More big government strong-armed tactics

[srellim234]

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/08/07 ... er-freedom

Anyone who thinks that the current Administration cares about individual rights needs to read this. It's every bit as bad as the previous Administration the liberals complained about.

[IBCoupe]

The right to poison yourself (if that's what opponents to raw food believe you're doing) must have some limits. To the extent that we have a social structure that will catch you when you fall ill, the social structure must balance individual liberty interests with those related to systemic costs.

Further, if the disease purported to be spread by raw foods is communicable, then we've got an even greater social interest in preventing its consumption.

That said, I'm not so sure how I feel about the opposition to things like raw milk. There's a lot of money coming from the dairy industry to oppose it, and so that there makes me question their bias. I'd like to see a neutral, scientific study (and for the most part, those seem to come up with mixed results, from what I've seen) and a great public debate about the matter. Of course, you can't always get what you want.

[stebo0728]

That said, I'm not so sure how I feel about the opposition to things like raw milk. There's a lot of money coming from the dairy industry to oppose it, and so that there makes me question their bias. I'd like to see a neutral, scientific study (and for the most part, those seem to come up with mixed results, from what I've seen) and a great public debate about the matter. Of course, you can't always get what you want.

Since when has there been neutral science? Not since I can remember anyway, which is only about 30 years worth of time lol. Look at climate change, definitely not neutral science there.

[IBCoupe]

Most of the science is neutral. The scientific method, if followed, fosters neutrality and objectivity. Occasionally, you'll find a report that runs against the majority of studies, and following the money will usually lead you to the energy industry - big oil or big coal, specifically. Similarly, the few studies out there that say cigarette use does not lead to an increased rate of lung cancer can usually be found to be ultimately funded by big tobacco.

There's a lot of disputed issues in climate change science, but they're usually minor and are tangential to the major issue: is it happening, and are we the main cause? The vast majority of scientific studies (absent the exceptions described above) agree that the answer to both questions is "yes."

Now, the major questions, as far as I can see, are more policy-related, and less science-related: can we do something about it, should we do something about it, and what is that something?

[stebo0728]

LOL - well aside from drinking different kool-aid than you, Im not sure what else to say. I disagree that major change is happening, and what change IS happening is NOT our fault, though locally I think we do exacerbate the state of things. Similarly to how your say most science against can be traced back to energy corp sources, alot of science for can be traced back to government grants. This issue is more political than anything. Communism lost the cold war, and they nestled themselves in the heart of the environmental movement. Environmentalism has become a large scale financial endeavour to bring down the west.

[IBCoupe]

And you suppose that there's some bias related to government grants? That scientists want climate change to look true and man-made so that they get more money from the government to do more research? What's the government interest in climate change? How does communism play into it? How can you possibly associate communism with environmentalism? What the heck is in your flavor-aid?

Oil and Coal industries have a clear profit-driven interest. The government exists regardless of climate change. The government collects taxes regardless of climate change. In fact, from a political perspective, mitigating damage is a lose-lose situation. You spend a lot of money to prevent a problem or its negative effects, and people come back and say you've wasted money, and that the problem or its negative effects never existed in the first place.

That the issue is divided in this country between left and right does not mean that "left" and "right" actually have anything to do with it. This is one of those issues where we've set up a false premise, and put one side against the other, when it's clear that they're not equally supported.

[wingFeather]

It's every bit as bad as the previous Administration the liberals complained about.

It's worse.

[IBCoupe]

It's worse.

How so?

[stebo0728]

And you suppose that there's some bias related to government grants? That scientists want climate change to look true and man-made so that they get more money from the government to do more research? What's the government interest in climate change? How does communism play into it? How can you possibly associate communism with environmentalism? What the heck is in your flavor-aid?

Oil and Coal industries have a clear profit-driven interest. The government exists regardless of climate change. The government collects taxes regardless of climate change. In fact, from a political perspective, mitigating damage is a lose-lose situation. You spend a lot of money to prevent a problem or its negative effects, and people come back and say you've wasted money, and that the problem or its negative effects never existed in the first place.

That the issue is divided in this country between left and right does not mean that "left" and "right" actually have anything to do with it. This is one of those issues where we've set up a false premise, and put one side against the other, when it's clear that they're not equally supported.

Im not going through the birthing pains with you on this one. Read "State of Fear" by Michael Chricton. Yes its fiction BUT as Chricton is well knows for, it is fiction with basis in fact. And real sources are given, though the plot is fictional. Good read, and my kool-aid flavor is "red".

[AZhitman]

The right to poison yourself (if that's what opponents to raw food believe you're doing) must have some limits. To the extent that we have a social structure that will catch you when you fall ill, the social structure must balance individual liberty interests with those related to systemic costs.

Further, if the disease purported to be spread by raw foods is communicable, then we've got an even greater social interest in preventing its consumption.

