Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on May 16, 2010, 11:15:53 AM
-
WorldNetDaily, so if anyone has a more mainstream link, please post. It appears to be authentic, but whether it is or not, it seems an interesting point for discussion:
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued.
On the one hand, we of the RKBA counter-argue with hoplophobes whenever they bring up "you need a license to drive" that driving is not in the constitution, but that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right.
The Fed attorneys almost seem to be using the same type of argument here about food. Yet when I read it, the freedom hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Can someone really tell me I don't have the right to eat a Twinkie, even if it's not in the constitution? If they ban commercial sale, would I be a criminal if I procured the ingredients myself and made them at home in my Twinkie lab?
Food is a basic necessity of life. I could live on gruel, but it wouldn't be much of a life.
-------------
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=153133
-
I found a LOT of references with a quick Google search, but none that I would call "mainstream".
(search params: U.S. Attorney "Stephanie Rose" and "Martha Fagg" and "Roger Gural")
DD
-
From my cold, dead, spoon? :)
Anyway, that aside, the Founders were VERY much aware that everything one put into their body was their own damn business - drugs, drinks, food, etc. Why do things like that ever go away? =|
-
Anyway, that aside, the Founders were VERY much aware that everything one put into their body was their own damn business - drugs, drinks, food, etc. Why do things like that ever go away?
I blame it on modern labor-saving devices. A couple centuries ago, people spent more of their time surviving. Nowadays, they have more time for busybody behaviour.
DD
-
That's a good way of looking at things. :)
-
That's a good way of looking at things. :)
Thanky, sir. Now about that PS90 in King Sooper ... :'(
DD =D
-
Really does bring a tear to your eye. Used to go to a sushi bar there in Colorado, open carrying my 12ga side by side "pistol" on my left hip in a homemade bucket holster, and my silenced Browning Buckmark in a homemade holster on my right hip. Open carried.
The owner LOVED me doing that, he said I made it safer for everyone and that I was welcome at any time. He was very sad to see me leave Colorado, and gave me a great honor - as a South Korean, eating with another is extremely complimentary, and the last meal I had there, he sat with myself and my SO, ordered for us (for which his sushi chef went all-out) and ate. He never did allow me to pay that last bill. :)
-
I don't do sushi, but that's an impressive story.
Perhaps I could do something about all that sushi-eating going on. I've got all this time on my hands and nothing to do... ;/
DD
-
:laugh:
Before I forget, I injured my ankles back in CO again and have walked with a cane since. When I came into the sushi bar with the cane for the first time, the owner saw me sitting down at the bar, walked right over, said hi to me very happily, saw the cane, asked if he could see it.
He grabs the handle and shaft, and starts pulling - "How you make knife come ouuuuu?!" :D :D :D :D
Marvin is quite a character, that's for certain.
-
Nowadays, they have more time for busybody behaviour.
DD
"People got to much time on their hands" <insert German accent> has always been one of my Dad's favorite sayings. He and my mom both grew up in war ravaged areas during WW2 so it's really hard for them to fathom how people can see stuff like this as important. They're more of a mind of, "they're complaining that people have food to eat?"
-
For the sake of this post I am going to assume that this is true.
Now this is exactly the problem I was trying to allude to in the healthcare thread a while back. Since a lot of people refuse to even consider healthcare a right (FTR I wasn't claiming that free healthcare was) because it wasn't explicitly listed, it leaves a huge freakin hole. There are a lot of things not explicitly listed in the BoR.
I think stuff like the right to choose your own food, breathe air, etc were so incredably obvious there was no need to address them. IMO the founding fathers probably figured that if the gov ever tried to tell people what to eat there would be larger systemic problems. They would be correct.
Therefore, I do believe that there are certain concepts not listed in the BoR that are fundamental rights.
-
IMO the founding fathers probably figured that if the gov ever tried to tell people what to eat there would be larger systemic problems. They would be correct.
QFT.
