Yes, this is for the common good.
Warning labels and a public awareness campaign should be enough
Government managed healthcare gives them a vested interest in this
Processed food is so darned salty, I won't protest
As long as it's legal for folks to add more salt, I'm okay with it
The government is trying to micromanage our lives! No, this is ridiculous!
Other, please explain
Last edited by UtahBill; 04-22-10 at 12:52 PM.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
But Dr Pepper is good too. However, I could drink Pepsi day in and day out. (and I used to) Just hook me up to a Pepsi IV line. LOL There are days when I want a Pepsi so fricken bad. And, I have one. I just limit my intake to once or twice a week now as opposed to having 5 or 6 a day.
I have one day where I allow myself to eat what I really want. Sometimes, that's pepsi, doritos and chili.
"Good" in this context is an entirely subjective evaluation. That's why we have so many debates about what is the right thing to do. Both sides mistakenly feel that just because they think a law is a good one, it should be shoved down everyone's throat. But they differ on what they think are good laws.
This leads to disenfranchisement, which can lead to civil unrest and eventually the collapse of a society as factions develop that have the sole purpose of trying to force their will upon others uniformly eventually tear each other apart.
This is because any time one group enforces it's morality upon another, the group that is forced to adhere to that morality of the other becomes disenfranchised.
All laws are a reflection of the societal morality, but morality is fluid and subjective.
Thus, if the goal is to preserve the society, decreasing disenfranchisement is prefered to increasing it.
In order to decrease disenfranchisement, the most logical approach is to allow as much variability in legislation as possible to reflect the variability in morality. And there is quite a bit of variability in morality.
That is, of course, if the goal is to prevent discordance amongst the populous. If one is interested in increasing total discord amongst the population of a society, then the best approach is to, every four to eight years or so, continually switch back and forth between the two most prevalent morality systems and implement these rules upon th eentire population.
This will assure that the entire population is disenfranchised at some point during a decade, possibly more than once per decade.
Evidence of this is the liberal disenfranchisement during the Bush Administration compared to the conservative disenfranchisement that exists now under Obama.
And the brilliance of this system of disenfranchisement is that it assures the two factions remain in power because the very thought of the opposing side being in power causes discordance within the population. It isn't even dependent on the laws that are passed, just the threat of laws being passed. This effect can be exacerbated by rabble rousers within each faction.
What it also does is cause the very people who are being disenfranchised people to completely ignore the very simple solution to their disenfranchisement and become willing, even rabid, participants, in their own disenfranchisement.
That very simple solution was what the founders had originally intended when they designed the country. Allow variation in legislation. Don't force what you think is "good" upon those who think it is "bad" and vice versa, don't let them force what you think is bad upon you simply because they think it is good.
Every liberal that is celebrating Obama's administration is setting themselves up for their future disenfranchisement when the conservatives regain power, just as every gleeful conservative set themselves up for their current disenfranchisement by gleefully celebrating the Bush Administration.
The most ****ed up thing is that they never actually stop being disenfranchised. They admit their will is not being implemented by their preferred group adequately, but they prefer to eat the **** prepared by their favorite chefs as opposed to the **** prepared by the other guy's favorite chef.
People like me are the most disenfranchised because we see the solution, and watch as everyone ignores it in favor of nonsense.
Anyway, I know you aren't a big fan of the wordy, wall-of-text replies, so I'll just leave it at that.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
One time when the grandkids slept over at our house, I got up and fed them Chili Cheese Fritos for breakfast..
Think about it, is there really that much difference between fritos and corn flakes?
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
And again, the government is not making a choice for you. Instead, they are giving you more of a choice. Want salt? Add it yourself. Hopefully though, having to make a conscious decision will help more people make the right one.
Mine too.One of my favorite quotes: "Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body. But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, screaming 'Holy ****, what a ride!!' "
Sometimes we must substitute what is best for what is most possible.Indeed. I agree with stopping subsidies. But adding more government regulation to fix the failing government regulation really isn't the way to fix things.
be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars