More Nanny Bloomberg…
…this time defending his proposed banning of the 16-ounce size of sugared drinks.
His article is an almost perfect illustration of how to slide down the slippery slope. In it, he shows no awareness of the difference between bans that are intended to protect those other than the perpetrator (such as the prohibition on smoking in restaurants, which supposedly was instituted because of second-hand smoke—which in itself is a somewhat controversial finding) and those (such as the sugar drink limit) that only protect a person from his/her own acts (the argument that obesity affects everyone by raising health premiums is not one he advances in this article, although it’s a favorite one of the left).
What’s more, Bloomberg seems not to understand the very real difference between rules that expand choice and those that contract it, although he touches on the issue of choice. Bloomberg writes:
Critics claim [banning the 16-ounce size] restricts choice. But, currently, people almost never have the choice to purchase as small as an 8-ounce beverage, which was considered adequate for decades.
Under our proposal, people could still choose to drink as much soda as they want. If 16 ounces (promoted as enough for three people in the 1950s!) is not enough, people could purchase two portions. Is that too much an inconvenience to reverse a national health catastrophe?
Rather than wringing our hands about the obesity epidemic, we in New York City are once again taking action to improve the lives of our residents.
That’s practically a perfect storm of what’s wrong with liberal do-goodiness. Is it even true that a person can’t purchase a small sugared drink in NY? I don’t know, since I never drink the stuff myself, but if so then a nanny-state truly interested in expanding choice would mandate the selling of smaller drinks as well as larger.
But don’t sit on a hot stove until Bloomberg offers that directive. And of course people can choose to drink as much soda as they want, but they can’t choose to buy it in one drink, even if the seller wants to sell it that way.
If Bloomberg actually thinks that banning the 16-oz size drink will “reverse a national health catastrophe,” he’s even more of a fool than I already think he is. And he also doesn’t even deal with the all-important question of whether it is the proper function of city government to take “action to improve the lives of our residents” at the cost of their liberty, even in small things. He’d rather we not bother our pretty little heads about that.
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/Summary_budget_report.shtm
It just means no one is talking about the collapse of the Blue Model (as Walter Russel Meade terms it). Nearly a $5b budget deficit for New York and whoops, they can’t, “The current year’s budget provides evidence that the City may not be able to rely on the materialization of unanticipated revenues to fill budgetary gaps for some time.” Whatever that means.
“… the materialization of unanticipated revenues”
I think that is a reference to a squadron of flying unicorns carrying saddle bags filled with gold.
“.. he’s even more of a fool than I already think he is.”
Much more.
Parker: or knave?
Besides being a ridiculous, downright un-American policy, I can’t believe that the mayor of NYC doesn’t have more important things to tend to. Has the crime rate plummeted to 0%? Is the city officially terror-proof? Doesn’t he need to review & update his city’s snow removal plan?
Bloomberg should remind people that liberty is necessarily diminished when you select submission with benefits. With the passage of “health care reform”, that message will become progressively pervasive.
I see things like this as steps to complete control. The left thinks it can live your life better than you. In their perfect world, you would work, send all of your income to the state, they would then send you back what is determined you should have. It is management by statistics, saving the maximum number of people, don’t worry about personal freedom/responcibility. Do as I say, not as I do.
“. . . he’s even more of a fool than I already think he is.”
The bloom is off the berg, to paraphrase an old aphorism. It just goes to show that in our culture, one needn’t be smart (or wise) to be wealthy.
Neo said: “(the argument that obesity affects everyone by raising health premiums is not one he advances in this article, although it’s a favorite one of the left).”
I find that argument depressing in its implications. What it implies is that the government’s usurpation of authority over certain aspects of our lives justifies even greater usurpations of power in the future.
For example, because government requires everyone to have health insurance, and forces thin people into the same risk pools as obese people, then it follows that government must be given the power to try to regulate obesity out of existence. So, even though nobody really thinks the government has (or should have) the inherent power to regulate what people eat, the fact that what YOU eat affects what MY family pays in health care premiums means that it’s okay for the government to tell people what to eat.
