Public Health

Attack of the Food Police

Why the government has no business banning Happy Meals

|

The government tells us what medicines we may take and what recreational substances we may ingest, but when it comes to food, we decide what goes down our gullets. Gun-owning barbecuers coexist peacefully with Humane Society vegans. To paraphrase the old adage, your freedom ends where my stomach begins.

But not everyone is keen on emancipated eating. Public health puritans, appalled at the spread of excess weight, think the government should forcefully guide our dining choices. And when it comes to policy, they are getting a place at the table.

Last week, the San Francisco board of supervisors voted to hose the Happy Meal. No longer would McDonald's (or any other restaurant) be allowed to provide a free toy with a meal that exceeds specified amounts of fat, sugar, and calories. If the folks at the Golden Arches want to offer a Batman action figure, it will have to be flanked by fruits and vegetables.

The impulse to overrule nutritional choices exists elsewhere too. In his last two budgets, New York's Democratic Gov. David Paterson proposed a tax on soda.

The governor says this would help cover "the $7.6 billion the state spends every year to treat diseases from obesity." Reuters reports, ominously, that he "did not dismiss the idea of eventually imposing a tax on other obesity-linked foods such as hamburgers and chocolate bars."

San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar speaks in more grandiose terms. He said the Happy Meal ordinance addresses "a survival issue," and proclaimed, "We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice." Food justice?

Now, there are many places where the government ought to be: between a citizen and a mugger, between the polluter and the sky, between us all and al-Qaida. But the space between a diner's hand and a diner's mouth is not one of them.

The nice thing about eating is that the person who makes good or bad choices is the one who reaps the reward or penalty. If I scarf a cheesecake, you don't gain weight. And if I decide that consigning myself to the Big and Tall Store is not such a bad option, it's not your place to stop me from doing so.

You don't like what's in a Happy Meal? Don't let your kid have one.

High-calorie food is not one of those substances that presents a mortal threat to innocent bystanders. Guzzle a liter of Fanta, and you can still be trusted behind the wheel of a car. Walk by a KFC, and you don't have to worry about secondhand fat.

True, my gluttony may cause me to end up morbidly obese and a burden on the medical system. But if that's grounds for regulation, we will all soon be surrendering our TV remotes to the police and doing daily calisthenics under the watchful eye of commissars in spandex.

As it happens, soda taxes may affect only the people who don't need affecting. California Polytechnic State University economists Michael Marlow and Alden Shiers, writing in Regulation magazine, noted data showing that "taxes on alcohol consumption significantly lower drinking by light drinkers, but not heavy drinkers." One study found that a 58 percent tax on soda would "drop the average body mass by only 0.16 points"—on a scale of 30.

Restrictions on fatty food are no more promising. Suppose a 5-year-old has a Happy Meal every week (which is how often new toys appear). Economist Michael Anderson of the University of California at Berkeley tells me that while a child who dines on fast food may get a couple of hundred extra calories, that's not much compared to the 11,000 calories she is likely to eat in a week.

Besides, people who are diverted from the Golden Arches have plenty of other cheap, tasty, artery-clogging options. "If they don't eat at McDonald's, are they going to go home and eat broccoli and brown rice?" asks Anderson.

Fat chance. His research shows that people who live in places with fast-food restaurants are more likely to eat out, but no more likely to be obese.

The stubborn fact is that people who are intent on doing things that expand their dimensions to an unhealthy degree can always find ways to do so. Ditto for governments.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Bad Signal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good morning reason!

    McRib is back.

    1. The problem here is so simple really. It started when someone decided that there was a ‘War on Terror’. This would be similar to a ‘War on Sniping’ or a ‘War on Pincer Manuevers’. The US went to war against a tactic.

      In WW2 we were at war with Nazism and Fascism–and we fought the supporters of those ideologies at home, and abroad.

      We have avoided even the appearance of being engaged with the ideology that is fighting us now.

      We are at war with Islam.

      Islam is a faith, but it is a faith designed as a political system, a faith designed as a world conquering ideology.

      In WW2 we fought the ideologies of Fascism and Nazism in all the places it appears–against nations and groups.

      And we did not hide from what we were fighting against.

      Now, we fear speaking the truth. Even supporters of the ‘War on Terror’ refuse to make this connection–to them, we fight ‘jihadis’, or ‘islamists’. And we do this because not all Muslims are jihadis.

      Not all Germans were Nazis, Not all Italians were fascists–but we understood that we had to fight, and win–or die.

      Then, we chose our life, and the life of our ideals over the lives and ideals of those promoting horror.

      We must make that same stance today.

      The Bund is building centers to teach the lessons of Mein Kampf. Why can we not see that?

      Because it calls itself a faith?

      1. Right.

        Because the “War on Poverty”, “War on Hunger” and “War on Drugs” weren’t a problem.

  2. How to ban Happy Meals (in a moral legal and libertarian way):

    Stop all government food subsidies. Without the govt corn and govt cheese and govt beef – the market will not pay for such low quality at it’s real high price.

    1. Ehh, maybe. A lot of government programs actually make the price of the commodities more expensive. Take sugar, for example, with its import quotas and sugar-as-collateral-for-nonrecourse-loan and other programs. (Although, yes, that certainly encourages high fructose corn syrup.)

      1. McDonalds uses subsidized HFCS for it’s products. It goes well with their subsidized meat, cheese, and customers.

        1. Subsidized cheese in this country is more expensive than it would be absent the subsidies. Our program with milk and cheese is price supports, not subsidy to make it cheaper.

    2. Milk, for example, is definitely more expensive than it would be without the subsidies.

    3. People get paid NOT to farm. It creates scarcity to drive UP prices, not down.

      1. Well, here in Michigan you get paid either way. You can get subsidies from the federal government to farm certain crops, but you get money from the state government for setting aside land.

  3. I think that “food policing” doesn’t only fail on liberty grounds, it fails on justice grounds as well.

    My wife and I both come from long lines of skinny people. We have a skinny kid.

    Once every six weeks or so, I take him to get his hair cut. If he behaves for the haircut girl, he gets to go to McDonald’s and get a Happy Meal.

    He is totally pumped to get a Happy Meal, and whatever 1/2 cent cheapass toy they have in the bag that week. It brings him an immense amount of joy relative to its cost.

    Under the social theory promulgated by the Food Police, my kid should be forcibly denied that enjoyment, not because he’s fat or has any weight issue whatsoever [he’s not and he doesn’t] and not because he eats McDonald’s too often [he goes once every six weeks or more], but because other repulsive obese little monsters are too fat, and because other parents may be douchebags who take their kids to McDonald’s every day.

    How on fucking Earth is that just?

    1. Because our society is built around protecting the lowest common denominator from the natural consequences of their own actions, even if it takes outlawing their actions completely. Sorry if you are skinny or spend time working out, those enjoyable empty-calories are now off limits because some people are incapable of self-control.

      PS: Don’t make fun of the fatties because that is mean and discriminatory and make sure to pony up your tax dollars for their Right to Medical Care.

      1. Sorry if you are skinny or spend time working out, those enjoyable empty-calories are now off limits because some people are incapable of self-control because power-drunk do-gooders know what’s best for you.”

      2. What, no complaining that this is a “dumbass culture war battle” or a “meaningless culture war proxy battle” compared to the fiscal disaster, Bingo?

        No complaining that Steve Chapman and the rest of us are spending our time on “these small battles instead of, you know, [addressing] the big problems?”

        I don’t see why this is that different from light bulbs– many of the worst agricultural programs, like sugar, don’t show up on the government balance sheet because they’re regulation that appears “free” by passing the costs in an indirect way.

        1. Eat a dick, you disingenuous twat. Are you going to follow me around in every comment thread?

          1. No, but I am surprised to see you here in this “culture war” thread.

            I’m sorry, but to me it appears that you’re the one being disingenuous. You’re hardly be consistent in your calls that people only worry about the financial crisis and not these sort of minor culture war issues that arouse passions.

            I’m curious to know how you reconcile your two positions. I don’t wish to accuse you of having some kind of ulterior motive that led you to make an insincere criticism of repealing the dumb lightbulb regulation (and a representative for sponsoring such a bill while voting your preferred way on the “important” issues), but I sincerely view this article and the lightbulb regulation as similar.

            Surely this article by Chapman was a waste of time dealing with a culture war issue instead of Tim, Peter, and Ronald’s articles today and yesterday dealing with the financial crisis? Another one of those “stupid San Francisco liberal” culture war articles that get passions aroused so much more than the (admittedly more important) financial articles?

            I certainly concede that we’ll see more comments here than on one of Peter’s sober “yes, the accounting STILL doesn’t add up” articles.

          2. “Eat a dick”

            Soon the food police will be banning that, too.

            1. If only they could put those in a Happy Meal, I’d go through the drive-thru a lot more often.

            2. Not in San Francisco. The 9th circuit would strike that down as unconstitutional and a blatant HateCrime.

    2. Wait, Fluffy isn’t fluffy?

    3. I’ll do you one better… I come from a long line of skinny people, as do my children. I apparently have no taste whatsoever, because I enjoy a McDonald’s meal. I’ll have one of their new sirloin burgers maybe once or twice a week. And I’m not fat. And my cholesterol is fine. And my blood pressure is fine. The majority of any “out of shape” I have is down to working a 10 hour day in an office and getting very little exercise. So all of your fat, salt and calorie whining is wasted on me. Hell, I may even go have a McRib just to spite the bastards.

      It is funny that these busybodies want to obsess over kids eating too much, when most of the parents I know are battling to get their kids to stop playing and eat enough. I know you brilliant central planners will be surprised to hear it, but the human body has all sorts of built-in mechanisms to guide it’s owner to eat the food it needs. Mostly they aren’t accessible to anyone other than the owner of the body, so you really aren’t in a good position to be making decisions about what they eat.

      1. I’ll have one of their new sirloin burgers maybe once or twice a week. And I’m not fat. And my cholesterol is fine. And my blood pressure is fine.

        Women everywhere hate you right now.

      2. I come from a long line of skinny people, as do my children.

        In fact, they come from a slightly long line of skinny people.

      3. It is funny that these busybodies want to obsess over kids eating too much, when most of the parents I know are battling to get their kids to stop playing and eat enough.

        And that includes some parents who try to get their kids more because the parents Mb>think their children don’t eat enough but actually they do. And it includes a few real failure-to-thrive cases that can’t be helped much by normal means anyway.

    4. The fact that there is a siginificant group of Americans that actually thinks the government should be involved in what we eat demonstrates how screwed we are.

      1. This. The only reason these assholes get away with their nanny shit is that not enough people pay enough attention and tell them to go fuck right the hell off. As they should be.

    5. It isn’t.

      Eric Mar is, by all accounts, a tyrant.

    6. Hmmm, sounds like everyone getting in trouble and getting the same ban handed to them because other people can’t exercise self-control. Now you know how marijuana users that smoke in the privacy of their home and only enough to relax feel. Because other dickheads decided to get blasted and drive or go to work, everyone pays for it. Damn I love politics, laws aren’t so great when your at the end getting screwed huh!

  4. “The government tells us what medicines we may take and what recreational substances we may ingest, but when it comes to food, we decide what goes down our gullets. ”

    That’s just plain ignorant. The government subsidizes food in many ways, protects those who abuse the animals the workers the land the water and the customers, distributes it, controls the labeling and packaging and cooking and selling of it, prohibits competition, and otherwise dominates food in America.

    “But not everyone is keen on emancipated eating. ”

    Including you and Reason – which is consistently blind to the fact that food in America is a government program.

    1. “Protecting abusers of animals” is also called “enforcing property rights”. Your position here is precisely analogous to Chad’s position on carbon emissions. Both are ridiculously overbroad.

      1. “”Protecting abusers of animals” is also called “enforcing property rights”. Your position here is precisely analogous to Chad’s position on carbon emissions. Both are ridiculously overbroad.”

        So are you an advocate of overturning all animal welfare and protection laws, or only shielding large scale corporatist abusers from them?

        Animals are property, but there is a natural duty to care for them. The practices of confinement animal factories will result in arrests and prosecutions and convictions and jail/prison sentences if any individual were to be caught abusing their pets in such a manner – why the double standard for corporations?

        1. Animals are property, but there is a natural duty to care for them.

          Where does this natural duty come from, other than “ex rectum”? If animals are property, then you can do with them “what thou wilt”. You cannot say that they are property and then undermine the concept of property in the same sentence.

          So are you an advocate of overturning all animal welfare and protection laws

          Yes.

          1. It’s pretty plain that animals are different than other forms of property, like couches, and so it may follow that the rules as to what you can do with them may be different.

            1. It’s pretty plain…

              So plain that you did not deign to outline it for me, eh?

