Socialism Tastes… Pretty Bland

[ardillacid]

It will be banned in homes with people under 18, I guarantee it

[Era Might]

If you don't want to wash your hands at home, don't. But when you run an establishment that serves the general public, the public authorities have a responsibility to ensure that their health is protected.

[ardillacid]

Where is that in the constitution?

[Era Might]

Where does the Constitution say something has to be in the Constitution to be reasonable or valid? Where does the constitution restrict pornography?

[ardillacid]

How about right HERE!

"Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers [b]not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,[/b] nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The FEDERAL government has no buisness doing what it is doing

Edited September 27, 2006 by notardillacid

[Era Might]

That doesn't say something is wrong simply because it's not in the constitution. It says the local government is responsible for those matters which are not specifically given to the federal government.

The article Lounge Daddy linked to is about the state of New York proposing a ban, not the federal government.

The smoking bans are also a state-by-state matter, not federal. Some states have it, some don't. In some states, only select cities have the ban.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='TrueImage' post='1076845' date='Sep 27 2006, 04:33 PM']
You know, it's just as legitimate to call the ban fascist as it is to call it socialist. Both are authoritarian.
[/quote]
Right on!
Ronald Reagan made a comment (more than a few times) that he didn’t give a carp about left and right… he saw things as up and down: down toward the prison, and up toward freedom.

And wanted us all to strive to look up. :


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1076721' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:25 PM']
The businesses that are being regulated are private. The people who go there do not have to go there. Why are these private organizations being treated as a public entity? All for one and one for all or something, I don't know. I wouldn't call it socialistic, but it's a socialistic ish phenomenon.
[/quote]

Hell YES, Dairy!

[Era Might]

Freedom is not the right to do what you want, but the right to do what you ought, as the beloved Pope John Paul II reminded us many times. Just because you can fill the lungs of women and children with second hand smoke doesn't mean you're free.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1076721' date='Sep 27 2006, 01:25 PM']
The businesses that are being regulated are private. The people who go there do not have to go there. Why are these private organizations being treated as a public entity? All for one and one for all or something, I don't know. I wouldn't call it socialistic, but it's a socialistic ish phenomenon.
[/quote]
:applause:

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1076738' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:39 PM']
I agree about smoke, that's why I go pretty much to smoke free establishments.
[/quote]

Sure thing, this is why the owners choose how to establish [i]thier own buisness[/i] , and you choose whether or not to give them [i]your buisne$$[/i]

[Budge]

You think this is bad, just wait til the UN enforces CODEX on American soil.

no more over the counter vitamins.

The UN is SOCIALISM xs 100.

So wake up folks.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076888' date='Sep 27 2006, 05:20 PM']
The article Lounge Daddy linked to is about the state of New York proposing a ban, not the federal government.
[/quote]

fed, state, local... government is government and none of it has any place in my home or place of business.

You mentioned health restrictions earlier in this topic, Era…
bugs and drugs are one thing… but legal substances like tobacco use are nother…
AND NOW [i]dictating[/i] to people what ingredients can and can not be used in food prepration– BY RULE OF LAW … this is socialism, fascism, whatever you wanna call it.
It is anti-Capitalist in the worst way and, dammit, it is far from freedom.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1076924' date='Sep 27 2006, 05:47 PM']fed, state, local... government is government and none of it has any place in my home or place of business.

You mentioned health restrictions earlier in this topic, Era…
bugs and drugs are one thing… but legal substances like tobacco use are nother…
AND NOW [i]dictating[/i] to people what ingredients can and can not be used in food prepration– BY RULE OF LAW … this is socialism, fascism, whatever you wanna call it.
It is anti-Capitalist in the worst way and, dammit, it is far from freedom.[/quote]
Where does the Constitution say it's illegal to not wash your hands? Is there a law that makes it illegal to not wash your hands? So, basically, not washing your hands is a fully legally act. Except, of course, when you work in a kitchen, private or not. Not washing your hands is just as legal for the average citizen as is smoking a cigarette. But when the health of the general public is concerned, in a private establishment that serves the general public, then the public authorities have the duty to ensure their health, and that includes poisonous smoke or germs from not washing your hands.

If your business is serving the general public, then the government DOES have a necessary place in ensuring that you respect the common good. If you harm the common good, then that is exactly the government's sphere, because it has been put in charge of the welfare of its citizens.

If anything, the real threat here is individual anarchy where you are answerable to nothing except your own desire for capital, not even the common good or those placed in its charge. This is the kind of thinking that gets us pornography on demand all over the Internet, since what we do in our private homes and what people want to distribute on their private servers is their business; or so we're told.

Besides, tobacco is not the only regulized legal substance. Prescription drugs are regulized legal substances, even in private pharmacies. And as I mentioned before, all private establishments must have a liquor license to serve the general public.

[Lounge Daddy]

ummm... Era - washing hands is a bit different than a government regulating basic ingredients in food preperation
don't you think?



[quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM']
...Not washing your hands is just as legal for the average citizen as is smoking a cigarette. But when the health of the general public is concerned, in a private establishment that serves the general public, then the public authorities have the duty to ensure their health, and that includes poisonous smoke or germs from not washing your hands.

