4 ms·

The next wave of food bans are worse because "everyone is an eventual consumer of healthcare" so the choice to ignore the government on some things is also bein

by LanceH 11y ago

The next wave of food bans are worse because "everyone is an eventual consumer of healthcare" so the choice to ignore the government on some things is also being taken away.

jerf 11y ago
This is one of the important reasons for my general vague libertarianism. Governments can be wrong, markets can be wrong, individuals can be wrong, clubs can be wrong, companies can be wrong, all people and all elements of the powerset of all people can be wrong. (Except perhaps the null one, but it's also not known for being very right....) But the incentives for what happens next varies widely, and very-large-organizations have horrible horrible ones to double down, triple down, indefinitely keep throwing money on the number that keeps losing over and over, because they seem to inevitably settle on political structures that work that way. I say "very large organizations" like it's one word because I fully consider "big business" and "government" to merely be two instances of that general problem, and I'm against both in general. It isn't really "government"... it's "the big organizations that humans tend to produce once you have an organization that is fully confident (rightly or wrongly!) that there is absolutely no meaningful threat to its continued existence". Large navel-gazing organizations are dangerous, in general.
- JadeNB 11y ago
  all elements of the powerset of all people can be wrong … [e]xcept perhaps the null one …. Are you kidding? Every opinion held by the null set is wrong!
  - Spivak 11y ago
    That's preposterous! Every opinion held by the null set is correct!
CyberDildonics 11y ago
Where did bans come in to play? What food is banned that you want? And please don't say trans fats if you don't understand that they were a harmful preservation method and don't affect taste at all.
- zo1 11y ago
  I don't think it's so much about banning as it is about "pushing". Look at the subsidies for certain food groups, or the labeling requirements (hint, these feed into peoples' paranoia and preconceived notions of good/bad healthy/unhealthy), etc. So as long as they pipe-up the narrative they want (and scare people about other things), and people listen to it, then they they're effectively creating "ban"-like barriers and hindrances for people making their own choices.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    That is very dangerous but trying to tie it into the word 'ban' is severely misrepresenting the problem.
- LanceH 11y ago
  "Now, the FDA is taking a step to remove artificial trans fat from the food supply. This step is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year." From http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.htm http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.ht... Close enough to use the word "ban".

by LanceH 11y ago

The next wave of food bans are worse because "everyone is an eventual consumer of healthcare" so the choice to ignore the government on some things is also being taken away.

jerf 11y ago

This is one of the important reasons for my general vague libertarianism. Governments can be wrong, markets can be wrong, individuals can be wrong, clubs can be wrong, companies can be wrong, all people and all elements of the powerset of all people can be wrong. (Except perhaps the null one, but it's also not known for being very right....) But the incentives for what happens next varies widely, and very-large-organizations have horrible horrible ones to double down, triple down, indefinitely keep throwing money on the number that keeps losing over and over, because they seem to inevitably settle on political structures that work that way. I say "very large organizations" like it's one word because I fully consider "big business" and "government" to merely be two instances of that general problem, and I'm against both in general. It isn't really "government"... it's "the big organizations that humans tend to produce once you have an organization that is fully confident (rightly or wrongly!) that there is absolutely no meaningful threat to its continued existence". Large navel-gazing organizations are dangerous, in general.

JadeNB 11y ago
all elements of the powerset of all people can be wrong … [e]xcept perhaps the null one …. Are you kidding? Every opinion held by the null set is wrong!
- Spivak 11y ago
  That's preposterous! Every opinion held by the null set is correct!

CyberDildonics 11y ago

Where did bans come in to play? What food is banned that you want? And please don't say trans fats if you don't understand that they were a harmful preservation method and don't affect taste at all.

zo1 11y ago
I don't think it's so much about banning as it is about "pushing". Look at the subsidies for certain food groups, or the labeling requirements (hint, these feed into peoples' paranoia and preconceived notions of good/bad healthy/unhealthy), etc. So as long as they pipe-up the narrative they want (and scare people about other things), and people listen to it, then they they're effectively creating "ban"-like barriers and hindrances for people making their own choices.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  That is very dangerous but trying to tie it into the word 'ban' is severely misrepresenting the problem.
LanceH 11y ago
"Now, the FDA is taking a step to remove artificial trans fat from the food supply. This step is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year." From http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.htm http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.ht... Close enough to use the word "ban".