6 ms·

Ah yes. Regulate the guns, not the shooter. The food, not the eater. The soda, not the drinker. The couch, not the potato. The Home Depot truck, not the mania

Ah yes. Regulate the guns, not the shooter. The food, not the eater. The soda, not the drinker. The couch, not the potato. The Home Depot truck, not the maniac. Let’s regulate our way to utopia.

taeric 9y ago
Or, you know, be deliberate in what you do. There is plenty of evidence showing that a "slippery slope" argument is borderline bullshit. Typically used by folks that are just trying to kill the conversation. Meanwhile, there is the similar perverse truth that bad regulations got us into some of our current situation. In particular, the sugar and gun lobbies were remarkably effective at promoting their topics. So, by all means, if you are just trying to rhetorically shut down conversation; keep at it. Just please don't be surprised to find nobody wants to talk back at you someday.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I’m not making a “slippery slope” argument. On the other hand, I concede that my tone could give the wrong impression. To clarify — I think people should be free to buy or sell any food product. I don’t think we should punish a seller because buyers happen to overbuy the product. I think the goverment’s role should be limited to punishing bad actors. For example, a seller who deceives or cheats buyers.
  - taeric 9y ago
    Fair, apologies if I came off as too harsh. What you said just felt like the slippery slope argument. For me, I see it less about limiting peoples freedoms, and more about moving delayed costs up front. People are still free to buy/sell most any food product. However, some appear to have a marked impact on society, but in a delayed fashion. That is, you won't get sick from drinking 32 ounce sodas the day you drink them. However, you are likely to get addicted to them and they will make you unhealthy eventually. Increasing the costs moves some of that pain early, so that it is easier to make the choice to avoid. Do I think this is perfect? No. Not even close. Nor do I think people should be disallowed from buying stuff like this. I do think more of the proceeds should go to making people healthy or at least educated. Going into the producers of these products doesn't help the health, and the way marketing works, they become less educated on the risks of these products. There is a reason we had to regulate the hell out of cigarettes, for example. And I don't shed any tears over that.
    - dogruck 9y ago
      I have conflicting opinions on “sin taxes” on cigarettes and soda. On one hand, yes, it does make sense that increasing the prices of cigarettes, for example, decreases the number of people who smoke. That’s a nice result. On the other hand, the sin taxes hit poor people the hardest. First, the incremental increase is a larger percentage of a poor person’s budget. Second, humans do not have a linear response to price changes — to achieve the desired cessation rate, you might have to massively increase prices, which exacerbates the first point. Third, one could argue that rich people can afford a multitude of stress relievers and therapy methods. Poor people cannot afford that, so the sin tax is a draconian method.
      - taeric 9y ago
        I view it not as a sin tax, but a moving of the externalized cost. Does it have the problems you are listing? Yes, absolutely. However, they already have problems that they will just have to pay for later in some of these. This is forcing some of those extra costs to be factored into the decision in the first place.
vacri 9y ago
This is simplistic libertarian nonsense. Pollution regulations have had obvious good effects. Workplace regulations have made the workplace a much better place for all than previously. Road regulations make transport safer. And deregulation has frequently failed. As taeric says, reality is more nuanced than polarising libertarian rhetoric would have us believe. Slogans make a poor substitute for thought.
mywittyname 9y ago
Obesity is a huge problem and legislators have effective tools for dealing with such problems. Whether people agree with deploying these tools is one thing, but it's clear that even the fear of regulation is enough to make companies act. Coke has been heavily invested in zero calorie drinks for a while now, and candy companies have been self-imposing size restrictions.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Can you please elaborate on the effective tools for fighting obesity? Do you have any pointers? I am not convinced simply by the obvious statement that corporations will respond to the threat of regulation. The advent of Coke Zero does not prove effective fighting of obesity.

Ah yes. Regulate the guns, not the shooter. The food, not the eater. The soda, not the drinker. The couch, not the potato. The Home Depot truck, not the maniac. Let’s regulate our way to utopia.

taeric 9y ago

Or, you know, be deliberate in what you do. There is plenty of evidence showing that a "slippery slope" argument is borderline bullshit. Typically used by folks that are just trying to kill the conversation. Meanwhile, there is the similar perverse truth that bad regulations got us into some of our current situation. In particular, the sugar and gun lobbies were remarkably effective at promoting their topics. So, by all means, if you are just trying to rhetorically shut down conversation; keep at it. Just please don't be surprised to find nobody wants to talk back at you someday.

dogruck 9y ago
I’m not making a “slippery slope” argument. On the other hand, I concede that my tone could give the wrong impression. To clarify — I think people should be free to buy or sell any food product. I don’t think we should punish a seller because buyers happen to overbuy the product. I think the goverment’s role should be limited to punishing bad actors. For example, a seller who deceives or cheats buyers.
- taeric 9y ago
  Fair, apologies if I came off as too harsh. What you said just felt like the slippery slope argument. For me, I see it less about limiting peoples freedoms, and more about moving delayed costs up front. People are still free to buy/sell most any food product. However, some appear to have a marked impact on society, but in a delayed fashion. That is, you won't get sick from drinking 32 ounce sodas the day you drink them. However, you are likely to get addicted to them and they will make you unhealthy eventually. Increasing the costs moves some of that pain early, so that it is easier to make the choice to avoid. Do I think this is perfect? No. Not even close. Nor do I think people should be disallowed from buying stuff like this. I do think more of the proceeds should go to making people healthy or at least educated. Going into the producers of these products doesn't help the health, and the way marketing works, they become less educated on the risks of these products. There is a reason we had to regulate the hell out of cigarettes, for example. And I don't shed any tears over that.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I have conflicting opinions on “sin taxes” on cigarettes and soda. On one hand, yes, it does make sense that increasing the prices of cigarettes, for example, decreases the number of people who smoke. That’s a nice result. On the other hand, the sin taxes hit poor people the hardest. First, the incremental increase is a larger percentage of a poor person’s budget. Second, humans do not have a linear response to price changes — to achieve the desired cessation rate, you might have to massively increase prices, which exacerbates the first point. Third, one could argue that rich people can afford a multitude of stress relievers and therapy methods. Poor people cannot afford that, so the sin tax is a draconian method.
    - taeric 9y ago
      I view it not as a sin tax, but a moving of the externalized cost. Does it have the problems you are listing? Yes, absolutely. However, they already have problems that they will just have to pay for later in some of these. This is forcing some of those extra costs to be factored into the decision in the first place.

vacri 9y ago

This is simplistic libertarian nonsense. Pollution regulations have had obvious good effects. Workplace regulations have made the workplace a much better place for all than previously. Road regulations make transport safer. And deregulation has frequently failed. As taeric says, reality is more nuanced than polarising libertarian rhetoric would have us believe. Slogans make a poor substitute for thought.

mywittyname 9y ago

Obesity is a huge problem and legislators have effective tools for dealing with such problems. Whether people agree with deploying these tools is one thing, but it's clear that even the fear of regulation is enough to make companies act. Coke has been heavily invested in zero calorie drinks for a while now, and candy companies have been self-imposing size restrictions.

dogruck 9y ago
Can you please elaborate on the effective tools for fighting obesity? Do you have any pointers? I am not convinced simply by the obvious statement that corporations will respond to the threat of regulation. The advent of Coke Zero does not prove effective fighting of obesity.