We need to get the government out of people’s lives EXCEPT with respect to those specific things the government was set up to do: building roads and bridges, raising an army, prosecuting criminals, etc. Whenever the government gets involved in other activities, it just results in more taxes and less freedom.
Excellent analysis neoneocon. I differ strongly about one of your collateral points:
Launching second hand smoke into substantially restricted air (e.g., in a restaurant or any place where people are expected to be seated) is a direct battery upon those who are not smoking regardless of whether second hand smoke significantly increases health risks or not. Perhaps the matter of second hand smoke could have been resolve without legislative or regulatory intervention, but that does not mean that a person’s lighting up is not an assault on others.
Conrad:
Exactly.
That is why the left loves that argument so much, and one of the reasons why it loves government-run universal health care so much. It gives the government a wonderful argument to take on more and more control.
Ira:
But that’s another slippery slope.
I happen to HATE cigarette smoke. But just because I find it noxious doesn’t necessarily mean it should be banned from restaurants—although if the citizens of a municipality or state wish to do that by voting to do it, I think they have the power and right to do so (I don’t think the federal government would have that power, but nothing would preclude states from doing it).
The proper remedy, that would preserve liberty, would be to let the marketplace handle it. If there’s a demand for non-smoking restaurants (and there would be), owners would provide them and people would patronize them, and the smokers’ restaurants would be left to the smokers only. Perhaps they even would go out of business, but I’m not sure.
Airplanes and other public places are different, I think. They are not as discretionary to patronize as restaurants are.
But the whole thing raises the other question of where does it stop? What if many people find the smell of onions noxious? (I like the smell of onions, by the way). Should onion-cooking be banned in restaurants, to avoid offending their tender sensibilities? That’s a purposely ridiculous and extreme example, but I think you get the idea.
I’m inclined to see the essential issue as the origin of rights. Are people endowed with inalienable rights, or are rights the product of political process?
Rights derived from political process are transitory. I wonder how Bloomberg would expound on such a fundamental idea.
How can a guy that wealthy be so stupid?
foxmarks: I doubt Bloomberg would even know what you’re talking about. I don’t think it’s on his radar screen.
Neo,
Not sure if he is a knave as in deceitful and I don’t see him as a male servant, but he is definitely a fool. I think he’s like BHO, nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. IMO, Roman is on target. Bloomberg is just another ‘progressive’ that desires to control others in the name of utopia.
Conrad says, “For example, because government requires everyone to have health insurance, and forces thin people into the same risk pools as obese people, then it follows that government must be given the power to try to regulate obesity out of existence. So, even though nobody really thinks the government has (or should have) the inherent power to regulate what people eat, the fact that what YOU eat affects what MY family pays in health care premiums means that it’s okay for the government to tell people what to eat.”
I agree, this is where a mandated, centralized healthcare system will lead. And, it won’t stop there. Beyond dietary czars; there will be alcohol czars, tobacco czars, exercise czars, sleep czars, full body padding czars, and so forth.
And there will be the United States Handicapper General to make everyone equal.
“The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.‎”
Kurt Vonnegut (Welcome to the Monkey House)
“I’m inclined to see the essential issue as the origin of rights. Are people endowed with inalienable rights, or are rights the product of political process?”
foxmarks,
I’m totally with neo on this…. people like Bloomberg do not think about “inalienable rights”. Its a totally foreign concept to them. I suspect that 30-40% of the population believe (although they do not really spend any time thinking about it) that rights are the product of political process.
Parker: and yet Vonnegut was an unrepentant useful idiot on the left. Go figure.
For example, a heart-warming quote:
Boil it down to it’s most fundamental. The government is trying to tell me how big a cup I can hold in my hand as I sit at a table eating. I’m a grown adult. Tell me how that is not entirely absurd. As he says, they’re not limiting how much you can drink because you can buy two. They’re “simply” limiting the size of the cup you can hold in your hand as an adult. What’s next? Are they going to limit us all to sippy cups in case we spill anything?
