Thirsty Boston?

[stebo0728]

Ok, while we are drawing distinctions, are we talking about only government office buildings, or buildings that serve the public? If the buildings are serving the public, and the vending machine companies are being limited on what they can offer to the public, then yes, that is market interference, but what is most important, is that it's market interference BY THE GOVERNMENT. Market interference is everywhere, and is a viable part OF the market, but only when the market interferes with itself, not when the government interferes, because the government has an entirely superstandard set of abilities that other market forces arent allowed to share.

Thats important, because I would imagine your next argument to be: "but what if a private company wanted to set a policy on what drink it would or would not allow?" To which my answer would be the above, market interference by pure private sector market forces are ok, they are native to the system. But government employed interference is NOT native to the system.

[IBCoupe]

Okay, quoting is a pain on this thing so I'll do what I can.

1. They have water bubblers. You don't even have to buy anything.
2. It might have been, but would you object if it were the other way?
3. See above. I wrote that it was in pursuit of public health. If it's okay under that reasoning for cigarettes, it should be okay for other things.
4. Creating an image that someone with authority thinks you shouldn't be drinking soda, or that schools shouldn't be subsidizing childhood obesity, if nothing else.

[AppleBonker]

1. Fine, as long as they remove all vending machines/snack counters.
2. Yes, if not for the underage purchasing thing, I would complain about cigarette machines being removed. Let smokers buy if they want.
3. Pursuit of public health is one thing, but
4. Public authority placing restrictions is another. Those authority figures may not want me getting an abortion, but in the same way I am not happy when they try to make it so that I can't.

Edit: this is not meant to bring up abortion, so please don't go there. Just drawing a loose parallel.

[IBCoupe]

So, Stebo, it's either all vending machines or none at all? But wouldn't they be limiting it to vending machines? Surely, those push-cart drink vendors should be given places inside the walls of City Hall. Otherwise, that would be an "unnatural" market manipulation!

This is what libertarians actually believe.

[IBCoupe]

1. Fine, as long as they remove all vending machines/snack counters.
2. Yes, if not for the underage purchasing thing, I would complain about cigarette machines being removed. Let smokers buy if they want.
3. Pursuit of public health is one thing, but
4. Public authority placing restrictions is another. Those authority figures may not want me getting an abortion, but in the same way I am not happy when they try to make it so that I can't.

Edit: this is not meant to bring up abortion, so please don't go there. Just drawing a loose parallel.

1. Why must they?
2. Nobody said they can't.
4. So, what if they said they would no longer allow the performing of abortions at City Hall? You'd be pissed?

[AppleBonker]

1. They're basically stating one is ok and the other is not if they don't remove all of them. (I realize you've already covered this. My point is their reasoning behind it is faulty).
4. They never allowed that to begin with. Again, they are making a change in this case.

[stebo0728]

So, Stebo, it's either all vending machines or none at all? But wouldn't they be limiting it to vending machines? Surely, those push-cart drink vendors should be given places inside the walls of City Hall. Otherwise, that would be an "unnatural" market manipulation!

This is what libertarians actually believe.

Whats wrong with that, if the push-cart guys can provide their service without posing a threat to the public, or damage to the premises, and think that they actually have a working business model in doing so, more power to them.

[AZhitman]

1. They have water bubblers. You don't even have to buy anything.

There's a mosque 110 miles from your house. Why do you need a mosque in YOUR town? Besides, there's a ton of Catholic churches nearby, and don't get me started on all the synagogues - Oy vey!

2. It might have been, but would you object if it were the other way?

It was the issue. It created an unenforceable condition. There's no reason to piddle about with "if".

3. See above. I wrote that it was in pursuit of public health. If it's okay under that reasoning for cigarettes, it should be okay for other things.

So, my employer can mandate that I wash my hands hourly while I'm sitting in my office typing? How about mandating that I eat sufficient fiber? No preservatives, for sure, right? I can't bring a big ol' bacon sammich for lunch? OH NOES! While we're at ti, let's prohibit picking one's nose at work, and God forbid anyone pass gas - All those molecules of feces floating about, getting people sick... Oh - and right after they implement the "Mandatory Exercise Program", they'll need to mandate that everyone drink 8oz of water per hour to avoid dehydration, which can lead to impaired mental functioning, urinary tract infections, muscle stiffness and even death!

4. Creating an image that someone with authority thinks you shouldn't be drinking soda

I don't particularly CARE what "someone in authority" thinks. It's a legal substance, there's no other intervening legal issue, and it's inappropriate to start down that slippery slope.

p.s. ...do you think the City should fire all fat people?

[IBCoupe]

What's wrong with it, Stebo? I reductio ad absurdum'd your position, and you embraced it? Now I know you guys are pulling my leg.

[stebo0728]

What's wrong with it? I reductio ad absurdum'd your position, and you embraced it? Now I know you guys are pulling my leg.

You rectum'd why what now? Hows that?

Im not pulling your leg either, but you seem to fail to see any significance in the 3 ad hocs I listed.

