http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/25/m … r-freedom/
I think he means more than soda.
He explained it well, in the context that he used. But it was nothing that every citizens didn't already know.
But he succeeded in avoiding facing the real issue-----his outright tyranny in the large-soda issue. He must be a liberal all around, 'cause they learn distraction very easily.
I wonder if I have the right to say he's a manipulative jerk. Well, I reckon so. lol. I bet he has some rights that need to be infringed upon!
However it is true that society infringes freedoms all the time. Locking people up from criminal acts, taking kids from parents who abuse them etc.
The question is which freedoms can be restricted for what reasons.
Yeah, thats what he means, good reasons to infringe on our rights like banning a soda of more than 20 ounces.
The more they speak the more they expose their true intent!
Which freedoms do you think should be restricted?
I doubt you would get an honest response it seems liberals never say what they really want it has to be exposed.
Well then, how about a traditionalist's contrary response?
Bloomberg(sp?) isn't restricting anything. He isn't outlawing anything.
He's just leading a group that supposedly represents the consensus of their constituents.
The members of that group were elected by various segments of the societal group that is New York.
Every societal group has a right to make whatever laws they want, (within constitutional limits of course) as long as those laws are approved by the consensus of the societal group as a whole.
So, if the group's elected representatives are representing their constituent's interests - then why shouldn't they be allowed to determine the laws that govern their society? If you don't like the rules, either find enough like-minded citizens to change the rules - or get out and find a place more to your liking. Just because a rule/law sounds silly to you doesn't mean it's silly to everyone - as is obvious by his support that got the soda ban passed,
Sounds nice, and basically it's true.
But, the reality is that voters usually get what they deserve when their voting decisions are based on popularity contests, or what they hear on the 10pm news, or from their buddy at the bar.
If the people of New York didn't want their salt and soda intake regulated for them, they would not have voted for the people they did, err... right? That is how it works isn't it?
But I have to go now. Our city council is voting on a black sock ban for city workers that wear boots to do their job. Seems they make your feet sweat more than white socks, which causes severe foot odor, and can lead to fungal infections - which of course will mean higher medical costs, causing the city health ins. premiums to go up, and more lost work days, and possible disability claims. Everybody agrees this is just a common sense law, right? At least that's what Buddy the bartender says.
I would ask Bob, but he moved to Appalachia.
I am not sure why an exhaustive list is necessary to make the point. Society restricts freedoms. people who live in society have restricted freedoms. It is a question of type and degree that separates utopia from tyranny.
And when is tyranny tyranny? Locking someone up for actions they did is quite different than telling you what you can have or cant have because we know whats best. What happened to our body our choice? I have a feeling you are ok with Bloomberg restricting a drink size but would have a cow if he infringed on abortion, somehow that would be baaaaaaaad.
On that basis of "our body our choice" I guess you support the immediate legalization of Meth and Crack?
I don't support the ban btw.
If we are to accept this we have to take it that the right didn't exist in the first place. One cannot simultaneously argue for the right to life and the right to kill people sometimes. Do we have the right to do as we wish with our own body or not? When thought about rationally there can be no middle ground without putting in place some arbitrary distinction, like the amount of soda in a cup. Say the ban is on drinks over 500ml - what is the moral difference between 499ml and 500ml? There is no difference, so invoking 'rights' in support of the ban is absurd.
I disagree, rights are always conditional. We do generally speaking have the right to life but it is not an absolute right. Try stabbing a cop and most people will agree s/he has the right to shoot you dead. And of course several states have the death penalty. If you have a disease that a really expensive treatment could possibly cure, and no money or insurance, you will probably die. There is a difference between a right and an immutable right.
They are only conditional so long as one doesn't violate another's rights. A cop shooting someone who has stabbed them is self-defending, as is their right, and the attacker has to accept the consequences of the violation of their right to their body, which may mean death. I personally don't think the death penalty counts, and needs to be abolished.
And having a right to live doesn't mean that you're impervious. The right to life simply means that you own your life and you and only you has the ultimate responsibility for it, and for making appropriate steps to keep yourself healthy.
What is the point of having a recognised right in a society if it's going to be infringed basically whenever the state wants?
What is it with so many politicians anyway?
Ya give them a little power, and they may do a few good things with it, but then they turn into control freaks. Or were they just control freaks from the start?
Yes he's bad because he wants to deny people buying large sugary drinks but those who want to deny people the right to get married even if they are gay are okay?
Didn't say that now did I?
Matter of fact I have stated more than once they can do what they like.
So you would be in favor of gay marriage?
I wasn't specifically referring to you.
Except that so long as gay marriage is not legal, actually they can't.
So he's ok but they represent tyranny?
I think so....I was watching Morning Joe the day the ban was set to go into effect and they were showing signs at Starbucks saying that customers had to add their own sugar if they got a drink larger than a certain amount.
So I think you would technically be able to buy anything you want if it didn't have sugar in it.
Last I heard a court struck down his ban. I don't know if it was ever started.
I heard it was voted down too. So... sort of a wasted argument.
by weholdthesetruths 12 years ago
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. When I said that a person CAN be deprived of life by a jury, I was accused of being...
by JRs 8 years ago
Is abortion about women’s right or is it about the right to life?I get so mixed up in that debate, it would seem that the right to life outweighs any right of personal choice, but many see it much different. What is your opinion about abortion? What supersedes what? Do men have a right to a choice...
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
These "Stop the Mandate" protesters were at the Capitol (Sacramento) today. I was at a meeting inside and the building had to be evacuated (I heard it was because of them but who knows).Do you agree that this is a religious freedom issue or is it being twisted into one?The Pro-Life Action...
by Credence2 10 years ago
Somewhere within the tapestry of recent history a determination was made that fully automatic sub machine guns like the Thompson could not be obtained by the private citizen for self defense. These were the weapons of choice for mobsters of the twenties and for time, beyond. Conservatives have...
by weholdthesetruths 12 years ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their...
by Stevennix2001 13 years ago
In another thread I started a while back, many of you blamed the equal right movement with women and feminism for the reasons why chivalry is dead...or mostly dead anyway. therefore, i would like to know how do you draw that line then? i know it's right to treat women as equals,...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|