Maxprop wrote:
I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.

Yes you did. Several times actually.


When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why
is this such a tough concept to grasp?


Is it such a tough concept to grasp that tax policy designed
to discourage corporations from spending money to the
detriment of the national economy, and contrary to the
interests of the citizens, is not necessarily "nannyism"?

Nannyism is the expectation that a Race Committee will
prevent you from sailing in more wind than your skill level
can accomodate.







It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular group.
Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money? Hardly.

Really? Does it happen for free?

If I am expected to pay for it, and to put up with the
inconvenience of changing all may money, then I am being
penalized.


Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for
advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they
advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking.

Oh yeah, those two things are exactly the same!



Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope
they gave you a lollipop too.


I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in life.

Don't be so obstuse and hypocritical, then.


Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a
wide margin.


I'm sure.

DSK