|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2010 : 08:27:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Robb
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force.
Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes.
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for.
Corporations do not take money by force because someone dies.
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances.
Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy.
Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar.
Corporations do not waste my money on pork.
Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn.
Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars.
Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house.
Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare.
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations.
|
Oh brother.  |
Indeed.
While some of Robbs examples are true by definition (eg property taxes), is there any of the examples where corporations does not at least do similar things?| Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations. |
Unless Robb lives on Cuba, China or in North Korea, this statement is just plain stupid.
| Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare. |
Corporations do not force you to breathe either.....
|
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 09:52:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Which returns for the question I have yet to see answered: "How are the salt regulations a limitation for the freedom of the individual?"
|
My answer was that if we regulate salt in foods then the the corporation has less freedom to offer in their product. It may not affect the individual as much, but a company (many are small family owned such as restaurants) have more regulations that are not needed when we can choose what we eat. There are as many natural food stores where I live as regular stores.
Does anyone really think eating at most restaurants is healthy? If the government can regualate salt for our health, then why can't they regulate smaller portions? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 09:59:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Starman
While some of Robbs examples are true by definition (eg property taxes), is there any of the examples where corporations does not at least do similar things? |
Well give us some examples.
Originally posted by Robb
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations. |
Unless Robb lives on Cuba, China or in North Korea, this statement is just plain stupid.
|
Can you explain to me why corporations are more oppressive than the government?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:00:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
My answer was that if we regulate salt in foods then the the corporation has less freedom to offer in their product. |
Which was not an answer to the question now, was it? Whose interest should governments give priority to, businesses or individuals? I'd say individuals.
| It may not affect the individual as much, |
What if it increases the options for individuals?
| but a company (many are small family owned such as restaurants) have more regulations that are not needed when we can choose what we eat. There are as many natural food stores where I live as regular stores. |
Where you live, yes. But I know quite a few examples where that reasoning doesn't apply. That's my whole point, that regulations on salt addition to foods would increase the choice for the individual.
Does anyone really think eating at most restaurants is healthy? If the government can regualate salt for our health, then why can't they regulate smaller portions?
|
I agree with you that regulating this for restaurants is overdoing it.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:13:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Starman
While some of Robbs examples are true by definition (eg property taxes), is there any of the examples where corporations does not at least do similar things? |
Well give us some examples. |
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force: They will charge you for the products you use and force you to pay for them. While taxes are taken directly from your salary, they are a form of payment for goods provided, namely government.
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for: Because once you have build a road, you never have to maintain it. Oh, you do? Once you bought your car, you'll pay for the maintenance. You'll pay a yearly fee if you have bought a virus scanner, for making sure it will stay up to date. My central heating system comes with a maintenance contract.
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances: The government forcing ethical behavior is a bad thing?
For a number of your examples we'd have to go into the lobbying behavior of companies, which actually has quite some influence on your life.
Originally posted by Robb
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations. |
Unless Robb lives on Cuba, China or in North Korea, this statement is just plain stupid.
|
Can you explain to me why corporations are more oppressive than the government?[/quote]
There are quite a number of examples of corporations trying to limit free speech of their employees or about their products, where laws instituted by the government actually protect us from these corporations. That is why.
While the statement is somewhat overstating it in my opinion, it is not entirely without basis either. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:23:53 [Permalink]
|
Wow....all this?
Seems pretty straight forward to me....and has been answered many times over in this thread (and really not address by those who oppose)
Corporations remove the salt.....individuals put it back. How is this difficult?
Clearly Corporations are not going to just do this on their own....profits are involved if only "some" of them remove/reduce the salt. Therefore "all" must be regulated to remove/reduce it......easy peasy.
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:30:01 [Permalink]
|
Corporations remove the salt.....individuals put it back. How is this difficult?
