Socialism Tastes… Pretty Bland

[Lounge Daddy]

Besides… I love McDonald’s fries …and this ban will force McDonald’s to change their recipe in affected areas. They aren’t going to be the yummy fires that people wish to pay $$$ for.
This is simply bad for business, thus bad for the employer, thus bad for the wage earner, thus bad for the spender…
How is it so hard for some people in government to understand basic economics?
They should at least understand “negative for economy” = “negative for tax revenue”
But maybe some people value scoring the short-run political points.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1077047' date='Sep 27 2006, 07:31 PM']
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. [/quote]
ok, Era
I guess so...

but do we at least agree with this:
[quote]"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts. [/quote]

Do you agree with me that this government restriction is a bit much, to say the least?

[Era Might]

Perhaps. Maybe there can be a law to require alternatives, rather than banning this particular unhealthy fat. But, I would not call it "socialism" or "fascism" to ban it. If you did disagree, I think it would be fair to say it's not "prudent" or "acceptable", like the man in the article.

[Aloysius]

well I personally think it's not only that, it's immoral and unjust.

[Era Might]

I can't get on board with that. There is nothing "immoral" about it. There is nothing in the moral law that gives private business owners immunity from civil oversight of public health issues. You may not believe this is a necessary public health issue, and that's fine, but others do, and they are within the boundaries of legitimate disagreement.

Freedom also encompasses the right to disagreement and diverse public discourse.

[homeschoolmom]

I just worry about the government deciding what is and isn't good for me.

[Era Might]

The government has to do that all the time. When the air is filled with smog, the government has to make practical decisions about what in your city is exacerbating this danger to the health of its citizens, and perhaps take necessary steps to remove that danger. There's no doubt that trans-fat is bad for you. They had a report on Fox news earlier and they mentioned that coronary disease would be reduced by 23% if we just got rid of trans-fat. Where the government comes in is it has to decide whether this particular species of fat is outweighing any positive benefits by the health toll it is taking on citizens. It's the same kind of issue as lead paint or asbestos in private establishments. And one point taken into consideration is that, if trans-fat is taken away, its absence will be negligible and will not be missed.

We're not talking about taking away table salt here. It's a particulae type of fat that, unlike other fats, has absolutely no medical benefit, and only cause medical harm.

[Theoketos]

[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 [s]authoritarian.[/s] Heteronomous
[/quote]
There I fixed it for you. Authority is good, Heteronomy is bad.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1077403' date='Sep 27 2006, 10:34 PM']
The government has to do that all the time. When the air is filled with smog, the government has to make practical decisions about what in your city is exacerbating this danger to the health of its citizens, and perhaps take necessary steps to remove that danger. There's no doubt that trans-fat is bad for you. They had a report on Fox news earlier and they mentioned that coronary disease would be reduced by 23% if we just got rid of trans-fat. Where the government comes in is it has to decide whether this particular species of fat is outweighing any positive benefits by the health toll it is taking on citizens. It's the same kind of issue as lead paint or asbestos in private establishments. And one point taken into consideration is that, if trans-fat is taken away, its absence will be negligible and will not be missed.

We're not talking about taking away table salt here. It's a particulae type of fat that, unlike other fats, has absolutely no medical benefit, and only cause medical harm.
[/quote]
I have no problem with the government trying to educate me to the dangers of trans fat or other food additives.

[Era Might]

How many private businesses would have taken the cost to remove asbestos if all the government did was "educate" them about it?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1077428' date='Sep 27 2006, 10:45 PM']
How many private businesses would have taken the cost to remove asbestos if all the government did was "educate" them about it?
[/quote]
I have no problem with the government setting the rules which contribute positively to the welfare of America, like mandating asbestos removal. The rules have to be constitutional of course. What I don't like is when the government takes on responsibilities that would be better handled by you and me. Sure, mandate asbestos removal, but could you imagine how badly this would have happened if government not only mandated the removal but performed the duties required to remove it? Ugh! Reference "The Big Dig" and many other catastrophies.

[Socrates]

The problem is when it comes to things that are not immediately deadly, but simply "not healthy." Where do you draw the line?

