get ill. Insurers will stop covering alot of cases of diabetes etc if you've been eating badly.

Work - why should a fatty have more time off me than me because they can't eat properly?

Education - crap food is bad for kids. They concentrate less at schoool because they're body is full of nasty e numbers and coming off sugar and fat rushes.

Even crazier idea:::: Look at the bigger picture - you tax the shit out of processed crap and fast food places, give tax relief to local growers and local food places. How could this not be a good thing?

---

You're assuming that being fat is actually bad for your health (it's probably not unless you're very fat ~40+ lbs overweight). The studies that are done are all correlational. We simply don't know if being fat is actually a health hazard. We do know, however, that fat people live longer when hospitalized, even controlling for wasting diseases.

Second, if fatty can't work he would be paid less than you because his labor is less reliable/valued.

Third, you're assuming that local products are good for society, and socializing their support is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Not who but what: scientific data. Almost all scientific data and breakthroughs come through publicly funded research.

I am in favor of each individual making his own decisions regarding everything. They can base their decisions on scientific data, religion, or because they believe Nantuk the Eskimo Princess told them what is good to eat. The danger is in allowing anyone to force people to eat a certain way. Every law that does this is literally one step closer to North Korean life.

So are you going to monitor all the time what your kids will watch, effectively becoming the filter yourself, or ban them from watching tv (and radio, and internet, and looking around ads when walking around town etc) at all? How else would you ensure some cockroach company doesn't sell him whatever bullshit they feel like?

Monitoring my own kids and living with people who share my values is better than allowing Kim Jon-il to decide for me.

Science is never settled, yes, but it is our best collective understanding of what's going on. It's far better imo to base policy decisions on observable and verifiable data rather than guesswork. There are numerous other ways to test a scientific theory other than using humans as lab rats, although why should this be banned under your system, shouldn't people be free to volunteer for this if they want? The current scientific consensus pretty clearly states that trans fats and high fructose corn syrup are causing obesity.

No, the current science say (and has always said) that eating more calories than you can use causes obesity. Recently science told us that trans fats were healthier than other fats. If I have a personal belief that differs from science's current findings, I should be allowed to ignore the science. If most people want to listen to the science that is great, but forcing the guy who doesn't believe it to avoid eating something is not acceptable.


I do find it hilarious though that you think testing with humans somehow relates to political ideology, or that socialist, communist and fascist governments were doing this or the only ones doing it. Have you ever heard of clinical testing? Do you think e.g. China is oppressing human rights because of communism?

Yes, people should be permitted to volunteer for studies on obesity. Currently it is illegal to find a bunch of normal people and overfeed half of them to test the theory. This isn't related to socialism per se; our moral values ban hurting humans in lab tests, and various other governments in the past have done testing that hurt humans.

China is oppressing human rights because of the government has too much power. Communism isn't the cause per se. North Korea does the same. Would you argue that North Koreans are not being oppressed?


Are you kidding me, why should I or anyone be in favor of that, NRA members and the Taliban excluded? Also please explain what was wrong with my suggestion.

Your suggestion that we all three agree to help each other out is a good idea. I support three free men agreeing to help each other. Three men agreeing is a free market. Giving one man a gun and allowing him to tell everyone what do do is not a free system, and is exactly the same as banning weed or taxing french fries. If you tell me I can't have heroin (for my own good) it's the same as me growing poppy flowers on my land on the island and another islander pointing a gun at me and destroying my flowers and putting me in jail.

Agreements should involve all parties, not just 51% of them. If two men on the 3 man island agree on a law for the entire island, it isn't fair to the man who does not agree. Imagine two men agree to kill and eat the third. That's no more acceptable than forcing the third man to do anything else.

Cardiovascular diseases are the number one killer in the 1st world, do you consider a shorter lifespan physical harm?

---

Yes, shorter life is physical harm. If I am on my corner of the three man island eating french fries, the other two men should not be allowed to pass a law and force me to stop eating them. I'm hurting myself in your minds, but what if I enjoy them so much I'm willing to die sooner? What if I don't believe the scientist on the island when he tests rats who are eating fries? It's not moral to come and take my fries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

I am in favor of each individual making his own decisions regarding everything. They can base their decisions on scientific data, religion, or because they believe Nantuk the Eskimo Princess told them what is good to eat. The danger is in allowing anyone to force people to eat a certain way. Every law that does this is literally one step closer to North Korean life.

