San Francisco becomes more...nannying and other libertarian bane.

[Nigerius Rex]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110904353.html

San Francisco has become the first major American city to prohibit fast-food restaurants from including toys with children's meals that do not meet nutritional guidelines.

The city's Board of Supervisors gave the measure final approval Tuesday on an 8-3 vote. That's enough votes to survive a planned veto by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

The ordinance, which would go into effect in December of next year, prohibits toy giveaways in fast-food children's meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat. The law also would limit saturated fats and trans fats and require fruits or vegetables to be served with each meal with a toy.

As always the system sucks and logical and reasonable responses to the situation are snuffed out in favor of moral outrage and watchdog nannying.

"If the babies don't get what they want, then they won't stop crying," Sanchez said.

[Perpetual Change]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?

[pogoowner]

That's really, really stupid.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Come on NR the thread title is inappropriate

[Nigerius Rex]

Alright now gay people everywhere can celebrate because the thread title was changed.

Also pikajew

[El Barto]

Mixed feelings about the whole thing.  Most of hatred is from people who won't be effected in any way, shape or form.  It's bitching for the sake of bitching.  Plus, I think discouraging kiddos from living off of shitty food is always a worthy endeavor.  However, this really is silly.  I really don't think kids like McDonald's because of the crappy-ass toys.  When I was a kid, getting happy meals was lame.  You weren't cool until you could get a regular meal that didn't come with a toy. 

The better solution is for fast food places to start making healthier food, which they could do pretty easily and most people probably wouldn't notice.  The Libertarians will still bitch and moan about the disgusting lack of sodium and MSG in their food, but hey, it keeps them off the streets at night. 

[William Wallace]

The better solution is for fast food places to start making healthier food, which they could do pretty easily and most people probably wouldn't notice.  The Libertarians will still bitch and moan about the disgusting lack of sodium and MSG in their food, but hey, it keeps them off the streets at night. 

Well, God damn it, don't patronize a place if you think the food is unhealthy. As long as McDonald's sells the sodium-laden shit and people want to eat it, there's no problem to be rectified. Everybody else should take their busy body proposals and promptly fuck off.

[GuineaPig]

But given the amount of influence kids exert on parents, and the lack of ability for a child to make conscious decisions about their own health, should advertising directed towards children be restricted?

[William Wallace]

But given the amount of influence kids exert on parents, and the lack of ability for a child to make conscious decisions about their own health, should advertising directed towards children be restricted?

No. 50 years ago we weren't anywhere near as fat of a society as we are today, yet there were no advertising restrictions. How did we ever manage without some fuck face at the FDA telling us what to eat? 

[ReaPsTA]

Something that seems self-evident that almost no one agrees with - personal responsibility never stops.

Not personal responsibility matters unless food just tastes so good you can't resist.

Personal responsibility never stops.  If people can make an informed decision about McDonalds (they can), then McDonalds shouldn't be held responsible for anything people do.  Giving out toys with happy meals may or may not be a good thing (I don't like it actually), but the premise of the law is wrong.  Essentially, San Fransisco decided parents can't stop themselves from buying happy meals for their kids, so McDonalds should have to pay a price by taking toys out of happy meals.

[Implode]

I agree with the above post whole-heartedly. People in today's society just don't care enough to think for themselves.

[XJDenton]

What is government for if not to engineer society?

[William Wallace]

What is government for if not to engineer society?

Questions like that help me appreciate 'merica, however fucked up it may be.

[Seventh Son]

Something that seems self-evident that almost no one agrees with - personal responsibility never stops.

Not personal responsibility matters unless food just tastes so good you can't resist.

Personal responsibility never stops.  If people can make an informed decision about McDonalds (they can), then McDonalds shouldn't be held responsible for anything people do.  Giving out toys with happy meals may or may not be a good thing (I don't like it actually), but the premise of the law is wrong.  Essentially, San Fransisco decided parents can't stop themselves from buying happy meals for their kids, so McDonalds should have to pay a price by taking toys out of happy meals.

This.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and if that means not letting your kids have that happy meal, then by all means do that. This is an area government doesn't need to intervene.