              What is that law saying again? Something along the lines of “when the words ‘readily apparent’ or ‘obviously’ appear in a brief, prepare to read the weakest argument”.

              1. There are many ways of justifying that we have duties to protect animals. Some are from the Kantian line of thought, in which you will find the justification that we have a duty to things that can suffer to try to minimize their suffering. In the same vein, there is the Consequentialist view which holds that we should attempt to minimize net suffering. Since your highly original pseudonym indicates that you find those two views to be repulsive (or that you, at least, ought to, as your namesake surely did) I offer a final justification that even the Man herself would have had to accept:

                It is in our long term best interest to protect the rights of animals, or at least the existence of animals. They are different from a couch in that they can suffer and without them, we would have a very different world. I wouldn’t have my pretty leather ottoman on which I am currently sitting and I wouldn’t have the tasty piece of ham I’m preparing to eat and I wouldn’t have that picture of my dogs on my desk. All of those things (especially the dogs) give me pleasure and cumulatively it is long term.

                1. It is in our long term best interest to protect the rights of animals, or at least the existence of animals

                  These are two totally different things. A common (true) refrain from these quarters is that we have more trees in America than we did at the founding of the country because we use trees so much. The same holds true for cows. You would not have that ottoman or that piece of ham if we had “minimized the suffering”, either, unless you are wealthier than most of us.

                  Your argument is really just a long paragraph with an assumed argument: that it is a person’s (and humanity’s) best interest to protect animal “rights”…because…well, you never outline that part.

                2. @Coke
                  I think we all agree that we don’t want to inflict harm on animals and find this sort of behaviour repulsive.
                  The question is whether such a behaviour is enough to warrant the use of force on another human being, in order to prevent him from inflicting harm on an animal.
                  I don’t think that’s the case, since I feel that would be putting animals and humans on an equal footing.
                  Rather, it is an issue of a man being free to do what he wants with his own body and property, so long as that doesn’t physically affect me.

                  1. “I don’t think that’s the case, since I feel that would be putting animals and humans on an equal footing.”

                    I don’t think that follows. Given certain basic protections to animals doesn’t mean we have to let them vote. I hope no one here is advocating putting them on an equal footing with humans, in whatever morally relevant ways a dog is different from a couch it is also different from a human.

                    1. No, but I’m still not comfortable with the notion of animal “rights”. I don’t agree to allowing them even some of the rights we enjoy (as you seem to advocate, through welfare laws). An animal does not have the right to its own body. It is a resource. The very notion of a non-sentient creature enjoying any right seems absurd.
                      Yes, a dog is different than a couch. Like I said, I can’t stand seeing cruelty either. But that does not mean I agree to infringing upon the right of the owner for the sake of the “right” of the animal.

                    2. I don’t like the idea of animal rights either. Why not “protections” based on their lesser, but present degree of moral worth?

                      I’d also argue that animals are sentient if sentient is defined as “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions”.

                    3. If it’s nonsentient, then how can its mistreatment be considered “cruelty”?

                    4. “An animal does not have the right to its own body. It is a resource. The very notion of a non-sentient creature enjoying any right seems absurd.”

                      I agree, it’s absurd as saying that a child has a right to clothing, shelter, or food. They don’t. No one has a right to other people’s resources.

                      However, if one has custody of a living thing, then one is a custodian, and one has the duties and responsibilities of a custodian.

                    5. The animals seem to have more rights than we do.

                  2. I think we all agree that we don’t want to inflict harm on animals and find this sort of behaviour repulsive.

                    1. Damn you closing tag!

              2. If you can’t see the ways that a dog is different than a couch I’m not sure an outline would help you.

                1. I think the question was more “why do you believe is a dog not different from a person?”

                  1. Really? Even though I think animals have less moral worth than a human (but more than a couch)?

                    1. Can you make these positions and still be “pro-choice”. i always wonder if PETA members are pro-life, I mean a human fetus has to have as much “Moral Worth” as many of the animals they defend right?

          2. Where does this natural duty come from, other than “ex rectum”? If animals are property, then you can do with them “what thou wilt”. You cannot say that they are property and then undermine the concept of property in the same sentence.

            So are you an advocate of overturning all animal welfare and protection laws

            Yes.

            You wouldn’t happen to live in Enumclaw, Washington, would you?

          3. “Where does this natural duty come from, other than “ex rectum”? If animals are property, then you can do with them “what thou wilt”. You cannot say that they are property and then undermine the concept of property in the same sentence.”

            There is more than one type of property. So far as I know this hasn’t been thoroughly explored in libertarian or Austrian treatises – but real estate, personal possessions, and animals are all very different types of property with different rights and responsibilities.

            “Yes.”

            Ah, at least you are consistent with your inhumanity.

            1. but real estate, personal possessions, and animals are all very different types of property with different rights and responsibilities.

              Thanks for being annoyingly circular. Would you care to actually, you know, argue this contentious point, or do you want to continue stating it as bald fact without any kind of support whatsoever?

              1. “Thanks for being annoyingly circular. Would you care to actually, you know, argue this contentious point, or do you want to continue stating it as bald fact without any kind of support whatsoever?”

                It’s as obvious as the fact that it’s wrong to rape little kids, or to torture them. It’s self evident. If you can’t see it then it is your own moral blindness that is at fault – not my failure to communicate that which should not even need to be communicated.

                If we are to remove animal welfare/protection laws, then so be it. That would acceptable to me. It is the double standard that says it is wrong and illegal to torture one animal but okay and legal to torture ten thousand that I find unacceptable.

                1. it’s wrong to rape little kids, or to torture them.
                  So the entire basis of your argument is that there is no distinction between cattle / pets and children?

                  1. Of course this is not his point. His point is that child rape and animal cruelty are both self-evidently wrong.

                    I agree, but I’d go further. Whatever it is that gives humans moral worth (autonomy, ability to reason, ability to suffer, etc), animals have more of it than inanimate property (though certainly less than humans) and therefore deserve some protections, somewhere between what we give humans and property.

                    1. Of course this is not his point. His point is that child rape and animal cruelty are both self-evidently wrong.

                      Your animal cruelty is my entreprenurial venture. If those roosters give me 5 good minutes, they can live like kings during the off-season.

                      I think you are projecting human emotions onto animals.

                  2. “So the entire basis of your argument is that there is no distinction between cattle / pets and children?”

                    There is a distinction – but there are similarities. Both are forms of life that are unable to consent – and those who have custody of both groups have responsibilities as well as rights.

                    1. There is a distinction
                      Yes, the latter are people, the first aren’t.

                    2. *the former aren’t, dammnit.

                    3. “”Both are forms of life that are unable to consent “”

                      Well that certainly can’t be the metric. I’ll never get a mosquito’s consent before I kill it. Viruses are lifeforms too. It’s all about how far do you want to take it.

                      Can’t we agree that animals subject to food processing are different from the household pet? There’s a reason why your great-grandparents would tell you not to name the chickens in the yard.

                2. Wow. OK, so it is so obviously wrong to abuse animals that you equated it to child rape, and then it the same sentence you said that the removal of animal welfare laws would be “acceptable to [Patriot Henry]”?

                  So you would be OK with child rape? That’s where your doubletalk takes you.

                  It’s as obvious as the fact that it’s wrong to rape little kids, or to torture them. It’s self evident. If you can’t see it then it is your own moral blindness that is at fault – not my failure to communicate that which should not even need to be communicated.

                  Yeah, that’s what the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Deists and other Religionistas say to me, too. Count me unconvinced – and if you have just arrived at this radical notion of “partial animal rights” and expect to be able to get away with the “It’s SO OBVIOUS” argument, you do not reside in reality.

                  1. You’re a moron, Ayn_Randian.

                    And that’s NOT what religionists say to you. Plenty of what religion dictates isn’t obivous, and religionists don’t claim that it is.

                    But torturing animals IS. And yes that’s what we’re saying, it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong. We shouldn’t have to fucking get into some fucking deep philosophical discussion. We COULD, but that’s not the point right now. The point is you SHOULD see that immediately, like most normal people. But you’re not a normal person, you’re a shitty fucking nerd fuck douche libertarian. A smart-ass who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else just because he can wax verbosely on an issue, regardless of the actual realities conercing that issue, who thinks that contrarianism is an actual position.

                    Few people think deeply and philosophically about every fucking issue. And they understand that when they do, it’s probably in a very biased fashion, just like, let’s say, libertarian “reasoning” is. And more importantly they inherently understand that logic has severe limits:
                    http://world.std.com/~mhuben/skept/logic.html

                    So why don’t you give up the “logical” bullshit, think with your gut a little bit a.k.a. GAIN SOME HUMANITY, and join the rest of humanity. Try it. You’ll get laid more often when you’re not such a fucking asshole socially maladjusted nerd douche.

                    1. Edwin, that was glorious. I almost believed you were serious, up until the link. But good job anyways.

                    2. I am serious. That’s a serious aspect of philosophy (though I’m arguing against being so in-depth in the first place). “Logic” is seriously flawed as a tool in greater, human-level philosophical matters – it’s only really accurate in math and science, where premiseses can be quite exact.

                      Libertarians’ fucked up thought process that they think is “consistent” with “logic” is how libertarians have told me that they have the right to fuck little kids, or that you can murder someone for walking across your lawn or keying your car. And endless other fuckedupitude.
                      And yet I have yet to hear a libertarian actually give me a good reason why utilitarianism is verboten when reasoning on matters of public policy.

                  2. Ehh, much of libertarian thought is grounded in “obvious” intuition as well. We all reason from unassailable first principles anyway.

                    The notion that other human beings have rights– and in a sense of really believing it, instead of just “it’s convenient for me to say this and act this way when others see me so that others will treat me as though I have rights” is not necessarily “obvious” and generally comes down to some kind of first principles.

                    1. We all reason from unassailable first principles anyway.

                      You are confusing an inability to achieve perfection with any ability to observe patterns and correlation.

                      Edwin makes the fatal error in assuming perfection in scientific endeavor, instead of realizing that it is the accumulation of knowledge about physical and theoretical systems by repeated testing.

                      Science isn’t the uncovering of ‘truths’, but the narrowing of the margin of error in the observational process.

                      To say the same is impossible for the observation of systems that recognize ‘rights’ for human beings as opposed to the contrary misses the logicof the direction of the discussion.

                      Of course Edwin wishes to dismiss logical thought – it’s simply a logical attempt to avoid rational discussion of his arguments, since that will result in his loss.

                    2. WTF are you talking about? Rights systems are not science. It’s political philosophy. And libertarians frequently speak like their philosophy is exactly and universally correct like it’s written in the sky or something – like no one could POSSIBLY rationally come up with something different.

                      Anyway, nice try. I’m not attempting to avoid “rational thought”. I’m pointing out that A) logic has its limits, and they are serious limits B) libertarians frequently come up with fucked up shit via “logic” C) deep philosophy isn’t everything in the world; most people don’t really need to think that hard to understand that torturing animals is wrong. That you guys can’t or refuse to admit that you don’t quickly understand that is fucked up.

                    3. Since you cannot refute my points, you resort to a fantasy argument with yourself. Unfortunately, you lose even that argument.

                      For example:

                      Rights systems are not science.
                      Again your assumption is that ‘science’ is a form of magic that can produce an unassailable ‘truth’. Science is the study of systems, both physical and theoretical, and is concerned with observation of such systems in order to better understand their function.
                      Rights ‘systems’ are indeed observable, and as such can be evaluated rationally, which is a problem for people like you – Which explains your desperate need to abandon rational thought at precisely the time and place of your own choosing.

                      libertarians frequently speak like their philosophy is exactly and universally correct like it’s written in the sky or something

                      You then accuse ‘libertarians’ of not only being monolithic in thought (something dis-proven in my answer to another commenter with whom I was in disagreement), as well as guilty of a failure to invoke logic – oblivious to your own statements about its lack of value in ultimate determination of ‘truth’.

                      like no one could POSSIBLY rationally come up with something different.
                      Again the accusal of your own practice. Aside from your own dismissal of rational thought, it is the fact that people do not rationally come up with something different – what they come up with is irrational and unworkable – that forms the basis of many comments on this site, comments arrived at based on observed historical failures. Your own contradictory comments invoking logical thought prove this, demonstrating the reason for your pressing need to abandon said ‘logic’.

                      I’m not attempting to avoid “rational thought”. I’m pointing out that A) logic has its limits, and they are serious limits

                      I will let that bit of self-referencing nonsense collapse on its own.

                      B) libertarians frequently come up with fucked up shit via “logic”
                      You wouldn’t be referencing the delusional accusation that libertarians want to “legalize drunk driving” would you? Your inability to grasp simple logic explains your desire to eliminate it.

