›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Governmental Bans: How do they work?

WyattWyatt
edited November 2010 in Flamewars
Four Loko has been banned in New York. I could care less about this individual drink being banned, but this won't solve anything. Ideally we should address the issue of underage drinking and the illegal sale of alcohol to minors. Instead, we're skirting the issue by banning caffeinated booze.

Cigarettes kill more people daily then Four Loko has since it's release. I'm making that up. Yet I'm not seeing a movement to ban all tobacco. We're not looking to return to prohibition either. Teens do stupid shit. Why should a product be banned when it was clearly misused? The government seems to swing the ban hammer without any scientific backing or concern for long term social implications... Teens OD on Nyquil too. I can hardly take the recommended dose.

British study shows Alcohol can be considered more harmful then Heroin or Crack.
«13

Comments

  • balderdashbalderdash
    Are you suggesting that many if not most government actions are driven by politicians' self-serving short-sighted desire to score immediate cheap political points and not by actual data-supported rational decision-making?

    Are you suggesting that our elected leaders might be so crass as to capitalize on the grief and fear of shocked constituents?
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Are you suggesting that many if not most government actions are driven by politicians' self-serving short-sighted desire to score immediate cheap political points and not by actual data-supported rational decision-making?

    Are you suggesting that our elected leaders might be so crass as to capitalize on the grief and fear of shocked constituents?
    I am appalled.
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Are you suggesting that many if not most government actions are driven by politicians' self-serving short-sighted desire to score immediate cheap political points and not by actual data-supported rational decision-making?
    This is why my suggestion is that all political terms end in the execution of the politician. That way, you only get people who really want to make a difference, and there are no worries about scoring political points for re-election.
  • SailSail
    edited November 2010
    No one smart enough to be able to run a whole country is dumb enough to agree to be executed.

    [Edit] Actually, no one smart enough to be able to run a whole country is dumb enough to agree to run a whole country.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    Are you suggesting that many if not most government actions are driven by politicians' self-serving short-sighted desire to score immediate cheap political points and not by actual data-supported rational decision-making?

    Are you suggesting that our elected leaders might be so crass as to capitalize on the grief and fear of shocked constituents?
    Yes.
  • balderdashbalderdash
    Yes.
    Cynic.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    @Funfetus: Stop making Scott look reasonable.
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    Are you suggesting that many if not most government actions are driven by politicians' self-serving short-sighted desire to score immediate cheap political points and not by actual data-supported rational decision-making?
    This is why my suggestion is that all political terms end in the execution of the politician. That way, you only get people whoreallywant to make a difference, and there are no worries about scoring political points for re-election.
    Wouldn't work, because then no one would want to run, even those who want to make a difference.
  • SailSail
    Wouldn't work, because thenno onewould want to run, even those who want to make a difference.
    Nope. Insane, suicidal people would run and fuck up the world as much as possible before they're killed.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    You'd at least get good healthcare for the terminally ill.
  • balderdashbalderdash
    Better plan: no elections. Just select people at random and then put them through a short, intensive civics and ethics course before they start. Can't possibly work out worse than what we have now, which is a system that is optimized to elect the best weasels.

    Except the judiciary. They would need to be elected so as to protect us from the occasional crazies who'd get selected.
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Thanks for taking a ridiculous thing seriously, guys. :)

    Although, I definitely do think one of the absolute biggest problems in politics is the fact that people govern to get re-elected, rather than to do the right thing. I got no idea how to fix it, though. A 1-term max for all offices might help a bit, but then you just get people governing to get elected to a different office.
  • SailSail
    You're welcome.
  • zehaevazehaeva
    . A 1-term max for all offices might help a bit, but then you just get people governing to get elected to a different office.
    This also increases your turn over and lets good talent get away. I wonder what this country would look like if the presidency were only one term all the way back to the founding. They wouldn't have needed to write it into the constitution, You would have just needed the precedent of Washington and Jefferson et. al. to elect to run for just one term each.

    Even with that one thought in mind you should wonder what the 30's and 40's would have been like if Roosevelt could have only served for just that first term.

    How you incentivize capable talent to work for the government and get rid of the chaff?