[Cool Chris]

Amateurs. Call me when your whole state bans a beverage.

https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013395010_drinkban11m.html


OLYMPIA — The state Liquor Control Board on Wednesday approved an emergency ban of caffeinated alcohol drinks, the type of beverage that sickened nine Central Washington University students last month during an off-campus party.

Board members said they acted out of concern for public health and safety. The ban will start Nov. 18 and remain in place for 120 days while the board goes through rule-making procedures for a permanent ban.

The Legislature is also expected to consider a ban early next year.

"The Liquor Control Board has a duty to protect the safety of the people of Washington state," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference after the vote. "It has fulfilled that duty by banning these drinks."

[El Barto]

Amateurs. Call me when your whole state bans a beverage.

https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013395010_drinkban11m.html


OLYMPIA — The state Liquor Control Board on Wednesday approved an emergency ban of caffeinated alcohol drinks, the type of beverage that sickened nine Central Washington University students last month during an off-campus party.

Board members said they acted out of concern for public health and safety. The ban will start Nov. 18 and remain in place for 120 days while the board goes through rule-making procedures for a permanent ban.

The Legislature is also expected to consider a ban early next year.

"The Liquor Control Board has a duty to protect the safety of the people of Washington state," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference after the vote. "It has fulfilled that duty by banning these drinks."

Yeah, I saw that one coming.  Obviously people up there are too stupid to mix vodka and Red Bull like the cool kids down here.

I do recall The Man wanting to ban Cisco a few years back after it killed a bunch of people.  The FTC forced them to revise their marketing strategy and they stayed in business.   

[William Wallace]

Amateurs. Call me when your whole state bans a beverage.

https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013395010_drinkban11m.html


OLYMPIA — The state Liquor Control Board on Wednesday approved an emergency ban of caffeinated alcohol drinks, the type of beverage that sickened nine Central Washington University students last month during an off-campus party.

Board members said they acted out of concern for public health and safety. The ban will start Nov. 18 and remain in place for 120 days while the board goes through rule-making procedures for a permanent ban.

The Legislature is also expected to consider a ban early next year.

"The Liquor Control Board has a duty to protect the safety of the people of Washington state," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference after the vote. "It has fulfilled that duty by banning these drinks."

It's always the same bullshit argument. "For the safety of the people, blah blah blah we have ball chins." There's nothing unique about the drinks, and the company that makes Four Loko is correct; kids will keep drinking because alcohol is relatively easy to get.

[Perpetual Change]

What the hell is up with all this emphasis on sodium and saturated fats lately? I don't want them in my food, and I'm guessing neither do most people, so why are the libertarians getting all fired up (again) about an issue (like when they went batshit on the ban of smoking inside public places) that most people would probably be happy to see the government (finally) take care of?

Talk to me about internet privacy or something I care about. I find it very hard to come rushing to the defense of... McDonalds.

Is it just me, or do libertarians have a knack for picking the worst possible battlefields on the ideological playground? Far worse things are happening to individual liberties around the world, and yet I always see the libertarians rushing back to the defense of the tobacco companies, drugs, the fast food industry, the child pornographers, etc...

Furthermore, a city-wide ban is the way it should be, if any ban is to happen at all. If our communities don't have the freedom to decide they want certain influences to remain outside the community, then why get all fired up about liberty to begin with?

[Nigerius Rex]

There is no scientific backing behind the ideas that saturated fat and sodium cause health problems. Aside from that, this legislation is not even on the right track to solving any problems. All it does is add more hoops for businesses to jump through. The whole "Communities should be able to do what they want cause they vote for it" thing sounds nice, but that is never the actual situation.

[William Wallace]

What the hell is up with all this emphasis on sodium and saturated fats lately? I don't want them in my food, and I'm guessing neither do most people, so why are the libertarians getting all fired up (again) about an issue (like when they went batshit on the ban of smoking inside public places) that most people would probably be happy to see the government (finally) take care of?

Talk to me about internet privacy or something I care about. I find it very hard to come rushing to the defense of... McDonalds.