Hmmmm.

If you can put another dude's AIDS-infested crank in your mouth, why not raw milk?

Think there's not a "systemic cost" issue at stake there?

Certainly hypothetical, and I don't have a real strong opinion here (other than my complete opposition to infringement on personal liberties) but can you at least see what happens when we try to legislate behavior beyond that which is reasonable? It turns into a quagmire, and those who support it CAN'T have it both ways.

[AZhitman]

What's the government interest in climate change? How does communism play into it?

It's all about control. Demonize the gas-guzzler, create a whole uproar that leads to divisiveness (haves and have-nots), foster dependency on government solutions rather than individual liberties and market forces...

[IBCoupe]

Stebo,
I have issues with Chrichton's works. First, I don't consider them to be particularly compelling reads on their own part. Second, his "factual" basis can be easily found to be somewhat less than factual. The thing about writing fiction? Nobody can sue you for lying. Well, they can, but it's a lot harder (thus a lot more expensive).

Greg,
That was an interesting analogy, and I'm not going to go and disagree with you. I wasn't offering an argument; I was offering considerations.

And where your analysis of government interests and climate change is concerned, keep in mind that there's nothing inherent in "climate change is real and man-made" that precludes market solutions.

I can't help but wonder where we'd be if big oil and big coal spent half as many resources actually developing solutions as they do in hindering honest discussion.

[stebo0728]

The thing about climate change, is that its global, and it gives means for the "less fortunate" third world to plunder the pockets of the "more fortunate" first world nations. Carbon credits? Pay to displaced victims of vanishing coast lines? Its very class dividing, and its designed to be so.

[IBCoupe]

The thing about climate change, is that its global, and it gives means for the "less fortunate" third world to plunder the pockets of the "more fortunate" first world nations. Carbon credits? Pay to displaced victims of vanishing coast lines? Its very class dividing, and its designed to be so.

No. Some proposed policies (and some enacted policies) might have that effect, but that's not to say that they must. Once again:

I can't help but wonder where we'd be if big oil and big coal spent half as many resources actually developing solutions as they do in hindering honest discussion.

[stebo0728]

One only needs look at the Kyoto Treaty. China puts out more Co2 than we do, yet Kyoto gives them no sanctions. BTW - Co2 is not a major contributor to green house effect. Water vapor has a much greater effect. Plus Co2 comes out in much greater force from animals, algae exhaust, sea bed seapage, as ocean warms (natural cylce, sun caused) then the water holds on to less Co2, more gets in atmosphere. What we are seeing is a natural cylce, that just looks a bit dirtier because we are here. Regardless of what private sector solutions arise, the government should not be in the mind of signing bullsh*t treaties that sell our childrens future abroad. (Note - even Clinton knew better than to sign Kyoto)

[IBCoupe]

One only needs look at the Kyoto Treaty. China puts out more Co2 than we do, yet Kyoto gives them no sanctions. BTW - Co2 is not a major contributor to green house effect. Water vapor has a much greater effect. Plus Co2 comes out in much greater force from animals, algae exhaust, sea bed seapage, as ocean warms (natural cylce, sun caused) then the water holds on to less Co2, more gets in atmosphere. What we are seeing is a natural cylce, that just looks a bit dirtier because we are here. Regardless of what private sector solutions arise, the government should not be in the mind of signing bullsh*t treaties that sell our childrens future abroad. (Note - even Clinton knew better than to sign Kyoto)

Much of China was still developing in 1999. Heck, by looking at the pictures my girlfriend showed to me this past weekend of where her grandparents live, much of China is still developing. That there were no sanctions applied to any developing nations up to 2012 does not mean there won't be if/when Kyoto is renewed then.

But Greg's point was that government funded research is biased, and my response is that there's no reason to think that. Government doesn't necessarily gain anything by one result or the other, and it's perfectly plausible for government to benefit from either a "yes" or a "no" (as if it were possible to get a strict "yes" or "no"). Research grants are no more a source of bias than are government-subsidized student loans.

[AZhitman]

My gripe is this, and it may come off as the "arrogant American" - so be it:

Countries like China contribute a magnitude MORE to so-called "global warming" than the US. They don't HAVE an EPA. Yet we, as the most powerful country in the world, are picking on our OWN companies, our OWN citizens, our OWN entrepreneurs, at great impact to our own GDP, rather than pressuring the larger polluters to clean up THEIR act.

It's like the guy who's afraid to stand up to his boss at work, so he comes home and kicks the dog or smacks his wife.

[IBCoupe]

I'd say it's more like the guy who doesn't have access to his coworker's home thermostat, but chooses to turn down his, just the same.