1) No threat to public safety in draggin their carts in
2) No threat to the building or facilities
3) Someone of sufficient insanity to consider that a viable business venture

If you really think all 3 of those could be met by a push cart vendor, then you've rectum'd too many times I fear....

EDIT: The point being, the market will make the same determination that your prohibitions make, only freedom and liberty are upheld.

[IBCoupe]

This is getting unwieldy, I'll respond later, when I'm on a real computer.

[AppleBonker]

This is getting unwieldy, I'll respond later, when I'm on a real computer.

Lulz. Fair enough.

I don't particularly CARE what "someone in authority" thinks. It's a legal substance, there's no other intervening legal issue, and it's inappropriate to start down that slippery slope.

For the record, this is the heart of my argument, though I may not have stated it all that clearly before. The mayor is allowed to have his opinion (in this case how soft drinks contribute to obesity). I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with him altering public policy because of it. The only grounds for the change that is to be implemented is one man's (or maybe one group's opinion). That doesn't seem like a good idea, especially when there are people who clearly disagree with said opinion. Government nibbling away at my choices or freedoms never ends well for me, regardless of me being directly affected by the individual changes or not.

[stebo0728]

Oh and back to the article, lawls that sugary drinks are a no no, but more drunk baseball fans is FTW

[IBCoupe]

I'll stick around for the easy ones to address: public vs. private, Stebo.

[szh]

So, I couldn't bring a soda from home in my brown bag lunch if I worked for the State of CA? I'm forced to buy one from the price-gouging vendor if I want a soda?

They may have separate entrances? I have no idea!

I mean, I'd understand it if soda came in ferrous cans, which could be misconstrued as a weapon by a metal detector - but they're NOT. Aluminum cans don't set off a properly-set up metal detector.

If that's accurate, add that to the list of reasons I hate that state.

Am I the only one that wants to scream at these people: LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

Our state is indeed heading down the toilet faster than others ...

I think it is time to move. Before the revolution!

Z

[AZhitman]

I'll stick around for the easy ones to address: public vs. private, Stebo.

Certain? No public money goes to ball fields? Just checkin'....

[srellim234]

z- Secession, not revolution. Once enough of us leave Mexico will get it back.

[szh]

z- Secession, not revolution. Once enough of us leave Mexico will get it back.

I think they already have it back ... I see Mexican flags flying on cars all the time when elections are going on there.

Z

[AZhitman]

No, that's AZ. But we're shipping them your way as fast as we can.

(..i kid, i kid...)

Wait. No I don't.

[IBCoupe]

Okay, wasn't able to get to this. Involved in in-depth discussions of equal protection, and so I'll have to
Do this the difficult way.

Greg,
Re: Mosques
I really don't think that's a parallel, and I don't think you thought it was, either.

Re: "If"
There's a need to piddle around it because keeping kids away from tobacco isn't pertinent to the issue.

Re: Your Employer
Yes, your employer can, but it's doubtful they will. I assume you work for the State of Arizona, for otherwise there wouldn't even be a question. At some point, I expect a need for workplace efficiency to take over.

Re: Don't Care
Then don't worry about it. Buy your soft drinks, bring them to work with you, and enjoy, fatty. There's really very little to be upset about here.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo,

The market won't make the same determinations, otherwise you wouldn't be upset about them, and the rule wouldn't be put in place.

Honestly, Stebo, if you think vending machines in public buildings drive the market, then the market has bigger concerns than what vending machines administrators want.

[IBCoupe]

Adam,

I'm still not seeing where the government is limiting your choices or freedoms.

You seem to be arguing that, in the event that you can buy anything at all, you should be able to buy anything you want in a government building. This is similar to Stebo, who wants me to believe that vending machine operators have a right to have the government as a client.

[AppleBonker]

Isaac, it's more of a problem I have with change. Given my engineering background, arbitrarily changing things for no reason pisses me off. There is no problem with the way things currently are, IMO. So why change them? I don't care how little it costs in terms of time/effort. It still costs at least some time or effort from someone. And for what?

As far as limiting choices/freedoms goes, right now I could be in a government building and want a coke and easily grab one from a vending machine or cafeteria or something. Once this is implemented, I'd have to walk across the street to get one. A minor inconvenience, sure. But an inconvenience nonetheless. And for what? Does anyone honestly think this will make people healthier? Tubbo is probably going to be the one carrying his/her soft drinks in from home (we know he/she isn't going to go without). But I, on the other hand, usually get the rare desire to drink a soft drink spontaneously which means I am the one suffering (again, not trying to equate this to anything more terrible - the "suffering" is VERY minimal). The point is, the only ones I'd expect to suffer at all are the people like me.

And finally, I have a problem with the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Why do they feel the need to tell me what I should or shouldn't drink? How is that a government issue? This is my biggest beef with the whole thing. It's a slippery slope that I don't want to start down anywhere or anytime. Health concerns of the government should be limited to ensuring that greedy corporations aren't cutting corners in ways that could injure unsuspecting citizens. NOT telling me that if I drink another pop I will get fat. F*ck them and their incorrect analysis.