---

No one is making anyone eat or not eat anything. What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that. We need to ensure fast food companies can't be forced on children in schools and healthy options must be offered and available to everyone. If you or anyone else wants to gorge himself on McFries go right ahead, I'm not gonna stop you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Monitoring my own kids and living with people who share my values is better than allowing Kim Jon-il to decide for me.

---

Do you feel Kim Jong-il (or I guess Kim Jong-un now) is deciding what you can see on tv today in the US? Can you see heroin ads on tv?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

No, the current science say (and has always said) that eating more calories than you can use causes obesity. Recently science told us that trans fats were healthier than other fats. If I have a personal belief that differs from science's current findings, I should be allowed to ignore the science. If most people want to listen to the science that is great, but forcing the guy who doesn't believe it to avoid eating something is not acceptable.

---

I posted this on the previous page of this thread:

Quote:

---

According to the Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Nutrition, fast food is especially high in fat content, and studies have found associations between fast food intake and increased body mass index (BMI) and weight gain.[25] A 2006 study[26] fed monkeys a diet consisting of a similar level of trans fats as what a person who ate fast food regularly would consume. Both diets contained the same overall number of calories. It was found that the monkeys who consumed higher level of trans fat developed more abdominal fat than those fed a diet rich in unsaturated fats. They also developed signs of insulin resistance, which is an early indicator of diabetes. After six years on the diet, the trans fat fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated fat group.

The director of the obesity program for the Children's Hospital Boston, David Ludwig, claims that "fast food consumption has been shown to increase calorie intake, promote weight gain, and elevate risk for diabetes".[27] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ranked obesity as the number one health threat for Americans in 2003.[28] It is the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States and results in 400,000 deaths each year.[28] About 60 million American adults are classified as being obese with another 127 million being overweight.[28] Health issues associated with obesity causes economic despair regarding health care. According to a 2003 study conducted by RTI International in North Carolina, the cost of health care in America is said to increase by $93 billion a year, mainly from Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, both associated with obesity.[27]

---

Yes, you absolutely have the right to disagree with that, and no one is forcing anyone to do anything. That doesn't mean that your opinion is equal to the scientific data, or that the scientific data should be ignored since it may be incomplete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Yes, people should be permitted to volunteer for studies on obesity. Currently it is illegal to find a bunch of normal people and overfeed half of them to test the theory. This isn't related to socialism per se; our moral values ban hurting humans in lab tests, and various other governments in the past have done testing that hurt humans.

---

Which law exactly forbids this currently?

Clinical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

China is oppressing human rights because of the government has too much power. Communism isn't the cause per se. North Korea does the same. Would you argue that North Koreans are not being oppressed?

---

Why does the government in china have too much power? I would say that communism (and fascism and socialism) have absolutely nothing to do with the level of oppression. It makes absolutely no difference what the dictators in China, Russia or North Korea call their government, and their policies have very little to do with the actual ideas of socialism and communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Your suggestion that we all three agree to help each other out is a good idea. I support three free men agreeing to help each other. Three men agreeing is a free market.

---

And what is 100 million people agreeing to help each other out, and in order to achieve this elect a number of people who take care of the practicalities? Just to be fair, let's not make them do it all of their lives, but select a new bunch of people every few years, what would you call that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Giving one man a gun and allowing him to tell everyone what do do is not a free system, and is exactly the same as banning weed or taxing french fries. If you tell me I can't have heroin (for my own good) it's the same as me growing poppy flowers on my land on the island and another islander pointing a gun at me and destroying my flowers and putting me in jail.

---

Of course allowing anyone to exert violence or threat of violence over the others is an awful idea. Can we prevent that by a free market or by regulation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Agreements should involve all parties, not just 51% of them. If two men on the 3 man island agree on a law for the entire island, it isn't fair to the man who does not agree. Imagine two men agree to kill and eat the third. That's no more acceptable than forcing the third man to do anything else.

