Decision Overturning Bloomberg's "Big Gulp Ban" Upheld By NY Appeals Court

[marshaul]

In any event, if one is an anarchist, it helps to have a program for getting to your anarchist utopia. As you apparently believe that we presently have a huge, bureaucratic and violent state jeolously seeking to expand its oppressive prerogatives against the will of the people, you might also be inclined to think that all that is unlikely to just disappear overnight of its own accord. That is what Bukharin thought about the Czarist regime, and other repressive european regimes in the 19th Century, and they did not have all the potentially repressive capabilities of a modern state.

I do not believe that the US will "evolve" into the decentralized anarchist utopia that Bukharin imagined in either my or my childrens' lifetime. I am very sceptical of the claims of US revolutionists. It makes sense to have a reasonable idea of what the government "of the people" should be about to help make life in the US at least tolerable as we all work toward "a more perfect union" whatever you think that looks like.

In addition to being an anarchist at heart, I'm also a voluntarist. It's my belief that meaningful anarchism is impossible if brought about through revolutionary force, as such necessarily engenders a de facto government.

There may come a day when I can relevantly argue for eliminating the last centralized monopoly on force. It the meantime, I can advise folks to read the Anti-Federalist papers rather than The Federalist, advocate for the elimination of income tax, a return to the proper trial by jury, etc.

 

[Black_water]

So being in favor of being permitted to buy fizzy drinks in cups larger than 16 oz. makes me a communist?

You look like a duck and write like an idiot.

Well I am not going to get into the insult game with you, but your description of self is more closely aligned with what Marx and Engels advocated than it is Libertarian.

I suppose you might think of me as socialist because I support Obamacare, progressive taxation, raising capital gains taxes, and other stuff like that.

Insults aside, you might want to bone up on those two and reevaluate your image of self.

 

[The Donkey]

" if you are a murderous idiot, you shoot at the poor shmucks who try to execute on the judgment, and somebody kills you as a result, then of course you will have been proven correct"
You don't have to be violent you just have to resist.

"it helps to have a program for getting to your anarchist utopia"

Nope, true anarchist realize there is no "utopia", they just understand that the social utopia presented by rulers create more problems than they will ever solve.

"I do not believe that the US will "evolve" into the decentralized anarchist utopia"

I don't believe U.S. will either, the essence of a state is violence and force, the state and statist and those who want to force the will of the state whether it be a few individuals or of a majority will never give that up willingly.
What I believe is that anarchy should be and can be the ultimate evolution of human society, this can be done by education, one way is to rebut and show the fallacies of "government" even one that is supposedly "of the people".
The declaration of independence rightly declares we have the right to be governed by consent, Lysander Spooner shows us that a farmer on a farm has just as much right to secede from government as colonist as a whole had to secede from Britian.

There really is not much difference in principle between a Soda Ban for your health than a federal Healthcare program. Both requires government to enforce a rule or law upon someone they don't want. I would need more evidence that the judges decision was "libertarian" than a claim it was because he ruled against it.

I agree with much of what you say here.

Much law -- and probably most law -- involves the government enforcing rules against at least a few people who might not otherwise choose to be bound by them. People have choices: they can tolerate the laws, work to change the laws, or go someplace that has different laws or no laws. The last option is getting harder and harder to pull off these days, but was readily available to almost everyone when the constitution was ratified.

As to the decision itself, you can find it by clicking though the Facebook link above and the "Jurist" article that summarizes it. The decision says that the NYC Department of Health violated the separation of powers mandated by the New York state constitution by improperly trying to legislate through administrative fiat. The decision is a win for democracy -- overruling bureaucratic overreach -- and the result is libertarian, in the sense that it strikes down a law that impinged to some extent on personal freedoms because it was the result of bureaucratic overreach. I particularly like the decision because the reasoning is interesting and may be useful in other fights. If you are interested in such things, I commend it to you.

 

[marshaul]

Much law -- and probably most law -- involves the government enforcing rules against at least a few people who might not otherwise choose to be bound by them. People have choices: they can tolerate the laws, work to change the laws, or go someplace that has different laws or no laws. The last option is getting harder and harder to pull off these days, but was readily available to almost everyone when the constitution was ratified.

Under a system which guaranteed a proper trial by jury, these options would be largely irrelevant. Government would simply be unable to enforce a single law which substantially the whole country didn't agree with. I submit that under such a system only murderers and thieves would have incentive to "go someplace" with no laws.

Heck, even anarchists could enjoy such a system, as most of us have never imagined that people would be able to murder without facing reprisal from the community; we merely oppose a monopoly by government on the passage of legislation and the means to enforce it.