“and yet Vonnegut was an unrepentant useful idiot on the left. Go figure.”
I gave up ‘figuring’ my fellow humans long ago. My litmus test is “would he/she be a good neighbor”. I would enjoy having Vonnegut as a neighbo,r but I agree Vonnegut was indeed a useful idiot at times. Still, he had moments of wisdom and insight that I value.
I willingly admit that I am a contradiction of ideas and beliefs; although I endeavor to act in a consistent manner. Don’t we all grope our way through this journey? Don’t we all walk a winding path of curves, crossroads, and numerous switchbacks?
“Are they going to limit us all to sippy cups in case we spill anything?”
They will have to pry my sippy cup from my cold, dead fingers.
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
— H.L. Mencken
Parker: well put.
And in my personal life there are plenty of people I’m friendly with who have political views with which I strongly disagree.
But from what I’ve read of Vonnegut’s political views, they were really really pernicious. And he spoke of them as a public figure. And he held those views for his entire long life; he was no kid. So I must judge those views.
That said, I judge his art separately. I enjoy the art of plenty of people whose views I strongly disagree with. However, for whatever reason, even long ago when I was a liberal, I was never taken with Vonnegut’s books. Just couldn’t get through them, although I recall trying with one or two when they were in vogue.
I wonder if Bloomberg and the left realize just how quickly their ‘progress’ will be undone. They seem to be increasingly unrealistic and desperate in their methods.
Neo,
Vonnegut, along with Richard Brautigan and others, were whimsical, inventive, and insightful writers that I enjoyed in my youth. I took from them what was of benefit to me and left the rest. I too separate the artist from his/her art. For example, Neil Young is a ‘useful idiot’ but that does not stop me from enjoying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t00MXZKbW0M
Personal vignette: When I was a 16 year old Iowa farm boy I was allowed to hook up with a 5 combine group of harvesters. We started in North Texas and ended up in Alberta and Manitoba, harvesting wheat as it ripened from south to north. It was my first big adventure. I drove a tractor pulling grain wagons to the local elevators along the way. (This will make no sense to city folk, please excuse me.) And I was enthralled by my fellow harvesters from all across the central plains, they all were older and far more ‘experienced’ than me. I learned a lot about human nature and observed the grandeur of the “fruited plains” with awestruck eyes. The stars at night, sleeping on the ground, were awesome. This song by NY still brings back memories of that time. Thank you NY.
neo-neocon Says:
June 4th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Since a restaurant is a private business on private property, I’d argue that the citizens of a state or municipality do not (or should not) be able to dictate the business owner’s policies.
Precisely. If I’m a smoker and have a choice of a restaurant that allows smoking and one where smoking is prohibited, then naturally I’d tend to gravitate towards the one which allows smoking. But what if the non-smoking restaurant had better food or lower prices? Then I’d have a decision to make. I might choose to have my after-dinner cigarette in my car on the way home instead of in the restaurant in exchange for a better meal. Or not. But it would be my choice, not the government’s. And it would also be the business owner’s choice.
Conversely, if I’m a non-smoker but the restaurant that allows smoking has better food, then I might choose to put up with the smoke for a better meal. Or not.
This is why the Civil Rights Act was so pernicious. It was good so far as it prevented official government discrimination (such as Jim Crow laws), but it went too far in prohibiting private discrimination. Forcing business owners to serve people they did not want to serve was a foot in the door, and it led directly to the government being able pass laws to prohibit smoking on private property.
Either business owners and customers have freedom of choice, or they do not. Increasingly, they do not.
Here’s what is absurd. The idea that progressives are liberal. What the heck is liberal about a control freak progressive? Absolutely nothing.
rickl: the problem with saying municipalities or states don’t have the right to ban smoking in restaurants is this: under what legal principle do they not have the right? The Bill of Rights, which is held to apply to the states as well as the federal government, doesn’t seem to have any provisions that would protect the right to smoke in restaurants. The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce, but the states and municipalities can regulate local commerce in a host of ways. A restaurant has all sorts of health regulations and cleanliness regulations and all that; why not a ban on smoking, if the city’s citizens vote for it? What protected right would that violate?