                      C) deep philosophy isn’t everything in the world; most people don’t really need to think that hard to understand that torturing animals is wrong. That you guys can’t or refuse to admit that you don’t quickly understand that is fucked up.
                      So logical thought is limited, and so apparently is ‘deep philosophy’ (you let us know when you get there).
                      You then allege that your conclusion is easy to derive (which some would call ‘common sense’ or ‘common logic’), and that ‘most people’ understand it.

                      Gosh, it’s so simple that you don’t seem to be able to explain it, other than to argue its merits based on what you assert to be common practice.

                      I thank the sweet Baby Jesus you weren’t alive to argue for abolition.

                      As for the final reinforcement of your reading incomprehension, you return to the ‘monolithic libertarian thought’ accusation to buttress your opinion – an opinion based on what a majority of people think, never mind the fact that the variety of opinions on this thread completely disabuse the assertion.

                      Fuck. I thought I’d enjoy this, but I feel like I’ve just beaten a quadriplegic special needs kid to death with a baseball bat.

                    4. Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

                      All you seem to be able to manage to do is parse my posts and wax verbosely in ways that loosely seem like they’re actual responses. That isn’t logic or thought, it’s being a smart-ass.

                      In other words, what you’ve posted is both literally and in spirit one of the most tl;dr things I’ve ever seen.

                      talk to me when you can ACTUALLY respond directly and concisely to the actual, general points that a person is making

                    5. I mean really – I think you kind of expose how libertarian “thinking” eventually devolves into a bunch of bullshit. I mean your entire response amounts to just a bunch of typical libertarian talking points/phrases “That’s YOUR assertion”, “You’re doing what you accuse OTHERS of!” Ever wonder why libertarianism is frequently described as adolescent?

                    6. try not using so many fucking pronouns and referring to my “positions” or “conclusions” like I’m supposed to automatically understand what you think I said. Notice how I separated my points with lettered bullet points? Yeah, it’s called simplicity in writing, or getting to the point

                    7. This Edwin character is precious.
                      Ad hominem. Ridicule. Denial. Oh and ‘wax verbosely’. I’ve never seen these used so frequently in one dialogue.

                      Edwin: “you libertarian nerd faggit asses are fucking idiots. I get laid more than you. Heh. I mean, you just wax verbosely and can’t debate my talking points that I haven’t made.”

                      Someone else: “?”

                      Edwin: “Dudebroguy you are such a fucking idiot. WTF are you talking about? I mean. I sit here and sound super fucking intelligent all the time and you wax verbosely. Also, you’rea fucking idiot and can’t debate the points that I have bulleted below:


                      Someone else: “Ah.”

                    8. I’ll be able to respond when he actually responds to my posts.

          4. I am a libertarian extremist, and I certainly don’t think it should be legal to torture animals.

            1. Okay, so we won’t waterboard the animals. But we can still have dog fights, right?

              1. [Insert Michael Vick joke here]

          5. How are children not considered the property of their parents, then, to abuse at will without consequences?

            Arguments that elevate the worth of humans over animals, and the necessity of protecting human life–while we’re free to treat animals as poorly as is convenient–are based on nothing more than sentimental glurge about the supposed all-defeating value of human life.

            So, if you advocate the eradication of all animal welfare and protection laws, I’ll just assume you also mean the eradication of all laws that protect children and other dependents from abuse, because there’s no distinction you can make between the two that makes any sense and is not based in sentiment.

      2. I’m not convinced that, having classified animals as “property”, no further distinction can be made between an animal and the sack of empty bottles in my garage.

        Why not, I ask? Any sane, rational person could expound any number of very real distinctions between a dog, or a cow, and a sack of empty bottles. Why should none of those distinctions support a distinction in the legal regime that we apply to animals?

        And no, such a distinction is not the moral/legal/functional equivalent of making animals the equal of humans in some way.

    2. You seem to feel that the fictive “rights” of animals trump human rights. I disagree. A person / company has every right to use, and yes, even abuse their property (animals). Between animals and people, I choose defending people’s interest and their rights. I don’t find that principle morally objectionable, on the contrary. Otherwise, we are no better off than the most extremist strain of environmentalists, whose wet dreams are of massive depopulation.

      While personally I would never harm another living being and do strongly disapprove of such behaviour, I cannot stop another person from doing what he damn well pleases, as long as he doesn’t hurt another human being. My freedom doesn’t stop where the freedom of my sheep begins, it stops where the freedom of another person begins! You are more than welcome to try and convince owners of animals to treat them humanely. You can set up a charity to take in ill treated animals (if they are given to you willingly). But you should not be able to force other people to act in a manner that you see fit.

      1. Human beings are’nt magic. There is some quality they possess that gives them moral worth (I mean, you don’t think they have self-evident worth, do ya ;)). Whatever that quality is, whether it be capacity to reason, to be autonomous, to feel pain, animals have it in some admittedly smaller degree. Hence I argue animals deserve some admittedly lesser protections.

        1. That doesn’t necessarily follow.

          It’s possible human beings possess rights as a function of our interaction with one another; this would mean that anyone outside the group “human” would possess no rights, and approximating human-ness would not get you anything – you’d either be over the threshold or you wouldn’t be.

          1. Perhaps, but what to do then with humans who fall below the threshold (infants, the very retarded, etc)?

            1. Whatever that quality is, whether it be capacity to reason, to be autonomous, to feel pain, animals have it in some admittedly smaller degree.

              Based on this statement, and being that is responsive to stimuli deserve more rights than inanimate or unresponsive objects. That’s silly since there should be only one threshold for legal rights. If you are a part of the ruling species, then you have protection under the law. If you are not a member of that ruling species, you have no rights whatsoever.

            2. “Perhaps, but what to do then with humans who fall below the threshold (infants, the very retarded, etc)?”

              You grind them into a fine paste and package them as a stable food for the rest of society. DUH!

          2. “It’s possible human beings possess rights as a function of our interaction with one another”

            I’m not sure WTF this would mean…

          3. Since we have rights merely as a function of our interaction with one another, I wonder if we’ll be treated as well as pets or as cruelly as calves in a veal factory when the aliens come to rule us.

            1. Probably.

              Or vice versa.

              Human beings are still wild animals, and any alien species we meet will probably be the same way. Two highly dominant, expansionist sentient species (which we are, make no mistake about it) meeting would more than likely result in unrestricted warfare.

              Read Starship Troopers.

              1. I don’t fully agree.

                We would certainly treat other sentient beings terribly if they had something we wanted and couldn’t stop us – as evidence by the way we treat ourselves. And I have no reason to doubt aliens would do so as well.

                But, in terms of the birth of our star, we’re kind of late on the scene. The fact that no aliens have invaded Earth suggests either that there are so few out there that the resources we have aren’t needed or that anyone that is out there is so adept at manipulating energy that resources are easy to come by without war. (Or, possibly, that our existence is so unique as to be more valuable to aliens than the other resources our system can provide.)

                Assuming the resources we have here are needed, well… Most sci-fi with aliens and humans fighting each other is nonsense. (Fun nonsense, but still nonsense.) The likelihood of two sentient species needing the same resources and having comparable levels of technology contemporaneously is slim to none. Almost certainly, one species would completely dominate the other. Calling it ‘war’ would be very generous to the underdog.

                1. Not to pick on any particular person, but I really wish people would stop saying ‘sentient’ when they’re clearly talking about ‘sapient’.

                  Sentience (essentially the ability to feel and perceive, sometimes people use it to mean being ‘self-aware’) is one thing that most animals (but not plants) have.

                  Sapience (capacity to have judgement or wisdom) is what most people mean when they say ‘sentience’. I blame Gene Roddenberry for teaching two generations of sci-fi lovers the wrong word.

                  I’m not sure how much the distinction advances the argument, but a lot of what people are arguing about here hinges on it, it seems. If something is sapient, then surely it deserves the right not to be someone else’s property. Mice, on the other hand, are merely sentient, and I really doubt anyone in this thread would argue against using poisons, fire, starvation, or cruel steel traps to exterminate large numbers of them, even merely to protect non-sentient property.

                  I would like dogs to be better protected than mice, but I cannot advance an argument why my preference should be binding on anyone else.

        2. I argue animals deserve some admittedly lesser protections.
          Which would only be attainable at the cost of human rights. That’s why I said it would put them on an equal footing with us. At least as far as the right to own our own bodies is concerned.
          I don’t agree to the “middle-ground” you’ve found between people and objects, as in the case to enforce these “lesser” rights by law. The role of the law should be to protect the rights of people. Morally, of course I agree that cruelty is despicable. But it is a case of society/state which should not have a say in matters of morality that do not affect other persons.
          Also there are many shades of grey which pose problems. While we can all imagine a sadist at work torturing kittens or something, what about people engaged in religious rituals. Would sacrificing a goat or chicken be “unlawful”, cruel? Would restricting that not be an infringement on the right to freedom of faith? What if the sacrifice was done in such a manner as to cause prolonged pain to the animal? What about animals in slaughterhouses, or animals slaughtered for Christmas and other holidays and so on?
          Where would the infringement upon the rights of People stop once you get started with the “animal have some rights, too” thing?
          Not that it isn’t already happening (with, for example EU regulation mandating how farm animals should be slaughtered).

          1. “Which would only be attainable at the cost of human rights.”

            Only if you consider it a human right to treat animals in a cruel fashion.

            “That’s why I said it would put them on an equal footing with us. At least as far as the right to own our own bodies is concerned.”

            Animals are not our own bodies. They would get a lesser degree of protection than we and our bodies get.

            “Where would the infringement upon the rights of People stop”

            At cruelty.

            1. Only if you consider it a human right to treat animals in a cruel fashion.
              Yes, it follows from the right to own property.

              Animals are not our own bodies. They would get a lesser degree of protection than we and our bodies get.
              By giving them similar rights you are infringing on people’s rights!

              At cruelty.
              How do you define cruelty?!

              This is going nowhere. You’re just repeating yourself.

              1. I think you feel it is going in circles because you are question begging. You have from the beginning simply asserted that the right to treat animals however one wants is part of the right to own property while I am trying to point out that I don’t accept that animals are property in that sense.

                1. Yes, I believe it is. Just bringing into the question the notion of animal “rights”, “protections”, or whatever you want to call them can only be done at the expense of the right to one’s own property.
                  I don’t accept that animals are property in that sense.
                  And you’re therefore trying to redefine “property” for us, by telling us animals should have some of it too.

                  I know how my arguments might seem (argh, pruperty pruperty pruperty, hanz off!), but what it actually boils down to from a moral perspective is whether, like I said, even in some cases, animal rights outweigh the rights of people (their owners). If you think that they, do than you create a whole set of problems regarding what constitutes “cruelty”, what sort of “property” animals are (if they are not the same as couches) and also create the potential for abuse of the law in the disadvantage of humans.
                  You have not addressed my moral dilemmas. Would the right to freedom of faith be limited? Would a peasant working his oxes to scrape a living have them confiscated? Would a circus/zoo be banned? Would a peasant living on x cents a day have to purchase anesthetics to kill a pig? And so on and so on.
                  And would you actually have a body of public servants writing such laws, deciding what is moral and what is not and enforcing them?
                  That is why I believe the concept of animal rights is a dangerous one for human freedom. We can hope to evolve as a civilization and outgrow childish pleasures of abusing animals, but I don’t think legislation will get us there faster.

                  1. “And you’re therefore trying to redefine “property” for us, by telling us animals should have some of it too”

                    No he’s not. There is no complete definition of “property” floating in the sky. There are a million things you could do with any one piece of property. Some of these things would interfere with other people’s property rights, or liberty, or life (each as separate things). Some rights will inherently be incompatible with even themselves simply because there are many people out there. There are a bajillion precedents in common law that deal with all of this. It’s all very complex. Try learning about law sometime.

                    Here’s an example. People have the right to own real estate under common law. However, to really “own” a property, in the sense that you can personally use it, you need to be able to GET to it first. This is significant because real estate is a piece of land, it’s surrounded by other lands all around it. But you can’t trespass on other people’s lands. So in the end how it’s worked out is every landowner is entitled to a righ-of-way easement, regardless of whether his neighbors like it or not. It’s either that, or you can’t really own land….
                    Not that owning land is automatically necessarily just. Did you or I or anyone really MAKE the earth? Homesteading is only changing it, and will always be arbitrarily defined by humans. Consequently, there are a number of countries, including Hong Kong, where you can’t OWN real estate like you can in common law countries.

      2. I agree with you in theory on this but this argument will be misused by every sick animal abuser in the world.

      3. “My freedom doesn’t stop where the freedom of my sheep begins, it stops where the freedom of another person begins! ”

        The freedom of human beings does not include the power to starve, torture, mutilate, rape, or otherwise criminally abuse animals. Animals are not inanimate objects – treating them as such as a society or as an individual will destroy the humanity of that society or individual.