---

Of course it isn't completely fair. It just so happens that even with 3 people you're struggling to find common ground on every issue, any more and it'll become completely impossible. Majority rule is a compromise to try to ensure something gets done and decided. If you have a system in mind to get 300 million people to unanimously agree on anything, let's hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Yes, shorter life is physical harm. If I am on my corner of the three man island eating french fries, the other two men should not be allowed to pass a law and force me to stop eating them. I'm hurting myself in your minds, but what if I enjoy them so much I'm willing to die sooner? What if I don't believe the scientist on the island when he tests rats who are eating fries? It's not moral to come and take my fries.

---

What if you stop using logical fallacies, that's your 4th strawman in just this one post.

Fallacies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

No one is making anyone eat or not eat anything. What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that. We need to ensure fast food companies can't be forced on children in schools and healthy options must be offered and available to everyone. If you or anyone else wants to gorge himself on McFries go right ahead, I'm not gonna stop you.

We agree on the goal but not the method for achieving the goal. I know that entrepreneurs can or currently do all these things. UPS labs tests drugs and is more trusted than the FDA. Entrepreneurs would offer schools free from fast food in a privatized system. Safety and health testing/labeling would be done by entrepreneurs in the same way that kosher approval is done today. There is no need for government to stick its grubby little paws into any of this; and the problems with health and education we have today are often a direct side effect of government intervention, including subsidies for corn farming (makes corn syrup cheaper for soda makers) and government run schools that cost four times more and offer the shittiest food on earth and don't teach kids a damn thing.

Do you feel Kim Jong-il (or I guess Kim Jong-un now) is deciding what you can see on tv today in the US? Can you see heroin ads on tv?

The gov't currently decides what I am allowed to see on TV via FCC regulation. I would rather they stay out of the game and let me decide which channels to watch.

Yes, you absolutely have the right to disagree with that, and no one is forcing anyone to do anything. That doesn't mean that your opinion is equal to the scientific data, or that the scientific data should be ignored since it may be incomplete.

When the government taxes, regulates, or bans anything including weed or trans fats it is forcing me to avoid weed and trans fats. Banning is an attempt to stop completely, taxing is raising its price which is a form of force, and telling me I can't have alcohol after 2 am or on Sunday is forcing me to stop using alcohol as well. It's all force and it's all bullshit that has no place in a free country.


Which law exactly forbids this currently?

Clinical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary rule in medicine: "First, do no harm." It prevents researchers from hurting people by intentionally making them fat.

Primum non nocere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medical ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why does the government in china have too much power? I would say that communism (and fascism and socialism) have absolutely nothing to do with the level of oppression. It makes absolutely no difference what the dictators in China, Russia or North Korea call their government, and their policies have very little to do with the actual ideas of socialism and communism.

I agree. The name does not mean anything, and our system can oppress people just as effectively. Governments have too much power when they force anyone to do anything. A government's job is very specific -- keep people from killing and stealing and polluting and enslaving each other. That's it. Treat citizens with respect and dignity and not like children who can't think for themselves.

And what is 100 million people agreeing to help each other out, and in order to achieve this elect a number of people who take care of the practicalities? Just to be fair, let's not make them do it all of their lives, but select a new bunch of people every few years, what would you call that?

This is fine if there is a way to leave the group. When they decide to tell me I can't grow weed and that I have to give them 50% of my money so that they can give it to weapons makers, corn farmers, tobacco farmers, and lawyers, I want to be able to opt-out. Currently there is no country on earth that does not have an oppressive gov't and no way to avoid having other men make decisions for me.

Of course allowing anyone to exert violence or threat of violence over the others is an awful idea. Can we prevent that by a free market or by regulation?

Regulation involves the threat of violence. Regulation is a man with a gun telling another islander what to do. It's ironic that preventing regulation is one of government's only jobs. Think about that, how is regulation enforced on a three man island? What if the third man doesn't want the regulations? The other two men point a gun at him and force him to stop eating fries or growing weed. "Free markets" are default markets.

Banning violence is another government job. It regulates violence against anyone in the country by forming police and military, and setting up courts of law to settle disputes peacefully.

