PDA

View Full Version : Evian nutritional information



Shocker
09-04-2002, 04:13 AM
believe it or not, i bought a bottle of evian water and it had nutritional information listed on it.

it read:

protein: 0g
carbs: 0g
fat: 0g

i would be scared if any of those actually registered a result - IT'S WATER !

Victor
09-04-2002, 04:44 AM
They also have such contents on little mint sweets. Worse still, which states something like 0.0003 for each department. Oh well...

Paul Stagg
09-04-2002, 07:46 AM
The stupidity of government regulation.

Wizard
09-04-2002, 07:56 AM
Hey, what about the calories? does it state how many cals are in there?
I am not gonna buy Evian again if you don't provide me with in depth nutritional analysis..

kimpy225
09-04-2002, 09:08 AM
lol
a friend and i used to joke about regular water with ingredients..
apparently it is now coming down to that

NateDogg
09-04-2002, 09:14 AM
If that is not done, then it comes down to having to define the boundaries of what "water" is, and disputes will arise over seltzer water, flavored water, etc. It's just easier to say that everything needs to have a nutritional label, IMO.

Tryska
09-04-2002, 09:17 AM
i agree. i think nutrtional labels on everything is fantastic.

takes the guesswork out, and you know exactly what your getting.

even if it's just water.

Tryska
09-04-2002, 09:17 AM
although it would be really cool if potassium, calcium and magnesium levels were put on labels alongside sodium. especially on water.

TreeTrunks
09-04-2002, 09:26 AM
paul's right nutrition facts on water is just another product of government overregulation. But its a double-edged sword, yeah its ridiculous to have nutrition facts on water but the reason they are on there is that it has to be labeled on all food items so that is good.

zwarrior99
09-04-2002, 03:28 PM
Stupidy i am glad they put that there!

Paul Stagg
09-04-2002, 03:34 PM
If it is important to consumers, they would ask for it, and the free market would force the sellers to place labels there (since whomever decided to serve that market buy placing labels would be wildly successful)

We DO NOT need to government to hold our hands. Well, maybe some of you do, but I don't.

If you do, I suggest you move somewhere the government will take care of you. Like China. That seems like a nice place.

Just some girl
09-04-2002, 06:08 PM
What exactly are you arguing against, Paul? Do you feel there is an extreme down side to manufacturers putting nutritional information on the label? Is there anything wrong with allowing the consumer to always be able to make educated decisions about what they are putting into their body for fuel? Even if many people do not currently utilize this source of information, would you say it is inherently evil or bad?

As someone stated before, can you force manufacturers of foods that you know to be higher in calories to put food labels on their products if you do not force them to label lower calorie products? What point would you use as the caloric cut-off for the products that needed nutrition information versus the ones that do not? And what about products with almost no calories, but lots of sodium? Don't people with high blood pressure need to know that information? What about products with almost no calories, no fat, no nutrition at all except sugar? Don't diabetics need to know that? So how can we establish a caloric or fat or sugar based cut-off? Isn't it just so much easier to say that all products need nutritional information even if it is to tell us that there is nothing in it? Basically the only product that this "nothing in it" would apply to would be water. But even then, as someone pointed out earlier, what about seltzer waters? What about the new "Snapple water"? How do you decide which "water" is really just plain old nothing-in-it-water?

But even more to the point, why waste all of our tax dollars trying to devise a new system to control this when the one we have already works. It is beneficial to numerous Americans, and is only actually silly for very few products out there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the system in this case is far from broken.

Tryska
09-04-2002, 07:23 PM
:withstupi

Paul Stagg
09-05-2002, 09:36 AM
What exactly are you arguing against, Paul?

** Government interferance in the free market.

Do you feel there is an extreme down side to manufacturers putting nutritional information on the label?

** Absolutely not.

Is there anything wrong with allowing the consumer to always be able to make educated decisions about what they are putting into their body for fuel?

