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

@Thomas,

If you had read the post in which i linked a CNN article, you'd have seen that a child was taken into the state's custody in New York as malnourished by her vegan parents. That's not to say that they would over the issue of obesity, but it is evidence that they have the power to do it.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I know, and I agree. But I suspect that David would still condemn it as an exercise in tyranny. If so, I'm curious to hear his state-constitutional arguments against such a policy, now that we've disposed of the federal stuff.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have found vegetarianettes to be uncommonly irritable.

If they're anything like pepperettes, your body is probably too old to handle them properly.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

To allege that the revolution was a libertarian revolution is to wallow in the fantasy of partisan cant.

BULLoney!

Setanta wrote:

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 blacks were considered livestock, not citizens.

Setanta wrote:

The electoral college was a compromise mechanixm to reassure the small states (i.e., small in population)
lead by New York and New Jersey,

There WAS a lot of negotiation.
When deciding whether to join up or not,
each State had to decide: "what 's in it for me? Is it a good deal? "

Setanta wrote:

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.

Very true; it was not that.

Setanta wrote:

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.

I will concede that it COUD have been MORE radically libertarian than it was,
but its philosophers were libertarians. Offhand, I can 't think of
any other jurisdiction that was MORE libertarian than America in 1791. Can u ??

Setanta wrote:

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.

That is your (unsupported) opinion.
(not to imply that u will be unable to find other leftists who agree with that)

David

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I have found vegetarianettes to be uncommonly irritable.

If they're anything like pepperettes,
your body is probably too old to handle them properly.

Not then.
I have my memories.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I know, and I agree. But I suspect that David would still condemn it as an exercise in tyranny. If so, I'm curious to hear his state-constitutional arguments against such a policy, now that we've disposed of the federal stuff.

For a jurisdictional analysis,
we must examine the enabling instrument,
i.e. the constitution of each jurisdiction to ascertain what authority has been granted.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I know. I also know it's unrealistic to examine the constitutions of all 50 states for this thread. Nevertheless, it might be instructive to see a worked example of how such an analysis would look like. As it happens, you live in New York City. Moreover, I think you mentioned that you used to practice law there. Therefore I'm interested to read your analysis of how obesity-based CPS intervention would comply with New York's state constitution---or not.

Mind you, I'm not expecting some high-falutin' legal brief. A 250-word sketch is quite alright with me.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The blacks were considered livestock, not citizens.

That's the problem. What does this say about your claim that the Founding Fathers were libertarians?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have found vegetarianettes to be uncommonly irritable.

Funnly, that sites blames it on vegetarianism =)

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I don't think it's that easy.

Food is a complicated subject.

which is not very well understood by either the experts nor the state that wants to classify obese as abuse...just look at how low fat food has been pushed for the same decades that people have gotten fatter, or how the state now pushes now salt on zero scientific proof, or at how the state mandates cal counts on menus in spite of the fact that science shows that the masses ignore that information when they choose so what we have is the state demanding menu clutter. Until and unless that state begins to make its pronouncements on the basis of evidence it should be ignored, and it should never be allowed to intrude on peoples freedom of choice at dinner time.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Science is rapidly comming to the conslusion that fat was never the problem, that our major problem is too many carbs, which the state and the experts have been pushing for years through their "eat lots of fruits and grains" program. I also think that what we are going to find is that much more than cal counts what matters is the stress that we put on our body with blood sugar spikes, that it is glycemic load that we need to regulate not cals. In any case the government does not currently know enough to be advocating anything, much less enough to be writting laws telling us what to eat and what to feed our kids, as evidenced by how often they change their minds.

Edit: the science is pretty good that blood sugar spiking not only drives the development of diabetes but also hunger, it throws a monkey wrench into our biological food intake regulation system. You can make the ego understand thatthis or that is good/bad for the body, but the body is talking to the brain 24/7, and is insistant.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I havent been accompanying the latest developments in the area but I agree that we dont really know enough to go around passing laws. I myself mostly distrust nutriologists because, like you said, they are always changing their minds. I think how the body deals with food is something that varies too much from person to person, universal advice doesnt work.