[stebo0728]

One only needs look at the Kyoto Treaty. China puts out more Co2 than we do, yet Kyoto gives them no sanctions. BTW - Co2 is not a major contributor to green house effect. Water vapor has a much greater effect. Plus Co2 comes out in much greater force from animals, algae exhaust, sea bed seapage, as ocean warms (natural cylce, sun caused) then the water holds on to less Co2, more gets in atmosphere. What we are seeing is a natural cylce, that just looks a bit dirtier because we are here. Regardless of what private sector solutions arise, the government should not be in the mind of signing bullsh*t treaties that sell our childrens future abroad. (Note - even Clinton knew better than to sign Kyoto)

Much of China was still developing in 1999. Heck, by looking at the pictures my girlfriend showed to me this past weekend of where her grandparents live, much of China is still developing. That there were no sanctions applied up to 2012 does not mean there won't be if/when Kyoto is renewed then.

All the more reason for the sanctions to be in place, to be sure they develop "properly" and so that they dont "pollute" from the get go right?

But Greg's point was that government funded research is biased, and my response is that there's no reason to think that. Government doesn't necessarily gain anything by one result or the other, and it's perfectly plausible for government to benefit from either a "yes" or a "no" (as if it were possible to get a strict "yes" or "no"). Research grants are no more a source of bias than are government-subsidized student loans.

There is absolutely reason to believe that government funded research is biased. One camp benefits from "yes" one camp benefits from "no" but only one answer benefits our society and economy going out. As Greg pointed out, and I have tried to point it, its all about control of resources, and global redistribution of wealth. Governments on the whole seem to operate on the notion of "if it doesnt work here, lets take it global"

[IBCoupe]

All the more reason for the sanctions to be in place, to be sure they develop "properly" and so that they dont "pollute" from the get go right?

Not necessarily. If a developing country is doing what's cheapest, making it more expensive may have one of a few effects. First, it might not make the polluting processes expensive enough to outweigh the costs of "clean" processes. Second, the countries just might ignore it altogether. Third, the countries might cease development altogether.

A country that's already developed does not have the same level of dependency on the types of processes that create pollution, and is in a much better position to take on the challenges of curbing pollution. And I haven't yet quoted The West Wing: "It's a nation of SUVs telling a nation of bicycles that they need to pollute less!"

There is absolutely reason to believe that government funded research is biased. One camp benefits from "yes" one camp benefits from "no" but only one answer benefits our society and economy going out. As Greg pointed out, and I have tried to point it, its all about control of resources, and global redistribution of wealth. Governments on the whole seem to operate on the notion of "if it doesnt work here, lets take it global"

I'm not going to try to argue against a conspiracy theory. If your position is that the vast majority of scientists are on the government's tit and aren't independent enough to come up with a real scientific solution, and that it's the few scientists demonstrably on the tit of big energy industries who really have it right, there's nothing I can say.

I just can't suspend my disbelief that far; I apologize.

[wingFeather]

How so?

Have you been paying attention to the world since he came on the scene?

[IBCoupe]

How so?

Have you been paying attention to the world since he came on the scene?

Obviously you have, so it shouldn't be terribly hard for you to explain your position.

[srellim234]

The right to poison yourself (if that's what opponents to raw food believe you're doing) must have some limits. To the extent that we have a social structure that will catch you when you fall ill, the social structure must balance individual liberty interests with those related to systemic costs.

Further, if the disease purported to be spread by raw foods is communicable, then we've got an even greater social interest in preventing its consumption.

That said, I'm not so sure how I feel about the opposition to things like raw milk. There's a lot of money coming from the dairy industry to oppose it, and so that there makes me question their bias. I'd like to see a neutral, scientific study (and for the most part, those seem to come up with mixed results, from what I've seen) and a great public debate about the matter. Of course, you can't always get what you want.

Based on what ou say here, are you in favor of the FDA drawing their weapons and raiding any MacDonalds hamburger stand in the country? Isn't it in the same public interest that people not poison themselves with that food or feed it to their children? And it's justifiable that government agencies use that much force?

[n00b240]

Hitman said it best earlier, its about control. And any government, dem or GOP likes to exercise that control. Especially with farming where huge subsidies go out to the corporate farm, and the small family farmer is getting squeezed out.

Why Rawesome Foods cant just abide by the standards of that all co-op's in the country follow, is beyond me. Ive been to several co-ops, mostly here in Texas and when I was living in Champaign, IL. Co-op's that have been there for years, with no raids. Im sure something is amiss at Rawesome

"failure to operate a food facility without a license."

Sounds like a reason the FDA would use to draw arms on a place, in which something might be amiss

[IBCoupe]

Based on what ou say here, are you in favor of the FDA drawing their weapons and raiding any MacDonalds hamburger stand in the country? Isn't it in the same public interest that people not poison themselves with that food or feed it to their children? And it's justifiable that government agencies use that much force?