-
Those arguments are so frothing-at-the-mouth hilarious, I desperately want them to be true.
-
When Twinkies are outlawed, only outlaws will have Twinkies.
-
You can take our lives, but you'll never take our TWINKIES!!!!!!!!!!
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi6.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy233%2Fbtgoober%2Fposted%2520pix%2Ftwinkie.jpg&hash=bee56d09b2a1bdaab699bced8a29fe6404208eda)
DD
-
The Good Humor man gets it if I can't have my ice cream bar!
-
Now this is exactly the problem I was trying to allude to in the healthcare thread a while back. Since a lot of people refuse to even consider healthcare a right (FTR I wasn't claiming that free healthcare was) because it wasn't explicitly listed, it leaves a huge freakin hole.
Healthcare can not be a right, because it requires one person to work for another. For me to have a right to healthcare, I must have someone provide it to me under all conditions. But what if every doctor in the country quit practicing medicine? I have had my right violated, but who do I sue?
No "right" can ever require one man to serve another.
end or thread veer. For now. :angel:
-
new business for me blackmarket chef! i'd have fun with that
-
Healthcare can not be a right, because it requires one person to work for another. For me to have a right to healthcare, I must have someone provide it to me under all conditions. But what if every doctor in the country quit practicing medicine? I have had my right violated, but who do I sue?
No "right" can ever require one man to serve another.
end or thread veer. For now. :angel:
Thanks. I don't have to say that now.
Healthcare isn't a right not because it isn't listed. It isn't a right because someone else has to provide it.
I don't have a right to eat, because that implies someone else has to provide food. I do have a right to earn my food and choose whatever I want to eat without government interference, though. Kinda like healthcare.
-
I grow a large percentage of my own. My garden is just under 1/4 acre and growing.
I'm considering adding meat rabbits and goats to the mini-farm.
I've raised pigs but they can be a pain in the butt.
-
I don't have a right to eat, because that implies someone else has to provide food. I do have a right to earn my food and choose whatever I want to eat without government interference, though. Kinda like healthcare.
Which was my point. Now since access to these markets is not explicitly written anywhere (that I am aware of) as a right, what is the basis of this claim? Keep in mind I am not disagreeing, but this argument is more emotional than factual.
Does this mean that this view point is any more valid than an opposing one? We could split hairs discussing how the interstate commerce clause is interpreted, that interpretations deviation from the original meaning, but I am going to assume the modern interpretation is the one that applies.
This means that the gov indeed does have the right to regulate the food industry (which it has extensively for a century). Now where does the state's right end? It would appear that it doesn't, since no particular food is considered a protected right. Even if the constitution were interpreted to mean that the fed does not have the right to ban twinkies, the individual states could since twinkies are not a protected right.
This is why I have always claimed that people have rights not explicitly listed. It simply wasn't necessary 220ish years ago, since no one would have dreamed that this level of micromanaging was even possible, let alone probable.
This also means that, if my claim is correct, exactly which rights a person has, and how far they go, is a legitimate debate. Unfortunately it is generally an emotional one, so very little is ever accomplished.
-
alex,
Were you unaware that your concerns were brought up during the debate over whether to adopt the constitution? One argument against a written Bill of Rights (which the const. did not originally have), was that any rights not listed would be denied.
As I think someone has already mentioned, by the time we're discussing the validity of a right to eat what you want, a written bill of rights is not really the problem anymore. =(
-
No "right" can ever require one man to serve another.
Jury trial?
-
1. The jury trial is service to society as a whole. It is not the same as being required to serve another individuals basic needs. See number 2, below.
2. Unlike food, or medical care, no one requires a jury trial as a matter of basic human existence. A jury trial is required when the state charges a (presumably innocent) person with a crime. If the state is going to put you on trial, they better durn well protect your rights while doing so.
Point two also applies to public defenders, anyone working for the prison system, etc.
-
WorldNetDaily, so if anyone has a more mainstream link, please post.
Doesn't include that exact quote, but is Time mainstream enough?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1598525,00.html
FWIW, I'm somewhat lactose intolerant, but can still handle raw dairy just fine. Milk comes from the cow with all those fancy enzymes you can buy for lactose intolerance, but they break down from the heat of pasteurization. When I worked in cheese production, I used to get raw cream and milk straight off the truck fairly often. There were a few of us who could judge the butterfat and overall solids within 0.3% by taste and texture. It got really entertaining when we would stand around the lab arguing with the test equipment.
-
Y'all are forgetting the basic premise of our Constitution, though:
The Bill of Rights and COTUS were not enumerations of our rights. They were enumerations of SURRENDERED rights, held by the people, and given to the Government as Powers to enforce the will of the People.
The 10th amendment is key to understanding that.
I have a right to make a tuna sandwich on rye with the ingredients in my fridge. Even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the US or AZ Constitutions. I have a right to wear a hat made from pancakes. I have a right to blame Fistful.
I DON'T have a right to make Fistful pay for whatever (that would be a function of a civil law suit, which primarily deals with breach of contract and has little to do with Constitutional or US Code issues). I do have a right to SEEK to make Fistful pay for whatever. I don't have a right to the tuna and rye at the Grocery store. I do have a right to purchase that tuna and rye at the fair market price offered to all other public customers of that store. I don't have a right to force Aunt Jemima to MAKE my pancake-hat. I may bid competitively for her time against other parties interested in her pastry-tailoring, however.
But all of those elements deal with... (wait for it)...
Interpersonal relationships outside of Government.
There are no RIGHTS in interpersonal relationships outside of Government. There is only Contract.
-
Can someone really tell me I don't have the right to eat a Twinkie, even if it's not in the constitution? If they ban commercial sale, would I be a criminal if I procured the ingredients myself and made them at home in my Twinkie lab?
I think the cat is out of the bag here.
Federal subsidies for corn and soy (and wheat?) are, in large part, pork for the animal farming industry. Cut those subsidies and maybe we can talk about whether it is or isn't right for the federal government to use force, directly or indirectly, to change food production and consumption patterns.
The federal government already bans lots of bad stuff from foods. Poisons, certain dangerous organics, radioactive materials, etc... would it make any difference if some heavy metals, or benzene, tasted good at levels that did not produce acute symptoms, or would they still be banned?
I don't think even the most radical raw food diet advocates would propose making it illegal for people to eat whatever they make themselves. The issue is primarily what should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold as prepackaged foods (grocery) or served foods (restaurants), because at that point it's a commercial enterprise, targeted at a different customer (people who aren't going to make their own meals). What tastes best is often absolutely horrible for us, because our taste buds are not evolved to and the people making the food are typically not eating it. They have no incentive to make things healthier beyond the minimum they can get away with to avoid public outrage as more media attention shines on food ingredients. The majority of consumers do not care what's on the ingredient label beyond what the media tells them is horribad.
I very much doubt you can make twinkies from scratch from ingredients found in grocery stores. You can, however, bake somewhat similar things from ingredients you can find, which would also most likely cause fewer health problems.
"The core ingredients in Twinkies have been the same for decades: flour, sugar and water. Deconstructing the Twinkie is like trying to deconstruct the universe. Some people look at the sky and think it's beautiful; others try to count the stars. We think the millions of people who have made Twinkies one of the most popular snacks in American history would agree that Twinkies just taste great." --quote from the manufacturer of twinkies, in 2007.
[barf] Of course, if things that JUST TASTE GREAT end up causing problems, there are pills and surgical procedures for that.
-
I think the cat is out of the bag here.
Federal subsidies for corn and soy (and wheat?) are, in large part, pork for the animal farming industry. Cut those subsidies and maybe we can talk about whether it is or isn't right for the federal government to use force, directly or indirectly, to change food production and consumption patterns.
The federal government already bans lots of bad stuff from foods. Poisons, certain dangerous organics, radioactive materials, etc... would it make any difference if some heavy metals, or benzene, tasted good at levels that did not produce acute symptoms, or would they still be banned?
I don't think even the most radical raw food diet advocates would propose making it illegal for people to eat whatever they make themselves. The issue is primarily what should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold as prepackaged foods (grocery) or served foods (restaurants), because at that point it's a commercial enterprise, targeted at a different customer (people who aren't going to make their own meals). What tastes best is often absolutely horrible for us, because our taste buds are not evolved to and the people making the food are typically not eating it. They have no incentive to make things healthier beyond the minimum they can get away with to avoid public outrage as more media attention shines on food ingredients. The majority of consumers do not care what's on the ingredient label beyond what the media tells them is horribad.
I very much doubt you can make twinkies from scratch from ingredients found in grocery stores. You can, however, bake somewhat similar things from ingredients you can find, which would also most likely cause fewer health problems.
"The core ingredients in Twinkies have been the same for decades: flour, sugar and water. Deconstructing the Twinkie is like trying to deconstruct the universe. Some people look at the sky and think it's beautiful; others try to count the stars. We think the millions of people who have made Twinkies one of the most popular snacks in American history would agree that Twinkies just taste great." --quote from the manufacturer of twinkies, in 2007.
[barf] Of course, if things that JUST TASTE GREAT end up causing problems, there are pills and surgical procedures for that.
Wow, that's a great lot of nonsense.
If I'm not mistaken, there's entire sections in grocery stores and even specialized grocery stores that offer premade health food. And "organic" food. And "healthy choices" selections. People DO have a choice on what food to eat.
Your problem is some people choose not to eat those. And since you don't like their decision, you want to simply remove the choice of anything you deem to be "unhealthy".
-
I guess this means you can possess Rick Krispies cereal and you can possess marsh mallows. But, if you possess both at the same time, that is constructive possession of rice crispy treats.
-
The majority of consumers do not care what's on the ingredient label beyond what the media tells them is horribad.
I have a God-given, natural, and, if I were a US citizen, I would also have a Constitutional right not to care. I could go on forever about whether or not people care about their diets, but frankly, I don't care.
Because I already live in a society where people who believe this sort of stuff are in charge. I live in a society where bloody airguns are illegal, poker is illegal (playing! Poker! In your own apartment with your buddies! Is illegal!), where motor racing is still illegal, where importing food into the country is illegal unless it is approved by rabbis, where milk (MILK!!!) is the most expensive, per gallon, in the entire world because of regulations. Because I know that once we let people ban stuff because it raises 'healthcare costs', or is not right for you, people will ban anything.
Remember that old quote about the guy who tortures you because he feels it's his moral duty, and how that guy will never stop? That was a lie. The worst monster is the monster who has been persuaded his moral duty and his self-interest coincide. If you cut people loose with the idea that they can ban you from doing stuff both for your own good and to simultaneously cut their own bills, they will never stop. They'll never have shame, or mercy, or reason, they'll just come up with more stuff to ban forever. They'll tax twinkies, and then they'll ban them, too, and they'll ban smoking, and anything they can get away with.
On this argument, there's nothing morally wrong with a 73% tax on all new cars (after all, less cars = less car accidents, right?), and a ban on possession of gold bullion, and…
What you're basically arguing is that they can ban any activity that's bad for your health.
You're arguing that the idiocy I experience every single day, where about half of the things I want to do for my pleasure is banned, and the other half is taxed into extinction, is moral and good and well-deserved. And you think this should actually be inflicted on your fellow Americans too? Seriously?
Well, no. I don't deserve to live in a universe without damned Twinkies.
If I want to stuff flour and sugar up my gullet until I pass out, well that's my right.
It's not about whether healthcare costs go up or down.
It's about my children, and my children's children, not living in a universe like this.