I bet in variety: I think that as long as you keep your diet fairly varied you will be healthy enough. Our instincts also help, after all the fact that sometimes we feel like eating X or Y isnt a randow thing but rather our body telling us what it needs.

1 Reply

@manored,

Quote:

I bet in variety: I think that as long as you keep your diet fairly varied you will be healthy enough. Our instincts also help, after all the fact that sometimes we feel like eating X or Y isnt a randow thing but rather our body telling us what it needs.

Agreed, except I think that a lot of what drives over carbing and thus the sugar spikes and thus the disrupted food regulation system is too much sugar intake, especially with sugar water....though I am still open to the idea that the type of sugar matters a lot, that corn syrup is a major problem. The love of sugar is written into the genetic code because getting too few cals is normally the main problem, in this case the body is wrong, because at the moment cals are easy to get. Over population and thus mass famine will solve this problem soon enough, it is nothing to get excited about.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But I suspect that David would still condemn it as an exercise in tyranny.

No doubt--but as his response to my post of his "libertarian revolution" fairytale shows, he substitutes his partisan ideological cant for both good common sense and historical truth (including what the law actually says as opposed to what he wants to believe it means).

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

An argument based on whether or not there were a jurisdiction in 1789 more "libertarian" than the United States is no argument at all. Leaving aside the ludicrous notion that there is a universally recognized set of definitions to determine what state were libertarian or not, that there weren't a more "libertarian" jurisdiction than the United States is not evidence that the United States was itself "libertarian."

Your continued insistence that the founders were libertarian doesn't make it so. In fact, the term libertarian only appears in 1789, after the constitution was ratified, and coming from disgruntled opponents of its ratification. Your apparent thesis is that by standing on the corner shouting that the founders were libertarian long enough and loud enough you will make it so.

That you don't understand the significance of Shays' Rebellion, and the modification of the franchise in almost all the states in the wake of that rebellion is not evidence that it is my "unsupported" opinion. It is not evidence that only "leftists" believe it. Your remarks also imply one of your favorite hysterical tenets of ideology, that those who don't agree with you are dangerous leftists opposed to personal freedom. That Shays' Rebellion of the significant event which lead to the expansion of the franchise in American states if the the sense of the majority of American historians, and has been for literally centuries. I understand that it is not convenient to your argument here--that's not evidence that it is false.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
The blacks were considered livestock, not citizens.

That's the problem. What does this say about your claim that the Founding Fathers were libertarians?

Thay did not favor liberty for livestock, but rather for citizens.
It is pretty clear that the American Revolution was NOT to require
Americans to release their farm animals, nor their horses.
That was not the idea. Slavery was based on race.
Thay saw the world differently than we do now.
It was not their job to copy the 21st Century.

David

1 Reply

Slaves were chattel, not livestock. One's wife and children were legally chattel as well--do you allege that they didn't consider them human? You make most of this up as you go along. Initially, the colonists of the North American mainland had no interest in African slaves. The labor upon which they relied which was not the labor of immigrant settlers came from bound "servants," people indentured to a term of service. Initially, African "bound servants" were to serve a term of indenture. However, when such "servants" could not speak the dominant language and could not read, it was easy enough to convert them into slaves. Once underway, the process took about a generation.

The constitution recognized people of African descent as persons. In fact, it refers to them as Persons. That you don't is simply evidence of your ignorance, and your willingness to distort historical truth in aid of your hysterical ideological cant.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I know. I also know it's unrealistic to examine the constitutions of all 50 states for this thread.

I don 't propose to do that; not even for one State.

Thomas wrote:

Nevertheless, it might be instructive to see a worked example of how such an analysis would look like. As it happens, you live in New York City. Moreover, I think you mentioned that you used to practice law there. Therefore I'm interested to read your analysis of how obesity-based CPS intervention would comply with New York's state constitution---or not.