Is it just me, or do libertarians have a knack for picking the worst possible battlefields on the ideological playground? Far worse things are happening to individual liberties around the world, and yet I always see the libertarians rushing back to the defense of the tobacco companies, drugs, the fast food industry, the child pornographers, etc...

Furthermore, a city-wide ban is the way it should be, if any ban is to happen at all. If our communities don't have the freedom to decide they want certain influences to remain outside the community, then why get all fired up about liberty to begin with?

It's for the sake of consistency that I (I won't speak for anybody else) get so riled up over  people's right to smoke or stuff their faces with french fries. Whether it's internet privacy or the right to choose what you eat, liberty is liberty. If you don't like smoking in bars or fatty foods go somewhere where those things aren't.

And your community's rights argument is total shit, whether at a local, state or federal level. What about the people in those communities who don't want the ban? Are they wrong just because they aren't in the majority? Private property and freedom of association should trump any fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.

[Perpetual Change]

Private property and freedom of association should trump fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.

No, they don't. If your town doesn't like certain business practices, it should be able to keep those business practices out of town. Just like I don't have the right have tanks and heavy metal festivals in my back yard, corporate interests shouldn't have leeway to pull their bullshit wherever they want regardless if they're actually wanted there or not. If people really want Ronald McDonald shoving spray-painted sodium paddies and toys in the faces of their children, they'll vote for council members who also share in their dream, or run for council themselves.

It's for the sake of consistency that I (I won't speak for anybody else) get so riled up over  people's right to smoke or stuff their faces with french fries. Whether it's internet privacy or the right to choose what you eat, liberty is liberty. If you don't like smoking in bars or fatty foods go somewhere where those things aren't.

Ew, for what it's worth, while Libertarians seem to be eternally optimistic about the market's ability to run society, they're dismally pessimistic when it comes to trusting that people won't let things like "giving up the right to smoke in walmart" lead us down a slippery slope toward "nannyism." This sort of rampant exaggeration of issues that aren't that pressing anyway is the primary reason why I don't bother with following what the libertarians are getting riled up about anymore.

[ehra]

And your community's rights argument is total shit, whether at a local, state or federal level. What about the people in those communities who don't want the ban? Are they wrong just because they aren't in the majority? Private property and freedom of association should trump any fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.

What's the significant difference between the majority of the community agreeing on a state wide ban of something or the free market deciding that a particular product isn't worth it and gets pulled despite the minority who still want it?

[Tick]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?

For me personally, its the penis.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

And your community's rights argument is total shit, whether at a local, state or federal level. What about the people in those communities who don't want the ban? Are they wrong just because they aren't in the majority? Private property and freedom of association should trump any fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.

What's the significant difference between the majority of the community agreeing on a state wide ban of something or the free market deciding that a particular product isn't worth it and gets pulled despite the minority who still want it?

This, man. Either way, something happens that somebody, somewhere, doesn't want. But personally, I don't want it in the hands of business. I trust politicians more (though that's really not saying much)

[PlaysLikeMyung]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?

For me personally, its the penis.

Off topic. I made him change the thread title for a reason. Let's talk about McDonalds

[Tick]

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY HUH?

For me personally, its the penis.

Off topic. I made him change the thread title for a reason. Let's talk about McDonalds

Sorry, just a one liner.
I hate the fact McDonald's was forced to take the toy out. Who the fuck is the government to tell a business what to do? If they deem bacon too unhealthy can they ban bacon from being on sandwiches? Where is the line in the sand drawn, and who gets to draw that line?
People make there own choices and they will reap the benefit of or suffer the consequences of the choices they make.
Its the same thing with the proposed soda and juice tax. They want us to limit the intake of these things my taxing the shit out of them?
Pretty soon all choices will be made for us because were too stupid to make right decisions.
Its like forcing a health care bill on people because government knows whats best for us whether we like it or not. <---- worthless icon that renders anything I say irrelevant.

[Perpetual Change]

For what it's worth, this is why I never trust the libertarian/psuedo "constitutionalists" argument. Whenever the courts fail to uphold the banning of some controversial issue, libertarians bring up the argument that the problem with the ban was that 1.) the constitution has no say in the matter and 2.) if states want to run things differently, they're more than welcome too.  Yet I've NEVER seen an instance of a libertarian actually presenting a scenario where community regulations trump federal decisions. That may or may not have anything to do with the movement's ultimately "corporate" benefactors, but it sure does display how far the ideology falls from its more practical source.