** Absolutely not

Even if many people do not currently utilize this source of information, would you say it is inherently evil or bad?

** Absolutely not.

As someone stated before, can you force manufacturers of foods that you know to be higher in calories to put food labels on their products if you do not force them to label lower calorie products?

** I don't think we shoudl *force* any one, in a free society, to do anything unless the use of force protects another individual's property rights.

What point would you use as the caloric cut-off for the products that needed nutrition information versus the ones that do not?

** Infinity, as I think it is wrong to *force* anyone to label anything.

And what about products with almost no calories, but lots of sodium? Don't people with high blood pressure need to know that information?

** Sure.

What about products with almost no calories, no fat, no nutrition at all except sugar? Don't diabetics need to know that?

** Sure

So how can we establish a caloric or fat or sugar based cut-off?

** Let the market place do it.

Isn't it just so much easier to say that all products need nutritional information even if it is to tell us that there is nothing in it?

** Easier? no. More effective? no.

Basically the only product that this "nothing in it" would apply to would be water. But even then, as someone pointed out earlier, what about seltzer waters? What about the new "Snapple water"? How do you decide which "water" is really just plain old nothing-in-it-water?

** You, of your own free will either: only buy products where the manufacturer or retailer has decided to provide the information OR research on your own what is in the product OR take your chances.

But even more to the point, why waste all of our tax dollars trying to devise a new system to control this when the one we have already works. It is beneficial to numerous Americans, and is only actually silly for very few products out there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the system in this case is far from broken.

** I say we use $0 of our tax money. This system is horribly broken. Why? Because now the market is full of people who *think* that since the gov't requires the label, everything we need to know is on the label, and we don't need to research anything else. Which, of course, is not true. perhaps if the gov't stayed out of it, we would have far mroe useful information on the label as a result of a marketplace where the information is required to be successful, instead of a marketplace where the required information may or may not be appropriate, but since the gov't requires it, it MUST be all we need.

** I don't need to government to do this for me. If you do, then there are plenty of places where the government will take care of you. Of course, you won't have any property rights, but really, who needs them?

Just some girl
09-05-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
now the market is full of people who *think* that since the gov't requires the label, everything we need to know is on the label, and we don't need to research anything else. Which, of course, is not true. perhaps if the gov't stayed out of it, we would have far mroe useful information on the label as a result of a marketplace where the information is required to be successful, instead of a marketplace where the required information may or may not be appropriate

I think this is an interesting point. Though I disagree that there is a great deal more that needs to be on labels and within the nutritional information of food products for people to make educated decisions. I think knowing more about the things listed on the labels would be a great idea. Like the idea that all carbs are not equal, fat is not inherently bad, and so on. Ideas everyone here is very familiar with. But to put a mini diet and nutrition lesson on the package of every food item might be overboard. Or perhaps a good idea. Who knows. Maybe we'll even see that someday. If it helps America become more healthy, I say go for it.

But regardless of my disagreeing on this point, I think from a reality-based stand point, you point is out of touch. It is unrealistic to think that people in America will take the time to research on their own the nutrition information for each and every food they buy . The people of our nation (in particular keeping in mind dual-income families, single parent families, etc.) who are more likely to pick up a completely prepared meal at Boston Market to avoid the time it takes to cook; who talk on their cell phones, drink coffee, read the newspaper, and attempt to drive all at the same time; will budget the time into their already hectic lives to do this sort of investigating. Especially if it is make it harder for them to find the info (located on the side of every product so they can see it while they are in the store shopping is in my opinion, ideal. It may, for the average person, be the only time he or she will even think about the nutrition of that food).

I am replying, but I already know that we will never agree on this topic, so we can simply agree to disagree. And we can probably even do that without me having to relocate to China.

Orange357
09-05-2002, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg


We DO NOT need to government to hold our hands. Well, maybe some of you do, but I don't.



:thumbup:

Paul Stagg
09-05-2002, 01:48 PM
I don't want you to move to China.