  5. “The nice thing about eating is that the person who makes good or bad choices is the one who reaps the reward or penalty. If I scarf a cheesecake, you don’t gain weight. ”

    The first part isn’t true and the second only helps further the lie. If you eat a cheesecake, I pay for the milk used to make the cheese through taxation and subsidies for the milk and for the corn used to feed the cows to make the milk.

    1. So what’s your point? Moral libertarians are supposed to refrain from eating cheesecake due to policies for which they are not responsible?

      1. If you eat it then you are responsible for it and the policies that created it.

        1. Do you personally ensure that all of your food is “subsidy free”?

          If you eat it then you are responsible for it and the policies that created it.

          Do I really need to outline all of the ridiculous places to which this position will take us?

          Moral responsibility reaches a point analogous to proximate cause: at some point, an agent’s place in the causality chain is too attenuated to hold that agent responsible for the injustices that exist along that chain.

          1. “Do you personally ensure that all of your food is “subsidy free”?”

            To the greatest extent possible, yes I do – and I unceasingly improve my standards. I won’t be happy until I produce all of my own food…which should be possible within a few short years.

            “Moral responsibility reaches a point analogous to proximate cause: at some point, an agent’s place in the causality chain is too attenuated to hold that agent responsible for the injustices that exist along that chain.”

            There is only one degree of difference between taking food stamps to purchase subsidized food and using your own funds to purchase the same subsidized food. If you eat government cheese you are responsible for that government and for that cheese.

            1. Do you travel on the roads?

              1. He is hoping to get to the point where he can build his own roads.

                1. “He is hoping to get to the point where he can build his own roads.”

                  Damn right!

                2. where we’re going, we don’t need roads…

            2. There is being libertarian and then there is being a radical ideological monk. I could not be less interested in getting arrested every time I drive because I refuse to get a driver’s license, or farm my own food because government subsidizes it to the tune of pennies on the dollar, or refuse to buy guns because the government limits the importation of guns from foreign manufacturers, or build my own car because of government involvement in the auto industry…

              Need I go on? I do not know what kind of self-hatred and projected guilt it takes to have a brain that damaged, and I don’t want to find out.

              1. “I could not be less interested in getting arrested every time I drive because I refuse to get a driver’s license, or farm my own food because government subsidizes it to the tune of pennies on the dollar, or refuse to buy guns because the government limits the importation of guns from foreign manufacturers, or build my own car because of government involvement in the auto industry…”

                So you are a libertarian in theory only? An academic who will dedicate words but not actions to his alleged beliefs? One who talks the talk but who refuses to walk the walk? One who will submit and obey the standards set by his owners and masters? One who will sanction his own victimization?

                To each their own. If you prefer subservience to liberty, enjoy it as much as you can. If you wish to live the life of a serf while attempting to think the life of a free man- go for it.

                “I could not be less interested in getting arrested every time I drive because I refuse to get a driver’s license”

                I’ve driven without a driver’s license, and been pulled over, and I wasn’t arrested, not for that not for the lack of insurance or registration or for the (false) warrants either. Compliance with the dictates of the state is not necessary to escape the penal system, nor is it compatible in the least with a free mind or a free life.

                1. I’ve driven without a driver’s license, and been pulled over, and I wasn’t arrested, not for that not for the lack of insurance or registration or for the (false) warrants either.

                  Most of us aren’t illegal immigrants.

                2. This “we are government” nonsense is just that – nonsense:

                  Even as an agency, the government is a formal organization with an authorized personnel, of which the private citizen is not a member. When several persons employ an umpire, they are distinctively not the umpire. -Isabel Paterson-

                  Also:

                  Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. -Ayn Rand-

                  1. “A forced compliance is not a sanction.”

                    No one is forcing you to eat government cheese. You can buy non-subsidized cheese, or with enough time and effort, make your own.

                    1. Government cheese is MORE EXPENSIVE than it would be without the subsidies. Cheese and milk have price supports, not subsidies that make them cheaper.

                3. Setting aside the possibility that you’re lying, did you get a ticket?

  6. “The stubborn fact is that people who are intent on doing things that expand their dimensions to an unhealthy degree can always find ways to do so. Ditto for governments.”

    Correct on that. The attempt to ban Happy Meals is an attempt by government to correct it’s unintended consequences of usurping the food industry in America, which of course will lead to further unintended consequences.

  7. Milk would be dramatically LESS expensive without government intervention.

    US food consumption patterns would not change in any noticeable way in the absence of the various food subsidies. All that would change is compensation along the distribution chain.

    Don’t get me wrong, I want the subsidies gone too. But you are fucking dreaming if you think that changes of a few pennies on the margin will make any difference in the average person choosing between a hamburger and a bran-and-soy-and-shit sandwich for lunch.

    1. Indeed, well said.

      I’m against the subsidy programs as well, but it’s annoying when claimed libertarians want to assuage their cognitive dissonance by pretending that everyone else’s choices would match their own if it weren’t for government intervention.

      Government intervention is wrong and efficient regardless of whether it meets my tastes or not.

  8. “US food consumption patterns would not change in any noticeable way in the absence of the various food subsidies. All that would change is compensation along the distribution chain.”

    It was the subsidies that transformed traditional American agriculture to the new “conventional” American agriculture. It is the subsidies that pays for it to remain in place. Why would removing this support system not cause a major change just as adding it caused a major change?

    “Don’t get me wrong, I want the subsidies gone too. But you are fucking dreaming if you think that changes of a few pennies on the margin will make any difference in the average person choosing between a hamburger and a bran-and-soy-and-shit sandwich for lunch.”

    The margins in the restaurant and food industries are pretty dang thin. Without the subsidies the market wouldn’t support the expensive confinement animal operations which rely on oil and grain (both much more expensive than grass). People would still eat hamburgers, but they wouldn’t be shitty hamburgers.

    1. It was the subsidies that transformed traditional American agriculture to the new “conventional” American agriculture.

      This is pure garbage. Mechanization did much to modernize agriculture. Technologies that furthered crop yields did the rest. And if you think “confinement animal operations” are expensive, you should try free-range farming sometime.

      I mean, are you absolutely ignorant about farming, or do you have enough information to be dangerous and wrong?

      1. “This is pure garbage. Mechanization did much to modernize agriculture. Technologies that furthered crop yields did the rest. ”

        The advancement of technology and it’s implementation into American agriculture was very much a federal project, beginning in the academia realm which was government subsidized and heavily influenced, and continued with WWII and especially with the post WWII federal programs which greatly expanded the federal control of the production and distribution of food. It was the federal government that led the drive to “Get big or get out” which was a deliberate and successful plan to drive the American small farmer out of business – thus destroying one of the keystones of liberty. The substitution of dependent subsidy addicted corporations for independent self reliant families and communities wary of the government has been an essential part to destroy our American culture and love of liberty.

        “And if you think “confinement animal operations” are expensive, you should try free-range farming sometime.”

        I am going to do exactly that. Grass is cheaper than oil. A lot cheaper.

        “I mean, are you absolutely ignorant about farming, or do you have enough information to be dangerous and wrong?”

        You should ask yourself the same question.

        1. I am going to do exactly that. Grass is cheaper than oil. A lot cheaper.

          No, not pound-for-pound of production it is not. Open-range cattle requires a lot more labor, a lot more land (which requires, at a minimum, some kind of protecting, be it fences or roving guards or what have you, including protection from predators like wolves), and it takes longer to produce the kind of meat-yield that factory farms can produce.

          Like I said, you are horribly ignorant about farming. Or did you think free-range products were that much more expensive because of the five-cent-per-pound subsidies that go into the end-state products of factory farms? Hint: something is not $2-$3 dollars more expensive per pound (or per dozen, in the case of eggs) merely because of subsidies. The inputs of free-range are higher.

          1. “No, not pound-for-pound of production it is not. ”

            True in the short term, but take the broad minded far sighted supernal view – say two centuries – and it’s a very different picture.

            ” Or did you think free-range products were that much more expensive because of the five-cent-per-pound subsidies that go into the end-state products of factory farms? Hint: something is not $2-$3 dollars more expensive per pound (or per dozen, in the case of eggs) merely because of subsidies. The inputs of free-range are higher.”

            If you factor in the erosion of the topsoil and the destruction of the fertility and life supporting capacity of the remaining topsoil – the factory farmed food is a lot more expensive.

            Once the factory farmed soil stops producing then eggs and other products shall become very expensive indeed – and if you average those prices with the previously cheap ones then it shall be much higher than the consistent production of “free range”/”organic”/”biodynamic”/etc farming.

            “Like I said, you are horribly ignorant about farming.”

            I beg to differ – but we both shall put our money and our bellies where our mouths are. You will rely upon the state and it’s corporate subsidaries to plunder the earth and provide for your life – I shall rely upon myself and the life creating power of nature for the same – and in time we shall see who is still living.

            It didn’t work for the Romans – methinks it won’t work for you either. Time shall tell though.

            1. True in the short term, but take the broad minded far sighted supernal view – say two centuries – and it’s a very different picture.

              Assertion without support.

              If you factor in the erosion of the topsoil and the destruction of the fertility and life supporting capacity of the remaining topsoil – the factory farmed food is a lot more expensive.

              Erosion occurs with traditional farming methods. And, again, you assert something without support.

              1. “Erosion occurs with traditional farming methods. And, again, you assert something without support.”

                Traditional methods take many centuries to destroy the fertility of the soil. The use of science to accelerate that process is not a wise course of action.

                1. Traditional methods take many centuries to destroy the fertility of the soil.

                  So those traditional farmers let fields lie fallow after three growing seasons for the fun of it?

                  You can say that letting a field lie is part of traditional farming, but I can counter that it just reduces annual yield, instantly, by 25%. And you have yet to provide any evidence of some kind of “soil crisis” looming, or even evidence that factory farms have to pull up stakes and move from their current locations.

                  1. “So those traditional farmers let fields lie fallow after three growing seasons for the fun of it?”

                    No, that is part of their adherence to the “law of return” which is the critical underpinning of nature and any sound system of agriculture. Contrast that to the “law of looting” which says you can and should and must grab as much as you can as quickly as you can…

                    “And you have yet to provide any evidence of some kind of “soil crisis” looming, or even evidence that factory farms have to pull up stakes and move from their current locations.”

                    The end is not here yet.

            2. Your fundamental error is believing that small farming would be more efficient than industrial scale farming in the absence of subsidies.

              It wouldn’t be.

              Large farms get more subsidies than small farms because the subsidy programs are structured to compensate farmers per unit of production. So farmers who produce more get larger subsidies than farmers that produce less.

              But this, while unjust, is a completely separate issue from the return on investment per input question. If industrial methods produce higher yields per unit of input, they would remain in place even if you took the subsidies away.

              Welcome to the world of division of labor. Please don’t confuse your Ludditism for libertarianism.

              1. “Your fundamental error is believing that small farming would be more efficient than industrial scale farming in the absence of subsidies.”

                Even with subsidies the small farm is more efficient if you take into account the production of farms, families, communities and soil.

                “Welcome to the world of division of labor. Please don’t confuse your Ludditism for libertarianism.”

                My opposition is to the subsidies and various forms of protectionism given to the corporate farmers. That’s libertarianism, not Ludditism. Your defense of the government’s food system is most surely not libertarianism.

                1. My opposition is to the subsidies and various forms of protectionism given to the corporate farmers. That’s libertarianism, not Ludditism. Your defense of the government’s food system is most surely not libertarianism.

                  Luckily, we have a test case where a government eliminated subsidies. That would be New Zealand.

                  After elimination of subsidies, New Zealand saw a rapid movement towards factory farming, and away from the small farms that had been propped up by the government’s system.

                  1. “After elimination of subsidies, New Zealand saw a rapid movement towards factory farming, and away from the small farms that had been propped up by the government’s system.”

                    Gresham’s law in a globalist world applies the world over. We don’t have a global free market. The effects of factory farming in some of the world will naturally drive the rest of the world to use the same methods.

                    I don’t mind if y’all want to eat the crap that factory farms produce. I just don’t want to pay for it. Is that so unReasonable? Apparently so in the minds of Reason readers.

                    1. Thank FSM. I was getting so damn thirsty reading this thread.

                    2. Gresham’s law in a globalist world applies the world over.

                      And once again you demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      Gresham’s law applies in the presence of legal tender laws, when people are required to accept exchange at par.

