From the producers of "The Smoking Ban," bring you "The Food Ban"

[Eaglez]

You can help people less fortunate than you through other ways than by paying taxes.

I think the true measure of how altruistic you are is by how much you freely donate. It's easy to say you're 'generous' by paying your taxes, because you are compelled to pay your taxes -- it's not a voluntary action.

However, donating money is made voluntarily. No coercion, no need to do it. The problem with taxes is that it just doesn't 'help out the less fortunate', it cripples economic growth, hampers productivity, and creates incentives for people to cheat the tax code because it conficates wealth arbitrarily.

If you really want to help out the less fortunate, make it easier for people to donate to their charities of choice (i.e. lower their tax burden considerably when people donate their money; the current deduction is not enough) and make it easier to start charities.

Private charities do wonderful things, mostly because they want to help out the less fortunate and can be more creative in implementing their plans -- unlike bureaucrats who just find it as a make-work position.

[ice grillin you]

The part that makes no sense is that a more wealthy government will provide you with more freedom.


i dont think there is a correlation between the two and i never made one

i think the govt can be wealthy and make funamentally sound laws

i also think the govt could be broke and stupid laws

[Eaglez]

You make tradeoffs every day -- don't want higher insurance premiums? Wear a seatbelt; if not, don't be surprised to pay higher premiums because you are a greater risk to file a higher claim. Make an evaluation of what is more important to you; there is no such thing as a free lunch.


because someone disagrees with the seatbelt law doesnt mean they dont wear a seatbelt...i dont know what so hard to understand about that

That's fine. I disagree with the seatbelt law and I wear my seatbelt, but I also understand the costs associated when I don't wear one. What's your point?

[Wingspan]

Arguing that something should be illegal so that insurance companies won't charge us more is unfathomable to me.

yeah its amazing

if youre gonna have seatbelt laws simply because X amount of people die (id like to see real statistics on the total number of people killed/hurt specifically because they werent wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident) not wearing one then we must have laws for all things related to preventative health maintenance

--all out 100% smoking ban
--all out 100% drinking ban
--all citizens will be given a governmental diet plan that they must follow
--jaywalking laws need to be strictly enforced
--mandatory twice a year doctor visits
--motocycles need to be banned
--a ban on all contact sports
ect...ect...ect...


where does it end?

You were all for the smoking ban.

As I have said to you before, you cannot be all for one law like this (smoking) and dead set against another law in the same line without being a hypocrit.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

One thing people fail to realize is that the IRS and the current methods of tax collection significantly favor the extremely wealthy, those that can secure an army of accountants and tax attorneys to figure out just exactly how to give them the lowest possible tax burden.

The people screwed the most are all the ranges of the middle class.

But this is now another thread.  The bottom line in all of these personal freedom issues is this: a personal choice that truly doesn't affect anyone else is much more rare than those that have rippled ramifications on others, whether it seems fair or not.  Banning trans fat is questionable, because while one person's choice to eat trans fat shouldn't affect another's, it does affect what the restaurant puts on its menu.

I'm against the all-out smoking bans as long as smoking is legal, which it should be.  I'm against the trans fat bans as long as cooking/frying with trans fat is legal, which it should be.  I'm also against the war on certain drugs like MJ, despite the fact I don't smoke it and wouldn't even if it were legal.  I'm against forcing people to wear seat belts if they have properly insured themselves and are held accountable for their own injuries.

HOWEVER, the consequences should be swift when someone hurts another by abusing any of those privileges, and that's where I think the whole plan falls apart.  Law enforcement sucks, and the legal system, like the tax code, is skewed significantly towards the wealthy.

[ice grillin you]

You can help people less fortunate than you through other ways than by paying taxes.

fo really?


I think the true measure of how altruistic you are is by how much you freely donate. It's easy to say you're 'generous' by paying your taxes, because you are compelled to pay your taxes -- it's not a voluntary action.

However, donating money is made voluntarily. No coercion, no need to do it. The problem with taxes is that it just doesn't 'help out the less fortunate', it cripples economic growth, hampers productivity, and creates incentives for people to cheat the tax code because it conficates wealth arbitrarily.