Clearly Corporations are not going to just do this on their own....profits are involved if only "some" of them remove/reduce the salt. Therefore "all" must be regulated to remove/reduce it......easy peasy.
|
The actual salt itself is not really the issue here. The issue is regulating something that government has no business regulating.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:40:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Corporations remove the salt.....individuals put it back. How is this difficult?
Clearly Corporations are not going to just do this on their own....profits are involved if only "some" of them remove/reduce the salt. Therefore "all" must be regulated to remove/reduce it......easy peasy.
|
The actual salt itself is not really the issue here. The issue is regulating something that government has no business regulating.
|
Says you.
I'm with Dave on this one....."for the people, buy the people".....you don't like it....change the people. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Corporations remove the salt.....individuals put it back. How is this difficult?
Clearly Corporations are not going to just do this on their own....profits are involved if only "some" of them remove/reduce the salt. Therefore "all" must be regulated to remove/reduce it......easy peasy.
|
The actual salt itself is not really the issue here. The issue is regulating something that government has no business regulating.
|
Since both the consumer and the government stand to save money on health care costs if less people require medical intervention due to hypertension, I just don't understand why you don't think the government (a savings in tax dollar expenditures) has any buisness regulating that.
Hell, they regulate almost every aspect of food production, service and labeling and so on. All geared to make the food you eat safer. And again, you will still get to over salt your food. No one is stopping you. It seems that your objection is purely ideological. It's an ideology that I don't happen to agree with. This thread is going around in circles now. I suppose we will have to agree to not agree.
The good news is many packaged food producers are willing to comply with the recommended standard voluntarily. So there may be no need for a new law. We'll see how that pans out I guess...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 11:04:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Corporations remove the salt.....individuals put it back. How is this difficult?
Clearly Corporations are not going to just do this on their own....profits are involved if only "some" of them remove/reduce the salt. Therefore "all" must be regulated to remove/reduce it......easy peasy.
|
The actual salt itself is not really the issue here. The issue is regulating something that government has no business regulating.
|
Says you.
I'm with Dave on this one....."for the people, buy the people".....you don't like it....change the people.
|
"The people" need to look past the fact of whether they think too much salt is bad or good for you and ask themselves instead " Is this something government needs to be involved in?". In this particular case my answer is a big NO.
I will fight to the end to keep the majority from having influence in my life simply because they are the majority. I find the ideology that is perpetuated by the masses is usually fundamentaly wrong. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 11:12:54 [Permalink]
|
| The good news is many packaged food producers are willing to comply with the recommended standard voluntarily. |
I'm digging it.
Now my question is if we really needed the whole thing to get so far up into the legislative system or could the citizens have organized themselves good enough to present this to the food producers without government interference. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 11:22:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Corporations do not take the money I earn by force.
Corporations do not take property away for not paying property taxes.
|
If you use services, whether they are the government's or a company's, you need to pay for them. If you take a company's product without paying for it, that's called "stealing" and you could get jail time. The government requires money to function as well.
And the money you "earn" is NOT entirely yours. This guy says it much better than I do: "No one truly makes 100 percent of his money by himself. Individuals depend on a wide array of government services to support the very free market in which they earn their money. Without these supports, there would be no free market in the first place."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-earnedmoney.htm
If taxes were voluntary, NO ONE would pay taxes
Corporations do not take money for driving on roads that are paid for. |
Roads need constant maintenance and therefore money. By your argument, why should I pay for MS Windows 7 becuase it's already paid for.
Corporations do not take money by force because someone dies. |
This is a re-framing/re-naming of the estate tax and it is a disingenuous dodge. But I don't remember that details of this argument so i'm going to pass on this one.
Corporations do not force the government to be ethical in their finances. |
And how is being 'ethical' a negative?
Corporations do not tell me how much salt can be in a product I buy. |
So you think that they can put as much as they want without regard for the health of the consumer?
Corporations do not tell me I cannot smoke in a private restaurant or bar. |
"Waaa, waaa, waaa. I can't smoke like a chimney! I'm being tyrannized!"