                      And that still doesn’t cover the fact that New Zealand repealed their farm subsidies relatively recently– LONG after you said that the change had occurred in the US, and it doesn’t explain why it was only then that New Zealand started getting factory farms. If regulations encourage factory farms, shouldn’t New Zealand have seen some movements towards smaller farms (or a slowing of transition) when repealing their subsidies, instead of a rapid acceleration in the late 80s, 90s, and 2000s towards factory farms?

                      So are you arguing that somehow New Zealand alone had subsidies maintaining smaller farms, but that the USA and everywhere else is totally different?

            3. And by the way, “I demand that you account for made-up costs I assert will exist in two centuries!” is not a sound method of economic analysis.

              I could just retort, “If we don’t use factory farming, in three centuries faeries will come and eat our heads! Factor in the costs of that!” and I’d have just as much proof of my claims as you do.

              1. “I could just retort, “If we don’t use factory farming, in three centuries faeries will come and eat our heads! Factor in the costs of that!” and I’d have just as much proof of my claims as you do.”

                The contest will not be settled in this digital forum, nor will it be settled by our opinions. It will be decided in the soil, and in our stomachs, and it shall not be today, but years or more likely decades from now.

                1. “The contest will not be settled in this digital forum, nor will it be settled by our opinions. It will be decided in the soil, and in our stomachs, and it shall not be today, but years or more likely decades from now.”

                  It’s not a contest. It’s observation.

                  “We’ll see” is not a very good retort for your argument.

                  Enjoy your eco-friendly food. That’s your choice to do so, but don’t pretend that it’s more economical in any sense if you cannot provide concrete evidence to support that assertion.

            4. There’s a hell of a lot more loss of topsoil with traditional farming methods than with modern large scale agiculture.

        2. With all due disrespect, go fuck yourself.

          Big farms are good. It means we don’t have to worry about starving. It means we aren’t dependent on the vagaries of weather for our sustenance. Economy of scale pushes farmers to be bigger and more efficient, not government intervention.

          The American small farmer died out because small farms suck. A small farmer is considered wildly successful if he breaks even over a ten year period. Get your head out of your ass and stop reading the bullshit that comes out of the urban agriculture movement. And if you really want to be self-reliant, you will die. Seriously.

          1. “Big farms are good. It means we don’t have to worry about starving. ”

            So long as you are short sighted that is true.

            “It means we aren’t dependent on the vagaries of weather for our sustenance.

            Really? So now mankind is no longer bound by the power of nature? The hubris of the state knows no bounds!

            ” Economy of scale pushes farmers to be bigger and more efficient, not government intervention.”

            If that is the case, why has the government spent so many decades relently pushing farms to “get big or get out” as Earl Butz, Nixon and Ford’s Secretary of Agriculture, put it?

            “The American small farmer died out because small farms suck.”

            And the government subsidies for big farms had nothing to do with it? Why is it that free market economics don’t apply to food and agriculture? “Free minds and free markets, except for agriculture and food” seems to be the unwritten Reason mantra.

            “A small farmer is considered wildly successful if he breaks even over a ten year period.”

            That may be your standard – I’d prefer a standard of success more akin to Wendell Berry’s, in which the land community and the family all come out ahead in the same time frame.

            “Get your head out of your ass and stop reading the bullshit that comes out of the urban agriculture movement.”

            I don’t read any of those writings. I prefer to read Wendell Berry and Sir Albert Howard and Thomas Jefferson.

            “And if you really want to be self-reliant, you will die. Seriously.”

            Right, and the key to a long and prosperous life is feeding from the government teat. Sorry, we’ll just have to disagree on that one. Enjoy your government cheese though!

            1. I grew up on a dairy farm with 100 head. Small farms get all sorts of government help. It’s the whole reason Bernie Sanders is in Congress.

              1. “Small farms get all sorts of government help. ”

                Crackheads also get all sorts of govt help. They get help importing their drug of choice, help distributing it so they may easily obtain it, and then help with their addiction. Some kinda “help”.

                1. Uh… What? Weren’t you just arguing how big farms are only arising because of government assistance?

              2. True. I live in rural New England as well– Berkshire County in Massachusetts, to be exact. The majority of the remaining commercial farms hereabouts are small dairy operations, which are viable due to a particularly onerous set of price “supports” for milk. Aside from the usual federal bullshit, the six New England states have their own regulations, pacts between the various state governments which, among other things, set a minimum price at which milk can be sold and prohibit distribution or use of manufacturers’ discount coupons for consumer purchases of milk.

                Naturally this does nothing to stop farmers, buy local fanatics or newspaper editorialists from whining about how “we” need to do more to help family farms stay in business. Because, you know, it’s more important to ensure that farmers’ kids never have to look for employment in another line of work than it is to allow the rest of us to buy milk at actual market price.

                1. Ok, the above was intended as a reply to Vermont Gun Owner’s comment referencing Bernie Sanders.

                2. “Because, you know, it’s more important to ensure that farmers’ kids never have to look for employment in another line of work than it is to allow the rest of us to buy milk at actual market price.”

                  If milk and other agricultural products were to be sold at their true free market price then most producers would stop producing due to the mega losses – and then the prices would rise and eventually things would sort themselves out. I’d be okay with that but the resulting food shortage might be interesting. It’s starting to happen now with pork, poultry will likely be next and then maybe beef.

            2. Division of labor.
              Small farms require a larger percentage of the population involved in food production, which means that there are fewer people available to do things like build cars and flip burgers.

            3. And the government subsidies for big farms had nothing to do with it?

              Much less than you think, as much as those subsidies suck. The subsidies apply to the small farms as well, and consolidation of farming far, far predates those subsidies.

              Why is it that free market economics don’t apply to food and agriculture?

              They do. You’re the one who believes that they don’t. You have the mantra of the deluded libertarian who thinks that everyone he doesn’t like in the modern world must be that way because of government subsidies. It’s as dumb as the person who sees capitalist conspiracies or Reds in the bed behind everything.

              There is simply no way for the immense price difference between free-range and organic food and conventional to be accounted for by the subsidies. Particularly since the subsidies often make the food more expensive.

              It’s clear that your mind is utterly closed on the issue. Like you, I would welcome the end of subsidies, but you’re deluded as to the likely effects.

              Look at New Zealand, for heaven’s sake! When they eliminated all their agricultural subsidies, it hastened the arrival of factory farms there! It was the subsidies that were maintaining the small farm!

              1. “There is simply no way for the immense price difference between free-range and organic food and conventional to be accounted for by the subsidies. Particularly since the subsidies often make the food more expensive.”

                Yes, it can be. Due to the subsidies demand for subsidized products/production methods is vastly higher it would otherwise be, and demand for organic/etc products/production methods is vastly lower than it otherwise would be. That affects the supply and the price.

                “Look at New Zealand, for heaven’s sake! When they eliminated all their agricultural subsidies, it hastened the arrival of factory farms there! It was the subsidies that were maintaining the small farm!”

                It should surely seem to me that the lesson learned there is that if you remove subsidies the subsidized products/markets go out of business. That makes a lot of sense since subsidies alter the price system and induce people to create and maintain unsustainable otherwise unprofitable ventures.

            4. “That may be your standard – I’d prefer a standard of success more akin to Wendell Berry’s, in which the land community and the family all come out ahead in the same time frame.”

              What the fuck does this mean? When you get to tired to farm any more land you die?

              Now I get it. You see agriculture as some sort of noble calling, a connection with the earth, etc. That, sir, is complete and utter bullshit. Furthermore, it is exactly what the urban agriculture movment is about, but you’re too clueless to even know that. Your beloved authors lived in a time when it was inconceivable that we might have too much food. (Not Berry, but he was just an intellectual with no sense of reality)

              Right, and the key to a long and prosperous life is feeding from the government teat. Sorry, we’ll just have to disagree on that one. Enjoy your government cheese though!

              No, a long and prosperous life is one that is long and prosperous. Two things that wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for modern agriculture.

              1. “What the fuck does this mean? When you get to tired to farm any more land you die?”

                Farmers are a product of farms. A good farmer will have a farm family and farm kids who grow up to be farmers and continue farming after the parents can’t.

                “Now I get it. You see agriculture as some sort of noble calling, a connection with the earth, etc. That, sir, is complete and utter bullshit. ”

                No, a lot of it is horseshit, chickenshit, and pigshit too. Also wormshit.

                “Furthermore, it is exactly what the urban agriculture movment is about, but you’re too clueless to even know that. Your beloved authors lived in a time when it was inconceivable that we might have too much food. (Not Berry, but he was just an intellectual with no sense of reality)”

                Berry is a farmer who has a grasp of reality unsurpassed by any living individual that I am aware of.

                “No, a long and prosperous life is one that is long and prosperous. Two things that wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for modern agriculture.”

                I’ve known many who were wealthy, some quite fabulously so, but none of them were prosperous, instead living empty lives eating empty food. The quantity of these hollow substance-less lives and food was immense, but the value was just not there.

        3. The advancement of technology and it’s implementation into American agriculture was very much a federal project, beginning in the academia realm which was government subsidized and heavily influenced, and continued with WWII and especially with the post WWII federal programs which greatly expanded the federal control of the production and distribution of food.

          Bullshit. Look at some statistics sometime. The decline of the small farmer and the percentage of the American workforce that were farmers is a linear trend starting in 1970 until 1970, when the percentage of farmers got so small that it couldn’t mathematically keep declining linearly. Let’s take a look at the percentage of Americans in the labor force who were farmers by decade (using the census) starting with 1840:

          1840: 69%
          1850: 64%
          1860: 58%
          1870: 53%
          1880: 49%
          1890: 43%
          1900: 38%
          1910: 31%
          1920: 27%
          1930: 21%
          1940: 18%
          1950: 12.2%
          1960: 8.3%
          1970: 4.6%
          1980: 3.4%
          1990: 2.6%

          Does that look like it was all World War II to you?

          1. “Does that look like it was all World War II to you?”

            I didn’t say it was all WWII or all the federal government – but there most certainly has been an intentional and effective plan by the feds to destroy the American small farm.

            Your statistic also appears to refer to only full time farmers while ignoring part time farmers and those people who produced only some of their own food which was historically a very large number of people as opposed to after WWII.

            1. I didn’t say it was all WWII or all the federal government

              BS. Yes you did:

              It was the subsidies that transformed traditional American agriculture to the new “conventional” American agriculture

              I did not see the words “helped”, “contributed”, or any other notion that you considered any other independent causes from the government.

              Don’t try to weasel out: you have been very clearly saying that modernization, particularly technological advancements and mechanization, were totally attributable to the federal government’s ag programs after WWII. you got called out on it. Admit your error.

              1. “BS. Yes you did:”

                There I was referring not to the number of the population employed as farmers but rather to the methods used by farms.

                “Don’t try to weasel out: you have been very clearly saying that modernization, particularly technological advancements and mechanization, were totally attributable to the federal government’s ag programs after WWII. you got called out on it. Admit your error.”

                I was not in error. The post modern petro factory mega farm is a federal creation. The science was created and pioneered in government universities and corporations and it was implemented on government subsidized farms.

                1. There I was referring not to the number of the population employed as farmers but rather to the methods used by farms.

                  Doesn’t matter, you’re still wrong, because the only reason that the percentage of the American labor force that farmed could decline was because productivity increased, which it did, massively.

                  It was the mid 19th century to pre WWI that saw the invention, improvement, and widespread adoption of tractor engines. Those were commercial, not the result of government science. Or are you one of those special Luddites that wants to freeze scientific advancement at a particular point? Speaking of exhausting the soil, are you planning to go back to ancient slash-and-burn agriculture?

                  The trend of modern farming techniques improving far predates WWII. Yes, the “Green Revolution” continued the spread and helped bring modern techniques to India and elsewhere. But that was also merely one wave in a very long process.

                  1. “Or are you one of those special Luddites that wants to freeze scientific advancement at a particular point?”

                    No, but I see no reason to continue the subsidies, which was my original and main objection to the fascist food system we have in this country.

                    “Speaking of exhausting the soil, are you planning to go back to ancient slash-and-burn agriculture?”

                    No, fire has been thoroughly proven to be vastly inferior to composting for the development of the soil.

                    “The trend of modern farming techniques improving far predates WWII. Yes, the “Green Revolution” continued the spread and helped bring modern techniques to India and elsewhere. But that was also merely one wave in a very long process.”

                    Ayuh.

                    1. No, but I see no reason to continue the subsidies, which was my original and main objection to the fascist food system we have in this country.

                      I’m not really sure I believe you. I think that your original and main objection was disliking modern agriculture, and you convinced yourself that subsidies were responsible.

                      I see you have little answer or concern for the farm tractor. I suppose you get to pick and choose what’s “natural.”

                    2. “I’m not really sure I believe you. I think that your original and main objection was disliking modern agriculture, and you convinced yourself that subsidies were responsible.”