I'm being somewhat rediculous to make a bit of a point. Do I really give a hoot that nutrition information is required? Not really. It's the point of it. (And I know and freely admit I'm out of touch :) )

Government regulation certainly (in most cases) begins with good intentions. My point is that the market, with no intentions, will almost always produce a better result. Why? Because $$ talks.

Here is a scenario:

Company A makes bread. Company B makes bread.

Company A puts clear nutrition information on the bread because they think it creates a competitive advantage. Company B does not.

Company A will sell more bread *if* consumers value the information. If they don't, then It isn't a competitive advantage (and has no value).

Now, what happens when Company B see's Company A's market share increase?

Company B has a couple of choices. One is to compete on the same turf - that is, provide nutritional info that is even better! The other is to find another competitive advantage (price, quality, etc.) What happens now?

Either consumers now have a product with clearer info than before, or they can get a better product, or spend less for it. All benefits.

Lets say Company B decides providing info is the way to go. They can use their clearer info as a selling point. Company A, in order to compete, will also have to improve labelling.

What ends up happening is the market will stabilize at the point where there is no value to increasing the amount of information.

Some things to consider:

a) since there is a profit motive, we actually get the information we want (value)
b) There is no use of force
c) The choice is left to the consumer
d) The consumer is not (mis) lead into thinking that since someone far smarter than they (government) came up with the label, it *must* be good.

Essentially, I'm suggesting that not only would we have labels on food, they would be far more useful than the ones we currently have. I'm suggesting that government intervention isn't necessary.

Our reliance on the government, our changes in behavior where we look for ways to not take responsibility for ourselves, will lead us down a very trecherous path.

_-_v_-_
09-05-2002, 02:40 PM
Thank you for one of the clearest distillations of laissez-faire thought I have seen. Would that more people understood such basic economic theory.

Have you read much regarding anarcho-capitalistic political theory? It is in many ways similar to the Nozickian minimal state which most libertarians seem to prefer. If you have, I was wondering how you answer some of the common arguments against: chiefly,] the "free rider" critique of the aspects of the theory which propose competing "defense agencies," which are intended, of course, to provide that which is often given as the purpose of a strong federal government: national defense.

Tryska
09-05-2002, 02:48 PM
as shady as companies are, i think not having a minimum requirement as to what should be on a label leaves companies with option of letting certain things be left off. Such as how much saturated fat really is in their products. or how much sugar is really in them. or any number of things, as to make their products more marketable period.

if there is no required "gold standard" that leaves plenty of wiggle room.

sorry paul, i know your all for a free market, and no government regulation or whatever, but frankly i don't have enough trust in corporate america to think that they would honestly and ethically do what they needed to do to protect my interests. Free Market or not.

even with government regulations, most of what's coming out of the free market is total shite. And people are okay with it because they don't know any better....i can only imagine if there were no regulations whatsoever. and i appreciate the rather optimistic view you have on the integrity of a deman-driven market, but i ain't buying that human nature and the bottom line allow for the sort of integrity you think it would.

the bottom line rarely does.

body
09-05-2002, 04:43 PM
In the UK. unless you make a claim, you do not need to giv any nutritional info on at all.


plus there are many loops holes in the law.

if you declare soduim content or salt content.
MSG contains soduim but is not a salt.
low soduim products contain potasuim salts, but they are not. so the product will have more soduim in than if you did the straight equation of souim to chlorine ratio.
so soduim content can be lower. but over all salt content is still tha same.
Coprote america would use the claim beneficial to them.
I bet most people including people from here would not pick up on them.

paul still working for COKE? i wonder why you do not want to much info on a can?
plus to much info, will mean you have to get better ink printers for the can? It may get in the way of brand logo as well so detracts from the global logo?
also more nutritional info means if you ahev to make the product more consistenly as well. especially when tight on the claims.