    Thats a question for the ages, isn't it?
  • balderdashbalderdash
    How you incentivize capable talent to work for the government and get rid of the chaff?
    It'd be nice if we could actually get people to vote for who governs well instead of who runs the most campaign ads, wouldn't it?
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    A one or two term limit on holding office at any given level for all offices. That allows for people to work up to the federal level without forming political machines, and provides them will the ability to demonstrate their capacity to effect change. A ban on all televised and robocall campaign ads, and on anything that smears another candidate.
  • RymRym
    A ban on all televised and robocall campaign ads
    Impossible.

    What if I, a private citizen, make a private advertisement of my own free will whereby I endorse a particular candidate? Or, what if I simply anti-endorse the opposing candidate? What if I'm a celebrity who happens to get interviewed and has a political opinion? What about blogs and Youtube shows?
  • JasonJason
    Are you suggesting that many if not most government actions are driven by politicians' self-serving short-sighted desire to score immediate cheap political points and not by actual data-supported rational decision-making?

    Are you suggesting that our elected leaders might be so crass as to capitalize on the grief and fear of shocked constituents?
    THEY CAN DO THAT?
    image
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited November 2010
    What if I, a private citizen, make a private advertisement of my own free will whereby I endorse a particular candidate? Or, what if I simply anti-endorse the opposing candidate? What if I'm a celebrity who happens to get interviewed and has a political opinion? What about blogs and Youtube shows?
    Campaign ads still need reform. At the very least, smear campaign ads need to stop. People need to be judged on THEIR actions, not on the actions they allege others performed. Every statement in any ad that intends to influence a voter should be reviewed and fact-checked by an independent body, too.

    Campaign ads are a cancer in our electoral system.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • RymRym
    Campaign ads still need reform. At the very least, smear campaign ads need to stop. People need to be judged on THEIR actions, not on the actions they allege others performed. Every statement in any ad that intends to influence a voter should be reviewed and fact-checked by an independent body, too.

    Campaign ads are a cancer in our electoral system.
    They cannot be restricted in any practical way, as it would impinge on free speech. They could just encourage other people to make statements about them under the table.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited November 2010
    Smear campaigns are borderline slander in some cases, though. Illinois is really bad about this; we had an ad saying Pat Quinn would increase the state income tax by 30%, when really he was going to increase it by 3%. That's not free speech, that is a fucking lie. As I recall, the only reason they didn't get take out for it was because 30% of 10 is about 3, but nowhere in the ad did they show their work.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Trying to do something about campaign ads is curing the symptom rather than the disease. The problem is not campaign ads, but the idiots who are so heavily influenced by them.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Trying to do something about campaign ads is curing the symptom rather than the disease. The problem is not campaign ads, but the idiots who are so heavily influenced by them.
    Yeah, I know.
  • WalkerWalker
    I move that we abolish idiots.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I move that we abolish idiots.
    Nah, idiots are important. They free up people like us to do awesome stuff. Their behavior is just a drawback of their overwhelming convenience.
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    The problem is not campaign ads, but the idiots who are so heavily influenced by them.
    I guess you could say that if there were no idiots who would be influenced by them, the ads themselves would be unnecessary, but the big problem is the massive amounts of money that it takes to run the ads, among other things, to get elected.
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    I move that we abolish idiots.
    I second this motion. Get rid of safety warnings and the problem will solve itself in a few generations,
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    I move that we abolish idiots.
    I second this motion. Get rid of safety warnings and the problem will solve itself in a few generations,
    Do you think idiots read safety warnings?
  • zehaevazehaeva
    They cannot be restricted in any practical way, as it would impinge on free speech. They could just encourage other people to make statements about them under the table.
    Smear campaigns are borderline slander in some cases, though. Illinois is really bad about this; we had an ad saying Pat Quinn would increase the state income tax by 30%, when really he was going to increase it by 3%. That's not free speech, that is a fucking lie. As I recall, the only reason they didn't get take out for it was because 30% of 10 is about 3, but nowhere in the ad did they show their work.
    Why not strengthen slander/libel laws when it involves a political office? Also you could offer/mandate that all political ads be run through a fact checking office.

    We have limited the speech of the media before. For the longest time we had laws that stated each side of a story must be given equal air time. Requiring political ads to be fact checked seems quite reasonable. How can you be against the facts ?
  • AprecheApreche
    Why not strengthen slander/libel laws when it involves a political office? Also you could offer/mandate that all political ads be run through a fact checking office.

    We have limited the speech of the media before. For the longest time we had laws that stated each side of a story must be given equal air time. Requiring political ads to be fact checked seems quite reasonable. How can you be against the facts ?
    The Internet.
Sign In or Register to comment.