Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by SaturnFX
Free society as opposed to a closed society ruled by dictators - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, etc etc etc.
Actually, we are in a worse situation. We are in a society ruled by average minds..or rather, politicians trying to win the favor of average minds.
If you live under a dictatorship, you might luck out and have a brilliant benevolent dictator...but in what we have, which is technically a Oligarchy
with some face paint of a constitutional republic, then ya..the average mindsets are running for all time...and thats the good scenario, the worse
case senario is money does the decisions..corporations becoming people, political systems becoming corporate tools...
No man, a free society this is not, and hasn't been for a very, very long time.
And I personally don't believe we want a free society anyhow as I stated...we want a wise society with tons of liberties for the people..This is what
has and always will be constructed by the people.
This type of nanny state governing is encroaching on those freedoms.
Liberties..not freedom...you don't have the freedom to make anthrax at home, you don't have the freedom to sell drugs to others, you don't have many
freedoms..Drinking soda is a liberty you have, and that is what this is potentially effecting...
But it actually doesn't. There is no law that states you cannot drink a million gallons of the stuff a day...this is targetting the company verses
person...if they banned it completely, then it would be effecting your liberty to drink it, but its not.
Its just regulating the container for the substance.
In this particular case the right to sell and consume how much soda you want in a single container.
Selling and consuming is not targeted here. the containers are.
the stuff will still be sold and consumed. the liberty is in tact
I wonder why you won't specifically say you are for or against the ban based on the reason the ban was proposed?
Because this is new york, not florida.
If this was in florida, I would state my disagreement based on the arguments I made in my previous posts (this changes nothing, just adds more
litter)..but I can also see why a state would want to initiate it...more tax dollars
As a smoker, "sin" tax is nothing new to me.
You aren't ashamed by your position are you? Is it unpopular?
BTW I almost never drink soft drinks, my drink of choice is unsweet tea. However, occasionally my gf and I sometimes enjoy a coke at the theater. When
we do we buy one large drink and split it. Under Bloomberg's dictates to the city of New York we would not be allowed to do that. Funny but I doubt
even the communist Chinese regulate drink sizes.
Why make excuses for this?
I am a soft drink fiend. I drink diet though so not to gain 300 lbs for my addiction.
I am a smoker. I don't flip out much when they want to make it harder for me to smoke..I understand the logic behind what they are doing. The
difference here is I don't subscribe to the "free country" bull that some politicians pretend to support (never do..catagorically...no politician ever
suggested in matters of policy to free the country. Taxes will always be paid, roads will always be paved, police forces by the state will always
rome the streets, etc...we don't want a free country...I can't afford the mercs it would take to secure my surroundings)
We live in a society of rules, regulations, and oversight to grow the society. Within this, we are trying to find a good medium between community
order and personal liberties. This is what the US is, has pretty much always been, and nothing will ever (or should ever) change that. We can discuss
the merits of each liberty on its own term..but to believe that this is a free society is beliving in santa claus.
edit on 1-6-2012 by SaturnFX
because: fixed a thing