Neo:
I said “do not (or should not)”.
Yes, I realize that the Constitution doesn’t prevent states and cities from passing all sorts of tyrannical laws. I just don’t think they should.
Sounds like “tyranny of the majority” to me. Doesn’t the business owner have any rights? Suppose he smokes himself. Is he not allowed to smoke on his own property?
What if the “citizens” vote to ban smoking in private homes? What is the limit to this?
Is that too much an inconvenience to reverse a national health catastrophe?
One of the left’s more irritating tics is its adherents’ tendency toward apocalyptic visions. With them, it seems little is just desirable, or undesirable. Every issue is invariably framed as a matter of galactic survival.
Dial back the hysteria, comrades. The sun will not go supernova because of our choices regarding paper or plastic, 16 oz. soft drinks, or (pace Sheryl Crow), toilet paper usage. We are just not that important.
I think to fund programs to reverse this national health catastrophe we need a crushing tax on financial and business news services.
rickl says, “Doesn’t the business owner have any rights? Suppose he smokes himself. Is he not allowed to smoke on his own property?”
Yes. It should be the prerogative of the proprietor to decide if his/her business is smoke free or smoking is allowed. That way consumers choose where they wish to spend their money. If a business owner wants to put up a sign saying no jungle bunnies or spics or slopes or kikes, etc.; it is fine by me because that tells me where I don’t want to spend my money.
rickl: we are in agreement that they should not. What I am saying, however, is that there’s nothing that says they can’t ban it if they happen to want to.
The remedy would be, if you don’t like it, to not live in that city. I believe that’s one of the reasons that smaller entities are allowed more power to ban things, etc. (as long as the ban doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights, etc.), than the federal government is allowed. You can just move to another town that has more sense.
An unintended consequence: Bloomberg: “If 16 ounces … is not enough, people could purchase two portions.”
It is a well-established fact that as size increases (think of a sphere for simplicity) volume increases as the cube while surface area increases only as the square. With the use of larger cups there would be less waste (cups=surface area) than with the use of two smaller cups having the same total amount of volume (drink).
People often wonder why the flyover people dislike the political class in the Northeast corridor. This is a prime reason for that dislike…Uber-Liberal nannyism
Some parents purchase a large size soft drink to share among several kids — because it’s cheaper than buying several small soft drinks, and the parents find the cost / hassle trade-off to be in favor of this way of doing things. Losing that option to save a little money is another unintended consequence of Nanny Bloomberg’s policy.
The smoke question points me to another fundamental question of political philosophy. What are the proper limits of a just government?
I agree that the Constitution enumerates no Federal authority to regulate municipal codes regarding cigarets or soda pops. But where does a Mayor (or council) derive any authority to do so?
In our American model, the people are ultimately sovereign. That’s what the Declaration says. Government can only do things that individual persons can justly do. Gov’t is the conduit of our individual sovereignties.
By what moral paradigm can I go into my neighbor’s house and confiscate his Kools and his Pepsi?
Bloomberg and his comrades are off the mark as to why obesity is on the upswing. I just got back from my 3rd visit to Disneyland in the last 2 years. I commented to my husband that we were observing one of the outcomes of the social redistribution of resources in our culture. Clearly the number of seriously obese people keeps rising. And there they are, mostly indicative of being on the lower-end of the socioeconomic continuum, many riding in what I would presume is a tax-payer paid for cart. Apparently after having eaten, quite a budget in food, they still have money left over to pay for a day at Disney (since the food is free?). I believe that if the “poor” still had to live on their own food and rent budget, you wouldn’t see what we are now seeing. I guess we can file it under “the law of unintended consequences.”
Sharon W: actually, in a society of abundant food resources such as ours, it’s long been the poor who are heaviest—whereas in times of true scarcity, the poor are the ones who starve. The reason is probably that when food is abundant, it is more expensive to eat in such a way that you are slim and yet well-fed, because high calorie high carbohydrate foods are usually fairly cheap (cake, cookies, soda) and pack a lot of caloric bang for their buck, whereas foods such as lean protein, fish, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruit are quite expensive.
