Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 129 of 129

Thread: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

  1. #121
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Surely that is based on natural law but not silly versions that include positive rights and no absurd ones that restrict what it sees in nature because of being as a god. I see nature as it is and that includes all its weakness and its all strengths. If you have any important questions then please ask away and I think you will find that I'm being very constant in my view and not putting any personal feelings into it.
    I just don't buy the whole natural law premise at all. It's basically arbitrary what principles one says they think they can derive from nature. You came up with one set, another guy comes up with another set that he thinks he can derive from nature, another person comes up with another set that he thinks he can derive from some other source. In the end, there is no tie breaker to elevate one set of conclusions from another, so we're just left with democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That is not infringing on someones rights.

    Again, there no infringing of rights occurring because you drive on a road.
    How do you figure? You believe in an absolute right to property. By sending my music into somebody else's property I'm violating their property and by doing something that needs to be paid for by taxes I'm doing the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Hardly. I'm asking the government to ignore the majority if what they want abuses the rights/liberties of others. That is not saying listen to the minority in any sense of the word. Just to respect the minority as people as you respect the majority as people.
    No, you're asking that the majority not be respected as people. In the school example you're saying that 1 person should be able to dictate to the other 9 that they can't work together to solve that problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Well, good will and representation are not property so they have no business being treated as such.
    Well, apparently most people disagree with you. Like with rights, you have one definition in your head of what is property, somebody else has a different one, so we go with what more people think it should mean. Neither one is inherently more logical than the other somehow. It's just the definition of a word. We can define words however we want as a species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Democracy is the ruling class kicking everyone else around and that is the essence of the saying "majority rule" that goes hand and hand with it. The market is people buying what they desire and the market trying to get more sales to grow around the desires of people.
    Around the desires of wealthy people. You and I have virtually no say in the market. We have much more power in a system where votes are divided equally. The little guy absolutely is more powerful in democracy than in the market.

    Who is this ruling class you speak of? Everybody gets equal votes. We're all equal in democracy. There is no ruling class.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I just don't buy the whole natural law premise at all. It's basically arbitrary what principles one says they think they can derive from nature. You came up with one set, another guy comes up with another set that he thinks he can derive from nature, another person comes up with another set that he thinks he can derive from some other source. In the end, there is no tie breaker to elevate one set of conclusions from another, so we're just left with democracy.
    As I said, if you have any questions ask away. I don't think you find I'm adding anything or ignoring anything like your examples given. I noticed you ignored my fact that our society was formed around it though.

    And democracy is not a tie breaker. It's a way to ignore the need for a foundation to build a dirt hut.

    How do you figure? You believe in an absolute right to property. By sending my music into somebody else's property I'm violating their property and by doing something that needs to be paid for by taxes I'm doing the same.
    I don't believe in anything of the sort and sound does nothing to my property. We went over this months ago and If need be I will find the thread.

    No, you're asking that the majority not be respected as people. In the school example you're saying that 1 person should be able to dictate to the other 9 that they can't work together to solve that problem.
    No, I'm not. I'm saying its a violation of the rights of the one person you're forcing into the arrangement. If you nine want to help each other to educate your children you are free to do it and if the one person tries to stop you I will fight for you rights to be sure.

    Well, apparently most people disagree with you. Like with rights, you have one definition in your head of what is property, somebody else has a different one, so we go with what more people think it should mean. Neither one is inherently more logical than the other somehow. It's just the definition of a word. We can define words however we want as a species.
    I see nothing here that works as an argument, so moving along..


    Around the desires of wealthy people. You and I have virtually no say in the market. We have much more power in a system where votes are divided equally. The little guy absolutely is more powerful in democracy than in the market.
    So you're saying you don't buy anything..great.

    Who is this ruling class you speak of? Everybody gets equal votes. We're all equal in democracy. There is no ruling class.
    No, we are not. A vote means nothing if the majority don't agree.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 08:13 PM.

  3. #123
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    Nobody has proposed banning soda. When such a development comes about, i will be the first person to agree with you. As for cannabis being more harmful than soda, i don't believe your in any position to make such a deterministic statement.
    Banning large size sodas...that makes it all the more ridiculous and unable to work

  4. #124
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    As I said, if you have any questions ask away. I don't think you find I'm adding anything or ignoring anything like your examples given. I noticed you ignored my fact that our society was formed around it though.