As for water. I can see why they put lables on there. There are a lot of dim people out there. I may understand label declarations, but I would not be good at buying a car etc.

though in the UK they list lots of the mineral contents on bottled water.

another reason for nutritional info. is some have added fruit juice etc which add a small amount of kcals.

I could use the argument of why any foods needs it. I can roughly guess what most foods are off the top of my head anyway.

So paul how did coke sales change when they started to put nutritional info on? or is that confidential?

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 07:13 AM
Those big nasty corporations can be forced to do just about anything if the market (consumers) wants.

Due to the mentality of most of the population (the government requires it, so it must be all I need to know), government intervention tends to screw up the process, as it actually limits our knowledge, while making us think we know everything we need.

-v-

I'm not sure I can do your question justice on a bulletin board (or at all). Do I think there should be competition in the defense industry? Yes. Do I see the benefit of competing private defense agencies? yes. Do I think it's necessary? No. Assuming the Federal Gov't was doing what the constitution says it is supposed to do (read the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution), there is a profit motive to the government (and the people) in a proper national defense, and that would certainly make it very effective. That's one of the reasons our defense is as good as it is.

(Profit motive =/= money)

Tryska
09-06-2002, 07:23 AM
so then why was anti-trust legislation created?

my thinking is because it was necessary.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 07:57 AM
Because we (falsely) believe there is such a thing as 'common good', and that forced competition is better than no competition.

I make a widget.

I make damn good widgets.

Everyone needs widgets.

I have a competitive advantage such that no one can compete with me, so I am the only widgetmaker.

Now that I am the all powerful widget maker, what happens?

Lets say I'm a meanipants, and I raise the price on widgets in order to inflate my profits. Wrong? No.

Now what happens?

Either people continue to pay my high prices for widgets, or someone in the market invents a wadget that not only does what my widget does, but does it for less. And it comes in 5 spectacular colors to go with any decor. OR, people will find a way to replace the widget with some other product.

Remember, also, that I have people working for me to make the widgets - there are many, many places competitive pressure can start, and value can change with time.

The market will fix this stuff all on its own, IF we leave it alone.

If no one makes a better widget given the resourses available, than my company with the expensive widget IS the best option.

Think about what would happen if your utilities suddenly became too expensive?

What would you do?

You either find an alternative source of energy (or buy energy from someone else)
or
you make more money

Could be, that the increase in costs of living would also increase the price of labor, increasing your salary... and naturally redistribuiting value elsewhere.

In the end, the market moves to make the best use of all resources. If you are using a resource under it's profit capacity (to anyone), someone will eventually offer you enough to purchase the resourse and use it to it's full potential (if that never happens, then you ARE using it to it's full potential)

Tryska
09-06-2002, 08:05 AM
that's not exactly what i mean.


I mean moreso the various companies making widgets getting together (secretly of course) to price-fix widgets, squeeze out any independent widget-maker that may make widgets for cheaper, and/or any wigdet-maker unions that might demand that widget-workers have decent working envorinoments, even though the changes required to make those environments cuts into your bottom dollar.

that to me is a Trust.

and it certainly isn't an economy driven by customers. unless of course everyone all at one jsut stopped buying the widget. which of course is a "necessary" item.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 08:19 AM
Trust/monopoly tend to have similar economic impact.. the several companies working together are just like on big company, except that due to profit motive, there is more likely to be a break in the ranks.

Re-read my post. If widgets become too expensive, and they are necessary, there are other things that will happen in the market to fix the situation - either someone will find a way to replace the widget, people will make due without it, or the price of labor will go up (so people can afford the widget)

Lets say it's the latter.

When the price of labor goes up, that provides a huge incentive for large organisations not in the widget business to look at either subsidising widget purchases for their employees, OR spurring on innovation to either invent the wadget (in 5 colors) or get into the discount widget business.

Or, as I said before, the price point of the widgets with the trust/monopoly in place is the best use of resourses, and the market adapts.

Widget workers always have the option to get into another trade if working in widgets is no longer profitable for them as individuals. There is a risk/reward, as with anything, as well as a cost/benefit.