You're looking at two completely different things: first, enforcement, and second, PR. And, as I told Greg, I'm not advocating anything. I'm just trying to present to you the other side of that coin that I think is worth considering. Should we reconsider how we deal with the food industry in this country? Yes - but that means actually reconsidering it. All of it.

[AZhitman]

..and if we do, we need to either steer clear of governmental intervention or go whole-hog.

You can't up the tax a Double McFatty to encourage people to eat healthier and then oppose mandatory helmet laws.

Regulatory oversight is fine and dandy. I think the FDA actually serves a useful purpose. But as I pointed out above, if we're gonna make it tougher for people to buy a big paper bag of $ .99 heart disease, we might also consider scrutinizing other, statistically 'dangerous' choices as well. And I don't like that slope one bit.

[IBCoupe]

Me neither. Though I'm not opposed to passing regulations and imposing fines to get toward making that $.99 heart disease less diseasy.

[AZhitman]

We're gonna differ on that one, but not diametrically.

I believe in transparency (McFatbutt Burger needs to publish their nutritional content accurately). But if I own stock in McFatbutt Burger, who are you to prohibit / fine / restrict them from selling Double Assbuster Supremes? My stocks might drop, and then you and me are gonna have words.

The government needs to stay the hell out of the market and consumer decisions. Regulate the industry from existing positions, but leave the Capitalism Happy Meal alone.

I'm amused by the mouthbreathers who say we need to restrict cholesterol-laden foods, but in the same breath, they want to decriminalize drug use, repeal helmet and seat belt laws, and promote alternative and higher-risk lifestyles.

[C-Kwik]

One only needs look at the Kyoto Treaty. China puts out more Co2 than we do, yet Kyoto gives them no sanctions. BTW - Co2 is not a major contributor to green house effect. Water vapor has a much greater effect. Plus Co2 comes out in much greater force from animals, algae exhaust, sea bed seapage, as ocean warms (natural cylce, sun caused) then the water holds on to less Co2, more gets in atmosphere. What we are seeing is a natural cylce, that just looks a bit dirtier because we are here. Regardless of what private sector solutions arise, the government should not be in the mind of signing bullsh*t treaties that sell our childrens future abroad. (Note - even Clinton knew better than to sign Kyoto)

Water Vapor does indeed have a greater effect on the greenhouse effect than CO2. But Water Vapor is not being emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. Water Vapor content in the air is dependent on temperature and pressure. Pressure is relatively constant, but temperature does fluctuate. There are feedback mechanisms involved. One of which is water vapor. For any change in temperature where water is present, there will be a higher content of water in the atmosphere when temperatures are higher. If you've taken any chemistry courses, usually a vapor pressure lab is performed. This is essentially an example of this effect. And only one of the many feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative) that are accounted for by climate scientists.

My gripe is this, and it may come off as the "arrogant American" - so be it:

Countries like China contribute a magnitude MORE to so-called "global warming" than the US. They don't HAVE an EPA. Yet we, as the most powerful country in the world, are picking on our OWN companies, our OWN citizens, our OWN entrepreneurs, at great impact to our own GDP, rather than pressuring the larger polluters to clean up THEIR act.

It's like the guy who's afraid to stand up to his boss at work, so he comes home and kicks the dog or smacks his wife.

Two very big flaws in this argument. First off, as a matter of imposing such sanctions against other nations, we have to show the diligence in doing this ourselves. Are we to ask more of them when we don't do the same? And I know how you might respond, to this, but before you do, keep in mind that per capita, we pollute much more than China. About 4 times more in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

We are less than a billion metric tons less then China in total CO2 output despite being 4 times smaller in population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

I'd say we have a lot more room for improvement than they do...

[IBCoupe]

I believe in transparency (McFatbutt Burger needs to publish their nutritional content accurately). But if I own stock in McFatbutt Burger, who are you to prohibit / fine / restrict them from selling Double Assbuster Supremes? My stocks might drop, and then you and me are gonna have words.

The government needs to stay the hell out of the market and consumer decisions. Regulate the industry from existing positions, but leave the Capitalism Happy Meal alone.

Again, that's one half of the issue. The other half is the public costs. Maybe you are taking them into account, but maybe you aren't.

I'm amused by the mouthbreathers who say we need to restrict cholesterol-laden foods, but in the same breath, they want to decriminalize drug use, repeal helmet and seat belt laws, and promote alternative and higher-risk lifestyles.

1. Drug use decriminalization is not a parallel issue. If they simultaneously advocated fully banning high-cholesteral foods, then you'd have a point. But I do believe that every time someone says "Decriminalize it" they follow it up with "tax it and regulate it."
2. I don't know that many people who simultaneously call for restrictions on fatty foods and call for the repeal of helmet and seat belt laws. I mean, I can point to people who say each of those things, but they aren't all the same people.
3. Promote alternative and higher-risk lifestyles? Like what? Rabid-badger Skydiving Club?