Of course it isn't completely fair. It just so happens that even with 3 people you're struggling to find common ground on every issue, any more and it'll become completely impossible. Majority rule is a compromise to try to ensure something gets done and decided. If you have a system in mind to get 300 million people to unanimously agree on anything, let's hear it.

My system allows all 300 million people to be sovereign over their own bodies and land. They are free to do as they please on their own land as long as they do not harm anyone else. This avoids any need for the three men to agree on anything, but does not stop two men from agreeing to help each other out while the third man sits alone in his hut making french fries and opium. It's better for all members of society this way.

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
Yes, shorter life is physical harm. If I am on my corner of the three man island eating french fries, the other two men should not be allowed to pass a law and force me to stop eating them. I'm hurting myself in your minds, but what if I enjoy them so much I'm willing to die sooner? What if I don't believe the scientist on the island when he tests rats who are eating fries? It's not moral to come and take my fries.

What if you stop using logical fallacies, that's your 4th strawman in just this one post.

Fallacies

---

This is not a straw man argument. When our modern government tells me that I cannot consume marijuana in my own home (my side of the island), it is exactly the same as the two other men on the island pointing a gun at me (laws against weed) and telling me I cannot consume weed in my hut on my third of the island. Can you tell me how these two situations are different? Why does my government get to tell me I can't smoke weed and threaten me with violence and prison time? Am I hurting anyone alone in my home?

Perhaps you don't see that New York City banning trans fats is exactly the same as the two men telling the third he cannot consume french fries on his side of the island, and further, that the third man cannot create fries and offer them to the other two. Two men forcing a third to stop using or selling fries is the same as 10 million men in NYC forcing 5 million people to stop selling or eating trans fatty fries.

"No one is making anyone eat or not eat anything. What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that. "

I know Lyric already said this but regulating what food is to be produced is the same thing as forcing someone to eat or not eat something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

McDonald's would not be profitable in Japan, Russia, India or Africa unless they were offering a food product that each country wants at a price that is reasonable. If saturated fat is what people want, give it to them. Who are you do decide how quickly I die?

---

This reminds me of the initial video clips in this thread, where the tea partiers claim their free speech is threatened. Just because I argued that McDonalds pushing its fatty food into all corners of the globe is not a good thing, I apparently want to have the power of life and death over my fellow man.

Actually, I admire McDonalds as being excellent at achieving their objective of making money by providing cheap food in a standardised way. Its great strength is that you know what to expect when you visit a McDonalds. But hailing them as paragons of providing great food is just ridiculous. And that rosy unrealistic view is the consistent problem with the libertarian arguments in this thread. Corporations and rich billionaires are all benign philanthropists and if only nasty governments would get off their backs they would solve all the problems of the world.

All the arguments in this thread giving examples of corporations or individuals behaving badly are ignored, distorted or glossed over. Lets have a bonfire of regulations, confine the government to law and order and defence of the nation and miraculously everyone with wealth and power will set the world to rights and never be the least bit greedy. Its a deeply unconvincing argument with the intellectual rigour of a child's fairy tale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

"No one is making anyone eat or not eat anything. What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that. "

I know Lyric already said this but regulating what food is to be produced is the same thing as forcing someone to eat or not eat something.

---

Correct. Even if food is unhealthy I should be free to consume it. Guns (regulation) are not needed to insure food safety; private firms already to this very well, and "healthy" is a decision that each person should be free to make. If any islander decides to make decisions for me about what is "healthy," that is force. Who cares what science says, no one is allowed to use force (regulation) to tell anyone else what to eat or what to offer in trade (sell).

Originally Posted by Lyric http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...s/viewpost.gif
McDonald's would not be profitable in Japan, Russia, India or Africa unless they were offering a food product that each country wants at a price that is reasonable. If saturated fat is what people want, give it to them. Who are you do decide how quickly I die?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

This reminds me of the initial video clips in this thread, where the tea partiers claim their free speech is threatened. Just because I argued that McDonalds pushing its fatty food into all corners of the globe is not a good thing, I apparently want to have the power of life and death over my fellow man.