It’s not that it’s impossible to eat healthfully on a low budget. Beans are a classic way to do this. But it is more difficult in general compared to grabbing a bag of chips or a box of donuts.
Neo…what if the “Food Stamps”, etc are actually spent on quality food, which frankly I have found to be less expensive than “junk food” or “fast food”. My husband and I raised 3 children here in Los Angeles on 1 income until I went to work to put the 1st one through college. Of course while paying for high-cost tuitions we remained on a budget. We are all trim and healthy (on our own dime). I would stop into Gelson’s (high-end market) on the way into the office from time-to-time to pick up a 1/2 and 1/2 for the office. Every time the area selling expensive coffees and pastries would be swamped with the people that were waiting to go up to clean the houses in the foothills. It was then that the canard that the “poor” can’t afford quality food was put to rest for me. At that time, my husband and I together were earning in the 2% tax bracket and we didn’t imbibe, because we were busy paying our own bills and subject to confiscatory tax rates at the same time. The reason I put the word poor in parenthesis is my sister is a missionary in Mozambique and together we have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as “poor” in our country.
Isn’t that just another nanny state rule limiting choice? The choice of the buisnesses impacted by the regulation?
If there was a market for 6 oz drinks, wouldn’t someone cash in by now?
DonS: yes, of course. I wasn’t recommending the mandating of the sale of small drinks. I was saying that even under Bloomberg’s own arguments it made more sense to mandate the selling of smaller drinks rather than to ban the selling of larger ones.
There might be something to this, it is easier to eat a low carb dinner at a steakhouse then a fast food joint. However, I think there are cultural aspects to this as well, and IMO the cultural decisions have more to do with it then the economic ones.
SharonW: the phenomenon you describe is one I’ve never seen, certainly not in the area where I live. Here the poor actually do not frequent expensive places at all, or even semi-expensive places. You just do not see them there (if there’s a way to visually identify them by clothing, etc.). Perhaps what you describe is more of an LA phenomenon?
Also, I’m wondering whether at least some of those people stopping at the expensive bakery on their way to clean house for the rich weren’t buying things their employers had asked them to purchase for them. Just a thought; don’t know if it’s true, but it’s at least a possibility.
I’ve spent a lot of time in LA, by the way; have a lot of relatives and friends there whom I visit for fairly lengthy periods of time. I used to do a lot of shopping (and just looking!) in Gelson’s, because it had such beautiful produce, etc., and I only recall seeing the rich there (including, quite often, celebrities of various sorts, and a lot of aspiring starlets or perhaps porno stars).
You’re of course to be commended on what you’ve done with your family on a low budget. As I said, it’s not impossible. But it’s not easy.
Yes, Neo, California is it’s own case. More like Greece and Spain than of all the other states would be my guess. In 2007, the state received record revenues and ended up more than $21 billion in debt. Mind you this, without building all the infrastructure preceding generations did w/o this morally outrageous debt. Making sure our “poor”, legal citizens or not, are living lives commensurate with those earning $50,000/yr certainly has contributed to the morass. The Bloombergs of the political sphere proving to be better busybodies than they are administrators have created an incredibly broken culture.
I just saw this comment on another site:
Just yesterday, when I ordered a Quarter-Pounder meal at McDonald’s, the server asked if I wanted it “Bloomberged”…..
His article is an almost perfect illustration of how to slide down the slippery slope.
what happened to “the trick’ of getting it right?
oh, you cant… once on the slide standing on top forever becomes a problem…
better to have not gotten on the slide in the first place… then there is no down to come down to
Launching second hand smoke into substantially restricted air (e.g., in a restaurant or any place where people are expected to be seated) is a direct battery upon those who are not smoking regardless of whether second hand smoke significantly increases health risks or not.
kill the flatulent, those with cologne, those who have hyperhydrosis and sweat too much, and so on…
anyone want to talk about the cigar bar that bloomberg goes to that i will be near in about an hour? its in bayside… its a steak and cigar bar…
what is for me is not for thee
for if it was, then how can i be special?