One of the neat things you learn studying how this stuff works is how remarkably arrogant we (humans) are. See, the 'Market' while requiring people, is not a creation of people. It just kinda happens. So trying to control it is an excercise in futility. It is not driven by anything but itself. it has existed for as long as people have had free will and have placed value on things, time, places, property, activities, etc.

Tryska
09-06-2002, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Trust/monopoly tend to have similar economic impact.. the several companies working together are just like on big company, except that due to profit motive, there is more likely to be a break in the ranks.

Re-read my post. If widgets become too expensive, and they are necessary, there are other things that will happen in the market to fix the situation - either someone will find a way to replace the widget, people will make due without it, or the price of labor will go up (so people can afford the widget)


~~~~~and this is logical when you are talking about steel, beef or corn and let's say crude oil?


When the price of labor goes up, that provides a huge incentive for large organisations not in the widget business to look at either subsidising widget purchases for their employees, OR spurring on innovation to either invent the wadget (in 5 colors) or get into the discount widget business.

~~~~~~other companies subsidising the purchase of these things for their employees, would create a sort of plantation atmosphere no?

Or, as I said before, the price point of the widgets with the trust/monopoly in place is the best use of resourses, and the market adapts.

~~~~~~~ that is highly doubtful. and hasn't been proven by history.


Widget workers always have the option to get into another trade if working in widgets is no longer profitable for them as individuals. There is a risk/reward, as with anything, as well as a cost/benefit.

~~~~~~~you are presuming it's an easy thing. If these workers are skilled in their trade, and the Monopolies are the only ones hiring for that particular trade, and they get blackballed then basically your saying suck it up, go get a new trade. easier said then done. If they are unskilled and/or illiterate, it becomes even more difficult.