If your business is serving the general public, then the government DOES have a necessary place in ensuring that you respect the common good. If you harm the common good, then that is exactly the government's sphere, because it has been put in charge of the welfare of its citizens.
[/quote]

"washing hands" Era, the workers are not the smokers - the patrons are

You also mentioned licensing alcohol earlier – again, the business isn’t selling tobacco…no license is needed

[Era Might]

Different from the trans-fat issue, yes, but I think second-hand smoke and workers who don't wash their hands are both the same kind of hazardous health issue.

My point isn't that there HAS to be a ban on smoking or whatever. If you don't think there should be, that's fine. I happen to think there should be, for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it takes two seconds to walk outside a restaurant and light up. What I have a problem with is casting this all as some socialistic plot to undermine freedom. Not everything has to do with socialism or whatever it is you identify as liberalism. It's just an issue of ensuring the health of the general public. You don't have to agree that these measures are necessary, but just because you do doesn't mean you're advancing socialist ideas, anymore than questioning a decision of the legitimate public authorities means you're an anarchist. There are going to be many different approaches to public policy. That doesn't make one person's approach "socialism" and the other person's approach "anarchy". It just means they have two different approaches.

As I said in my first post, Karl Marx isn't hiding behind every corner.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM']

If your business is serving the general public, then the government DOES have a necessary place in ensuring that you respect the common good. If you harm the common good, then that is exactly the government's sphere, because it has been put in charge of the welfare of its citizens.

...Besides, tobacco is not the only regulized legal substance. Prescription drugs are regulized legal substances, even in private pharmacies. And as I mentioned before, all private establishments must have a liquor license to serve the general public.
[/quote]
ummm...
your implication is a bit mistaken

A business open to the public is a bit different from, say a sidewalk that everyone has no choice but to walk through …and you seem to be implying that people have no choice

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM']
Besides, tobacco is not the only regulized legal substance. Prescription drugs are regulized legal substances, even in private pharmacies. And as I mentioned before, all private establishments must have a liquor license to serve the general public.
[/quote]

A liquor license?
We are talking about an owner allowing smoking in a restaurant, and then government restriction on ingredients in food… and you equate that with liquor license?

A license to SELL alcohol
Sure, if the eating establishment is SELLING alcohol
A license to SELL tobacco, sure ..if the place is SELLING it, Era
But they are not, they are allowing people to smoke it... if the owner chooses this. If the owner of the property - NOT the government.

*BTW _ The government is not supposed to own us, Era - it is supposed to protect us. We are not slaves to government, it is supposed to be slave to us.

Pharmaceuticals may well be used anywhere at any time …why?
LICENCE to sell it, not use it… not yet.
So today, yes my friends you can safely use your prescription meds that you bought at LICENCED pharmacy, and smoke tobacco that you bought at LICENCED retailers.
...well, you could until the past few years...

Now you can't even prepare food the way you want?

[Aloysius]

the state can regulate things to some extent for the public good-- like you said, a liquor licence. but this is not regulation, this is an outright ban.

the state could say "you must place a warning outside your restaurant that smoking is allowed inside" and maybe even require you to have smoking and non-smoking sections, make you have a licence before you sell tobacco products as well, but it cannot say "you are not allowed to have a business where people are allowed to smoke"

it's socialist fascism, this is not taking things to the extreme this is calling them what they are. you said it could be called "anarchism", well, no it actually couldn't. in fact nearly everything you said here has been quite false. it is a socialist policy because it gives the government rights over private businesses that only business owners should have: ergo making the government de facto a partial owner of that business. it is fascism because it imposes unjust absolute laws against things which ought to be in the realm of freedom.

when a business is not permitted to open which allows people to smoke and purchase food, the government has overstepped its boundaries.

when a business is not permitted to choose the types of foods, healthy or unhealthy, which it will serve then government has overstepped its boundaries.

the government could require a warning label on the menu, perhaps, but banning such things is not the government's job.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM']
If anything, the real threat here is individual anarchy where you are answerable to nothing except your own desire for capital...[/quote]

Anarchy? Sure – it’s called “people don’t have to do business with me, so I had better meet the perceived needs of my clientele.”
And if I don’t, then I don’t eat.
Law of the jungle.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1076935' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:05 PM']
This is the kind of thinking that gets us pornography on demand all over the Internet, since what we do in our private homes and what people want to distribute on their private servers is their business; or so we're told.
[/quote]
Porn?

No, Era – porn is illegal when it comes to forced victims, such as children and human trafficking.
As far as the sad cases of “willing victims” there are still age limits, and after that it is up to the retailer – as far as I know…

Again – this is sale of it not use of it, Era. But this is off topic...

If a business owner chooses to allow cigarettes to be taken in and smoked, that is the owners choice. If the owner chooses to allow porn magazines to be brought in and read at the tables, that is the owners choice.

THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE A LEGAL CHOICE IN AMERICA
As long as he is not forcing harm on other people

[Era Might]

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the responsibilities of private business to respect the common good.

I guess that's all that can be said.