                      I’m a libertarian. If you want to deplete your land of topsoil, nutrients, and fertility – go ahead and do so. Just don’t make me pay for it.

                      “I see you have little answer or concern for the farm tractor. I suppose you get to pick and choose what’s “natural.””

                      Tractors are too heavy and for most farms are bad for the soil and for the fertility – which isn’t to say they don’t have appropriate uses. Wise use will lead to gain, and unwise use will lead to losses. I’d rather that the losses be born by those who make the unwise choices rather than taking my seed money from me to pay for them.

            2. Your statistic also appears to refer to only full time farmers while ignoring part time farmers and those people who produced only some of their own food which was historically a very large number of people as opposed to after WWII.

              Nope, because if the statistics only referred to full-time farmers, then the average farm size would have increased by a lot. Instead, the average farm size went from 203 acres in 1840 to… 435 acres in 1998.

              When you talk about factory farms, I assume you mean more than a doubling of average farm size. Since these figures only show a doubling in average farm size, they obviously include all the part-time farmers that still exist in rural areas.

              1. “Nope, because if the statistics only referred to full-time farmers, then the average farm size would have increased by a lot. Instead, the average farm size went from 203 acres in 1840 to… 435 acres in 1998.”

                If you factor in the acreage that is cultivated there would be a significant difference – a good chunk of the farm land in 1840 wasn’t cultivated whereas almost all farm land nowadays is cultivated.

                “When you talk about factory farms, I assume you mean more than a doubling of average farm size. Since these figures only show a doubling in average farm size, they obviously include all the part-time farmers that still exist in rural areas.”

                Many factory farms are small in acreage. You can fit tens of thousands of animals into a very small space if you use concentration camp confinement animal practices.

        4. PH,

          Weren’t you arguing above that animals have rights and need to be treated kindly? It even seemed like you were against meat of any kind.

          Now you are advocating slaughter of these poor critters? Sure they get to wander around your field before you chop them into bits, but they will still end up just as dead as the critter from the big ag barn.

          1. “Weren’t you arguing above that animals have rights and need to be treated kindly? It even seemed like you were against meat of any kind.”

            No. I never said animals had rights. I have said and do believe that the owners of animals have responsibilities. Kindness is not one of them – the absence of torture is.

            “Now you are advocating slaughter of these poor critters? Sure they get to wander around your field before you chop them into bits, but they will still end up just as dead as the critter from the big ag barn.”

            Death is a natural and necessary thing. The deliberate and cruel infliction of needless pain and suffering is not natural and it’s not necessary.

            One has a right to kill in self defense, but that right doesn’t include the authorization to slowly torture and otherwise abuse the aggressor.

            1. Death is a natural and necessary thing. The deliberate and cruel infliction of needless pain and suffering is not natural and it’s not necessary.

              Because Patriot Henry says so. you think needless pain is not “natural”? You need to turn off the Disney and turn on National Geographic.

              1. Dude, why are you wasting your time with this guy? He’s made the playing field an inchwide by moving the goalposts every comment.

                He sounds like a Food Inc. cultist.
                PH,
                You won’t find many libertarians supporting a SUBSIDIZED ANYTHING, not even food. You claim to hate subsidized gov’t food. Well, so do we. Then you say, you hate the subsidies because of the huge farm factory-HalliburtonKatrinaCornspiracy it produced. Therefore, you hate the HKC. Well, most here say if the HKCMonsano evil farm existed before subsidization, then why hate it? it flies in the face of your argument.

                No one here is arguing to keep the subsidies. Even if the subsidies were gone, you’d still have highly productive factory farms.

  9. True, my gluttony may cause me to end up morbidly obese and a burden on the medical system. But if that’s grounds for regulation, we will all soon be surrendering our TV remotes to the police and doing daily calisthenics under the watchful eye of commissars in spandex.

    Which is the true purpose of health care “reform”. It was/is designed to put the government into direct control of as much of our day-to-day lives as possible.

    This is a natural course of action for any rational organization. If a bureaucracy isn’t growing, it’s dying, so the government will ALWAYS seek to expand its own authority, and generate more rules for us to follow.

    All so it has something to do.

    1. Which is the true purpose of health care “reform”. It was/is designed to put the government into direct control of as much of our day-to-day lives as possible.

      Couple that with carbon laws and within a generation or so…WOW! Just fucking WOW the unlimited power of government over our everyday lives.

  10. I can already see in 20/30 years time there will be a fast food ban for the under 18, just like alcohol. The only things that people will be eating in the future will be like that pizza hut scene from the movie “Demolition Man”

    1. Hey, can you pass the salt?

    2. The only things that people will be eating in the future will be like that pizza hut scene from the movie “Demolition Man”

      It was Taco Bell. And step 1 of the process has been taken care of. It’s called the Fresco Menu.

      1. I’m violently rebelling if they outlaw sex like in that movie

        ditto chocolate

        1. Yeah but the Cybering wasn’t outlawed. Chris Hansen is still in business.

  11. America welcome to the world of socialized medicine. Have fun.

  12. Food policing is the worst form of nannyism. I’m all for ending subsidies which support unhealthy eating, and I’m all for many measures to help people make more informed decisions at the point of purchase, but once all that is in effect then any further measures are simply attempts to thwart a person’s autonomous choice based on another’s view and value of “health.”

    1. Well said, MNG.

      1. And I’ll add that it’s not just food nannyism that’s bad – it’s also food moralizing and food bloviating (see our new “friend” Henry) is also pretty insufferable, too.

        1. Insufferable, yes, but on the whole I don’t mind the people who think that removing subsidies will magically change things, even if they are painfully wrong.

          Well, in theory. In reality far too many of them go on to argue for “offsetting” subsidies, leading us to the hilarious situation of the federal government, e.g., trying to both get people to eat and not eat more cheese.

          1. “Insufferable, yes, but on the whole I don’t mind the people who think that removing subsidies will magically change things, even if they are painfully wrong.”

            I didn’t realize that economics and the consequences of altering the system of rewards was “magic”. I thought it was just human nature and human action.

            1. I didn’t realize that economics and the consequences of altering the system of rewards was “magic”. I thought it was just human nature and human action.

              No, but it’s magic to believe that if we do the same thing as Australia and New Zealand that the opposite will happen. It’s magic to utterly ignore history and economics and to imagine that whatever you prefer would obviously happen in the real world.

              Some people think differently than you. It’s not all shadowy forces.

    2. Unfortunately, when you have community rating combined with guaranteed issue mandatory health insurance, you give not only the government but everybody else reason to meddle. If your unhealthy eating only penalizes yourself, no problem. But when everybody else has to pay, since we all have the same community-rated premiums…

      You may dislike food policing, but you support policies that make it inevitable. So I’d argue that you don’t dislike food policing enough, MNG.

      1. John, i’m against the health care “reform.”

        1. I know, but you’re for single-payer or some other form of government health care, right? The same analysis applies there, which I thought was your preferred system. Forgive me if I’m wrong.

          The only solution to the problem is pushing things down to the individual level, not up. Each level of pushing it up only makes it worse.

          1. I’m not sure I’m for single-payer. I think of the same entity that can’t seem to fix the road on my way to work for the past five years overseeing my health care and I cringe…I have said that I think a single payer system makes more sense than Obamacare and would have been an easier political sell, but that’s a different matter…

            1. What happened to you, MNG? Blow to the head?

              1. Did he just become a libertarian today? Holy fucking shit, Batman!

                1. I’ve been noticing these changes in MNG a lot lately as well.

                  There comes a time in every young troll’s life when they begin to realize that there is another way… a better way. Just as young boys and girls begin to mature, young trolls cast off their childish fantasies of government interference and embrace the idea that government doesn’t know best.

      2. The medical cost seem to be the only real argument for the food police but I don’t buy it. Yeah, maybe a 45 yr old obese guy has higher medical bills then a 45 yr old skinny guy for THAT year, but when he drops dead of a heart attack at 46, he stops being a financial burden on the system, where the skinny guy continues to have not only medical costs, but social security costs, and long-term care cost as well. Visit a nursing home (not exactly inexpensive)and tell me how many obese people you see there. Not many, because they did us all a favor and ate double cheesburgers until their heart exploded.

        1. I agree. It may very well be the case that obesity reduces overall health care costs, in a manner similar to smoking:
          “Conclusions
          If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.”-New England Journal of Medicine.
          Whole article: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1…..0093371506

    3. it’s an extension of the drug war actually, and its justifications are exactly the same

  13. Nothing new here. Collectivism has been with us since we came down from the trees. Tribal health supplants free choice among advocates of tribalism. Americans have managed to resist this scourge longer than most modern cultures but it’s a persistent threat, a germ that can never be entirely wiped out. It won’t take much for another plague to sweep the world. Have a nice day!

  14. Eat Me

  15. Mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down with.

  16. The more our health care system becomes controlled by government, the more government will become involved in daily behavior that can affect the use of that health care system.

    I won’t be surprised if at some point in the future it becomes a crime to disobey a doctor’s orders.

    If you come back to your followup visit and it is apparent that you didn’t change your diet and start getting more exercise, it’s off to reeducation camp for you.

    1. I seem to vaguely remember that something like this (or the genesis of it) is somewhere in the Obamacare bill: if you don’t follow the instructions provided to you by the glorious new health apparatus, you get “sanctioned.”

      I could be totally making it up, or maybe it was proposed and not enacted, but it’s not as far out an idea as it sounds. If they can mandate you to buy health insurance they can totally tell you to listen and pay attention.

      1. I saw a study somewhere that set out to calculate how much more health care obese people use compared to their skinny counterparts, and they found that the opposite was true.
        Obese people tend to die earlier than skinny people so they do not often reach ages where the really expensive diseases like cancer tend to happen.
        In addition skinny people spend more years retired and not contributing to the system when compared to their obese counterparts.

        The conclusion was that efforts to reduce obesity will increase total expenditures on health care.

        1. Thus the necessity for rationing and/or death panels.

          1. Care will be cut off to those who have made politically incorrect choices in life, which will have the effect of encouraging behavior that increases total health care costs.

            1. Why does liberal logic always lead to EPIC FAIL when followed to its logical conclusions?

              And why are these people supporting this flawed logic deemed smarter than the rest of us? Truly bizarre!

              1. Liberals cannot see past their good intentions and their though process never gets past step one.
                If their intent is X and the result is Y, any comments about Y are reacted to as criticism of X.
                Or, as Bastiat wrote nearly a century and a half ago:

                Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

                We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state- enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

                1. The concept that man will never create Utopia on Earth goes back farther than that, its in the Bible. Oddly enough Marx’s stated object in life was to “dethrone God and destroy capitalism” yet anywhere various forms of his ideology has been tried, the citizens living under it eventually end up living in Hell. Coincidence? The old saying “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” comes to mind.

                  There’s no denying the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that if a creator exist then indeed he does not force us to our knees to worship and allows us the unalienable right to worship, deny, or even curse him, or more aptly put FREEWILL. Do you believe Obama or Hillary or any other progressive would allow us that right if they had absolute power? One only need look at yer typical potlically correct progressive professor to understand the answer to that question.

                  The Founding Fathers even wrote a letter to the King confirming as much, that a free mind will not bow down to any man claiming to have the authority of God to rule over us and then went on to setup a government to prove it.

                  If you think about it capitalism actually puts God’s commandments to us individuals to the test better than any other form of government. Socialism removes the incentive from the individual thus usurping the free will the creator allows.

                  1. Socialism replaces God with The State, and with The State composed of Men it ultimately replaces God with Men.
                    I think there are two kinds of socialists.
                    There are the ones who understand this and the ones who do not.
                    The ones who understand this will say that it is untrue as the seek positions of power. I call them manipulators.
                    The ones who do not will say that it is untrue as they look to answers from The State. They are the useful idiots.

                  2. Socialism replaces God with The State, and with The State composed of Men it ultimately replaces God with Men.
                    I think there are two kinds of socialists.
                    There are the ones who understand this and the ones who do not.
                    The ones who understand this will say that it is untrue as the seek positions of power. I call them manipulators.
                    The ones who do not will say that it is untrue as they look to answers from The State. They are the useful idiots.

                2. God damn, I hope I’ll live to see the day when Bastiat stops being scarily relevant.

        2. The conclusion was that efforts to reduce obesity will increase total expenditures on health care.

          I recall similar studies about smoking, hastily buried when Big Tobacco reached its accomodation with Big AG.

          1. IIRC, the Australians went down the “sin tax” path with tobacco on the basis of arguments that the funds raised would be used to offset state health care costs. A study after a few years of this policy indicated that the politicians had raided and diverted the monies for anything and everything but, in addition to showing that the ‘incentivization’ had very little influence on Australian smoking rates.