One of the neat things you learn studying how this stuff works is how remarkably arrogant we (humans) are. See, the 'Market' while requiring people, is not a creation of people. It just kinda happens. So trying to control it is an excercise in futility. It is not driven by anything but itself. it has existed for as long as people have had free will and have placed value on things, time, places, property, activities, etc.

~~~~~~~very arrogant indeed. which is why i jsut don't see your optimistic view of the character of man where money is concerned as being viable. The market is an entity unto itself yes, but it can be manipulated to a very high degree. whether that benefits the consumers most or the companies most is highly debatable tho.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 10:04 AM
1. Yes, it is logical. What makes oil or beef any different than widgets?

2. Subsidies for widgets would be just like, say, subsidies for health insurance. Just another benefit.

3. History hasn't shown it because we meddle in the market. Theoretically (it's all theory), it's how it works. Where we don't meddle, it works quite nicely. Every day, people do things that can be explained via value and economic theory.

4. Never said it was easy. That isn't a requirement. See, if you are not capable of doing anything but making widgets, you get what you get. There is a cost assoicated with learning a new trade, and a benefit. The individual (not you, not I, and certainly not the government) is the only person who can make the value descision.

5. Manipulation hurts everyone. Remember, we are discussing the concept of 'value', not money. Value =/= money.

An example:

I still run my monopolistic widget company, but I'm NOT a meaniepants. As a matter of fact, I recognize that people need my widgets. I also recognize that taking advantage of my monopolistic status could bite me (by forcing the market to replace widgets with something else, as discussed above.) I ALSO value the feeling I get being a generally good person, and not taking advantage of people who rely on my widgets.

Add all that up - I charge a reasonable price for widgets. I make a decent profit, maybe more than lots of folks. I use my power and money to benefit charity. I treat my employees well, because I value that they like and respect me.

We, as individuals, do stuff like this all the time. I'm nice to people because it makes me feel good. There is a value in that. Sometimes the transaction involves money, sometimes not. Maybe I just carry my neighbors groceries in. I give up a little time, I get a thank you and a good feeling. THAT was the best use of the resource (my time is a resource).

Going back to my widget company - do you see how it is good business, in my best interest, and certainly creates value for me, the all powerful widget maker, to NOT take advantage of my position?

Compare:

Meaniepants all powerful widgetmaker makes big short term profit, but takes big risk that someone will runn him out of business with a wadget (in 5 colors for every decor).

Nicepants all powerful widgetmaker makes smaller short term profit, but makes $$ longer, plus gets value from feeling good about himself and helping others by doing the right thing AND reduces the risk of a competing wadget!

Pretty neat how it all works, if it is left alone.

The only requirements are that property rights are protected, and there is no use of force (ostensibly to violate property rights) other than defense.

In our current world, the government uses force to change how people/companies behave. That's one thing that completely screws up how the market works. It takes a very large (and difficult0 paradigm shift to see how things work without the interference, because our understanding of how everything works just includes the use of force in the explanation (think macroeconomics). We've come to accept that to a certain extent, our property rights are violated every day, and that it's OK, because it is for some greater good. Remove the idea of a greater good from your paradigm. You can put it back later.

Every single action we take can be 'explained' via valuation - regardless of its 'economic' value.

Tryska
09-06-2002, 10:12 AM
shame on you for using the word "paradigm"

don't make me have to take this "offline" with you. *lol*

I don't know......I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree. The model I'm using for positing everything i've said is events that occured in turn of the 20th Century, post Industiral Revolution America under Teddy Roosevelt and basically what spurred Anti-trust regulation to begin with. I tink we were better off for it, personally.

Altho oddly enough even with regulation, i'm still seeing things remarkably similar going on. but i guess it's not the regulation so much as the imposition of regulation that makes a difference.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 11:04 AM
That's where the paradigm shift comes into play. You have to look at the world from a different perspective.

It can all be boiled down to some very simple concepts, some are just a bit difficult to comprehend without a bit of a shift.

1. Property rights are paramount.
2. The use of force to violate property rights is inherantly wrong
3. There is no such thing as a 'common good'

Tryska
09-06-2002, 11:10 AM
define "use of force"

and i do believe there is such a thing as a common good.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 11:31 AM
Use of force = use of or threat of violence.

For example, the US federal government takes tax money via force from citizens. (If you don't pay, they come to get you with guns)

I know you believe in a common good. That is the most difficult one to overcome.

I also believed in a common good until the Great Uncle Pauly Paradigm Shift, where I moved from moderate Republican to raving Libertarian.

The best way to do it:

You own a peice of land in the middle of the city. The city has no parks. The people of the city want parks, and we'll all agree that it would be a good thing if there were parks. Your land is the only land in the city suitable for a park.

You use the land for something else, and do not want to use it as a park.