 

[The Donkey]

I don't mean to pile on here, but...

Your choice of words betrays you as well. A communist thinks of the government as having the authority to permit people to do things.

A person who understands freedom thinks of the government as a necessary evil that is forbidden from requiring permission from the very people from which it was created.

So... perhaps if you would have said "So being in favor of keeping the government in its chains and not allowing it to usurp power and require permission to buy fizzy drinks in cups larger than 16 oz. makes me a communist?" You may have been believable.

I am sorry that you do not believe what I say because of the way I say it. You probably also will not believe that I live by what I say. The members of the board who know me personally know the truth about that, including one of the founders of this board who invited me here over six years ago.

I find that it is very difficult to change people's established frames of reference. You have a definite frame, and I find that some of my liberal friends have a definite frame as well. Sometimes, that stops my left-leaning friends from listening to what I have to say at all, because the "cognitive dissonance" causes too much interference. I sometimes find the members of this board to be more willing to listen because as open carriers, you are likely to be treated as outsiders, and that can make you more open. But sometimes, you find it makes people even more defensive.

If you can get past what you think I am, and focus on what I have to say, then I am happy to continue the discussion with you at some point when I have more time. Otherwise, that is OK. Go in peace.

 

[()pen(arry]

You look like a duck and write like an idiot.

I'm not getting involved in the argument, here, and I don't think Black_water is an idiot. Completely on its own, however, I found this line hilarious.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Its well known that of people on their deathbed 75% of the people's last words are:

Man, I wish I did not drink that 32 oz Super Big Gulp in 1979 -- that's what put me here ...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The Donkey - not trying to get into a flame war with you. Nor am I trying to argue semantics. I hate arguments of pure semantics just as much as the next guy, but I think semantics do sometimes need to be hashed out before a productive discussion can be had. Our communication will fail if we aren't speaking the same language.

You are right about one thing, for sure, and that would be that this thread was created about the court ruling on the soda ban or whatever. I've contributed to derailing it, so I am sorry for that much.

On the subject of the ruling, yes, I think that is a positive thing, and yes, I guess that means we agree on that point. I'm glad you feel that the ruling is a good thing. In and of itself, in my opinion, that's good of you.

 

[PALO]

The consensus amongst the legal wonks was that this ban would be overturned. I am glad to see their analysis has been proved correct. Bloomberg,, simply put is an enemy of freedom on nearly every level.

 

[Citizen]

If it walks, quacks and swims like a duck, it's a duck.

LOL! Donkey prolly supports the Federal Reserve, too.

 

[The Donkey]

LOL! Donkey prolly supports the Federal Reserve, too.

And you would prefer to return to the pyrite standard?

 

[marshaul]

And you would prefer to return to the pyrite standard?

Frankly I don't give a damn what they tie the dollar to (the value of precious metals is just as assigned and arbitrary as is the value of paper money), so long as the Fed no longer has the power to devalue my currency.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Frankly I don't give a damn what they tie the dollar to (the value of precious metals is just as assigned and arbitrary as is the value of paper money), so long as the Fed no longer has the power to devalue my currency.

+1 but of course that is because some of understand that money is nothing but a medium of exchange, and the fed is a disastrous thief for the government stealing the value of our exchanges.

 

[Citizen]

And you would prefer to return to the pyrite standard?

Hahahahahahahahaa!! The socialist who pretends he isn't walked right into that one.

From The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx: "The centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Hahahahahahahahaaa!!

 

[PALO]

This overturning of the soda ban is MUCH bigger than the soda ban itself. The legal concepts that got upheld here are important and if the principle by which Bloomberg et al (attempted) to justify the soda ban was UPHELD it would have dire consequences for many other freedoms that are far more important than the size of our sodas.

Bloomberg really is an awful politician and these paternalistic food laws have got to stop (shades of San Fran's happy meal ban).

This case struck a major blow for freedom imnsho, far more extensive than merely soda

 

[The Donkey]

Hahahahahahahahaa!! The socialist who pretends he isn't walked right into that one.

From The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx: "The centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Hahahahahahahahaaa!!

"Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Ergo the author of our Constitution must have been a Marxist?

Honestly, I do not know enough about the Fed to form much of an opinion about any of this. I only said that thing about pyrite out of enjoyment of the concept of you trying to buy a Big Gulp by bartering with fools gold. If it makes you happy to call the Fed a Communist organization, I don't care. As far as I am concerned, listening to the Fed Chief talking about funds rates is about as interesting to me as watching a stump and has the same effect on me as Ambien. I look for information on this kind of thing in the business pages only if I am trying to time my sales of bonds and REITs.or having trouble sleeping. I am glad what's his name with the beard has been doing some kind or other of financial mumbo jumbo to keep unemployment headed down, however slowly, but I would be hard pressed to explain what it is he is doing.