    And democracy is not a tie breaker. It's a way to ignore the need for a foundation to build a dirt hut.
    Society was not formed around natural law... The theory wasn't even invented until way after there had been many massive and sophisticated societies. Some of the founders here believed in natural law, but not any of the central ones. The declaration of independence used some natural lawish language, but you'll note it is of the religious variety. The notion of natural law has little representation in the constitution.

    But, regardless, I'll bite... How do you derive from nature a specific set of rights and rules about how they ought to interact? What makes the conclusions you draw from nature superior to the conclusions other people draw from nature or from other sources?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, I'm not. I'm saying its a violation of the rights of the one person you're forcing into the arrangement. If you nine want to help each other to educate your children you are free to do it and if the one person tries to stop you I will fight for you rights to be sure.
    In scenarios where people can just act individually with the same effect as they can acting collectively, like I said, yeah, leave it to the individuals. But in scenarios where something can be accomplished by working together that can't be accomplished, or can't be accomplished as well or as efficiently by doing it individually, then yes, the 1 is imposing their will on the other 9 if you don't do it. They are being denied the option to do it correctly.

    For example, education creates what is called a non-excludable benefit. If a kid gets an education, the whole society benefits from that whether they volunteered to chip in or not. So, you can't just have people contribute money only if they feel like it because then everybody would just freeload, the kids wouldn't get educated, and everybody would be worse off as a result. So, we have to decide as a group whether we want to have public education, and require that everybody chip in, or not. If we don't do that just to placate the 1 guy, the other 9 are taking a hit.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Society was not formed around natural law... The theory wasn't even invented until way after there had been many massive and sophisticated societies. Some of the founders here believed in natural law, but not any of the central ones. The declaration of independence used some natural lawish language, but you'll note it is of the religious variety. The notion of natural law has little representation in the constitution.
    I didn't say anything of other societies, did I? And there is plenty of representation in the constitution. There is property, there is the protection of life, and there is protection of speech for starters.

    But, regardless, I'll bite... How do you derive from nature a specific set of rights and rules about how they ought to interact? What makes the conclusions you draw from nature superior to the conclusions other people draw from nature or from other sources?
    All possibilities in nature are rights unless they violate the rights of another. Other theories like for example religious ones, excluded possibilities because of religious beliefs, while I'm not excluding anything. Other ideas added things like services and contracts to nature to enable them some kind of togetherness, but in reality there is no togetherness in nature. Sure there is peace and sure there is destruction, but there is no togetherness that comes from nature itself. Togetherness comes from people, and people decide on these things, and no part of nature plays a part.


    In scenarios where people can just act individually with the same effect as they can acting collectively, like I said, yeah, leave it to the individuals. But in scenarios where something can be accomplished by working together that can't be accomplished, or can't be accomplished as well or as efficiently by doing it individually, then yes, the 1 is imposing their will on the other 9 if you don't do it. They are being denied the option to do it correctly.
    No one is stopping you from working together. Take your eight other citizens and get to work.

    For example, education creates what is called a non-excludable benefit. If a kid gets an education, the whole society benefits from that whether they volunteered to chip in or not. So, you can't just have people contribute money only if they feel like it because then everybody would just freeload, the kids wouldn't get educated, and everybody would be worse off as a result. So, we have to decide as a group whether we want to have public education, and require that everybody chip in, or not. If we don't do that just to placate the 1 guy, the other 9 are taking a hit.
    I don't care. I would destroy public education so your example means nothing to me. And things should be excludable and there is nothing you have said that makes me otherwise. You are supporting theft and it matters not what the benefits of that are.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 09:40 PM.

