"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in a
different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?

.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.



It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There appear
to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good ol' nanny
state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial. Either the
government protects us from ourselves, or it does not. How it effects such
protection is irrelevant.

Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works. Personal
responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Max

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.


Maxprop wrote:
Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?


Dunno, not sure I'm getting his POV... Maybe he'll continue
in this thread, I hope so.


My complaint is that advertising should be part of GDP even
though it is a "service." It does not create wealth nor
improve any thing... it's demonstrable that *some*
advertising, as an information network, helps market
efficiency. But to spend gazillions on it is a waste, overall.




.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.


No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.


If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.


Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity
contributions, and for legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also
nany-ism?

Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework
within which we all function, and all businesses &
corporations too, is a result of "legislation" if you use it
as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth a dollar, why
do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad
gummint interference (which I am also against) is friggin'
stupid. There is *alread* a huge web of rules & practices in
place, which gave rise to the situation as it exists.
Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine about how
changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.



... And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.


I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations &
R&D are also bad unworkable ideas?


And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?

Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The
"Medicare Reform Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big
pharm corps was prejudicial, as are speeding laws. Heck, the
recent Supreme Court decision to make the Treasury put
Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people
with good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

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


... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody
tried that.



If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.


And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor
pretending to be against nannyism while demanding that a
Race Committee protect me from too much wind.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far
enough with this approach, then you might as well get rid of
gov't. After all, it's only a great big nanny to protect
those who shouldn't need it or want it if only they had
enough backbone.


... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or
profoundly prejudiced against looking at the situation
rationally.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

That's nothing short of spin, plain and simple. Fiscal policy is ways and
means. Punitive taxation is nannyism.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity contributions, and for
legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also nany-ism?

Nope. They aren't punitive, nor designed to protect citizens from
themselves.


Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework within which
we all function, and all businesses & corporations too, is a result of
"legislation" if you use it as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth
a dollar, why do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.
When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is. Why
is this such a tough concept to grasp?


In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad gummint
interference (which I am also against) is friggin' stupid. There is
*alread* a huge web of rules & practices in place, which gave rise to the
situation as it exists. Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine
about how changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.

See my response immediately above.

... And it would not work unless the level of punitive taxation would
exceed the financial benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable
idea.

I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations & R&D are also bad
unworkable ideas?

Oh dear. (sigh)

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?


Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The "Medicare Reform
Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big pharm corps was prejudicial,
as are speeding laws. Heck, the recent Supreme Court decision to make the
Treasury put Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people with
good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

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.
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. Phillip Morris
kills more people each year than murderers, and McDonalds, through the
Ronald McDonald Foundation, helps myriad needy families throughout the
country. My point is that when such prejudicial decisions as to whom to tax
and whom to exempt are made by those idiots in Washington we commonly refer
to as 'legislators,' the end result will be a morass.

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 arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by a
wide margin.

... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to promote their
'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for pushing
Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody tried that.

Knock yourself out. Personally I just choose to avoid the products of both.
What a novel idea! I believe it's called self-reliance.



And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite
in this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor pretending to be
against nannyism while demanding that a Race Committee protect me from too
much wind.

LOL. You sound like a friggin' broken record. Whatever.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from
ourselves, that *is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far enough with this
approach, then you might as well get rid of gov't. After all, it's only a
great big nanny to protect those who shouldn't need it or want it if only
they had enough backbone.

Actually the government is really just one big nanny. They protect us from
armed combatants (the armed services), they provide for the welfare of the
needy (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc.), and they mandate such things
as seatbelt laws, gun laws, labor laws, drug laws, etc. ad infinitum/ad
nauseum. They also mandate social security rather than allowing people to
invest that money in something that earns income. With the exception of the
military, I generally turn a jaundiced eye to what our government does.
That makes me a libertarian, like it or not. You, OTOH, abhor the concept
of self-reliance (your vitriolic rancor toward the GOP's attempt to
privatize retirement funds as opposed to social security a typical example)
(socialism), which makes you a socialist. Of course you claim to be a
conservative. So who's the hypocrite here?

... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive taxation
or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or profoundly
prejudiced against looking at the situation rationally.

And your definition of rationality would be *being in unswerving agreement
with you?*

You are not fractionally as bright as you believe yourself to be. You are
interminably steeped in hypocrisy and denial. Can you spell 'dogma?'

Max

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

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

Yes you did. Several times actually.

Not even close. What I implied was that legislation which is designed to
protect us from ourselves is nannyism. You interpret what you read to suit
your prejudice.

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"?