The city knocks on your door with their emminent domain writ (and guns). They hand you a check for what they believe is the market value of your land, and send you off. (They have taken your land by force, as if you refuse to turn over the land, they will take it using the guns).

But, it's for the common good, as the city needed a park, and everyone in the city benefits, right?

Wrong.

YOU didn't benefit, ergo you are excluded from the common good. The good is no longer common to everyone, it is common to most. BIG difference.

If any one individual can come up with a better use of a resource than that of the common good, there isn't a common good! Couple that with the issues around government (communal) ownership - the loss of the profit motive, and while it seems you got what was good for everyone, you end up worse off than you were before.

There is such a thing as collective individual's good.

There are instances where this concept is tough to deal with, specifically education - we are all better off if our young people are well educated, right? I could definately make that argument.

I can also make a convincing argument as to how the free market, with no government intervention at all, could provide a more suitable (better) system of education.

Lets call it what it is... not 'common good' but 'good for almost everyone involved with some exceptions'.

Tryska
09-06-2002, 11:37 AM
stop with the paradigm!


everytime i hear that i think of that commercial from voicetel is it?

with the people in a meeting and the 'quack in the box' talking about "thinking outside of the box" and "you gotta shift the paradig-em"


your use of that word is distracting me from buying totally into your ideas on the libertarian party. ;)

unfortunately i'm damn near Green over here, so i'm having difficulty with the no common good thing.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 11:41 AM
paradigm, paradigm, paradigm, paradigm, paradigm.


Like I said, the common good is the toughest to overcome. Do you see the reason in what I posted?

What it comes down to is:

Do you think it is OK to use force against some people for the benefit of most of the people? If the answer is 'yes', then you probably won't vote for Harry Browne.

Remember, though, you take a very big risk if you think it's OK... because someday you might not be in the 'most of the people' group.

Tryska
09-06-2002, 11:51 AM
well personally, in the situation you described, on the one hand i'd have to switch my thinking to say that i actually OWN that specific piece of land. I think that is kind of a laughable notion. As human beings we're all a bit too transient for that to be truth.

on the other hand, would i feel unhappy about it? yeah, but give me a nice enough check and i'll be happy to move and give you your park. i believe cities need greenspace. if my land is the last greenspace available, well so be it. can i get a nice apartment right near it?

i'm also having difficulty with your idea of using force. no offense paul but it seems pretty conveninet to say that because you may get audited by the government and may have to pay fines or may have to go to jail for not paying your taxes you are being oppressed and having force used against you.


if this was nicaragua, and we were living under the regime their where they will disappear your ass, i might agree. but this is not a military regime, nor a dictatorship, so to me..the whole use of force thing is a bit of a stretch.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 12:13 PM
I know.

First, we need to agree that the money your earn is your property, and no one has a right to it. (property rights are paramount). The things you purchase with your money are also your property.

Then, we look at taxation in the US.

If I do not pay federal taxes, or file a tax return, what happens to me? The government will fine me. If I refuse to pay the fine, what happens? The government will come to my house, and using force, remove me and place me in a jail.

The government uses force to extract income taxes, and that is wrong. Force doesn't just look like third world oppression.

(compare that to a use tax, where the individual has a choice)

If the land that you own is best used as a park, YOU will arrive at that conclusion, because you would make the most profit (not necessarily all money) by making it a park - and people in the city will be willing to pay to use it.

You own the land, and if approached today, would sell it for $200,000. If offered $199,999 you would not sell.

The government shows up with $150,000, gives it to you, and takes the land (by force, because if you refuse the sale, they will remove you in chains, and if you resist, they will shoot you). You just had the equivelent value of $50,000 taken from you by force to serve the 'common good' (already shown to not really be the common good, but the good of most of the people).

The question: Is that right?

Tryska
09-06-2002, 12:21 PM
well, as i said, i'm damn near green.

i've always thought a flat tax was more sensible.


as for your example, no it's not right. well actually i'd prolly settle for 150, but still.

i suppose it's not. i still don't see that really happening tho.

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 12:29 PM
A flat tax would be a wonderful compromise.

No - it's not right.

Feeeeeeeeeel the paradigm shift.

It happens every day. It happens every time the government takes something from you to use for 'the common good', regardless of how you would like to use it.

And every time it happens, it's wrong.

Tryska
09-06-2002, 12:32 PM
bah. i agreed your example was wrong.

at the same time, i still don't believe the government taking something from me to use for the common good, is inherently a bad thing.

i do believe that some of the stuff the governemnt is using my money on is wrong tho.

(paradigm still firmly and comfortably in place)

Paul Stagg
09-06-2002, 12:38 PM
I'm gonna come down there and yank your paradigm.

:)

Tryska
09-06-2002, 12:48 PM
*prepares to bear arms*

over my dead body! ;)

_-_v_-_
09-06-2002, 01:02 PM
I'm gonna come down there and yank your paradigm.

Never heard THAT pickup line before :)







(Sorry to yank the thread down into the gutter; carry on)

Paul Stagg
09-08-2002, 07:47 PM
That's the line I used to pick up my first wife.

Unfortunately, there was a second, unforseen, paradigm shift after a couple of years of marriage.