Philosophy Now Forum

Please, everybody, all together now, "America, land of the free!"

Addendum:

A judge on Monday invalidated New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants and other eateries, one day before the new law was to take effect. State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban. Mayor Michael Bloomberg had touted the ban as a way to reduce obesity. But beverage manufacturers and business groups had called the law an illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers' personal liberty.


Final Score:
Capitalism 1
Socialism 0

.



I would like to answer that question for you but I refuse to be labeled in the way that you have stated...




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I would like to answer that question for you but I refuse to be labeled in the way that you have stated.

Oh, I'm sorry, what label should I have used for people who don't think other people are capable of properly deciding what size soft drink they should order?

bobevenson wrote:Do any of you liberal, leftist, socialist, oppression-loving totalitarians have any explanation on what went wrong???

Funny you should say that, boob, yes I do. What happened was that someone in a position of responsibility decided that their duty was to protect individuals that do not have full access to the facts from people whose only concern is parting ignorant people from their money. However, the people who have grown rich by peddling sugary carbonated water threatened to expend some of their wealth on legal experts who could make life very difficult for the elected representative. They therefore withdrew their action, so tomorrow you can still spend a dollar fifty on two cents of gassy water containing as much sugar as you need in a week.
God bless America.

uwot wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Do any of you liberal, leftist, socialist, oppression-loving totalitarians have any explanation on what went wrong???

Funny you should say that, boob, yes I do. What happened was that someone in a position of responsibility decided that their duty was to protect individuals that do not have full access to the facts from people whose only concern is parting ignorant people from their money. However, the people who have grown rich by peddling sugary carbonated water threatened to expend some of their wealth on legal experts who could make life very difficult for the elected representative. They therefore withdrew their action, so tomorrow you can still spend a dollar fifty on two cents of gassy water containing as much sugar as you need in a week.
God bless America.

The city didn't withdraw its action, idiot, can't you read? State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid.

bobevenson wrote:The city didn't withdraw its action, idiot, can't you read? State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid.

Oh right, one State Supreme Court Justice has more power than the elected representative of an entire city. How free are the 8 million citizens of New York?

uwot wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The city didn't withdraw its action, idiot, can't you read? State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid.

Oh right, one State Supreme Court Justice has more power than the elected representative of an entire city. How free are the 8 million citizens of New York?

I understand you don't believe in the separation of powers. Christ, I hope you never live in this country!

bobevenson wrote:I understand you don't believe in the separation of powers.

No I don't. How does that make you free?

bobevenson wrote:Christ, I hope you never live in this country!

No I don't. It makes me free.

bobevenson wrote:Addendum:

A judge on Monday invalidated New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants and other eateries, one day before the new law was to take effect. State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban. Mayor Michael Bloomberg had touted the ban as a way to reduce obesity. But beverage manufacturers and business groups had called the law an illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers' personal liberty.


Final Score:
Capitalism 1
Socialism 0

Laws are not good ways to settle social health problems. Better would be to tax it.

Can people buy and drink alcohol anywhere? I'd not then the country is socialist.

The Voice of Time wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Addendum:

A judge on Monday invalidated New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants and other eateries, one day before the new law was to take effect. State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban. Mayor Michael Bloomberg had touted the ban as a way to reduce obesity. But beverage manufacturers and business groups had called the law an illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers' personal liberty.


Final Score:
Capitalism 1
Socialism 0

Laws are not good ways to settle social health problems. Better would be to tax it.

Sorry, the only proper form of taxation is a single non-discriminatory tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

Bernard wrote:Can people buy and drink alcohol anywhere? If not then the country is socialist.

Not only anywhere, but any time, my friend.

United States

For more details on this topic, see United States open container laws.
Drinking in public is illegal in almost all jurisdictions in the United States, with this ban usually extending to include drinking within a moving car (related to drunk driving laws).

Laws against drinking in public are known as open container laws, as the presence of an open container of alcohol is seen as evidence of drinking in public and is far easier to witness and prove than the act of drinking.

Though in some places and circumstances it is accepted, such as in New Orleans or Las Vegas, at some college campuses, or around sporting events – notably at a tailgate party – or when the container is inside a bag, traditionally a brown paper bag.[citation needed]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking ... #section_2