Paternalism run amok!

[YorkVol]

The combination of Venti Grande and Big Gulp drinkers may make this back fire for Bloomberg.. .

 

[YorkVol]

I also noted in the article that it doesn't apply to diet sodas, which have been proven to have a triggering effect that contributes to obesity. So this is really a war on sugar, not obesity.

 

[Panthro]

Who did not see this coming when the first bans on smoking in private establishments were introduced?



Unfortunately, anyone who supported bans on smoking has no principle to stand upon and oppose this measure taken by Bloomberg.

How do you figure? Me consuming a large sugary beverage doesn't affect the guy sitting at the booth next to me.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

India, Germany, the UAE, etc. seem to do just fine without speed limits in many areas; when accidents are caused and individuals are injured as the consequence of recklessness and/or negligence, they are dealt with severely. Guess what? Those ex post punishments serve very well as deterrents.

Would you care to discuss which areas they do and don't have speed limits? Allow me to help... they do have speed limits in cities, towns, and communities where there are more vehicles and more people on the street, and they don't have speed limits (not enforced, but recommended) on expressways where there are fewer vehicles and fewer people. If someone wants to drive 150 mph on the autobahn where there is less risk of harming anyone other than themselves then that is fine with me... which is what I stated in my previous post.

Are you suggesting that speed limits are unnecessary and/or should not be enforced within city limits? After all, we never had or needed them before so why should government have stepped in to create this law. I'm sure after enough people died in accidents and people eventually learned that it wasn't safe to drive 150 mph in the city that all the idiots would have eliminated themselves... evolution in process.

traffic enforcement is simply a revenue producer for the local/state govt. The enforcers are its collectors

Not disagreeing that this may be an end result of the law, but it was not the purpose or original intent of the law.

 

[BenGrimm]

That is patently untrue. They cannot do so in NYC.

Then move your office outside of NYC to somewhere that allows it. Simple as that, no?.

That is correct, you cannot go to a live game unless you feel as though you should dictate what someone else can do with their private property. Should I be able to simply walk into your house without your permission? Then, once inside, should I be allowed to dictate the rules of your house to you?

Home and business are two different things. Business that are open to the public give their permission for you to come onto their property.

Restaurants and retail are private establishments. Your argument regarding "public places" does not apply.

Again, once you open your business to the public then you also open your business to laws that protect the public. This really gets into the debate about where public protection by the government comes into play.

 

[Thrasher865]

Individuals who play loud music irritate me, even in my own home. They affect my health (insofar as my hearing is already damaged and sometimes they interrupt my REM sleep), my finances (insofar as I have to run my A/C to keep the noise out on some nights, instead of just keeping the windows open and allowing the breeze in), and my comfort. They still have the right to play their music louder. I can move; I can install thicker windows.

No, they don't. Call the police next time, fool.

You just ignore it when you are wrong? Your rights to sleep in your home undisturbed are protected, just as my rights to have a burger without inhaling toxins and foul odors is.

 

[BenGrimm]

I also noted in the article that it doesn't apply to diet sodas, which have been proven to have a triggering effect that contributes to obesity. So this is really a war on sugar, not obesity.

That is silly. Artificial sweeteners are much worse for you than real sugar and even HFCS.

Does the law prohibit buying a second serving? If not then the law really isn't doing much except limiting how much you can carry in your hand at one time.

 

[therealUT]

Would you care to discuss which areas they do and don't have speed limits? Allow me to help... they do have speed limits in cities, towns, and communities where there are more vehicles and more people on the street, and they don't have speed limits (not enforced, but recommended) on expressways where there are fewer vehicles and fewer people. If someone wants to drive 150 mph on the autobahn where there is less risk of harming anyone other than themselves then that is fine with me... which is what I stated in my previous post.

Most cities and towns in India and the UAE do not have speed limits; the ones that do simply have posted speed limits but enforcement is mostly confined to assessing fines/punishments after accidents.

I am fine with posted speed limits and severe punishments for those who cause accidents while driving in excess of the posted speed limits. That is the deterrent.

Are you suggesting that speed limits are unnecessary and/or should not be enforced within city limits? After all, we never had or needed them before so why should government have stepped in to create this law. I'm sure after enough people died in accidents and people eventually learned that it wasn't safe to drive 150 mph in the city that all the idiots would have eliminated themselves... evolution in process.