If you want to regulate McDonald's and prevent them from selling unhealthy food, you are taking away my choice to die sooner, and taking away my freedom to eat what I want.

Actually, I admire McDonalds as being excellent at achieving their objective of making money by providing cheap food in a standardised way. Its great strength is that you know what to expect when you visit a McDonalds. But hailing them as paragons of providing great food is just ridiculous.

Paragons of great food? Lol. McDonald's churns out tasty crap that people want to eat. "Great food," is a subjective idea, some people like McDonald's more than luxury restaurants.

And that rosy unrealistic view is the consistent problem with the libertarian arguments in this thread. Corporations and rich billionaires are all benign philanthropists and if only nasty governments would get off their backs they would solve all the problems of the world.

Billionaires are not required to be benign or charitable. You may want to take a look at earlier posts where I argue that charity is often harmful for society and the needy. If you would like to offer some constructive arguments that would be lovely, governments around the world specifically exist to support the elite in creating and protecting monopolies, and without that government support life would be better because the monopolies would be gone.

All the arguments in this thread giving examples of corporations or individuals behaving badly are ignored, distorted or glossed over.

Behaving badly is the only thing government should regulate. Attempting to regulate anything else is just an excuse to protect a billionaire's monopoly. Please give me examples of regulations that do not protect a rich man's empire.

Lets have a bonfire of regulations, confine the government to law and order and defence of the nation and miraculously everyone with wealth and power will set the world to rights and never be the least bit greedy. Its a deeply unconvincing argument with the intellectual rigour of a child's fairy tale.

---

Do you actually think regulations can stop people from being greedy? Do you think greed can hurt anyone in a world where harm and theft and pollution are illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

"No one is making anyone eat or not eat anything. What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that. "

I know Lyric already said this but regulating what food is to be produced is the same thing as forcing someone to eat or not eat something.

---

This is another example of a distortion. Only half the sentence is bolded and even that half is twisted into something different. Regulation to ensure food produced is healthy is not the same thing as forcing people to eat or not eat something.

The food producers who decided to feed diseased sheeps' brains to cattle caused something like 2 million of them to be slaughtered. Recently some meat wholesalers were convicted of selling tons of chicken declared unfit for human consumption to supermarkets. A child died in South Wales after eating lunch at a school which was supplied by a butcher with poor hygene practices that contaminated the food with E coli. Anyone who has seen any of Gordon Ramsey's programmes will be aware that poor hygene is not uncommon in seemingly decent restaurants.

All this is happening when we have regulation to ensure that all produced food is healthy. In fact in the case of the E Coli outbreak that killed a child further regulation was recommended. But that was clearly wrong. Its the Government that causes unscrupulous bastards to poison children. Sweep away the regulations and we will all be fine. And when children die in future because food producers can't be bothered to follow good practices or want to make a fast buck, we will just shrug our shoulders and say the last thing we need is to learn lessons about how to prevent this in future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

This is another example of a distortion. Only half the sentence is bolded and even that half is twisted into something different. Regulation to ensure food produced is healthy is not the same thing as forcing people to eat or not eat something.

---

I stopped here, how is regulation on food not the same thing as forcing people not to eat something? That's exactly what it is.

A friend of mine just brought up a valid point:

"Here is another problem inherent in the system. People who are impoverished have a tendency to not participate in the process, so they are easily led by others. Poverty is one of the greatest threats to a intelligent republic with democratically elected officials and laws. When people have the monkey "that's not fair " response to seeing others with more than they have they get very upset and do not want to participate in the process anymore.

There is a great study of monkeys given different treats for the same stimuli. Although taking from the haves and giving to the have nots doesn't make sense long term, neither does open market capitalism unless there is some semblance of " Fair " the monkeys stop participating in the game, and it becomes its own failing long term problem.

So the question becomes how to get people to evolve past their monkey tendencies."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

This is another example of a distortion. Only half the sentence is bolded and even that half is twisted into something different. Regulation to ensure food produced is healthy is not the same thing as forcing people to eat or not eat something.

---

If you make regulations that stop me from putting cocaine in soda or trans fat in fries, those regulations are forcing me to stop eating those products because of the way you define "healthy." It won't fit everyone's idea about what is healthy or not.