If someone next to me in a restaurant is smoking, not only do they ruin my meal, but they also affect my health and are infringing on my rights.
Corporations do not waste my money on pork. |
Are you really prepared to say that corporations don't waste money frivolously? Please, get real.
Corporations do not spend more of my money than they earn. |
Are you kidding me!?!? Do you remember that financial bailout? What about GM? Chrysler? All the emergency bank mergers? Need I go on?
Corporations do not send our citizens to die in wars. |
Ever hear of BlackWater?
Those citizens are volunteers and know exactly what they're signing up for. Or don't you think that the defense of this country is something that government needs to do? I do not want this to to become about the legitimacy of our current or past wars.
Corporations do not tell me I need topay for a permit to put an awning on my house. |
So if your neighbor wants to build a porn shop, or an all-night go-kart race-track, or a toxic-waste dump site, you don't want the government to intervene? Before you say that I've gone too extreme, there was a story a few years ago of a western state that got rid of zoning codes and precisely these sorts of things started happening.
Would you be OK if there was no electrical code and your child dies in a neighbor's house because of an electrical fire? How about building code that allows 2x4s as roof rafters and the roof collapses during a snow storm, killing your family?
Corporations do not force me to buy healthcare. |
A motorcyclist who sustains massive head injury and thus his care causes massive medical and insurance costs across all of society.
Corporations have much less affect on our lives than government does, therefore it is much more likely to be oppressive over corporations.
|
Corporations affect what cars we think we want, what movies to watch and what products are on those movies. Corporations market drugs directly to the consumer (we are the ONLY country that allows this BTW) and influences people to feel that they have "this syndrome" or "that syndrome" and only this wonder drug will fix what ails you. There is virtually nothing that corporations don't influence our thinking on. In fact, I would argue that corporations subtly, but insidiously, are more dangerous because people aren't aware they're being influenced (vs. being "forced"). |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 11:55:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
"The people" need to look past the fact of whether they think too much salt is bad or good for you and ask themselves instead " Is this something government needs to be involved in?". In this particular case my answer is a big NO.
I will fight to the end to keep the majority from having influence in my life simply because they are the majority. I find the ideology that is perpetuated by the masses is usually fundamentaly wrong.
|
You are contradicting yourself. I'm not surprised, free market mythologists always do so at some point. When I pointed out that I am hampered in my goal to live healthily because there most products have salt in them because I am in a minority, you felt this was irrelevant.
But now suddenly the majority should not have an influence in your life? Which is it? If you don't want the masses to have influence on your food, getting the salt out is the way to go. Then the decision to put salt in is truly and wholy your.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 04/22/2010 12:00:11 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 12:26:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
| The good news is many packaged food producers are willing to comply with the recommended standard voluntarily. |
I'm digging it.
Now my question is if we really needed the whole thing to get so far up into the legislative system or could the citizens have organized themselves good enough to present this to the food producers without government interference.
|
Could they have? Perhaps. But nothing is new here. This information has been available for over 40 years now and nothing was done about it. So, yes, it could very well be that the government has to start making threats and/or instituting new regulations to get compliance. Or do you think that the timing for those companies willing to voluntarily comply is just a coincidence? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 12:42:29 [Permalink]
|
I see little difference between this and removing cocaine from Coca-cola. Salt, cocaine, vitamins, minerals etc. are all just chemicals which can and do have powerful negative effects on the human body. The corporations will always walk the edge of the protection laws to make maximum profits, this means loading EVERYTHING with salt, why? because deliciousness is irresistable to us.
Seriously Robb, I doubt you have ever tried to eat a very low sodium diet, it is pretty much impossible without being forced to be a subsistance farmer. I bet less than 1 in 100 products on our shelves have no sodium added.(to their natural amount, which is enough to support the bodies needs) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
So it starts