          2. That is correct.

            When smokers succumb to tobacco related illness they tend to die rather quickly, and often times before they retire.

            Thus they spend a larger percentage of their lives contributing to the system, and use fewer health care resources over their shorter lives.

            Big Tobacco deserves our thanks!

            1. Mayor Daley used tobacco taxes as a form of pay-go and then was shocked the next year when his budget fell short of its estimates because people went outside of Chicago to buy their smokes. Just another example of liberal logic not taking account of human nature.

              Also, when government finally taxes tobacco to death and most people quit how the Hell are they going to make up for the billions in tax dollars collected and the cost of Medicare and SS for people living longer lives?

              1. In addition to feeling much better, the fact that I no longer pay the usurious tobacco taxes since I quit smoking is a bonus!

                Fuck you, statist nannies.

                1. My favorite thing about quitting smoking is that those ever so tolerant and inclusive liberals have one less reason to discriminate against me.

    2. “I won’t be surprised if at some point in the future it becomes a crime to disobey a doctor’s orders.”

      There have already been cases of that happening to women that were pregnant…

  17. The tragedy of agricultural subsidies isn’t that it causes massive changes in behavior or consumption. The tragedy is that we waste an unbelievable amount of money on things that are often at cross-purposes and have very little effect other than lining some pockets.

  18. The comment bin for the Headley story seems to be malfunctioning so I’ll leave mine here:

    This is apparently bad luck by ass’n. He would’ve eventually gotten off prob’n anyway, or even while on prob’n slipped out of the country, and probably have done the same things anyway. What difference does it make that he was a DEA informer during that period?

    1. Apparently the lesson of the story is that if someone is on probation and their ex-girlfriend says that they’re a terrorist, we should make sure to take that accusation very seriously and keep them locked up, even in the absence of other proof.

      1. That seems to be about it. But if someone’s a terrorist, what are the odds they’re going to be careful about not violating their prob’n, huh? Gee, maybe he wouldn’t’ve gotten a passport and therefore would’ve had to commit his terrorist acts in the goddamn USA!

  19. Meanwhile on this one, what’s the effect on the businesses? They save money on promotional toys. It doesn’t hurt any of them because it affects their competition the same, so it’s one of these cases of cartel action by law. A little gift to McDonald’s and any other place that formerly gave out such trinkets.

    1. I’ll take great joy when they start handing out balloons to kids and then the kids let them go into the sky. Later the lefties will be saddened by the dead animals who tried to eat the popped balloon. Circle of life mother fuckers!

  20. Has anyone here ever read the Black Book of Communism? It sets forth in great detail how communists regimes used control of the food supply to control society and starve social enemies. Beware of any leftist who talks about food.

    1. TEH SOCIALISTS!

      1. It is your side’s past. You need to learn to live with it the same way Southerners have to live with slavery. Only this is still in living memory. There are millions of liberals in this country who were old enough to have spent the cold war denying the crimes of communism and attacking those who didn’t as war mongers. It is an historical sin that they have never fully acknowledged or come to terms with.

  21. In his last two budgets, New York’s Democratic Gov. David Paterson proposed a tax on soda. The governor says this would help cover “the $7.6 billion the state spends every year to treat diseases from obesity.” Reuters reports, ominously, that he “did not dismiss the idea of eventually imposing a tax on other obesity-linked foods such as hamburgers and chocolate bars.”

    I say TAX THE FUCKING FATTIES, not the damn food!

    1. Interesting idea! But it doesn’t fit “the narrative.”

      The narrative states that corporations are evil, and exploit people for profit, so the people are the victims. You can’t regulate or tax the victim. You need to regulate the evil-doer. Regulating or imprisoning evil-doers impresses the tribe’s women, and gets you re-elected as tribal leader (riffing off of the tribalist comment above).

    2. Fatties don’t spend thirty odd years retired, not contributing to the socialized health care system that cares for them.
      Fatties don’t live long enough to get cancer and other expensive conditions associated with extreme old age.

      Fatties use less health care dollars over their shorter lives.

      I say SUBSIDIZE THE FATTIES, they’re doing us a favor!

      1. True, you don’t see very many 80 year obese people collecting social security.

        The government should be encouraging eating Happy Meals, and smoking too for that matter. Its kind of scary that these control freaks think they can legislate a master race.

        1. Nor do you see 80 year old obese people receiving expensive treatments (on the Medicare dime) for cancer and other conditions that are more common in old age.

          1. Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, champagne in one hand – strawberries in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming “WOOHOO – What a Ride!”

    3. Ha ha ha…. as if they’ll spend any of the “fat tax” on fighting fat. They will blow some of it on scare-commercials for local television, and dump the remaining billions into the general treasury, and thence into the pockets of their voter base.

      See: smoking.

      1. Hookers and blow, Rhywun.

        Wait – Spitzer’s out of the office…

  22. Is there a font named “Fuck You, Asshole”? Because that’s the font I need right now:

    FUCK YOU, ASSHOLES!! You can have my Happy Meal when I crap it from my cold, dead anus.

    1. Winner. I’m filing that one in my snarky comment repository.

      1. Please consider this my very small contribution to civilized discourse…

    2. That is epic!

  23. I was just thinking about the kind of lunch I had when I came home for it from grade school a block away: typically, an egg salad sandwich! Mother wouldn’t let Daddy (a physician) have egg yolks because of an ECG abnormality he had 60 yrs. ago, but working the egg slicer was one of the first things she taught me in terms of making lunch.

  24. Why not just require all fast food joints to remove all sinks & soap? I’m sure that their business will drop off quickly.

    Food bourn illnesses? A feature not a bug.

    1. Given the state of the average fast food restaurant restroom, I don’t see where it would have much effect.

  25. Has anyone asked (or explained) how such an ordinance is lawful or constitutional?

    What gives a local government the power to change an international restaurant chain’s menu selections? McDonald’s should have the freedom to offer whatever choices and combinations it wishes to its customers. Since people (and corporations) have rights, and government only has enumerated powers, what powers are being invoked by the San Francisco board of governors here?

    1. See what the Calif. constitution says. They probably have a provision delegating the state’s police powers (health, safety, morals) to local gov’t.

    2. Anyone know if McD’s is fighting this?

  26. Secondhand fat is a huge problem:

    http://www.latimes.com/health/…..5270.story

    “obesity can spread through a social network — just like viruses spread — because people “infect” each other with their perceptions of weight.”

    If you get fat, children will think that fat is okay. Why do you hate children?

    1. “secondhand fat” – hehehe.

      Fat people should be rounded up and isolated from their healthy peers in some type of separate facility. I propose that we call these facilities, “fat farms”.

      1. Did you say “fat farms”? You meant “happy farms”!

        1. I think SF just wants people to be unhappy, hence banning Happy Meals, but not Kids Meals at other restaurants…or did they do that, too?

  27. I don’t understand their perceived legal basis for this toy ban. With taxing soda and fat, etc… at least there is a convoluted legal basis for the rule. I don’t see the basis for banning salt, transfat etc..

  28. Why do you hate children?

    Because they have proven to be the most reliable tool for reducing my liberty, that’s why.

      1. stupid libertards.

  29. Its kind of sad because a majority of the public buys into this. As much as people complain about this they know there isn’t much they can do about it. The politicians of both parties refuse to give up power and the courts tend to side with ‘social justice’ and those kind of things.

    1. “a majority of the public buys into this”

      The parallels with smoking are instructive. Most people’s opinion of smoking ranges from indifference to annoyance to hatred – therefore they don’t give a crap when out-of-control politicians use it as a means to extract even more money from us and throw it at their supporters – no matter what liberties are trampled along the way. It’s the same with fatties.

      1. First, they came for the smokers, and I said nothing because I didn’t smoke. Well, I did smoke, but I quit. So, whatever.

        Then, they came for the McDonald’s eaters, and I said nothing because I didn’t eat at McDonalds. Well, I do, but I don’t buy Happy Meals, and my kids don’t need the toys, so I don’t care. So whatever.

        BUT THEY BETTER KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF MY ‘SURVIVOR’ AND ‘DANCING WITH THE STARS’ AND ‘AMERICAN IDOL’ OR THERE WILL BE LITERAL HELL TO PAY, DO YOU HEAR ME!!!!!1!!!11

        1. So maybe if we can just convince the government to start banning popular TV programs, Americans might finally care about losing their rights?

          1. You would see a wave of indignation sweep across this country like no other, so yes.

  30. Somewhat related and an example of government at it’s most incoherent.

    While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales

    Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.

    Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.

    But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.

    And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture ? the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting.

  31. Why would anyone have a problem with Food Police?

    1. Externalities!

      1. Only a Bushilter Christ-fag would protest being told what to eat.

        1. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          1. Auto-Troll huh? not bad.

            1. I don’t care for Max-Troll. It’s too understated and he makes Max look far too cogent.

  32. I run 25+ miles per week and visit the gym twice per week. I propose that any “public health puritans” who would like to control what I eat must match my activity level before doing so.

    1. Fucken-A.

      Same here.

      Moreover, I’m Italian and lemme tell ya, until they come and prove to ME THEY EAT BETTER THAN ME then they, Tony, Chad and their ilk and their misguided “greater good” bull shit idiocy can all suck on my fennel.

      Until then, my kid eats what I decide. Tonight, we’re heading to Wendy’s. Know why? My kid had a hard weak with doctor’s and she enjoys going there and the little useless toy she gets which she plays with for a day and a half.

      Fuck you all if your for this stupid, useless ordinance that will do squat to solve anything.

      It still baffles and shocks me how people can defend fucking stupid bull shit.

      1. Sorry for the run on but I’m pumped.

        Also, I run 10 miles every three days hoping to get it to Jack’s level.

        Here’s another thing. I actually sit and teach my child about food. She’s exposed to an insane amount of good home cooking – I mean, dude loves rapini with real olive oil – the stuff that pinches.

        It’s ALL ABOUT PARENTING.

        Guys like Eric Mar are driven by their own personal, narcissistic drive to do “good.” Good for them. JUST DON’T FORCE YOUR BELIEF ON ME.

        I’m doing right by my family.

        Again, I should be the one going around making sure they’re eating right.

        Buon’per niente – good for nothing.

    2. They’ll just have you taken out by a bus…driven by a public union bus driver. Be careful, brother.

    3. You’re blaming the victim! I’d love to run 25+ miles per week but thanks to the food pushers that is physically impossible for me!

    4. No shit. After 3 hours in the gym doing heavy lifting, the first thing I want are high-fat, high-carb, high-protein foods. I’ll stop eating double cheeseburgers when you can bench 300, swim 30 laps, and row 250 pounds while keeping your BMI under 22%

      The problem is your average food nazi is an Oprah fanatic: habitual self-restraint problems and always looking for the next miracle drug to trim the bon bons away.

  33. The governor says this would help cover “the $7.6 billion the state spends every year to treat diseases from obesity.

    So you’re saying I’ve met my mandated Obamacare insurance requirement by buying soda just like cigs?

    Statists whining about paying for the irresponsible’s choices? I thought that was the whole point.

  34. Easy fix — Happy meal without toy $3.99, toy to go in happy meal $0.10.

  35. Reminder of stupid new phrase, “food justice”:

    http://www.investors.com/NewsA…..Frisco.htm

    We are fucked.

  36. “High-calorie food is not one of those substances that presents a mortal threat to innocent bystanders. Guzzle a liter of Fanta, and you can still be trusted behind the wheel of a car. Walk by a KFC, and you don’t have to worry about secondhand fat.”

    But libertarians keep telling me drunk driving should be legal. It’s only until you actually HIT someone that you should be prosecuteable. The author may be right, but he’s still an AUTHORITARIAN FASCIST!!!!111!!! ALL GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!11!!!1!!

    1. So you supported Dubya’s preemptive strike on Iraq?

    2. Edwin|11.8.10 @ 11:40AM|#
      “But libertarians keep telling me drunk driving should be legal.”

      You need to brush up on your reading skills. What the keep telling you is that you are a brain-dead ignoramus.

      1. wanna bet? I’ve numerous times had libertarians tell me that drunk driving should be legalized. You fucking sick nerdos even wrote an article on it:
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/roc…..iving.html

        I mean how fucking stupid does your movement have to be, how fucking ignorantly ideologically self-brainwashed do you have to be that something like that makes it onto one of your movement’s periodicals?

        1. Saddam was driving drunk and Dubya Bush arrested him. Saddam may not have hit anybody outside of his country but he was swerving all over the road in regard to the regulations he agreed to thus commencing the end of hostilities in Operation Desert Storm.

          Did you support Dubya Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom’s enforcement of those drunk driving laws?