[IBCoupe]

Re: Engineering
I have a Design background, which is Engineering's less autistic little brother, and I'm telling you that there isn't much of a difference between the way things were and the way they are now. It's little more than symbolic, and as much as that pisses me off at the Federal level, it's a minor annoyance at the city or town level.

Re: Choices for Tubbo
The largest area of impact will be in public schools, and I get the feeling that you're not as opposed to that - you just think it's over-inclusive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, I'm never going to side with the hidden sense of entitlement you're (perhaps unwittingly) propagating - that the government somehow must avoid inconveniencing you in your search for the beverage of your choosing. I guess I'm just having a hard time swallowing (pardon the pun) that premise.

The government doesn't have to provide you with a vending machine of your liking in its buildings, and there is absolutely no injustice when they remove one that you like.

Re: Slippery Slope
These are difficult arguments to craft. Sometimes, a slippery slope argument is valid, because the objected-to action really does lay the groundwork for future, greater actions. This is not one of those times, because, and here's the kicker: if a State wanted to ban Coca-Cola products, the legal groundwork already exists, with or without this action. If they want to ban sugary drinks, they can. There's no precedent set by this.

[srellim234]

To be perfectly honest, I am so sick of hearing the term "slipper slope" I could scream. The first time I came across the term "slippery slope" was when I was debating the Domino Theory in high school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

Politicians used it to justify Vietnam. Boy, since Saigon fell that sure has led to communism dominating the world, hasn't it? Seems to me like capitalism and market forces, along with increased freedom of information has been more influential.

To some members of this forum, almost every single argument is a "slippery slope." Guess what? Some slopes aren't slippery! Sometimes there's no slope!

People who constantly use the term "slippery slope" remind me of the lifelong hypochondriac who died at the ripe old age of 92. On his headstone it read, "See! I told you I was sick!"

[AppleBonker]

The largest area of impact will be in public schools, and I get the feeling that you're not as opposed to that - you just think it's over-inclusive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, I think this should be parents' job. Not the government.

That said, I'm never going to side with the hidden sense of entitlement you're (perhaps unwittingly) propagating - that the government somehow must avoid inconveniencing you in your search for the beverage of your choosing. I guess I'm just having a hard time swallowing (pardon the pun) that premise.

It's not so much the inconveniencing. It's more the change to something less convenient for no good reason.

To be perfectly honest, I am so sick of hearing the term "slipper slope" I could scream. [...] To some members of this forum, almost every single argument is a "slippery slope." Guess what? Some slopes aren't slippery! Sometimes there's no slope!

Anytime the government removes a choice from my hands because they think they can select better, it's a step in the wrong direction. Maybe you're right. Maybe they wont take it any further. But if people don't protest who will stop them if they try to? Is it only an issue if it affects you directly? I doubt this will ever be a problem for me; I don't travel much and when I do I don't target government buildings generally. So I guess I shouldn't care.

I can see where you might get annoyed by the phrase, but I do see it as a major issue. The government should not be in charge of making sure I stay healthy. That should be under my control.

[IBCoupe]

Re: Parents
Nothing says that it can't be the job of parents. This isn't even a ban on sugary drinks in school. The school is simply going to stop selling certain items. If parents want to take control of their kids' meals, by all means, let them. There's still no limitation on choice.

Re: No Good Reason
Sucks for you. Get a thicker skin? Shop for drinks outside of government buildings? There's people who think it's a good reason. You disagree, I get it, but that's a bit different than for no good reason at all - you don't like that they've inconvenienced you for a reason you don't like. I think it's fine, and I think the inconvenience is manufactured in order to HAVE an inconvenience.

[AppleBonker]

Sucks for you. Get a thicker skin? Shop for drinks outside of government buildings? There's people who think it's a good reason. You disagree, I get it, but that's a bit different than for no good reason at all - you don't like that they've inconvenienced you for a reason you don't like. I think it's fine, and I think the inconvenience is manufactured in order to HAVE an inconvenience.

Fine argument, though I still disagree. Anytime the government tells me what is best for me, I am going to disagree. Even if I'm not inconvenienced at all. The fact that people like this reason is scary. There are people out there that think blacks/women shouldn't be allowed to vote/hold office. I'm not really directly affected by this either, so should I not be upset if someone were to try to alter government in those cases (yes, I understand that this is a much larger scenario and far more difficult to create change)?

It's as though I have a cookie, and the government wants to take a nibble of my cookie (because, let's face it, cookies lead to obesity). Hell, it doesn't even have to be my cookie; it could be yours. I don't want them to take a nibble of your cookie because I don't want them doing it to me either. Plus lots of little nibbles could consume the entire thing.

[AppleBonker]

And, for the record, it looks like this guy should be worrying a bit more about HIS caloric intake than mine:



I'm leaner than that. But I'm glad he knows what's healthy for me...

[stebo0728]

And, for the record, it looks like this guy should be worrying a bit more about HIS caloric intake than mine:



I'm leaner than that. But I'm glad he knows what's healthy for me...

He's genetically defective dude, be sensitive ...

/sarcasm