But please do not let that put you off your project of uncovering dangerous communist posters through psychoanalysis. In fact, I was really enjoy reading the manic "haha"s of your McCarthyite laughter. It brings to mind the delightful image of a hyena after way too much espresso -- or perhaps a Big Gulp.

 

[The Donkey]

This overturning of the soda ban is MUCH bigger than the soda ban itself. The legal concepts that got upheld here are important and if the principle by which Bloomberg et al (attempted) to justify the soda ban was UPHELD it would have dire consequences for many other freedoms that are far more important than the size of our sodas.

Bloomberg really is an awful politician and these paternalistic food laws have got to stop (shades of San Fran's happy meal ban).

This case struck a major blow for freedom imnsho, far more extensive than merely soda

Agreed!

 

[Citizen]

"Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Ergo the author of our Constitution must have been a Marxist?

This is what happens when you root around on the internet and ineptly toss up a quote without knowing what you're talking about.

If Jefferson said or wrote that, he was talking about suppressing bank currency notes because fractional-reserve banks were issuing more paper currency than they had gold to back it.

An historical side-note: back in those days, people knew bankers were playing games. The further you traveled from the issuing bank, the lower the value of that bank's notes. At one point, it was so extensive that a small class of businessman arose. They would go into a town or region, and offer to buy up the discounted notes, paying gold on the spot. Then they would take the collected notes and travel back to the bank, and redeem the notes at full face value from the bank in gold. See the minority report from Reagan's gold commission, The Case for Gold.

 

[Citizen]

Agreed!

So, we're back to square one.

You have little interest in freedom, Donkey. Your post history shows it.

You don't OC.

Why are you here now? Getting ready to promote another liberal candidate? That's mainly the time you show up.

Oh, yes. Its soon time to start promoting Terry McAuliffe isn't it? And, if not him, who?

 

[The Donkey]

So, we're back to square one.

You have little interest in freedom, Donkey. Your post history shows it.

You don't OC.

Why are you here now? Getting ready to promote another liberal candidate? That's mainly the time you show up.

Oh, yes. Its soon time to start promoting Terry McAuliffe isn't it? And, if not him, who?

Well Hello Again Citizen!

I am not much interested in convincing you about whether or not I have a sufficient "interest in freedom" to meet your standards. Think of me as an ass or as Popeye the Sailor Man or Karl friggin' Marx or whatever turns you on -- it is boring and no real matter how you decide to classify me or anybody else. Nobody is paying attention. They pay attention when you discuss issues because you happen to be rather knowledgeable. So cut the crap.

I know that you generally agree with me about Bloomberg, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, separation of powers, and the over-regulation of individual dietary decisions on the basis of "health." Those are -- as you know -- the issues germaine to this thread. You seem so determined to drive it off-topic that I am starting to wonder: under all the bluster does it really grate on you that much to know there are people like me who dare to participate for whatever reason but who do not share some of your other views -- which are not too remarkable here -- but rather uncommon elsewhere? That would suggest that one reason you are frequently here is for psychological validation because other people in your life must not understand you or find you rather wacky, or that somehow, outside of the context of this little community, validation must be hard for you to come by. That's OK. I feel your pain.

You are also correct that I do not regularly OC anymore, mostly because I do not work in a gun store anymore: I now carry only when I see a need, usu. when I am dealing with significant cash, guns, or other potentially dangerous circumstances, or travelling back and forth from the range.

As to firearms issues and candidates, I have always been a volunteer, have not been officially an officer in a "Sportsmen" campaign since the Mark Warner campaign in 2008, and have not had a leading role in a Sportsmen's for _____ organization since the Jim Webb campaign in 2006. I do significantly advise candidates and their campaigns on gun and a few other issues however, including directly advising several who have been statewide candidates this year. Not only do I find participating in forums like this to be interesting and inherently enjoyable, it is a form of "active learning" which keeps me attuned to firearms policy, and I hope makes me more useful to these guys than I might otherwise be.

As you might expect, the Sportsmen's campaigns of both McAuliffe and Cuccinelli will be run this year by paid professionals (not me) -- which usually means that they will be rather boring. I have been approached for what could amount to significant help in this area by another candidate's campaign, but I come to the table with expectations beyond mere money, and such campaigns have a way of being rather ad hoc. I do not know whether or not I will end up with a substantial role in getting that show on the road and am very busy with other matters. If I end up promoting this or any candidate as part of a campaign, as I did in 06 and 08, I would say so explicitly, and if I did so here, you would know it.

And now . . . back to soda pop.