Artfldgr: what happened to the “trick” of getting it right, in case you didn’t see my replies the first time, was stated here and also here, as well as on several other comments in that same thread.
I reject the common assertion that healthy food is too expensive for poor people. Although it is true that carbs are cheap (ag subsidies play a role), so is bulk produce.
Anyone who can afford a 2-liter soda could have bought a pound of carrots. I see whole chickens regularly discounted below $1 per pound. A ten pound sack of potatoes can be had for the same price as a fast food meal.
Our culture of convenience reaches those who have low incomes. Anyone interested in health has better options for less cost than the people Bloomberg is targeting.
foxmarks: no one is saying healthful food is too expensive for poor people. In fact, I explicitly said it is not (for example, beans).
But in general it is much less calorie-dense. If you are looking at calories per dollar, junk food has it all over health food. And health food takes planning and care to get enough of it to not be hungry, and to not spend too much. A pound of donuts vs. a pound of carrots—no contest in terms of calories per dollar.
no…. thats a rationalization, not a reason.
the reason is simple. If you have ever been on welfare or lived in such an economic area, you would know that the desease is BOREDOM and lack of self control in terms of mediating ones pleasures.
if they were rats they would slam the button till they starved. while this is NOT true of all animals, many animals and many humans self regulate. but their regulation has a general social component not just their own personal component unless they are willing to be individuals apart from a self sorting collective that keeps gate as to who belongs and doesn’t.
We have long ago abandoned education at the level of merit, which sorts by ability. but it ALSO does something else. It fills everyone potential to the fullest. the other side of this coin is vocational education by rules not principals.
“You’re absolutely right about … allowing for UI benefits to be used so that people can start their own businesses.” – Obama’s Labor Secretary
no. that is not possible. because here is what happened that no one told you (but you can find out if you want to waste that much of your life looking to know).
i will try VERY hard to keep it short as possible.
the school system that was created did not always exist, it was mostly a modern creation by progressives and socialists in cahoots with the state. the other system was merit and you rose as high as you could, with the best – the creame – disbursing to even higher potentials.
this was also the golden age of the industrial revolution where bigger and bigger industrial type things were being done.
Philip Dru, and others saw and thought… what could be done and what progress could be made if one could harness this labor and hitch it to the industrial system of production.
from ford, to carnegie, or rather the people who took over that, not the men themselves
Except ford who said. i want to own nothing and control everything. understanding that ownership is control, the ability to do with something as you please, not a paper. if your not free to act as you please within the limits of others freedom, then your not free.
Dewey a communist, went to Russia and came back and its been a royal soviet ride in regimentation and homogenization. and each thing that successfully takes hold justifies to those that are “nudging”, that the people are to freaking stupid. they can be 180 degrees turned around to their goals in life and joyfully believe they are reaching them just over the next horizon.
the school system made a huge shift from full education to the limit of ones abilities, making for unequal outcomes, but a rich and varies society in which different people could fill different roles comfortably within their ability (except for inciting their envy and desire to be more than what they actually are. using the ‘ego’ that when immature, blindly invents behaviors of defense that in the larger scheme works against them thanks to puppet masters)
so as far as the planners could see, it was manufacturing and so forth that was going to be the future. of course such planners hate real progress. progress in terms of Schopenhauer creating destruction and the constant churning of a free market/environment.
if the free market is a jungle, then all these people are Frederick Law Olmsted and the world or rather urban areas are their Central Park. (at the same time this was going on, the idea of Zoos also changed to creating pseudo realities that were real enough to fool the biology’s of the specimens, so they would be healthier)
once the state got control of the schools, and the socialists got control of the state through compromise… and infiltration, misrepresentation, and all kinds of games derived from the sociology papers.
now rather than teach principals and methods to everyone, you taught them vocationally. you limited their options and focused on memory games rather than operational things.
this was beautiful, you would have an army of workers who would then go out and do vocational factory work as all they had to do was memorize the moves and things.
this also had side benefits… it kept them unable to work through the layers and the levels that would reveal the details or flow of things depending on which was needed. when the details revealed something, they gave you big flow, when the flow was to be hidden, they carved up the details and separated them. putting them together so they reflect reality would be needed.
so here you have this planned society of one section of society, and other sections doing things too, to foul it up. which is why successful societies somehow avoid doing this and let nature take its course, but could be gentle about it.