If you really want to help out the less fortunate, make it easier for people to donate to their charities of choice (i.e. lower their tax burden considerably when people donate their money; the current deduction is not enough) and make it easier to start charities.

Private charities do wonderful things, mostly because they want to help out the less fortunate and can be more creative in implementing their plans -- unlike bureaucrats who just find it as a make-work position.

or you can donate to charities AND have the govt put a much larger piece of the tax money towards the poor...specifically for things like infrastructure...why doest the govt start a program of tearing down 85 year old rat infested projects and replace them with modern apartment buildings...why dont they rebuild and properly stock debilitated and run down public schools...instead we have inner city schools systems without textbooks competant teachers desks ect...


i dont ask for much...i just want a lex...clean sex...and every apartment furninshed in the whole projects

[Diomedes]

if he were honest, that line would stop after "lex"

[ice grillin you]

You were all for the smoking ban.

As I have said to you before, you cannot be all for one law like this (smoking) and dead set against another law in the same line without being a hypocrit.

youre clueless and you will just never get it

i dont want people to not be able to smoke...i want people to not smoke in places where it negatively impacts other people

you wanna smoke in your house or car or outside knock yourself outbut dont blow YOUR smoke into MY lungs

the seatbelt and smoking laws couldnt be more different and you lumping the two together is wrong in every possible way

one is physically hurting other people the other is not

[Diomedes]

how is me smoking outside not hurting your lungs?  the argument you're making depends on degrees of damage inflicted, doens't it?  where do you draw the line?

And speaking of not getting it, you don't you get this vigy...physically hurting someone and costing them money are the same thing to the money lovers.  I disagree with them, but they'll never see it any other way.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

The fact that you can't comprehend how people not wearing their seat belts could adversely affect other people besides themself is enough for me to completely disregard any further opinions from you on the matter.

Plus, of all the laws we're talking about, making people buckle up is the only one that hardly represents an inconvenience to those inclined to not follow along.  ie: Buckling up takes a few seconds and doesn't subject you to any less enjoyment than you'd usually get from driving, whereas making people at a NYC bar go outside to smoke in the middle of January or taking some of the delicious greasy taste from someone's fried foods is at least slightly annoying.

[ice grillin you]

And speaking of not getting it, you don't you get this vigy...physically hurting someone and costing them money are the same thing to the money lovers.  I disagree with them, but they'll never see it any other way.


yeah i know this...and realize im wasting my time....oh well what are you gonna do

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

physically hurting someone and costing them money are the same thing to the money lovers

They are the same, depending on your opportunity cost and recovery time needed to make up the loss, whether physical, financial, emotional, etc.

You can't have freedom without one person's choices affecting another's to an extent, so where do you draw the line?  If one action costs you a year's salary but another costs you a month of your life, which one is more vile?

[Diomedes]

We disagree.

If you want to start limiting liberties based on their cost to society--because a monetary cost is the equivalent of a physical injury--then none of us will be able to do much of anything.

[ice grillin you]

health and freedom>>>>money

[Cerevant]

... taking some of the delicious greasy taste from someone's fried foods is at least slightly annoying.

Talk about ignorance.  Trans-fats are fake fats.  They were created so that business could make semi-solid fatty stuff that said "low fat" or "fat free" (ex: margarine)  because they made some nasty chemical that was fat with some extra hydrogen tacked on. Oh, and trans fats are cheaper.  Real fat tastes better and is better for you.  Trans fats reduce your HDL, so they are worse for you than saturated fat - the good stuff in bacon.

Yes, it would be healthier to fry your french fries in bacon fat, than to fry it in partially-hydrogenated anything.

The only comprehensible argument for trans fats is that they might make your happy meal $0.02 cheaper.  So would using rat-meat and ground cockroach in the burger.  Hell, it would probably be cheaper for the restaurant if they didn't make their employees wash their hands after they use the toilet.

Sometimes having the government step in really isn't a bad idea.