    3. Yes, because we should ruin the life of someone who tries to sleep in his car with a BAC of 0.08, just because he has his keys on him.

      Where is the moral authority to prosecute the drunk who causes no harm to anyone and has otherwise committed no crime?

      Why is there no middle ground between prosecute and ‘let them do whatever the fuck they want’ in your mind? Cops can already get people off the road if they are a danger to themselves or others – regardless of whether they are drunk or not. And any drunk who has hit someone or something has probably broken a dozen other laws already.

      1. what the hell is wrong with you guys?

        Who the fuck is talking about the case where that guy was in his car but not driving?

        Are you for or against drunk driving laws? You do realize that when I say that numerous libertarians have told me they are against drunk driving laws, they mean it, like, in totality. That is they actually think you have the moral right to drive around drunk.

    4. Who the fuck has a problem with authoritarian fascists, anyway? I sure don’t.

      1. to the name-hijacker above:

        soooo…. anti-drunk-driving laws are fascist and authoritarian?

        See why I lambast you idiots so severely?

        1. I love being a fascist authoritarian.

  37. I agree philosophically, but bluntly, if Obamacare is upheld by the S.C. and not repealed, then suddenly you being a fat a– is suddenly my problem. I wrote about it, here.

  38. But if that’s grounds for regulation, we will all soon be surrendering our TV remotes to the police and doing daily calisthenics under the watchful eye of commissars in spandex.

    Please, please, don’t give the nannynazis any more ideas.

    1. I think they use 1984 as a handbook, so the daily calisthenics are coming soon.

      1. No, calisthenics is too difficult to spell and pronounce and not trendy enough. We’re probably looking at daily pilates or something.

        1. “No, calisthenics is too difficult to spell and pronounce and not trendy enough”

          In Newspeak: Jillian Michaels

  39. Here is a fact: children need calories and children need fat. There is a reason why in nature babies are fed breast milk.

    The problem with children’s diets is not fat, it is sugar, and the high percentage of calories they get from sugar.

    I am a Pepsi addict, and I am not opposed to a tax on soda. I see it as a legitimate excise tax that has substantial public purpose and medium revenue potential.

    If I were a legislator, I would approach my pure libertarian friends and trade them a tax on soda for allowing marijuana to be legal, and taxed accordingly.

    1. When has having the government regulate any activity made us more free? Maybe, some folks think the tax revenue would be a positive – I disagree. Giving the government more revenue means that they will find ways to spend it ? that usually translates to oppressive intrusions into people’s lives. Or even worse the money will be spent on worthless politically motivated activities such as bailing out Union pension plans.

    2. If I were a legislator, I would approach my pure libertarian friends and trade them a tax on soda for allowing marijuana to be legal, and taxed accordingly.

      You would quickly learn that pure libertarians have no interest in political compromise or the incremental advancement of liberty thereby.

      1. The problem with “political comprimise” for the “incremental advancement of liberty” is that in cases like this we would be allowing the authoritarian assholes to move the chains before the negotiation begins.

        The only proper starting place for the negotiation is “people do what they want with their own resources”. If you let them define the starting place as “the government controls everything” you’ve lost before you begin.

        I’m trying to think of an analogy that doesn’t take us straight to either the No True Scotsman fallacy or Godwin-land, and failing. So, I’m just going to risk it.

        Without suggesting that happy meal bans are the moral equivalent of slavery (because it’s not in any way, slippery slope arguments be damned); would you say to an abolitionist in 1860 “If we can get them to agree to minimum standards for housing and provisions that would be progress”?

        Such a claim is true. But it is also totally inadequate. Likewise saying “sugar is a better metric for Happy Meal bans than fat” may be completely true, but so what? It still add up to less liberty.

        1. Bullshit, often it leads to more freedom. You’re framing it in terms of new regulations being introduced where there weren’t any, when frequently it goes the other way around, with new, freer regulatory schemes replacing older ones.

          I’m betting I could write a liberty-oriented zoning code that would greatly increase freedom in a LOT of municipalities. I could even pitch it well in the numerous places that would be open to such ideas. It would end up being much better than Euclidean zoning.

          Of course, I don’t think I could actually bring myself to do that, since libertarians would be where I’d logically get seed money, and I can’t stand you fuckin nerdos, and I’m loathe to even incidentally give help to the sickness of doctrinaire big-L libertarianism even if I’m only trying to advance my very-small-l libertarianism.

          1. You make my point about moving the chains: you frame oppressive control as freedom my assuming that absolute control is the reference point.

            1. soooo…. our governments have absolute control over everything everywhere? Don’t think so. In some areas they have more control, other areas less. Zoning is one where they have a good amount of control. The reference point isn’t “assumed”, it actually exists. You do realize that, right? That we have some laws in some places and other laws in others? The reference point is reality. How to maximize freedom from there is the question. Incrementalism is the answer if you care about ACTUALLY getting something done, as opposed to circle-jerking by waxing philosophically on everything and how “principled” you are.

              1. Incrementalism is the answer if you care about ACTUALLY getting something done, as opposed to circle-jerking by waxing philosophically on everything and how “principled” you are.

                So you’re opposed to the civil rights act of 1964? Incrementalism didn’t work all that well for black people in the south – or was 100 years too soon?

                Your ‘philosophy’ is completely inconsistent except for your desire to run things. No wonder you hate logic and rational thought – they get in the way.

                1. dude, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I mean seriously, what? I don’t even get what you’re trying to say anymore.

            2. Working incrementally to dismantle an entrenched authoritarian-centric ideology is not to sanction that ideology even if individual steps taken along that path seem to imply such a sanction.

              1. Lefty4Life – agreed, but that was a specific case whereby incrementalism failed. The supporters of the Civil Rights Act ‘waxed philosophically’ about the basic equality of all men, which convinced many to support a legislated and abrupt change in human rights for a large group of people.

                My response was to Edwin’s assertion that, instead of “waxing poetically”, incrementalism is the way to go if you ‘ACTUALLY care about getting something done’.

                MLK ‘waxed philosophically’ about equal rights, along with organizing physical actions. The marches were important, but the ‘I have a dream’ speech is synonymous with MLK. That is what’s mainly remembered as his legacy. To belittle the philosophical underpinnings for freedom as inconsequential is absurd.

                1. WTF are you talking about? OMG! How can you be this stupid? How can you read what I write and then read so fucking much into it?

                  Of course I support the Civil Rights Movement and MLK’s leadership. Genius, the whole thing was incrementalist! Yeah! It’s not like everyone in the movement woke up one day and said “We have to fight for our rights! If we don’t get them immediately our whole government is completely illegitimate and we morally should not vote!”
                  They had been fighting for years, and won victory after victory, including, but not limited to Plessy v. Ferguson (I think) and all the other stuff. Finally, they won equal rights.

                  By the way, that little part of “shouldn’t vote” I got in my psedo-quote I got from libertarians – there are non-incrementalist, absolutist libertarians, who refuse to vote on moral grounds.
                  The civil rights allegory to libertarian absolutism is the black panthers. And if you’ll look you’ll see that the movement was won wholly by the efforts of MLK’s incrementalist side, NOT the black panthers and their types. Like absolutist libertarians, all they ever have done or manage to do, is talk all big and forceful about how or government is illegitimate and we need violent radical change blah blah blah. And like absolutist libertarians, it’s just a giant circle jerk.

                  1. How can you read what I write and then read so fucking much into it?

                    and:
                    They had been fighting for years, and won victory after victory, including, but not limited to Plessy v. Ferguson (I think) and all the other stuff. Finally, they won equal rights.

                    You can’t read anything into horseshit. Incrementalism wasn’t working, and in the 50’s and early 60’s – almost 80 years after ’emancipation’ – they started civil protests.

                    Nonviolent, but in direct opposition to established authority. Read “letter from Birmingham Jail” by MLK in 1963:

                    Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was “well timed,” according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This “wait” has almost always meant “never.” We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

                    A moral duty to disobey unjust laws? Sounds like radical change to me. Sounds absolutely – libertarian.
                    As to the Panthers, perhaps their Maoist political bent might have affected their popularity somewhat, but I wouldn’t expect someone who confuses Plessy vs. Ferguson with Brown vs. Board of Education to understand that.

                    Nor would I expect you to understand that just because something takes longer than a weekend in time doesn’t necessarily mean that it represents incrementalism. Your definition of ‘waking up one day’ amounts to labeling everything as incrementalist.

                    You’re also obsessed with the fabrication of a straw ‘libertarian’ position to attack, which is understandable because you can’t seem to address any actual positions with any competence.

                    1. I read Edwin’s comments and immediately understand how the Three Fifths Compromise came to be..

                      Also,

                      OMGDUDE WTF? YOU ARE SO STUPID. FUCK YOU LIBERTARIAN NERDS. I’M SO FUCKING INTELIGENT AND YOU HAVE NO CLUE WTF U R TALKING ABOUT GARBLEGRABBLERADFADF1!!!!!!!#$!!

                    2. bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit

                      The effective part of the civil rights movement was not radical. If they were radical in the manner of libertarian absolutists, they would have outright tried to overthrow the government, as libertarian absolutist and other absolutist rhetoric actually leans towards, or just sat down and given up, and just philosophically circle jerked each other off, like libertarians do. Civil disobedience can still be part of an effective, real-world strategy.

                    3. And, yeah, I’m standing by comparing Libertarians to the Black Panthers.

                    4. to the name-hijacker above

                      actually yes, I am sticking by that, in that they’re both wild-eyed extremist absolutists

                      of course, in theory, there are small-l libertarians who are a lot more level-headed and don’t think in such absolutes, and I’d be one of them, but the more I look the more it seems libertarianism is identifiable by its unreasonableness

                      it’s a comparison on a specific point. Nice job, though, being a disingenuous fuck and trying to make it look like I was trying to compare the two things in their entirety and trying to make libertarians look bad by associating them with a violent group.

                    5. I am SUCH a foul-mouthed, hateful prick… and proud of it.

    3. Isn’t that still punishing people that consume but do not overconsume sugar? Why should non-idiots suffer for your irresponsibility? If the problem is fatasses, then either punish being fat or leave it alone.

  40. Please post source links! I’d love to be able to present these sources in debates.

  41. People who are scared willingly surrender liberties. Thus, you can regulate or ban whatever you can sufficiently demonize to the general public.

  42. If McDonald’s isn’t fighting this in court, they should offer the toy for $0.01 more.

  43. I like how people want to bitch and moan now that the government is threatening something they enjoy…How do you think recreation drug users feel, get a taste of your own medicine…I say they ban fucken happy meals, if you’re not going to let me smoke my weed in peace, why should I let you eat your happy meal in the same manner. I hope the government is ready for the underground hamburger black market this will spring up…Say bye bey to $1 burgers bitches…expect to pay $20 bucks a pop now!!!

  44. Bilderberger influenceTO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT?..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets?..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama’s India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
    4. Bilderberger influence,president George W. Bush says he was “blindsided” by the financial crisis that shadowed his final months in office, but adds that the Democratic-controlled Congress shares some of the blame. –

    Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group’s annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion’s share of Bilderberg’s 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before ? it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.The Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.

    —– Bilderberg group in United States——-
    George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
    Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997?2001
    Timothy Geithner(2009),[15] Treasury Secretary
    Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
    Christian Herter,[16] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
    Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[17] Special Assistant to the President
    Joseph E. Johnson[18] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Henry Kissinger[19] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[20] 56th United States Secretary of State
    Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
    Lawrence Summers,[15] Director of the National Economic Council
    Paul Volcker,[15] Chair of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979?1987
    Roger Altman (2009),[15] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993?1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
    [edit] Presidents
    Bill Clinton (1991),[21][22] President 1993-2001
    Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][23] President 1974-1977
    [edit] Senators
    John Edwards (2004),[24][25] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
    Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[26] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
    Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
    [edit] Governors
    Rick Perry (2007),[27] Governor of Texas 2000-current
    Mark Sanford (2008),[28] Governor of South Carolina , the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware? === The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.== The Bilderberg Group in which he accuses them of manipulating the public “to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self.”

    Repost this if you agree,

  45. THANK YOU TO ALL VETERANS , THE COMMANDER ——NOV.11 ,2010

  46. I can understand the desire to curb kids from eating unhealthy foods, but that shouldn’t be the governments role, especially when they can barely come to a consensus on what is good or bad for us. Lori Roman makes some good points about this and salt consumption here

    http://www.saltinstitute.org/N…..-Americans

  47. thank you all war people
    =) i love u

  48. Happy Meals have a major environmental affect as well. Its not just about health.

  49. The preview link is not working.

  50. Hello everyone this is Alpinto. Here we read all the blog it is a nice blog post.
    ============
    alpinto.

  51. Really it is a nice blog post.
    =====

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.