Originally Posted by Duffryn
This reminds me of the initial video clips in this thread, where the tea partiers claim their free speech is threatened. Just because I argued that McDonalds pushing its fatty food into all corners of the globe is not a good thing, I apparently want to have the power of life and death over my fellow man.

If you want to regulate McDonald's and prevent them from selling unhealthy food, you are taking away my choice to die sooner, and taking away my freedom to eat what I want.

I don't want to regulate McDonalds and never said that I did. You are proving my point that you took my criticism of McDonalds and asserted falsely that I wanted to ban them.

Actually, I admire McDonalds as being excellent at achieving their objective of making money by providing cheap food in a standardised way. Its great strength is that you know what to expect when you visit a McDonalds. But hailing them as paragons of providing great food is just ridiculous.

Paragons of great food? Lol. McDonald's churns out tasty crap that people want to eat. "Great food," is a subjective idea, some people like McDonald's more than luxury restaurants.

I would agree that McDonalds churn out tasty crap. I took issue with you implying they were some kind of culinary leader.

And that rosy unrealistic view is the consistent problem with the libertarian arguments in this thread. Corporations and rich billionaires are all benign philanthropists and if only nasty governments would get off their backs they would solve all the problems of the world.

Billionaires are not required to be benign or charitable. You may want to take a look at earlier posts where I argue that charity is often harmful for society and the needy. If you would like to offer some constructive arguments that would be lovely, governments around the world specifically exist to support the elite in creating and protecting monopolies, and without that government support life would be better because the monopolies would be gone.

What about corporations? So there will be no charity and we can look forward to the sick and idle starving to death? Where is the evidence that governments create and protect monopolies? Or that these monopolies would disappear without government support? How is it possible to offer constructive arguments when it is not clear what you are saying?

All the arguments in this thread giving examples of corporations or individuals behaving badly are ignored, distorted or glossed over.

Behaving badly is the only thing government should regulate. Attempting to regulate anything else is just an excuse to protect a billionaire's monopoly. Please give me examples of regulations that do not protect a rich man's empire.

So now there is a role for Government in regulating "bad behaviour"? So the government should have pollution controls, make sure that all citizens have access to areas of outstanding natural beauty, prevent people handing out phony degrees, prevent corporations from making truck drivers drive non-stop for hours without a break, ensure big corporations do not use their wealth to drive newer competitors out of business....in fact pretty much regulate a hell of a lot of stuff. All of these are examples of regulations that do not protect a rich man's empire.

Lets have a bonfire of regulations, confine the government to law and order and defence of the nation and miraculously everyone with wealth and power will set the world to rights and never be the least bit greedy. Its a deeply unconvincing argument with the intellectual rigour of a child's fairy tale.

Do you actually think regulations can stop people from being greedy? Do you think greed can hurt anyone in a world where harm and theft and pollution are illegal?

I think regulations can stop the greedy from exploiting and harming others. Of course greed hurts people. What about CEOs demanding that their employees take a pay cut, cutting their pay as an example and then paying themselves a huge bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

The food producers who decided to feed diseased sheeps' brains to cattle caused something like 2 million of them to be slaughtered. Recently some meat wholesalers were convicted of selling tons of chicken declared unfit for human consumption to supermarkets. A child died in South Wales after eating lunch at a school which was supplied by a butcher with poor hygene practices that contaminated the food with E coli. Anyone who has seen any of Gordon Ramsey's programmes will be aware that poor hygene is not uncommon in seemingly decent restaurants.

All this is happening when we have regulation to ensure that all produced food is healthy. In fact in the case of the E Coli outbreak that killed a child further regulation was recommended. But that was clearly wrong. Its the Government that causes unscrupulous bastards to poison children. Sweep away the regulations and we will all be fine. And when children die in future because food producers can't be bothered to follow good practices or want to make a fast buck, we will just shrug our shoulders and say the last thing we need is to learn lessons about how to prevent this in future.

---

Was that a government school that purchases shitty meat and killed a kid? I'm not saying that men who are greedy assholes and sell shitty products don't exist or should not be punished. High level arguments like these are why I always want to come back to the island.

