The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Since we are all agreeing with each other (you, me, and Ty -- quite the trifecta), it's not really an argument.

You should argue with Burger. He's one of your co-partisans, not mine.

I am a big believer in the free market because it does a great job of making markets more efficient (it allocates resources the most efficiently). The best way to provide cheap and quality products to consumers is with a free market. Command economies, and their progency like subsidies and tariffs suck. However, there needs to be regulations to protect health and safety of both consumers and workers, because that is one place the market ain't so great. Free Markets also doesn't address externalities very well. Kalamazoo can elect to protect is citizens more than than the Federal government, but it cannot lessen the federal protections, nor can the federal government stop Kalamazoo from trying to give further protection to their citizens.

That pretty much sums it up doesn't it Sidd?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Right. And if the federal Constitution can set a minimum standard for free speech, shouldn't it also tell the states that they can't provide greater protection for speech?

1) Try that on the free exercise/establishment clauses.

2) Let's get back to the reality here, which Spanky's post misses. We're talking about labeling requirements for meat and other products in interstate commerce. This is not costless--companies are potentially required to comply with 50 different state laws, even though they have, say, one production facility. Can it be done? Sure, but at rather substantial expense. Why do you think the Clean Air Act contains a provision limiting emissions requirements to either those adopted by California or those adopted by EPA. Do you really want to have cars that you can drive only in Minnesota? It's not an easily dismissed problem. Sounds great to have higher standards some place, but it's not costless.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Kalamazoo can elect to protect is citizens more than than the Federal government, but it cannot lessen the federal protections, nor can the federal government stop Kalamazoo from trying to give further protection to their citizens.

That pretty much sums it up doesn't it Sidd?

Why should 51% of the representative be able to tell Kalamazoo to have at least x level of protection, but 51% can't tell them to have more than x level of protection, particularly when provided x level of protection imposes costs on other people, namely those doing the protecting?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) Let's get back to the reality here, which Spanky's post misses. We're talking about labeling requirements for meat and other products in interstate commerce. This is not costless--companies are potentially required to comply with 50 different state laws, even though they have, say, one production facility. Can it be done? Sure, but at rather substantial expense. Why do you think the Clean Air Act contains a provision limiting emissions requirements to either those adopted by California or those adopted by EPA. Do you really want to have cars that you can drive only in Minnesota? It's not an easily dismissed problem. Sounds great to have higher standards some place, but it's not costless.

Um, right, but then the company can choose to sell only in certain states. And I don't think the ban would necessarily be on *using* the products in a particular state -- I think it's more on *buying* the product. I bought my car in Texas and brought it to CA. I'm sure if I brought some canned food with me from Texas, and it isn't labelled in accordance with CA standards, I can still eat it here -- but I may not be able to sell it.

States who have totally wackadoo labeling requirements will find that their consumers face higher prices and have less choice. The market will make the state modify its laws, right?

This is kind of getting similar to the boycott/embargo thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can't believe you and Sidd are getting into this argument. Of course states can impose stricter regulations, and of course they cannot soften federal regulations. Counties can make stricter regulations, and so can cities. Any other system just wouldn't be practical. New Mexico (or Lincoln County) can't have stricter beef inspection laws because their heat makes beef spoil quicker? Now you have dragged me into it.

I agree with Sidd (that's what "Sidd has my proxy" means) and I agree with you. However, Burger disagrees with all of us.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with Sidd (that's what "Sidd has my proxy" means) and I agree with you. However, Burger disagrees with all of us.

But leaving aside the morality question, his position is totally impractical - let alone the states rights implications.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
But leaving aside the morality question, his position is totally impractical - let alone the states rights implications.

Didn't I bring this up as a states' rights issue in the first place? Christ. I believe it was something to the effect of Republicans care more about corporate donors than about states' rights. Someone quote me so Spanky can see.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Didn't I bring this up as a states' rights issue in the first place? Christ. I believe it was something to the effect of Republicans care more about corporate donors than about states' rights. Someone quote me so Spanky can see.

Without looking, I think you said, "What about states' rights? Jeebus! Republicans care more about corporate donors than about states' rights." Then there was some witty double-entendre about meat-packing.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Without looking, I think you said, "What about states' rights? Jeebus! Republicans care more about corporate donors than about states' rights." Then there was some witty double-entendre about meat-packing.

Puh-leaze. (a) I never would have said "Jeebus" and (b) the packing of meat is serious business. I do not joke about it.

Packing veggies, maybe. But not meat. Especially not beef.

Actually, the title (MY title -- mine!) kinda says it all.

[ltl/fb]

Wal-Mart to carry Plan B.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But should the FDA prevent the states from imposing stricter regulations?

It can do so, at least under the prevailing interpretation of the commerce clause, but _should_ is a whole different matter.

There are some good policy arguments for the doctrine of preemption.

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Sales is a game of trickery. You are being separated from your money.

True. But the tricky sales guy has gone the way of large, sophisticated schemes which figure out the demographics on who can most easily be preyed upon. Another reason I'm not sympathetic to companies "unduly restricted" by these laws is because these companies want to do their dirty work and leave behind a bunch of swindled people in the hands of the state, which will have to deal with the fallout, like evictions, welfare, and sometimes a bunch of blue hairs phoning state agencies bitching. The people swindled are dumb and now they have financial problems. Nobody except the swindler benefits from Mr. Trickery leaving a trail of retarded poor people in his wake.

Retarted poor people. Just what we need more of. (Possible board motto?)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
But leaving aside the morality question, his position is totally impractical - let alone the states rights implications.

How is it impractical to create one federal rule to which everyone trading in interstate commerce in a particular good must comply? The opposite is impractical. Even the EU realized that.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
True. But the tricky sales guy has gone the way of large, sophisticated schemes which figure out the demographics on who can most easily be preyed upon. Another reason I'm not sympathetic to companies "unduly restricted" by these laws is because these companies want to do their dirty work and leave behind a bunch of swindled people in the hands of the state, which will have to deal with the fallout, like evictions, welfare, and sometimes a bunch of blue hairs phoning state agencies bitching. The people swindled are dumb and now they have financial problems. Nobody except the swindler benefits from Mr. Trickery leaving a trail of retarded poor people in his wake.

Retarted poor people. Just what we need more of. (Possible board motto?)

Maybe we should encourage extreme swindling to people below child-bearing age? And cut off aid. So they starve to death, and don't breed and stuff.

Because that might benefit society -- weeding out the stupid.

When it's old people, it just increases costs for everyone.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How is it impractical to create one federal rule to which everyone trading in interstate commerce in a particular good must comply? The opposite is impractical. Even the EU realized that.

Under that rubric, we should definitely federalize all insurance law. And all health and safety laws -- businesses operate in more than one area, guy. And building codes -- keeping up with all the state and local ones is burdensome for large builders. And tort liabilities as applied against companies, as well as individuals who travel a lot. Actually, criminal liabilities there too -- I mean, I fuck a 14-y-o in CA, and it's statutory rape, but in TX, it's not? How the hell am I supposed to keep track of that stuff? And what happens if I go to, like, Florida? I think we have a facility there. And maybe Connecticut. Totally impractical. I need uniformity.

And for much the same reasons (i.e., my convenience), abortion law should be federal. And marriage. Who knew some places you have to get blood tests, but other places not? Jeez.

Are you, like, not at all supportive of states' rights and a libertarian? Interesting mix.