I hate the fact McDonald's was forced to take the toy out. Who the fuck is the government to tell a business what to do?

It's not the "government's say" and it's not like health-care. This isn't a piece of federal legislation. Where talking about whether YOUR town and EVERY OTHER town/city/state should be forced accept McDonald's business practices because the libertarians say not doing so will "lead us to fascism" from the ground up or something else direly pessimistic like that.

[Tick]

For what it's worth, this is why I never trust the libertarian/psuedo "constitutionalists" argument. Whenever the courts fail to uphold the banning of some controversial issue, libertarians bring up the argument that the problem with the ban was that 1.) the constitution has no say in the matter and 2.) if states want to run things differently, they're more than welcome too.  Yet I've NEVER seen an instance of a libertarian actually presenting a scenario where community regulations trump federal decisions. That may or may not have anything to do with the movement's ultimately "corporate" benefactors, but it sure does display how far the ideology falls from its more practical source.

I hate the fact McDonald's was forced to take the toy out. Who the fuck is the government to tell a business what to do?

It's not the "government's say" and it's not like health-care. This isn't a piece of federal legislation. Where talking about whether YOUR town and EVERY OTHER town/city/state should be forced accept McDonald's business practices because the libertarians say not doing so will "lead us to fascism" from the ground up or something else direly pessimistic like that.

It should NO ONES call but the business itself. If a town decides to let McDonald's into there town, they should have no say in what they serve. If they don't allow a McDonald's in there town, that is another issue, and that is there prerogative. IMO. :TICK2:

[William Wallace]

No, they don't. If your town doesn't like certain business practices, it should be able to keep those business practices out of town. Just like I don't have the right have tanks and heavy metal festivals in my back yard, corporate interests shouldn't have leeway to pull their bullshit wherever they want regardless if they're actually wanted there or not. If people really want Ronald McDonald shoving spray-painted sodium paddies and toys in the faces of their children, they'll vote for council members who also share in their dream, or run for council themselves.

You can't give me one legitimate reason for allowing the local government to enact food or smoking restrictions. If there were some cost which fell on the community at large, some sort of externality,  as a result of people eating too much saturated fat, then you'd have a case. Unless you create the externality by subsidizing health care, for example, one dosn't exist. The difference between a heavy metal concert in your backyard and McDonald's in your town is that one involves you whether you want it to or not. I could understand restricting where and when a festival could take place because of the inconvenience it may create for local residents. The same can't be said for McDonald's, which could easily be avoided. The only corporate interest I'm defending is the right to conduct business without dealing with shit head regulations. There's no business that deserves any kind of special legal or political treatment, but that's not what we're talking about.

Ew, for what it's worth, while Libertarians seem to be eternally optimistic about the market's ability to run society, they're dismally pessimistic when it comes to trusting that people won't let things like "giving up the right to smoke in walmart" lead us down a slippery slope toward "nannyism." This sort of rampant exaggeration of issues that aren't that pressing anyway is the primary reason why I don't bother with following what the libertarians are getting riled up about anymore.

Well, for one, it's not a lack of faith in people; it's a lack of faith in politicians and other government agents, who will generally expand their authority when given the opportunity. It's makes perfect sense, really. I'm pessimistic about central planning because I know people can manage their lives independently of the guiding hand of government.

And what about the costs you impose on a local business? Would the bans be pressing then? What if a bar had to close or layoff employees because smokers wouldn't patronize it anymore? These regulations do impose costs on the people they're aimed at, and that can hurt the local economy. This isn't just a rehash of the slippery slope.

[Nigerius Rex]

Private property and freedom of association should trump fucktastic community standards related to food or smoking that city council members can dream up.

No, they don't. If your town doesn't like certain business practices, it should be able to keep those business practices out of town. Just like I don't have the right have tanks and heavy metal festivals in my back yard, corporate interests shouldn't have leeway to pull their bullshit wherever they want regardless if they're actually wanted there or not. If people really want Ronald McDonald shoving spray-painted sodium paddies and toys in the faces of their children, they'll vote for council members who also share in their dream, or run for council themselves.