They should only be enforce ex post an accident in which damage/injury result.

 

[therealUT]

You just ignore it when you are wrong? Your rights to sleep in your home undisturbed are protected, just as my rights to have a burger without inhaling toxins and foul odors is.

How am I wrong; I think individuals have a right to play their music, on their property, as loud as they want. Whether or not I can call the police, I will not since I do not agree with the law they would be enforcing.

 

[therealUT]

Then move your office outside of NYC to somewhere that allows it. Simple as that, no?

As long as the federal government comes out and declares that it no longer stands for the protection of individual liberty, then yes, it is that simple. Until then, our "Land of the Free" is just hypocrisy.

Home and business are two different things. Business that are open to the public give their permission for you to come onto their property.

Private property is private property. Anyone should be able to run their private property as they so please. Simply because one chooses to sell goods/services on their private property does not make that property public and no longer their domain to do with as they please.

 

[dreVol]

as an individual, why should I have the right to dictate a private entity's operation?

if a bar wants to let its patrons smoke, what right does an individual have to force the bar to ban smoking? supporting the ban suggests a support for the position that an individual, through government force, can dictate how a private entity operates. people like to frequent sports bars with a variety of tv's playing different games. the constant flashing of colors and lights is likely hazardous to those with epilepsy. should the government ban tv's from privately owned businesses b/c epileptics are unable to frequent said businesses?

the customer has the right to not patronize businesses he/she dislikes. the business should equally have the right to cater its business to its clientele.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Most cities and towns in India and the UAE do not have speed limits; the ones that do simply have posted speed limits but enforcement is mostly confined to assessing fines/punishments after accidents.

An interesting article, albeit from 4 years ago. Referencing India for countries that don't have speed limits was brilliant.

Speed limits rise as India falls in love with the car | World news | guardian.co.uk

India, set to become the fastest growing car sales market in the world, bowed to the inevitable today when the government indicated it would raise the country's speed limits for the first time since 1989.

The change, from a maximum top speed of 80 kph (48 mph) to 100 kph (60 mph), has been spurred on by a roads revolution in India, the centrepiece of which is the 3,650-mile Golden Quadrilateral highway, the largest infrastructure project undertaken since the country became independent in 1947.

Baig said the new limit would have been impossible a decade ago because the average Indian car was not safe to drive at such speeds.

Despite the new speed limits, for most drivers in India life is still lived in the not-so-fast lane.

Cars are second class citizens on most of the country's roads, which are packed with cows and carts, and their owners can do little more than slowly pick their way through a maze of decrepit backstreets and gridlocked intersections.

 

[hndog609]

How am I wrong; I think individuals have a right to play their music, on their property, as loud as they want. Whether or not I can call the police, I will not since I do not agree with the law they would be enforcing.

I'm a little confused with this one as it is, in fact, a direct conflict of what "they" want to do (play loud music) that interferes with what you want to do (say, get a peaceful nights sleep) in your own home. So now you're going to argue that what someone does in their own home is acceptable even if it infringes on the lives of others in theirs?

As for the "no harm = no wrong" I think that may have it's limits too. Scenario; a guy is shooting at me. Fortunately for me he seems a lousy shot but he's doing his damndest and at any point he could just get lucky. With this in mind I draw my own weapon and fire a killing shot.

Is it justified that I killed him? He had done me no harm and, in fact, might have run out of ammo before managing to do so. Is it possible to be doing something where lethal force is an acceptable response and it not be understandable that the action in question would not be illegal?

 

[therealUT]

An interesting article, albeit from 4 years ago. Referencing India for countries that don't have speed limits was brilliant.

I lived in India last year; there is no enforcement of speed limits in Hyderabad, Chennai, and Bangalore unless it is ex post an accident. Those are major cities (each has populations of over 5M) and, while the majority of individuals with cars have cars that do not go very fast, there are plenty of individuals in those cities who own BMWs, Mercedes, Porsche, etc.

If you want to go further and point out that 96,000 people are killed in car crashes in India (according to that report) remember it is out of a population of over 1B; 37,000 individuals were killed in car accidents in 2009 in the US (out of a meager 300M). Further, while I would estimate that only 1/3 of Indians own automobiles, I would guess that at least another 1/3 own motorcycles. So, we are probably looking at 96,000 fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents out of 667M in India (where speed limits are not enforced), against 37,000 out of 300M in the U.S.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I lived in India last year; there is no enforcement of speed limits in Hyderabad, Chennai, and Bangalore unless it is ex post an accident. Those are major cities (each has populations of over 5M) and, while the majority of individuals with cars have cars that do not go very fast, there are plenty of individuals in those cities who own BMWs, Mercedes, Porsche, etc.

If you want to go further and point out that 96,000 people are killed in car crashes in India (according to that report) remember it is out of a population of over 1B; 37,000 individuals were killed in car accidents in 2009 in the US (out of a meager 300M). Further, while I would estimate that only 1/3 of Indians own automobiles, I would guess that at least another 1/3 own motorcycles. So, we are probably looking at 96,000 fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents out of 667M in India (where speed limits are not enforced), against 37,000 out of 300M in the U.S.

India has the highest number of road accidents in the world | Asia | DW.DE | 29.04.2010

Road accidents have earned India a dubious distinction. With over 130,000 deaths annually, the country has overtaken China and now has the worst road traffic accident rate worldwide.

Great read... also supports your concept of not worrying about drunk driving until/unless deaths are involved.

 

[therealUT]

I'm a little confused with this one as it is, in fact, a direct conflict of what "they" want to do (play loud music) that interferes with what you want to do (say, get a peaceful nights sleep) in your own home. So now you're going to argue that what someone does in their own home is acceptable even if it infringes on the lives of others in theirs?

Of course it is acceptable. There are ways in which I could solve that problem (install thicker windows, turn on the a/c, etc.) I can secure and defend my property from noise and light pollution, that does not give me the right to dictate what another individual does on their own property.

As for the "no harm = no wrong" I think that may have it's limits too. Scenario; a guy is shooting at me. Fortunately for me he seems a lousy shot but he's doing his damndest and at any point he could just get lucky. With this in mind I draw my own weapon and fire a killing shot.

Is it justified that I killed him? He had done me no harm and, in fact, might have run out of ammo before managing to do so. Is it possible to be doing something where lethal force is an acceptable response and it not be understandable that the action in question would not be illegal?

It is perfectly understandable to say that one can kill another even though the other is not acting contrary to law (this is happens all the time in war). What it boils down to is a supersession of rights; i.e., for A, A's right to A's life supersedes B's right to B's life and vice versa. Killing someone, as the only way to preserve my life, when I feel reasonably and imminently threatened is morally justified.

 

[therealUT]

India has the highest number of road accidents in the world | Asia | DW.DE | 29.04.2010



Great read... also supports your concept of not worrying about drunk driving until/unless deaths are involved.

India also has the highest official population in the world (China's is an estimate; India's is based on a census). Therefore, it has the highest gross number of fatal accidents. 130,000 out of 1.2B is only 0.011% (the U.S. rate is 0.012%). In one country, there are very strict rules of the road and preventive law enforcement measures; in the other, there are not (combined with an absolutely abysmal health care system in which if one gets in a major crash in India, they are much more likely to die than if one were in a major crash in the U.S.) And, imagine that, the percentages come out nearly equal.

 

[Thrasher865]

It is perfectly understandable to say that one can kill another even though the other is not acting contrary to law (this is happens all the time in war). What it boils down to is a supersession of rights; i.e., for A, A's right to A's life supersedes B's right to B's life and vice versa. Killing someone, as the only way to preserve my life, when I feel reasonably and imminently threatened is morally justified.

Okay. If I ever see you out driving drunk, I'll kill you and try this defense in court.

 

[Thrasher865]

Further, while I would estimate that only 1/3 of Indians own automobiles, I would guess that at least another 1/3 own motorcycles. So, we are probably looking at 96,000 fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents out of 667M in India (where speed limits are not enforced), against 37,000 out of 300M in the U.S.

Cool, if statistics don't help your argument, make them up. Fudge the numbers a little.

 

[therealUT]

Okay. If I ever see you out driving drunk, I'll kill you and try this defense in court.

So, if you see me drunk driving, the only way to preserve your life is to kill me? It is not to get out of the area, if you actually felt imminently and directly threatened? Or, do you just not know how to read?

Cool, if statistics don't help your argument, make them up. Fudge the numbers a little.

What is fudged? The first article he cited quoted 96,000 motor vehicle accidents per year in India (that article was from 2012); the second, quoted 130,000 (that article was from 2010). Do you think that India and America have the same populations? Don't you think population is important with regard to these statistics?

Moreover, over 40% of the motor-vehicle fatalities in India are from motorcycles (which everyone drives); combine the fact that families will load three to five persons on a motorcycle (plus a goat at times...usually on Sunday), and then drive on roads that are covered in dirt, sand, potholes, etc. and throw a few pigs and waterbuffalo into that road and you are looking at much more of an explanation for the motor-vehicle fatalities in India than the simply fact that their posted speed limits are rarely, if ever, enforced.

 

[Thrasher865]

What is fudged? The first article he cited quoted 96,000 motor vehicle accidents per year in India (that article was from 2012); the second, quoted 130,000 (that article was from 2010). Do you think that India and America have the same populations? Don't you think population is important with regard to these statistics?

"I'm just gonna guess and say about 1/3 of people in India only drive motorcycles, so I'm gonna adjust these here statistics accordingly"

-trut

I think I got that quote right.

And the post about you drunk driving was obviously hyperbole. No, I don't think it fits. I do, however, think your argument on the DUI topic is dumb.

 

[Thrasher865]

Moreover, over 40% of the motor-vehicle fatalities in India are from motorcycles (which everyone drives); combine the fact that families will load three to five persons on a motorcycle (plus a goat at times...usually on Sunday), and then drive on roads that are covered in dirt, sand, potholes, etc. and throw a few pigs and waterbuffalo into that road and you are looking at much more of an explanation for the motor-vehicle fatalities in India than the simply fact that their posted speed limits are rarely, if ever, enforced.

That is called fudging. If you don't have hard numbers to support it, then just leave it alone. Does the article quote over 40% of fatalities are from motorcycles? I didn't read it. I'm staying out of the speed limit argument.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

India also has the highest official population in the world (China's is an estimate; India's is based on a census). Therefore, it has the highest gross number of fatal accidents. 130,000 out of 1.2B is only 0.011% (the U.S. rate is 0.012%). In one country, there are very strict rules of the road and preventive law enforcement measures; in the other, there are not (combined with an absolutely abysmal health care system in which if one gets in a major crash in India, they are much more likely to die than if one were in a major crash in the U.S.) And, imagine that, the percentages come out nearly equal.

So your logic would lead you to equate accident rates to total population (even though less than 2% of India's population owns a vehicle and approximately 10% own a motorcycle)? I'm just an average Joe, but it seems like automobile ownership would be a much better comparison.

• Approximately 250 million cars, light trucks, suv's etc. in the U.S.
• Approximately 13 million in India

Also, just for clarification... the previous article referenced accident rates (not fatality rates of accidents) so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue health care systems.

Imagine that... both your percentages and logic are faulty.




Edit: just had to include these comments after the fact.

Moreover, over 40% of the motor-vehicle fatalities in India are from motorcycles (which everyone drives);

See correct percentages above.

and then drive on roads that are covered in dirt, sand, potholes, etc. and throw a few pigs and waterbuffalo into that road and you are looking at much more of an explanation for the motor-vehicle fatalities in India than the simply fact that their posted speed limits are rarely, if ever, enforced.

And your previous argument was that they don't need speed limits in India. Wonder why?

 

[Thrasher865]

Boom! Trut just got out logiced. Though he will never admit to it.

 

[therealUT]

That is called fudging. If you don't have hard numbers to support it, then just leave it alone. Does the article quote over 40% of fatalities are from motorcycles? I didn't read it. I'm staying out of the speed limit argument.

Yes, it does quote as does the World Health Organization. Based on my experience living in three of India's (and the world's) largest cities (as well as living in Porumamilla, a tiny village in the middle of nowhere), I would be willing to low-ball and state that at least 1/3 of Indian adults owns a motorcycle. Anyone else who has traveled to South Asia or Southeast Asia would probably feel safe in making the same estimate.