archer wrote: Look...if you want to believe everything an advertiser tells you, and get your information from that source, fine. But most people know there is a difference between an advertisement for a product and expert advice from a professional. I guess I failed to take into account those who DO actually believe all the ads. Though even advertisements are regulated...legally they cannot make false claims.
So tell me Bob, Is all this effort worthwhile just to prove me wrong on some obscure level. I have posted my opinion, and the conservatives here have twisted themselves into pretzels to make me wrong....again, the conservatives idea of civility, badger a liberal incessantly until they leave. You win.
You say what you say above, but still feel that people need to be protected from bad advice. They can tell the difference between good and bad ads, of which they see 1000's a day, but when it comes to one private person giving an opinion, but not claiming to be a professional, well we need to do something about THAT.
I hear all the stuff you guys say about what speech is able to be restricted. I just do not see the space in the constitution for such restrictions, they are illegal according to the primary law of the land, even if they somehow passed and are loosely enforced. They are also immoral, just take it to the limit, if we can restrict some speech under a system where there are no provisions what so ever to restrict speech, that means that any speech can be restricted, so since we are ignoring our primary laws, I agree with you, the govt can stop you from saying absolutely anything, they can also stop you from peaceably protesting and allow you to enslave people. Nice living with no rules or making them up as you go along, have fun having no real system and having the carpet pulled from underneath you and others, as it will happen and will come back to haunt you, even if you like having no real rules or many short lived ones that change on a dime.
Ideas and words should not be owned, but govt or by anyone, those afraid of this are the problem.
Last week, the Institute for Justice scored a resounding victory for the right to earn an honest living in an unlikely case that pitted woodworking monks against the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. The New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – where I clerked – ruled in a final, unanimous decision (including one Obama-appointed judge) that Louisiana violated the St. Joseph Abbey monks’ economic liberty when it forbade them from selling the caskets they make to support their religious order.
Significantly, the court ruled that the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to enact laws simply to shield industry cartels from honest competition."
Last week, the Institute for Justice scored a resounding victory for the right to earn an honest living in an unlikely case that pitted woodworking monks against the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. The New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – where I clerked – ruled in a final, unanimous decision (including one Obama-appointed judge) that Louisiana violated the St. Joseph Abbey monks’ economic liberty when it forbade them from selling the caskets they make to support their religious order.
Significantly, the court ruled that the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to enact laws simply to shield industry cartels from honest competition."
Is such a ruling a potential basis to not have to license anyone for any profession? All licensed professionals violate others economic liberties and jack up prices, as do takes and employment regulations etc.. You don't ever talk about how cheap the plumber or doctor are. You rarely talk about how great they are either. You don't have economic liberties, you have economic entitlements, there is a big difference. In order for you to get your entitlement, someone else has to be made less than.
Last week, the Institute for Justice scored a resounding victory for the right to earn an honest living in an unlikely case that pitted woodworking monks against the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. The New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – where I clerked – ruled in a final, unanimous decision (including one Obama-appointed judge) that Louisiana violated the St. Joseph Abbey monks’ economic liberty when it forbade them from selling the caskets they make to support their religious order.
Significantly, the court ruled that the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to enact laws simply to shield industry cartels from honest competition."
Is such a ruling a potential basis to not have to license anyone for any profession? All licensed professionals violate others economic liberties and jack up prices, as do takes and employment regulations etc.. You don't ever talk about how cheap the plumber or doctor are. You rarely talk about how great they are either. You don't have economic liberties, you have economic entitlements, there is a big difference. In order for you to get your entitlement, someone else has to be made less than.
"Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice on the Internet about what food people should buy at the grocery store?
That is exactly the claim made by the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition. In December 2011, diabetic blogger Steve Cooksey started a Dear Abby-style advice column on his popular blog ([url=http://www.diabetes-warrior.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.diabetes-warrior.net[/url]) to answer reader questions. One month later, the State Board informed Steve that he could not give readers advice on diet, whether for free or for compensation, because doing so constituted the unlicensed, and thus criminal, practice of dietetics. The State Board also told Steve that his private emails and telephone calls with readers and friends were illegal, as was his paid life-coaching service. The State Board went through Steve's writings with a red pen, indicating what he may and may not say without a government-issued license.
"............
Much better that we leave it to the government. This is dated but if you think it is all better now, I have a bridge to sell you.
"I think not. Ultimately, the food industry dictates the government’s food advice, shaping the nutrition agenda delivered to the public. In fact, to the food industry, the purpose of food guides is to persuade consumers that allfoods (especially those that they’reselling) fit into a healthful diet.
The government readily complies. The newly recommended Dietary Guidelines, delivered to the government last September by its handpicked advisory committee will almost assuredly be categorically endorsed. The Guidelines include meaningless — even deceptive — recommendations like: “Choose carbohydrates wisely for good health” (is a breakfast cereal that’s 38 percent sugar a “wise” choice?) and “Choose fats wisely for good health” (are fast food French fries cooked in artery-clogging, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, a powerful promoter of heart disease, a “wise” choice?). Further, in an apparent attempt to make no foods off-limits, the Guidelines give the nod to “discretionary calories” from added sugars and fats, once basic nutritional needs have been met.
These statements, which will form the basis of all national food and nutrition policy (including all of the U.S. school meal programs), protect every interest group in the food industry by basically setting no limits on any type or amount of fat and carbohydrate consumed. And all of this with the directive to “control calorie intake to manage body weight.” Say what?
How and why does the government allow this to happen? As I learned from my days as a USDA nutritionist, nutrition for the government is primarily a marketing tool to fuel growth in consumer food expenditures and demand for major food commodities: meat, dairy, eggs, wheat. It’s an economics lesson that has very little to do with our health and nutrition and everything to do with making sure that food expenditures continue to rise for all interests involved in the food industry.
Moreover, the USDA has had a long and cozy relationship with the food industry, whose executives often end up in USDA leadership positions (for instance, Mr. Hentges, formerly of the National Pork Producers’ Council and mentioned earlier). In fact, consumer groups requested (unsuccessfully) last year that seven of the 13 panel members who were writing the Food Guidelines, be removed because of their close ties to the food industry. Additionally, hundreds of food industry lobbyists keep the USDA in line — theirline. Agriculture is among the top 10 industries that spend most on lobbying efforts."
Dumb people need censorship, they are afraid the words of others may open their minds...or even worse...someone may tell a lie and they may be so dumb they believe it.
Archer, is this another place the gov. needs to regulate and fine people?
TV Stations Warns of "Unregulated" Underground Dinner Parties
By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Thursday, Sept. 12, 2013, at 1:49 PM
..."That hostess, Naama Shafi, writes about food but is not a chef. Leitner found her through a website, which connects amateur foodies and professional chefs in 20 different countries with people who want unique dining experiences.
Clandestine dinner parties like the one Leitner attended have become more common in New York City. And insiders told Leitner they are completely unregulated. [...]
To stay under the radar, Patlazhan changes the location every time and keeps the guest list exclusive through a members-only website.
Food service is one of those weird areas where the exact s"...