There are plenty of things which are not good for people, and which, if indulged in excessively, increase risk of death from various medical causes.
Is it the government's duty now to ban anything deemed unhealthy?
Fatty hamburgers? Bacon and eggs for breakfast? Soda-pop? Candy bars? Lack of exercise?
Where do we draw the line?
Are consumers free to choose what risks to take, and use common sense to make responsible choices based on knowledge that is widely available?

Or is the government to act as everyone's nanny or mommy, treating us as little children, and telling us all what we can and can't eat?

Seems to me a case of government overstepping it's bounds.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Socrates

[Era Might]

That's the trouble with public policy, there's always a fine line that people will disagree on.

Some people may see a ban on trans-fat as overstepping that fine line. Personally, I tend to see it as very much within that line, and particularly within the necessary competence of the government, which is concerned with the health of its citizens. Trans-fat is not a food, it's a particular type of gravely unhealthy fat. I think there is a clear difference between that and food. The problem isn't simply that it's unhealthy, but that it's intrinsically unhealthy, unlike most foods. Regular fat is necessary in our diet; trans-fat is not, and is leading to great levels of coronary disease, and it's not even a food, it's just an unhealthy element within certain foods, which can be replaced.

In all public policy considerations, there is going to have to be a weighing of various goods. From the Compendium of the Church's Social Doctrine:

[quote]To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice. The proper reconciling of the particular goods of groups and those of individuals is, in fact, one of the most delicate tasks of public authority. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the democratic State, where decisions are usually made by the majority of representatives elected by the people, those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority. [/quote]
I have no problem with both viewpoints, but it seems that "freedom" only goes one way. The other side is automatically demonized as "socialism" or "liberalism", when it has nothing to do with that. It's just a legitimate diversity of opinion and a legitimate disagreement on the balance of common goods.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Era Might

[Mercy me]

Why don't we just say it? What we are talking about is government trying to legislate personal responsibility.

The problem is that our governmental system and our faith is based on people being responsible for their choices. With freedom comes tremendous responsibility.

I like to splurge every once in a while and go for a really good dinner out. By and large the best tasting foods are not healthiest. Real cream, butter tend to have more calories, fat and taste. It is my duty to know that and to take that into account in the way I eat. However, the argument seems to be that because some people choose unwisely, I will not be permitted my monthly splurge of McDonalds fries(no this is not my idea of a really good dinner out). That doesn't seem fair.

[Era Might]

No, it's government legislating public health. I don't think that merely because something is unhealthy, it should be banned. Yes, there is a point at which personal responsibility comes into play. But trans-fat is not such a case, because it's an gravely unhealthy element that is not even essential to food.

Take trans-fat out of food, and nobody would even notice the difference. This is why it's such a common sense ban. The upside is negligible, while the risk to public health is deadly and only getting worse.

A possible compromise mentioned earlier would be requiring alternatives on the menu.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1077093' date='Sep 27 2006, 07:53 PM']
Perhaps. Maybe there can be a law to require alternatives, rather than banning this particular unhealthy fat. But, I would not call it "socialism" or "fascism" to ban it...
[/quote]

Perhaps?
Then, I believe I totally disagree with you, Era.
I also believe you are not seeing socialism for what it is here.

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1077375' date='Sep 27 2006, 10:26 PM']
I just worry about the government deciding what is and isn't good for me.
[/quote]

Oh me too, and that is exactly what is happening.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1077403' date='Sep 27 2006, 10:34 PM']
We're not talking about taking away table salt here.
[/quote]

Not yet.



[quote name='Era Might' post='1077645' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:38 AM']
A possible compromise mentioned earlier would be requiring alternatives on the menu.
[/quote]

Ugh! That would be the next logical step, wouldn’t it?
#1 - You CANNOT use certain common ingredients – in the name of health of course.
#2 – You MUST include certain items on the menu.

Welcome to the end of the free market.

[Lounge Daddy]

what is happening today, on the social and domestic level of government is called "soft despotism"
You can read a brief essay on this at the Catholic ACTON Institute: [url="http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=267"]HERE[/url]

Soft despotism is basically deliberately welcomed giving up of freedom to the state on some social promise – in this case, public health.