Jun 22, 2012 -- 12:21PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Freedom isn't a right?

“Freedom” in and of itself, as an unmodified term, has never been held a constitutional or fundamental right. Obviously the freedom to exercise one’s religion, or to not exercise any religion, is implied by the First Amendment, as is the freedom to peaceably assemble, etc., etc.

Jun 22, 2012 -- 1:53PM, mindis1 wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 12:21PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Freedom isn't a right?

“Freedom” in and of itself, as an unmodified term, has never been held a constitutional or fundamental right. Obviously the freedom to exercise one’s religion, or to not exercise any religion, is implied by the First Amendment, as is the freedom to peaceably assemble, etc., etc.

True, the federal government for a long time now has done quite a lot to ensure that the people have no freedom to contract or association.  That doesn't mean I agree with it, or with 'freedom' not being a fundamental right, as it should be.

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:01AM, mindis1 wrote:

Jun 21, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mindis1 wrote:

Jun 20, 2012 -- 9:20PM, farragut wrote:

I certainly hope that the vendor community in New York will have the balls to defy the mayor, sell the service that the public demands, and follow thru on the legal process.

What do you hope the vendor community of NYC will have the balls to argue in court?

Sometimes I wonder if my questions are just too hard. (But I like hard questions!)

Actually, it seems that most everyone here who opposes the mayor’s proposal does so on grounds that it infringes on some personal liberty. But, of course, there is no right that an individual be able to purchase some particular size of some particular drink.

On the other hand, Farragut’s comment suggests that the ordinance would pose some burden on NYC vendors that should be redressed by a court. I can’t imagine what complaint vendors might have about such an ordinance.

So, what’s the word? Is there some legal or constitutional question about this ordinance?

Perhaps a the onus is on the buyer and not the seller to take his/her inalienable rights up in a court of law.  Perhaps some consumer in NYC can sue Wendy's for not selling him/her a 42 ounce "large" supersugary drink the way they would in Albany or Syracuse or Schenectady (sp?) which in turn could then go to the Supreme Court.

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:36PM, rabello wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 12:21PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:01AM, mindis1 wrote:

 But, of course, there is no right that an individual be able to purchase some particular size of some particular drink.

Freedom isn't a right?

Freedom to do......what?

Use manipulative sales tactics to sell unhealthy, oversized portions of something that is not good for people to naive/vulnerable/at-risk kids and young adults, regardless of consequence to that kid or young adult, and regardless of consequence to the majority that makes up the society, at large?

Or

The freedom to buy any old thing some seller puts out there and convinces us that it's a "deal" and a "necessity" regardless of consequence to those who are at risk and regardless of consequence to the majority that makes up the society, at large? 

There was no such thing as a 42 ounce "large" soft drink 30 years ago.   When, exactly, did "the public" start "demanding" a third of a gallon of sweet drink to go with their lunch, and why?  People back then didn't suffer from thirst, got along fine, and didn't feel deprived.  What changed?  When did getting a third of a gallon of a soft drink become an inalienable right?

Smart people will, of course, only buy a supersized drink on an occasional basis and then share it with a spouse or kids (they could also, of course, get water for themselves and a reasonable sized soft drink for the kids, but that's another debate for another time).  The problem is, most people who eat everyday at fast food outlets like Wendy's, or Subway, or the corner diner, or chains like Applebee's, don't do that.  They drink what's put in front of them.  

The freedom I want is the freedom to demand responsibility and ethics on the part of sellers.

And those same stupid people, who are just too dumb to care for themselves, are being duped into buying all kinds of goods they don't need.

Let's close down movie theaters.   People should be saving their money, or giving it to others.  That would be a wise choice, not foolishness instigated by movie producers running commercials that make their unnecessary products attractive.  Shame on actors who take hard earned money (that could be spent on food), by appearing in promotions for their movie.  I mean, c'mon!  We are defenseless!

It's government's responsibility to make decisions for us all, since we aren't able to make the right ones ourselves, but are preyed upon by sellers.   

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:36PM, rabello wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 12:21PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:01AM, mindis1 wrote:

 But, of course, there is no right that an individual be able to purchase some particular size of some particular drink.

Freedom isn't a right?

Freedom to do......what?

Use manipulative sales tactics to sell unhealthy, oversized portions of something that is not good for people to naive/vulnerable/at-risk kids and young adults, regardless of consequence to that kid or young adult, and regardless of consequence to the majority that makes up the society, at large?

This is what we know as Thatcherism. Or maybe in your country, it is named after the eagerly listening pupil of Maggie, what was his name?

It is a 1980s business strategy to only risk, as a businessman, and not take responsibilities. It is politically justified and encouraged by Thatcherism, which argues that government must make sure that businessmen will not be held accountable for what they do, because that might make them behave too timidly and therefore reduce profit. Profit from which ultimately the nation profits. So much for the theory. Of course by now we have seen what that means in practice... socialised costs, but privatised profits.

Responsibility of a businessman for the consequences of what he does - consequences that go beyond his immediate business activity ("spillovers" and "externalities" in scientific jargon) - such responsibility does not exist in the Thatcherist's vocabulary. The businessman is responsible for maximising his profit, only.

Freedom from the consequences of what you're doing, that's the disconnect, the loophole that needs to be closed.

But a ban of XXL sized drinks in my view rather obscures the issue here. A size tax would do much better, would be much more targetted. Why not allow companies to set one price for their drinks, and let them charge that price proportional to consumed volume. No discounts for buying larger servings! If it's twice as large, pay twice as much. Very transparent.