Mind you, I'm not expecting some high-falutin' legal brief. A 250-word sketch is quite alright with me.

I have neither the energy nor the interest sufficient to move me to do that.
I don 't see OP's advocacy as a real and present danger; just speculation
(tho its sad not to see more antipathy & resentment against intrusive government).
Too many folks (liberals) believe that the answer to every problem
is put another iron chain on the citizens; curtail their liberty
n choke their freedom, that the ideal State will be achieved when thay can 't move at all.

David

0 Replies

Quote:

Too many folks (liberals) believe that the answer to every problem
is put another iron chain on the citizens; curtail their liberty
n choke their freedom, that the ideal State will be achieved when thay can 't move at all.

This is precisely what i mean about hysterical ideological cant.

By the way, bright boy, if people of African descent were considered livestock, if that was the sense of the late 18th century as you hilariously allege, how do you account for people of African descent who lived in states which had no institution of slavery, which would later be called free states? How can one be livestock if one happens to be held in bondage, but be human if one is not? Leaving aside the drivel quoted above, this is one of the best examples of your willingness to distort reality in aid of your hysterical ideological cant. You're making up this story about Africans being considered livestock in the attempt to deny that the institution of slavery in the constitution is evidence that the founders were not the wild eyed libertarians you allege them to have been.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Slaves were chattel, not livestock.

Livestock is chattel.
What distinction u seek to make is beyond me.

" chat·tel /ˈtʃætl/ Show Spelled
[chat-l]
–noun
1. Law . a movable article of personal property.
2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings,
and other things annexed to land.
3. a slave."
Essentially, all property is chattel except for real estate,
with an arguable exception for intellectual property.

Setanta wrote:

One's wife and children were legally chattel as well

That 's RIDICULOUS-- hi-larious! U think thay coud be sold n rented ??
"O, excuse me, Fine Sir! Beautiful morning,isn 't it ?
That 's a comely young wife u have there.
I 'll pay u 40 shillings and a sheep, for 2 hours of her time, in private, Sir "
or
applied to a passing pedophile, the same regarding
rental of a son or daughter. I don 't think so.
Do u make this nonsense up as u go along ???? I think u do.

Setanta wrote:

--do you allege that they didn't consider them human?

Of course not; I reject your premise.

Setanta wrote:

You make most of this up as you go along.

That is a pretty bad insult, but considering its source,
I 'll not allow it to disturb my harmony n delight of the day!
I 've had some Good Fortune recently and I 'll mentally dwell upon it. Yes

Setanta wrote:

Initially, the colonists of the North American mainland had no interest in African slaves.

True.

Setanta wrote:

The labor upon which they relied which was not the labor of immigrant settlers
came from bound "servants," people indentured to a term of service.

Yes; thay paid for their passage by ship over the Atlantic Ocean
by 7 years of service, instead of cash fare.

Setanta wrote:

Initially, African "bound servants" were to serve a term of indenture. However, when such "servants" could not speak the dominant language and could not read, it was easy enough to convert them into slaves. Once underway, the process took about a generation.

That 's the first I 've heard of that; I don 't believe u.
Do u deny the Spanish Triangular Trade ??
Do u know what that was ?

Setanta wrote:

The constitution recognized people of African descent as persons.
In fact, it refers to them as Persons.

It DID use that language. That does not alter the fact
that thay were deemed livestock, bought, sold and rented as such.
That was the sense of the situation, the spirit of the times.
I thought everyone knew that.

Setanta wrote:

That you don't [??] is simply evidence of your ignorance, and your willingness
to distort historical truth in aid of your hysterical ideological cant.

I know that your interpretation of history
is inconsistent with known fact. Your opinions, wishes nor hopes
do not retroactively change anything.

I wish that we had simply left them undisturbed in Africa,
and gone about our own business, but that does not retroactively change the past.

David

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know