Imagine there are ten people and we hire one of them to go around making sure my cheese is clean and safe and your wine isn't going to kill anyone. Who regulates the regulator guy? What if he just makes a show of checking up on each food and doesn't really do a good job and someone is poisoned and dies? Should we hire two guys to check all the food? Should be pay the first one more salt? Who watches the two regulators?

Currently regulators don't do their jobs and we give them more money whenever a kid dies. The error is blamed on the food producer and never the regulator. None of this seems logical to me; if you're going to blame the food producer and punish him when a kid dies why did we have the fucking regulator in the first place?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld

I stopped here, how is regulation on food not the same thing as forcing people not to eat something? That's exactly what it is.

---

Partly depends on how you define healthy as lyric has pointed out. Regulations saying that food must be fit for human consumption are forcing you not to eat maggot ridden food? But even then regulation does not force you to do anything. Deciding that heroin should be illegal is forcing you not to take it?

And again that's not the full quote. How is regulation on food forcing you to eat something. If only healthy foods were available, does that mean that everyone is forced to eat tofu and beans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

Partly depends on how you define healthy as lyric has pointed out. Regulations saying that food must be fit for human consumption are forcing you not to eat maggot ridden food? But even then regulation does not force you to do anything. Deciding that heroin should be illegal is forcing you not to take it?

And again that's not the full quote. How is regulation on food forcing you to eat something. If only healthy foods were available, does that mean that everyone is forced to eat tofu and beans?

---

If I enjoy eating rotten food and heroin, and regulations are in place to stop me from eating these things, the regulators have forced me to stop eating them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

And that rosy unrealistic view is the consistent problem with the libertarian arguments in this thread. Corporations and rich billionaires are all benign philanthropists and if only nasty governments would get off their backs they would solve all the problems of the world.

Billionaires are not required to be benign or charitable. You may want to take a look at earlier posts where I argue that charity is often harmful for society and the needy. If you would like to offer some constructive arguments that would be lovely, governments around the world specifically exist to support the elite in creating and protecting monopolies, and without that government support life would be better because the monopolies would be gone.

What about corporations? So there will be no charity and we can look forward to the sick and idle starving to death? Where is the evidence that governments create and protect monopolies? Or that these monopolies would disappear without government support? How is it possible to offer constructive arguments when it is not clear what you are saying?

---

Earlier in this thread I described in detail how regulations create and protect monopolies using government force. Please read the entire thread. I used the medical drug business as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

If I enjoy eating rotten food and heroin, and regulations are in place to stop me from eating these things, the regulators have forced me to stop eating them.

---

Regulations do not force people to do anything. People still take heroin.

Anyway, that was not even the distortion. He said: "What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that".

How is that forcing people to not eat fries and forcing them to eat tofu?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

All the arguments in this thread giving examples of corporations or individuals behaving badly are ignored, distorted or glossed over.

Behaving badly is the only thing government should regulate. Attempting to regulate anything else is just an excuse to protect a billionaire's monopoly. Please give me examples of regulations that do not protect a rich man's empire.

So now there is a role for Government in regulating "bad behaviour"? So the government should have pollution controls, make sure that all citizens have access to areas of outstanding natural beauty, prevent people handing out phony degrees, prevent corporations from making truck drivers drive non-stop for hours without a break, ensure big corporations do not use their wealth to drive newer competitors out of business....in fact pretty much regulate a hell of a lot of stuff. All of these are examples of regulations that do not protect a rich man's empire.

---

Pollution controls are needed because pollution harms your neighbors.

All of the rest were created by rich men with the direct intention of using government force to support and protect their business. I'll summarize:

1. Yellowstone was created at the direct request of the railroad that was planning to build a line next to the land. They realized it would be a good tourist destination and wanted government to rope it off and protect it so that they could promote it as a stop on the railway line. Government pays the bills for protecting the land, the rail line gets more profits because of it.