[edited for length by n-n]
In your first example here, you fall into the trap that such requires the state. But does it?
The idea of smoking anywhere you please started when? When was it ok to let it all hang out and screw the others socially as a testimony to unlimited freedom? Do you not remember that such things and other things required permission, and that prior to the social engineering of the culture, people did NOT subject others to their vices so openly. But we forgot or rather, were severed from that culture by feminisms destruction of family and the linear passing on of information and expertise down father lines, and daughter lines (till we can’t even rear kids, we raise them. You rear animals, as they require training to survive in the world; you raise corn and just let them be what they are)
Now. What changed all that? If I remember, what changed it was that the women didn’t like the idea of men fighting so much and made it illegal to punch a rude person in the nose and get away with it. No? All you have to do is watch movies from the silent of the early part of the century, and watch… and the more matriarchal we become, the less violence is shown, the more the social mores break down, crime goes up, and so on.
The doing this, and the removing of weapons never ever stops those who lack control and would bully others and would establish a social custom of ignoring others, and normalizing narcissistic regard for others (Which is to have none). What it stopped was good people policing the cracks of society from the problems, and put social rules into the hands of lawmakers, who believe, magically, that writing words on paper makes behavior change.
I have a colleague, who claims to be a pacifist. Not a real pacifist, but an idiot pacifist, and we discussed the two. The Shaolin monks were real pacifists… they were not slaves forbidden self defense as idiot pacifists are. And so the story of shaolin and other such things is the story of the ability of good to wack bad for being bad. The goods effort to control the bad through civil means does not work, and it’s a feminine way to do things, ergo the left courts women like nutters. The Victorian era and the most oppressive times were NOT made by men, but by women… wealthy self-indulgent women with bad attitudes did not want their meal tickets to go off and run away with a thin young fun scullery maid.
What you seem not to understand is that once you start playing a game, you have already accepted the premise of whether you should play or not at all. I am trying to tell you that some games cant be won, and should not be played… your telling me all games can be played then ignore it just takes the angels to create the perfect player, and that there is no way to make a distinction which you require to prevent what is happening. Which is why these nut jobs taught you as a child to think that way… ie. your part of the machine, and some principals they teach have conflicting more traditional answers from the past, that most are ignorant of. And they are ignorant of it because not to be wont unlock the door for them.
All your trying to do is create a garden, not a jungle. But that is biologically what women want vs men… from their shopping experiences being molded into forests with trails, provident bushes, and vines on the walls showing produce… just look at a store… and since the store is a jungle, and not a garden, they want their husbands to come with them and stand there for no reason protecting them from the wild animals as they focus on pulling crap off the bushes and selecting the best berries.
In your garden, everything is regimented. The bugs are gone, the whole thing is a cartoon, and in the effort to do so, you destroy the natural order and functioning of the jungle that is so generative of ideas and things. After all, your whole garden can be upset by just a bad idea and your garden requires endless police as no one in the garden is allowed to act.
This is why the boys follow thug culture it’s the only male role model strong enough to exist against feminist jurisprudence. So they gravitate to it, rather than more culturally positive things as a response against being told they have to change themselves and become something else to live in the garden.
think how totalitarian this process every medical student gets drummed into them as normal – but has no limits defined to it (so behaving like a Mengele is what happens, and ego does not allow them to see the monsters they are!)