How is advertising detrimental to the national economy? If a corporation
wastes its money on unproductive marketing, the company suffers. Are you
implying that companies don't have the right to be stupid and tank
themselves?? And yes, protecting corporations from themselves is nannyism.

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

Is it nannyism when the race committee simply chooses not to have to round
up bodies and destroyed craft after allowing a race that shouldn't have been
run? You obviously haven't spent much time racing sailboats. Race
committees make such calls all the time, for whatever reason. I've seen
such calls made in America's Cup Racing as well.

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?

Oh, well you've really opened a can of worms for yourself here, Doug. Let's
talk about all the myriad wealth-redistribution programs the government
fosters. They cost those for whom there is no apparent benefit far more
than putting a few embossed dots on paper money. Yet you seem to favor such
programs, while denying the blind the ability to determine what bills he
has. Pretty damned hypocritical.

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.

Your illogic boggles the mind.

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.

LOL. This from the King of Obtuse and Hypocrisy.

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


I'm sure.

My only hope for you, Doug, is that somewhere, years down the road, you'll
see how delusional you've been. You're nowhere near as bright as you
believe yourself to be, but if you keep telling yourself that you are, I've
no doubt you'll be able to continue fooling yourself. But only yourself.

Max

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

Yes you did. Several times actually.

Not even close. What I implied was that legislation which is designed to
protect us from ourselves is nannyism. You interpret what you read to suit
your prejudice.

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor? You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

PDW


Great idea! Bad doctors would go out of business sooner. Medicine would
advance rapidly due to choice of therapy. Should do it for lawyers too.

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

So, you're in favour of repealing all laws pertaining to mandatory
qualifications for all professions, then? After all, this is nannyism
at its worst. Why should people be forced to study for years and pass
exams to be a doctor?

There is a difference between protecting citizens from predators as opposed
to protecting them from themselves.

You're just - in theory - protecting people from
making a bad decision about who they consult.

Nice try, Pete, but that's no different than protecting folks form other
forms of financial or physical predation. Inadvertently choosing an
unqualified quack to provide medical care is radically different from
choosing to take recreational drugs.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in
a different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in
place. You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to
believe that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of
disposing excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the
value of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom
line. That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP
would be were advertising completely eliminated?

The value of advertising or the value of the quality of advertising?

If advertising were eliminated I think excess consumption would be reduced.
Do you realize how much of the economy is hinged on crap and stuff that
really isn't needed?



.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

Smoking should be encouraged. Cigarettes should be put into school lunches.
Government should openly market death, rather than sugar coat it like it has
for decades. The food pyramid was a death triangle, above ground nuclear
testing harmed thousands, legislation banning 4 point seatbelts has led to
millions of additional injuries. Government should be honest and say they
are here to kill and rob you.
Gambling, smoking, booze - all big tax revenues for government! Advertise it
as so: "smoke and drink here while you gamble away your entire SS check!"
Provide free busing from nursing homes to casinos! Who should rreally worry
about a little sugar and trans fat?



If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism.


Who will protect us from government?

The same people that teach us about government?


Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not
work unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial
benefit to the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

Penalize advertising by not buying the product. Are some people so foolish
to believe that all advertising works? First you need a good product and
truthful advertising.



And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds
for pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products
that become addictive.

What identifiable ingredient in food is addictive? McDonald's is actually
good for you. In this case, too much of a good thing isn't exactly
wonderful.





It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are making
lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming larger
corporally.


Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Maybe runner up, unless you consider RB no longer a member.



Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of
selective/progressive taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of
denial. Either the government protects us from ourselves, or it does not.
How it effects such protection is irrelevant.

It's ok for government to stop us from ordering an extra side of fries, but
it's not ok for them to stop us from ripping an unborn baby from the womb
and tossing it in the dumpster - that's a "personal decision"! Oh the
hypocrisy!

Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments. All government
and religion can really do is cause big wars. The worst individuals can do
is demonstrated at British soccer matches. Compare that to WWII.

Keep government small and limited if you really care about safety and well
being.



Capt. JG wrote:
Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works.
Personal responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Personal responsibility is always a choice. Some people just want government
to limit choices or worse yet, remove the consequences of those personal
choices and place the burdens of those responsibilities onto others.

There are no alternatives. Death is not an alternative. Either you chose to
live or you simply die.




Max

Todd Nozzle wrote:
Just get the government out of everyone's lives and businesses. Humans made
it for hundreds of thousands of years without governments.

I assume that you are living in the woods, wearing the skin
of an animal you killed with a rock.

Oh wait, you're on the internet.

And you accuse me of hypocrisy. Thanks for the laugh.

DSK