2. School accreditation is a cartel that enforces a monopoly on university educations. It keeps number of approved universities low, restricting supply (keeping tuition prices high for members of the racket). A new school seeking accreditation can expect to wait ten years, spend $20 million, and will enjoy only a 50% success rate. Schools that take too many students have their accreditation revoked. There is a reason the University of California gave Obama $1,591,395 and Harvard University gave him $854,747 in 2008. Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

3. Regulations protecting truck drivers from long hours are designed to stop trucking entrepreneurs from delivering loads faster and more efficiently than entrenched trucking firms. Truckers that are found to be too tired to drive should be punished, but if a driver can drive long hours and move goods faster that should be legal. The regs are there to protect existing (wealthy) owners of trucking firms.

4. We previously talked about how it is impossible for large companies to "use their wealth" to hurt society by driving competitors out of business. It's a common idea but it is flawed.

From my previous post:
"Imagine we we have 66 people on an island and 22 guys making salt. One of them gets really good at it over the years and begins lowering his price gradually because he has more to sell each day. Gradually the 22 other guys drop out of the business and get into other things because their profit becomes too low and they are not as good at pulling salt as the leader. The leader gradually drops the price until all 21 others are out, and he keeps the price level there. If he raises his price even slightly, the last guy to drop out of the biz will come back and begin selling salt again."

The last man standing has created a "monopoly" on salt production and he has pushed all of his competitors out of business. Did he hurt anyone? No. Salt is cheaper than ever before and the salt maker has no ability to raise his price or abuse his standing as the best and only salt maker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyric

Was that a government school that purchases shitty meat and killed a kid? I'm not saying that men who are greedy assholes and sell shitty products don't exist or should not be punished. High level arguments like these are why I always want to come back to the island.

Imagine there are ten people and we hire one of them to go around making sure my cheese is clean and safe and your wine isn't going to kill anyone. Who regulates the regulator guy? What if he just makes a show of checking up on each food and doesn't really do a good job and someone is poisoned and dies? Should we hire two guys to check all the food? Should be pay the first one more salt? Who watches the two regulators?

Currently regulators don't do their jobs and we give them more money whenever a kid dies. The error is blamed on the food producer and never the regulator. None of this seems logical to me; if you're going to blame the food producer and punish him when a kid dies why did we have the fucking regulator in the first place?!

---

Yes it was a government school, although that is irrelevant unless we are going to blame the purchaser. I have never yet been to a restaurant where I have asked to inspect the kitchens before ordering. I assume that the meal is not going to kill me.

You want to come back to the island, because that avoids addressing the point. In a ten person island, then it is overkill to have a regulator and regulator for the regulator. In a modern complex society questions of who regulates the regulator are irrelevant since there is no-one who is unaccountable to anyone. Regulators do do their jobs and they do get blamed if they don't. If the meat inspector had given the butcher a clean bill of health just before the kid died, he would rightly have shared the blame. When a kid was murdered by his parents, the head Social Worker was sacked for not monitoring the social workers properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffryn

Regulations do not force people to do anything. People still take heroin.

People still have access to heroin because the regulations are not strong enough, but that is not the point. Heroin would be as cheap as Tylenol without the regulations,and I would not risk jail time or death by government were it legal. Raising the price and danger are things I do not want and I am being forced to deal with.

Anyway, that was not even the distortion. He said: "What is needed is regulation to ensure all produced food is healthy, and if it's not the customer is made aware of that".

How is that forcing people to not eat fries and forcing them to eat tofu?

---

Like I said before, what's the point of a regulator who has no culpability if he fails at his job? If a food producer is to be punished after a child dies (not the regulator) why don't we just get rid of the regulator and punish food makers who poison kids? Why do we spend so much money on regulation when it doesn't work in the first place?

Do you realize that herbal drug makers and supplement makers have no regulation and no "FDA" type agency overseeing them? How often does an herbal drug maker kill someone? Almost never, and many of the products available for body building or supplementation involve very complex manufacturing and processing techniques, and many can easily kill you if there is a slight error in the process. Further, many of the supplements are very dangerous drugs than can easily kill you. The regulators are there to protect monopolies, nothing more.

If you regulate trans fats out of existence (like NYC) you have forced me to eat saturated and unsaturated fats even though I actually want trans fats. Forcing me to avoid a food is still force.