[edited for length by n-n]
The concept of medicalization was devised by sociologists to explain how medical knowledge is applied to behaviors which are not self-evidently medical or biological
The term medicalization entered the sociology literature in the 1970s in the works of Irving Zola, Peter Conrad and Thomas Szasz, among others. These sociologists viewed medicalization as a form of social control in which medical authority expanded into domains of everyday existence, and they rejected medicalization in the name of liberation.
Ivan Illich put forth one of the earliest uses of the term “medicalization”. Illich, a philosopher, argued that the medical profession harms people through iatrogenesis, a process in which illness and social problems increase as a result of medical intervention. Illich saw iatrogenesis occurring on three levels: the clinical, involving serious side effects worse than the original condition; the social, whereby the general public is made docile and reliant on the medical profession to cope with life in their society; and the structural, whereby the idea of aging and dying as medical illnesses effectively “medicalized” human life and left individuals and societies less able to deal with these “natural” processes.
and so you dont think i just crazily insert feminism into everything… (as long as you dont look, you can believe that, but if you read, you cant. see below)
The concept of medicalization dovetailed with some aspects of the 1970s feminist movement. Critics such as Ehrenreich and English (1978) argued that women’s bodies were being medicalized by the predominantly male medical profession. Menstruation and pregnancy had come to be seen as medical problems requiring interventions such as hysterectomies.
but was that a real argument? or an argument over something false? ie. did they create this false idea of control, so they could then transfer that control to themselves (a political body not a medical one)?
beliefs over empiricism
games over honesty
lies over truth
and thats just wiki, which is not a un-scrubbed thing…
what your missing is that first it was a MORAL problem… but as societies morals broke down due to the “unintended” consequences (failure to understand its a dialectic – the interaction changes the whole – not just the part your adjusting as the other parts react to the adjustment)
normally it then moves to a LEGAL problem… and then to a medical/legal issue where the state and doctors collude to deny the freedom of the third person violating the garden of edens rules
in this way, the state milks CIVIL issues and moves them into criminal law, and so then can impose, now finding justification and precedence.
make the pig squeel real or imagined
then use that for precidence
the side that is easiest to make squeel is the side favored, the more stoic, and self actualized side, is to be negated.
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr: Again, you are misreading or misunderstanding what I have written.
Let me make it clear: at no point do I say, or even think, that dealing with second-hand smoke (or anything of that sort) would require the state. Nothing I have said indicates that, either. I am describing and analyzing a situation where the state (actually, a municipality) has banned (or is about to ban) or regulated something. I am NOT advocating it.
neo: I see. If the poor were actually starving, calories per dollar would matter. My hackles raise when nannystaters try to claim that poor people can’t get good food. They can get it, they just don’t want it.
My Progressive city has mandated that all convenience stores stock produce. The theory is that the poor, the tired and the weak can’t get to supermarkets for produce. The result is that the stores have a couple of potatoes and some wilted lettuce on hand to satisfy the ordinance. It’s obvious nobody buys the stuff.
Similarly, my City Overlords subsidize neighborhood farmers’ markets. The theory is that this will put great produce within walking distance of poor and middle-class alike. After three years of markets in my neighborhood, we see almost zero customers from the poor blocks, but plenty of rich suburbanites who stop on their drive home from work.
foxmarks: when I think of poor people, I think of a woman I know who was so poor she didn’t have a phone, and really couldn’t buy much food at all. She ate a LOT of noodles, and was fairly heavy. But in a way she really was starving. And I know what her income was; she was very very very poor. She lived in a basement apartment, very tiny and decrepit.
But of course a lot of people defined as “poor” today are not poor in that same sense. Some probably are, though, and really cannot eat better food. But for some it is a choice, and probably at least partly cultural.
Eeee gads, I’m glad I live in flyover country. The ‘horrors’ described above do not exist in my flyover community. We have our problems, sometimes we do not address them well or with efficiency; but over time we find solutions that at least partially resolve them. And, we (so far) have resisted the temptation to ‘save’ idiots from their idiocy. Thus, idiots tend to move on to the ‘enlightened’ communities on the coasts or Chicago, St. Louis, or the Twin Cities.