  6. #126
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I didn't say anything of other societies, did I? And there is plenty of representation in the constitution. There is property, there is the protection of life, and there is protection of speech for starters.
    Many societies and political theories and whatnot believe in the freedom of speech, life and property, not just natural law ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    All possibilities in nature are rights unless they violate the rights of another. Other theories like for example religious ones, excluded possibilities because of religious beliefs, while I'm not excluding anything. Other ideas added things like services and contracts to nature to enable them some kind of togetherness, but in reality there is no togetherness in nature. Sure there is peace and sure there is destruction, but there is no togetherness that comes from nature itself. Togetherness comes from people, and people decide on these things, and no part of nature plays a part.
    That just begs the question. How would you know what acts violate the rights of others unless you already know what things are rights? For example, if I assumed that the right to food was a right and that the right to property wasn't, then I would see people refusing to give food to others as a violating of the rights of other people. Any set of rights that you assume could satisfy your standard about things being rights unless they violate the rights of others. You're still just assuming a set of rights to start with based on your personal preferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I don't care. I would destroy public education so your example means nothing to me. And things should be excludable and there is nothing you have said that makes me otherwise. You are supporting theft and it matters not what the benefits of that are.
    If a political theory would be detrimental to society, no society would ever adopt it. It would be a worthless political theory.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Many societies and political theories and whatnot believe in the freedom of speech, life and property, not just natural law ones.
    Fair enough, but do you believe the founders put them under those theories?

    That just begs the question. How would you know what acts violate the rights of others unless you already know what things are rights?
    I observe nature and the rules of "the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights." I think I have said this.

    For example, if I assumed that the right to food was a right and that the right to property wasn't, then I would see people refusing to give food to others as a violating of the rights of other people.
    Food can't possibly be a right since you can't force anyone to do anything they do not desire.

    Property is observable in nature and when those that own are forced to give up what they do not desire too consent is breached. Theft is destruction and breach of consent.

    You can continue to ask any question you want but you will notice I'm very consistent.

    Also, I think you should be aware that imperfection in the past of an idea doesn't mean the idea is bunk.

    Any set of rights that you assume could satisfy your standard about things being rights unless they violate the rights of others. You're still just assuming a set of rights to start with based on your personal preferences.
    I don't think you have proven that.

    If a political theory would be detrimental to society, no society would ever adopt it. It would be a worthless political theory.
    Hardly. Society has practiced dictatorships that have killed millions and it was adopted just fine by the people. People make all kind of mistakes and adopt polices that led to ruin over and over again.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-17-12 at 11:07 PM.

  8. #128
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Far enough, but do you believe the founders put them under those theories?
    No. The historical evidence seems to indicate that basically maybe 25% of the founders were straight up natural law guys. They were all the Christian natural law variety- god gave us certain rights kind of stuff. But, they were not really central to what got put in the constitution. The rest of the founders basically threw them a rhetorical bone from time to time. Like the preamble to the constitution and the 9th amendment. But the substance of the constitution seems to be mostly driven by a strong belief in pluralism. Free speech, for example, is core to pluralism. If people can't speak freely, they can't represent their views in the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I observe nature and the rules of "the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights." I think I have said this.
    Well, like I said, different people see different rights when they look at nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Food can't possibly be a right since you can't force anyone to do anything they do not desire.

    Property is observable in nature and when those that own are forced to give up what they do not desire too consent is breached. Theft is destruction and breach of consent.

    You can continue to ask any question you want but you will notice I'm very consistent.

    Also, I think you should be aware that imperfection in the past of an idea doesn't mean the idea is bunk.
    You're just making that leap out of the blue. You're assuming it is true. That doesn't sound like the hard logical foundation you're characterizing it as.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No. The historical evidence seems to indicate that basically maybe 25% of the founders were straight up natural law guys. They were all the Christian natural law variety- god gave us certain rights kind of stuff. But, they were not really central to what got put in the constitution. The rest of the founders basically threw them a rhetorical bone from time to time. Like the preamble to the constitution and the 9th amendment. But the substance of the constitution seems to be mostly driven by a strong belief in pluralism. Free speech, for example, is core to pluralism. If people can't speak freely, they can't represent their views in the system.
    Those 25% though seem pretty high on the list.

    Well, like I said, different people see different rights when they look at nature.
    That is not an argument.

    You're just making that leap out of the blue. You're assuming it is true. That doesn't sound like the hard logical foundation you're characterizing it as.
    I'm making no leap out of the blue. If I am, tell me how.

    If food was a right would people not be forced to give others food? The answer is yes.
    Is property observable in nature? Yes, it is.
    Is food property? The answer is yes.
    Is it a breach of consent to take it away? Yes, it is.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-18-12 at 12:12 AM.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •