Comments on: Free Choice isn’t Always the Right One

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:43:46 +0000

Minimum wage would be a good thing if Congress had opted to tie the rise in MW to the yearly inflationary rise which averages around 3.3%- but if that had happened, beginning in 1970, it would be approximately 21.50 per hour now.
Then gas prices and everything might not be as bad on our wallet.
But the Congress (both houses, both parties) cowardly decided not to do this, which has opened the door to many problems- illegal immigration, division of poor and middle class, and the disappearance of many blue collar jobs.
No, I would argue that our government has given ( not taken away) us the skewed pay system we now have with regards to the minimum wage.
Do remember, everyone’s wages are tied in some way to the minimum wage, if only by comparison.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:46:23 +0000

Minimum age depresses wages because they mandate how much must be paid even to unskilled labor. Let the market decide what to pay. Trans fats are bad and so are many other things but the govrnment does not belong forcing people to give them up.

If you cut out every bad item you will still die.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:58:31 +0000

You are really missing my point. It’s not that the government always takes your choices away because they are bad for you. Hardly ever, really. The government takes choices away from you because it’s bad for other people when you make those choices, like smoking on airplanes and in restaurants.

I don’t expect much movement on the restriction of fast foods past restrictions like trans fat as you mentioned, and other ingredients that are practically poisons to our bodies. It would be like selling mercury candies and saying let the market decide if they will sell or not.

At some point some things just don’t make sense but a fast food chain isn’t going to change very much unless it is force. Americans in general love brand loyalty. Few people even understood the dangers of trans fats, let alone were seeking out and avoiding purchasing products containing them. We were going to just keep on buying the products and brands we’ve always bought regardless.

This is similar to minimum wage in some sense I think. I don’t think you’d argue the government has taken away our right to work for very little pay. The government has taken the minimum wage choice away from our employers in order to product employees. Minimum wage is as debatable as tobacco taxes or smoking restrictions still but I think it’s a good parallel.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:12:15 +0000

If smoking decreases, there will be something that replaces it, tax- wise. Government abhors a tax vacuum.
This has become life imitates art, as in the film “Thanks For Smoking”, where the government wants to put a skull and crossbones on the packs of cigarettes. Guess what Henry Waxman’s committee wants to put on the cigarette packs? Ta dum! A skull and crossbones.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:07:23 +0000

Is my argument faulty? When Hussein is touting his “healthy lifestyle” Government- run healthcare system, I do feel that fast food is next. There are already places in Cal. that have banned fast food places, and of course, no trans fats.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:04:25 +0000

Also consider that the government is not reasonable- it is a bureaucracy.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:03:13 +0000

My point is that our decisions are being taken from us- whether they are bad decisions are not is not really the point here- it is having the freedom to make those decisions, both good and bad that matter, and it should not be the government that tells us like government is our mommy, that the things we do are not good for us.
Informed decision and intelligence should be the deciding factors in what ever we do. If we choose to engage in bad behavior, bad things will result.
Example- I have been a carpenter for 35 years- should I have been surprised then if, after all that time, I get melanoma? No- nor should it be a surprise if, after forty years of smoking, I get some kind of cancer from the cigarettes, despite my having quit for four years.
Cause and effect- but the thing is, people need the freedom to make the decisions they make.
I knew a man who was 80 years old, who would drink four cups of coffee, eat three eggs, six pieces of bacon, two pieces of toast (with jelly), and light up a Lucky Strike after all that. He smoked two packs a day, and lived to be 86.
e died in bed. Who knows what will kill us?
I know of people who died at 26 from cancer, and they had never had a bad lifestyle.
It is all about the freedom to make your own way in life, not to have the government restrict you any more than is necessary.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:31:59 +0000

To clarify more, my point is simply that I find faulty Blake’s argument that it is about the government deciding for us something we should be allowed to decide our selves. So saying that first the government does this with smoking and then fast food is next isn’t reasonable considering how profoundly different smoking is for those around us compared to eating unhealthy food.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:16:05 +0000

I don’t want to get into a debate over whether or not tobacco should be illegal or whether 2nd hand smoke is as bad as they say, or even why the government doesn’t ban it all together. My point is simply that Blake compares government restrictions on smoking to a slippery slope of drinking and eating fast food and I find that comparison faulty.

Drinking and eating fast food is still something you can do responsibly without affecting others, while smoking is something that affects those around you often with the most careful of smokers.

Slippery slope is often a logical fallacy anyway but that is a debate for another day…

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:41:09 +0000

Adam,
Tobacco is a legal product. If there are concerns then make it illegal and be done with it. It is not about health with government, it is about money. If it were about health they would ban it and make it illegal.

It is just as easy to become addicted to alcohol and alcohol abuse is responsible for more than just drunk driving incidents. It is responsible for billions in lost time from work, the break up of many families and spousal abuse.

You cannot justify one without the other.

Also second hand smoke, while nasty, is nowhere as problematic as they claim. If a business wants to allow smoking then it should be a business decision. If Adam and his wife do not want to go there then don’t.

The issue with taxes is that government uses the taxes to pay for health programs. If more people quit the taxes will have to come from elsewhere and that will be everyone who pays them. I don’t think i twill dry up because government wants people addicted to pay these taxes. Remember, health is not a concern, they do not care. They want the money but it will be impacted by those who do quit and the fewer people who use tobacco the fewer dollars they have for their “programs” which means they will tax others. Remember, these government programs will not be going away even if all smokers do.

Folks, buy from the Indian Reservations. Cheaper and no problems. Support the Indians, not the government.