It's for the sake of consistency that I (I won't speak for anybody else) get so riled up over  people's right to smoke or stuff their faces with french fries. Whether it's internet privacy or the right to choose what you eat, liberty is liberty. If you don't like smoking in bars or fatty foods go somewhere where those things aren't.

Ew, for what it's worth, while Libertarians seem to be eternally optimistic about the market's ability to run society, they're dismally pessimistic when it comes to trusting that people won't let things like "giving up the right to smoke in walmart" lead us down a slippery slope toward "nannyism." This sort of rampant exaggeration of issues that aren't that pressing anyway is the primary reason why I don't bother with following what the libertarians are getting riled up about anymore.

People are not getting reliable information, making a decision, and then voting accordingly as per your constant suggestion. Whats happening is one or two loud mouth special interest groups like CSPI are flooding the local media and government with ridiculous and exaggerated information and pressuring elected officials into making the move they have now made the right move by fuckery and manipulation. The problem is not that the system should prevent this, because it cant. The solution, is to have a set list laying down the basic absolute unfuckwithable personal and business rights and conditions that wont change with "community standards" and other illogical inconsistent constraints. Does anyone see the issue is really about parenting and personal responsibility? Do they care that Mcdonalds employs millions of people across the entire world and is a positive influence in a dysfunctional economy? No, they see a press release from the center for bullshittery and then think "Oh fast food is bad mmk, we need to ban it mmk" and then you have a totally fucked up society because communities have the right to compartmentalize legitimate business based on whatever bullshit they think is right.

[Implode]

<---- worthless icon that renders anything I say irrelevant.

Just to clarify, I said it makes it hard to take you seriously.  I can; I just have to ignore the tick. Don't worry, your posts aren't irrelevant.  


And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy?  Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.

[El Barto]

And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy?  Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.

The crappy toy is irrelevant.  Kids like McDonalds because they think they're supposed to.  They've spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and aiming it directly at kids, so now if they put fried dog turds on a stick, kids will pester and annoy their dimwitted parents for them.  The food is irrelevant.  The toy is irrelevant.  Only the brand association matters. 

That's what bugs me about the whole deal.  McDonalds could easily be promoting healthier food, and they'd still have the same brainwashed zombies lining up for it. 

[Nigerius Rex]

I disagree with that. They went on a streak promoting their salads and apple filled happy meals like mad for a couple of years. I used to see commercials all the time promoting their new healthy initiative.

The fast food episode where Penn and Teller interviewed the ceo of carls jr made the situation pretty clear. "We have healthy food, but people don't buy it."

[William Wallace]

And is there statistical evidence that says kids buy more meals if they get a crappy toy?  Maybe it was just me, but I never cared for the toys when I was that young.

The crappy toy is irrelevant.  Kids like McDonalds because they think they're supposed to.  They've spend billions of dollars crafting their brand and aiming it directly at kids, so now if they put fried dog turds on a stick, kids will pester and annoy their dimwitted parents for them.  The food is irrelevant.  The toy is irrelevant.  Only the brand association matters.  

That's what bugs me about the whole deal.  McDonalds could easily be promoting healthier food, and they'd still have the same brainwashed zombies lining up for it.  

Not in the slightest way is this correct. Kids are not brainwashed zombies. They actually have some capacity to process advertising, and that means they can and do reject things that they see. Secondly, McDonald's offers things that people like. If consumers would buy more salads and veggie burgers, you'd see that shit for sale everywhere.

[ehra]

Yeah, I really don't understand this "kids are being corrupted by all of this advertisement directed at them!" thing. Kids aren't retards, however much we may sometimes think otherwise. If they know bitching will get their parents to cave in after a little yelling then they'll do it. My dad taught me pretty early on what "no" means and he didn't have any problems with me throwing tantrums over not getting a game, troy, or food I wanted.

If you're the sort of parent that can't stand the knowledge that you did something that made your kid a little unhappy then, yeah, I could imagine why it might seem impossible for any human to go up against a shitty toy bundled with a burger and fries.