If I want to make sure my son's world has homeschooling, and guns, and cars, and poker, and basic individual freedom in it, then it also has to have Twinkies.
God bless Twinkies, and may God continue to Bless America.
-
I like to quote Orwell, Jefferson (Thomas, not George), Locke, Hyek, and many others renowned for their writings on liberty.
This time, however, I will quote someone less notable who has, nonetheless captured the essence:
"We exercise our freedom to its fullest when we are at our stupidest."
----Penn Jillette
"We need to protect other people's stupid to save freedom for all of us."
----Penn Jillette
-
I know what the Fed want me to eat--and it's all too "organic." >:D
-
I have a God-given, natural, and, if I were a US citizen, I would also have a Constitutional right not to care. I could go on forever about whether or not people care about their diets, but frankly, I don't care.
Your problem is some people choose not to eat those. And since you don't like their decision, you want to simply remove the choice of anything you deem to be "unhealthy".
Okay. Eliminate all food subsidies, and eliminate the FDA. Then we can start at zero and figure out exactly whether we need or want to amend the constitution to regulate food and drugs. That is absolutely never going to happen.
Where does that leave us? We have a half-cooked agency tasked with protecting consumable food and drugs, and an entrenched food industry that will do just about anything they can to make profits, even if it means producing the most unhealthy food imaginable.
Why aren't government subsidies going toward fresh produce, instead of corn and soy feed that predominantly end up in the supermarket in the form of poor-grade meats and chemically mangled vegetable oil? Is this a good use of our taxdollars? Who is really reducing consumer choice here? If consumers see cheap meats and dairy and good-tasting foods with hydrogenated vegetable oils for cheap, why should they choose more expensive other options?
(There are other areas where fixing subsidies may not help fix diets; for instance, adding fruit to foods will never be cheaper than adding raw sugar, but at least fixing subsidies would be a start. And even if taxes were later artificially added onto certain foods or ingredients based on rough scientific data, I fail to see how that's categorically worse than handing out subsidies to whichever industry has the best lobbyists, with zero regard to health implications.)
If I'm not mistaken, there's entire sections in grocery stores and even specialized grocery stores that offer premade health food. And "organic" food. And "healthy choices" selections. People DO have a choice on what food to eat.
They have the choice, but they don't choose the obvious choice. As best I can tell, nutrition labels and ingredients lists don't even register with the average person. They sometimes won't even attempt a healthier choice if they've had someone explain it to them. I saw this recently and most dramatically with someone I know. Diagnosed with high cholesterol. I asked what this person ate. Milk, meat (red), more meat (chicken), more dairy, more dairy, more meat (shrimp). Paraphrasing: "Don't you think cutting way back on that stuff would be a good idea?" "Nope! Doctor said lipitor. There's no way changing my diet could reduce cholesterol enough." "Well, you could try cutting back for a month and then have your cholesterol checked again to see what effect it has." "Nope. The doctor said lipitor, and I know it will work because it's a drug designed to lower cholesterol." :banghead:
-
Where does that leave us? We have a half-cooked agency tasked with protecting consumable food and drugs, and an entrenched food industry that will do just about anything they can to make profits, even if it means producing the most unhealthy food imaginable food most people want to eat.
FTFY
-
Okay. Eliminate all food subsidies, and eliminate the FDA. Then we can start at zero and figure out exactly whether we need or want to amend the constitution to regulate food and drugs.
Sounds good to me.
-
Okay. Eliminate all food subsidies, and eliminate the FDA. Then we can start at zero and figure out exactly whether we need or want to amend the constitution to regulate food and drugs. That is absolutely never going to happen.
So your argument is, since we can't do it the constitutional way, we should just forget about the Constitution?
-
I don't deserve to live in a universe without damned Twinkies....God bless Twinkies, and may God continue to Bless America.
Preach it, brother Micro! Preach it!
-
If only we were so lucky that they were dumping raw sugar into things instead of HFCS.