• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

Probably because, it's not the libertarians who are "looney", but the individual, who for some reason, didn't get what the libertarian was talking about when he discussed liberty...



Here let me help you with a definition, so that you may up your status in this conversation, and join us at the level everyone else is.


personal liberty 
noun
the liberty of an individual to do his or her will freely except for those restraints imposed by law to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic welfare of others.

Personal liberty | Define Personal liberty at Dictionary.com


I hope that this endeavors you to find what you are so obviously, missing.

That definition is definitely not what those libertarians were referring to because they clearly rejected the restraints imposed by law. In fact, they completely rejected the idea that the law had any legitimacy and authority to "rule" them. Maybe you should try actually reading what's been posted in this thread.

I hope that this endeavors helps you to find what you are so obviously missing.
 
You have an odd understanding of what insurance is

True, overweight people are at a higher risk, but insurance is meant to spread and equalize the costs.

Not an odd understanding, a perfect understanding actually. In any insurance situation higher risk means the person pays higher premiums.
A bad driver pays higher car insurance rates.
Healthier, younger people pay lower life insurance rates that old unhealthy people.
Hell bad credit can make you pay higher car insurance rates.
Why should health insurance be any different?
 
That definition is definitely not what those libertarians were referring to because they clearly rejected the restraints imposed by law. In fact, they completely rejected the idea that the law had any legitimacy and authority to "rule" them. Maybe you should try actually reading what's been posted in this thread.

I hope that this endeavors helps you to find what you are so obviously missing.

personal liberty 
noun
the liberty of an individual to do his or her will freely except for those restraints imposed by law to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic welfare of others.

How does a drinking sugary drinks affect OTHERS? it doesn't. It affects the person consuming the beverage.
 
That definition is definitely not what those libertarians were referring to because they clearly rejected the restraints imposed by law. In fact, they completely rejected the idea that the law had any legitimacy and authority to "rule" them. Maybe you should try actually reading what's been posted in this thread.

I hope that this endeavors helps you to find what you are so obviously missing.



It would mean I would have to read more of your posts.... No thanks man. I can see it's been clearly explained to you, discussion, is not your motivation here.
 
You have an odd understanding of what insurance is

True, overweight people are at a higher risk, but insurance is meant to spread and equalize the costs.

But either way, it seems we can can agree a few things

1) Limiting liberty is not inherently wrong
2) Limiting liberty is a legitimate function of govt (depending on the circumstances)
3) Limiting choice is not inherently wrong and is a legitimate govt function (again, depending on the circumstances)

Limiting liberty, limiting choice is only acceptable if that liberty impinges on the rights of others. Limiting choice when only the chooser has to accept the results of those choices is not the job of the government. The "your freedom ends where my nose begins" principle is the real test of whether a law is acceptable or not.

As for insurance, there is nothing wrong with charging more for those whose choices have put them at greater risk. If a driver chooses to speed and get tickets, then he's at greater risk of an accident, and is going to pay more for insurance than someone who does not. If a person drinks sugary drinks by the barrel, he's at greater risk for diabetes, obesity, and a host of related ailments and so should pay more for insurance.
 
Not an odd understanding, a perfect understanding actually. In any insurance situation higher risk means the person pays higher premiums.
A bad driver pays higher car insurance rates.
Healthier, younger people pay lower life insurance rates that old unhealthy people.
Hell bad credit can make you pay higher car insurance rates.
Why should health insurance be any different?

Those are good points, but if you consider the amount of risk that being overweight (wrt diseases like diabetes and heart disease) represents:

1) It is not possible to put a cost on it because medical science isn't clear about it
2) The price would rise enough to have much of an impact
3) It would require weighing people on a regular basis, which would raise the cost for everyone
4) Some many of us are overweight (not me) that the main result would be for most people to pay more (meaning, it wouldn't raise the price much because so many would be splitting the costs of those diseases)
 
That's right!! If I choose to rape a little girl, why do we need the govt to step in and stop me? :roll:

And people who think realize that the mayor doesn't make the law

That is rediculous. My ability to drink a soda does not infringe on your rights. Raping a girl, infringes on her rights. What a joke.
 
personal liberty 
noun
the liberty of an individual to do his or her will freely except for those restraints imposed by law to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic welfare of others.

How does a drinking sugary drinks affect OTHERS? it doesn't. It affects the person consuming the beverage.

The impact of obesity are well-established.
 
It would mean I would have to read more of your posts.... No thanks man. I can see it's been clearly explained to you, discussion, is not your motivation here.

I see. You won't read what's been posted in the thread, so I'm the one who doesn't want a discussion :roll:
 
This is utterly idiotic.


If you want 32 oz of soda and can only buy it in 16 oz drinks, you will buy two sodas.



This accomplishes nothing.


If it was even goobermint's business to start with, and it isn't.



As for the impact of obesity... make everyone pay for the own healthcare and all the sudden your neighbor's weight is not your problem!
 
