"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

@tsarstepan,

I don't mind vegans as long as a) they don't go on and on about it forever and ever (but that is my usual grumpiness about many subjects), and b) they don't inflict it on babies and children up to a certain age that I'm not sure of where my limit is. I consider it very unsafe for babies and toddlers; past that, I'm not sure, re safety. I'm also not sure if there is a kind of medical general agreement on that, re a child's age. My preference is probably age twenty one for the child to make his or her own educated decisions, but even I know that is ridiculously unrealistic. So for argument's sake, I'll say sixteen. I think I know from some reading that a vegan diet can work and work well, despite my biases; I just don't trust the average parent, or, say, twelve year old, all that much to follow how to do that and do it well, and part of parenting even somewhat older children is providing them nutrition.

No, I'm not talking anti vegan legislation (although in the case of babies...)
I'm just cogitating on what my current opinion is about veganism.

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

"What the citizens consume is none of government 's damned business."

what about marijuana...?

or tobacco?

Government has NEVER had any jurisdiction over them; heroin, either.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Has anyone ever told the government this past several decades over the fact they don't have jurisdiction over the control over the uses of marijuana? I'm not sure they're clear on the concept.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Has anyone ever told the government this past several decades over the fact they don't have jurisdiction over the control over the uses of marijuana? I'm not sure they're clear on the concept.

That 's like John Dillenger not being clear
on the concept that the banks still own the cash he stole.

Government exercises its false jurisdiction
by USURPATION only, with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Well, what can you do about it? Spit into the wind? How's that going to change anything?

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

thousands of folks in jail would like to hear a real answer to that as well...

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Well, what can you do about it? Spit into the wind? How's that going to change anything?

My best suggestion is just to vote the right way in November.

On some odd occassions, litigation can be successful.

The War on Drugs has no direct effect on me.
I woud not take those drugs.
I regard them as poison (except in hospitals).

David

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

We reached a new low this week or last when, what, the FDA? I skimmed the article I read and no link, but a government agency proclaimed there was no science evidence that marijuana can be medically helpful.

This is slightly red herring-ish in that I think the drug war started out insane and is now much worse, and that it isn't all about med marijuana - but some of the argument is about it, like that recent declaration, and very retrograde.

Does the prison industry have lobbyists?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

indeed they do. big ones...

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

Eh, vegans...

I hate em. Thats all =)

You would probably enjoy, and ought to visit "vegetariansareevil-dot-com."

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Homicide is NOT a federal offense,
(except under narrowly limited circumstances).

How is that relevant to Joe's question for this thread? He specifically asked about intervention by the state, not the federal government.

omsigdavid wrote:

The American Revolution was a libertarian revolution
promoted by the Sons of Liberty. The Founders woud be aghast
at the notion that the OP sets forth.

Maybe the founders of the US government, but not the founders of the respective state governments. Founding-era state governments were profoundly meddlesome. For details, I recommend William Novak: The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in 19th-century America. University of North Carolina Press (1996). As soon as one ignores your red herring about the federal government and looks at this issue in its proper context of state intervention, your case falls apart.

OmSigDavid wrote:

REGARDLESS of motivation, such pernicious authoritarian interference is negated by both the 9th and the 10th Amendments.

Once again, you are misapplying federal law to what would be a state intervention. The 9th Amendment to the US constitution does not apply to the states because it isn't incorporated through the 14th. And state constitutions usually don't have a 9th-Amendment equivalent. I hate to qoute the Possum to you, but I have to ask: what kind of law are you practicing?

1 Reply

To allege that the revolution was a libertarian revolution is to wallow in the fantasy of partisan cant. Americans rebelled against what they saw as attempts to change the established order, and, having succeeded, they then institutionalized ideas of social order and social control which can hardly be considered libertarian. Institutionalizing slavery is not exactly a blow for freedom. The electoral college was a compromise mechanixm to reassure the small states (i.e., small in population) lead by New York and New Jersey, but it was also predicated upon the idea that there was no merit in leaving such an important decision in the hands of unfettered democracy. The constitution is entirely mute on the subject of voting rights until after the civil war, at which time it simply prohibits voting restrictions based on race. Most states had property requirements for the vote, and even New Jersey, which allowed some women to vote, did so on the basis of a property requirement--a widow meeting the property requirement could exercise the franchise which her now deceased husband had previously exercised.

It was only in the wake of Shays' Rebellion that the states began to introduce an "unrestricted" franchise--so long as you were male and white. New Jersey soon afterward eliminated the franchise for women. Democracy was adopted, on a limited basis, as an expedient to prevent further rebellion, not because of some horseshit libertarian ideal.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I don't mind vegans as long as a) they don't go on and on about it forever and ever (but that is my usual grumpiness about many subjects), and b) they don't inflict it on babies and children up to a certain age that I'm not sure of where my limit is.

I wouldnt mind them in these cases as well, but I suspect most are guilty of both things. People who have beliefs radical such as those rarely keep it to themselves... instead, they try to enforce it in everyone, its just like a religion.

Irishk wrote:

How do you feel about fruitarians? They mostly only eat fruit that's already dropped from the tree (no pain) and avoid veggies altogether

I had never heard about them. Part of my hopes in the future of humanity just died =(

Setanta wrote:

You would probably enjoy, and ought to visit "vegetariansareevil-dot-com."

Haha =)

I sure hope the site is a joke, as otherwise it is the product of a severely paranoid mind.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

The opening paragraf begins:
" An increasing proportion of US children . . . "
and its link includes references to Federal law
and to children on a nationwide basis.

From that, I inferred his desire for Federal interference.

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

Setanta wrote:
You would probably enjoy, and ought to visit "vegetariansareevil-dot-com."
Haha =)

I sure hope the site is a joke, as otherwise it is the product of a severely paranoid mind.

I believe paranoid would be a not unreasonable descriptive word. I believe it is offered seriously.

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

ossobuco wrote:

I don't mind vegans as long as a) they don't go on and on about it forever and ever (but that is my usual grumpiness about many subjects), and b) they don't inflict it on babies and children up to a certain age that I'm not sure of where my limit is.
I wouldnt mind them in these cases as well, but I suspect most are guilty of both things. People who have beliefs radical such as those rarely keep it to themselves... instead, they try to enforce it in everyone, its just like a religion.

I have found vegetarianettes to be uncommonly irritable.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Oh, vegetarians are normale to me. I was speaking of vegans.

0 Replies

@manored,

Idi Amin was a fruitarian. Briefly, I believe, until he got sick.

(His former chef said the rumors that he was a cannibal aren't true).

1 Reply

@Irishk,

At vegetariansareevil-dot-com, the list Hitler, Charlie Manson and Pol Pot as vegetarians.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

From that, I inferred his desire for Federal interference.

Glad we cleared that up. So let's move forward. If a state's Child Protective Services was to seize custody of children with life-threatening obesity, would you have a problem with that? For example, what provisions in New York's state constitution would that violate, if any?

1 Reply

"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know