Your ability to drink soda is not impeded in any way by this legislation.

It is a free market violation. I want to purchase 32 oz of coke. They can't sell me 32 oz of coke, not because they don't make it, because of legislation. My purchase has been impeded.
 
Why is that?

You have to ask? Because this is a country founded on freedom. If we value freedom, then we can't allow the government to be making personal decisions for us, as that is the opposite of freedom.

...It is to secure those rights that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If government is not securing our rights, then it is not doing its job, not fulfilling its purpose.
 
It is a free market violation. I want to purchase 32 oz of coke. They can't sell me 32 oz of coke, not because they don't make it, because of legislation. My purchase has been impeded.

You can purchase 32 oz... just not in one big container.
 
This is not the stupidest thing I have seen a politician say or do...but...it is certainly in the top 5.

"We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup. It’s not perfect, it’s not the only answer, it’s not the only cause of people being overweight – but we’ve got to do something. “We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health.””

The audacity of that pompous ****...holy...****...

Go ahead, New York. Elect him again. You get the government you deserve.
 
This is utterly idiotic.


If you want 32 oz of soda and can only buy it in 16 oz drinks, you will buy two sodas.



This accomplishes nothing.


If it was even goobermint's business to start with, and it isn't.



As for the impact of obesity... make everyone pay for the own healthcare and all the sudden your neighbor's weight is not your problem!

It certainly does accomplish something

It prevents fast food places from bundling 32-oz sugary drinks with the discounted meals. If someone wants 32-oz of sugary beverage, they'll have to buy a seperate 16-oz drink at the undiscounted price. Reasonable people can see that many will not buy the additional drink, leading to a lower consumption of said sugary beverages
 
You have to ask?

It's a great question because peopel often say it as though it's true, when it's not.

Because this is a country founded on freedom.

A country founded with slavery is not a country founded on freedom.

Our country was founded on democracy, not freedom. Big difference.
 
You have to ask? Because this is a country founded on freedom. If we value freedom, then we can't allow the government to be making personal decisions for us, as that is the opposite of freedom.

...It is to secure those rights that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If government is not securing our rights, then it is not doing its job, not fulfilling its purpose.

The govt makes personal decisions all the time for us, and that's a good thing. For example, govt has decided that you do not have the freedom to rape people.

Most of us realize that this is A Good Thing...libertarians, not so much
 
I sometimes wonder if it is a back handed attempt to get people to spend more money because now they will have to purchase multiple cups,. bottles whatever. So in a fast food joint, even more people will opt to go thru the drive thru and will not bother with the drinks at all and take their meal home and crack open however many cans of soda they want to drink. Just like everything else, the idiots that have bought their way to the top don't know shyt and it will backfire. Just like the wicked cig tax increases, which led so many to do the roll your own thing at a price per pack that would be equal to about 1990 prices lol. It didn't curb smoking as much and the gov't ended up taking a huge hit twice tax wise, because now they are getting less revenue from business that sells factory packed smokes as well as so much less that is being bought that way. NYS has among the highest in fees for commercial trucking, so companies hire out of state for their shipping needs. NYS loses twice because they are supposedly so clever with their stratospheric taxes and fees.

I am sure most people at one point watched a business go under because they priced themselves out of the market and ended up going belly up. Liberal government does the same exact thing.
 
I sometimes wonder if it is a back handed attempt to get people to spend more money because now they will have to purchase multiple cups,. bottles whatever. So in a fast food joint, even more people will opt to go thru the drive thru and will not bother with the drinks at all and take their meal home and crack open however many cans of soda they want to drink. Just like everything else, the idiots that have bought their way to the top don't know shyt and it will backfire.

Yeah, it's a conspiracy by "Big Soda" :cuckoo:

Just like the wicked cig tax increases, which led so many to do the roll your own thing at a price per pack that would be equal to about 1990 prices lol. It didn't curb smoking as much and the gov't ended up taking a huge hit twice tax wise, because now they are getting less revenue from business that sells factory packed smokes as well as so much less that is being bought that way. NYS has among the highest in fees for commercial trucking, so companies hire out of state for their shipping needs. NYS loses twice because they are supposedly so clever with their stratospheric taxes and fees.

I am sure most people at one point watched a business go under because they priced themselves out of the market and ended up going belly up. Liberal government does the same exact thing.

Umm, smoking has gone down.
 
So? There's no right to a free market.

Since you mark yourself as Libertarian-Left, let me ask you this. How do you justify this legislation as a libertarian?

Would you be more for a "sin tax"?
 
Last edited:
The govt makes personal decisions all the time for us, and that's a good thing. For example, govt has decided that you do not have the freedom to rape people.

Most of us realize that this is A Good Thing...libertarians, not so much



Bud, that's comparing apples to atom bombs, and you knew that when you wrote it I'm sure.

No comparison at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom