NYC Salt Ban

[ecoli]

This could also go under politics I suppose:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/new-york-restaurants-salt-ban

 

What do you guys think about the ethics of this type of Nanny state-ism. My compass tells me it's immoral and the data says it's ineffective.

 

One possible, plausible scenario, restaurant goers wind up adding more salt to their own food in overcompensation. I hope this bill dies.

[insane_alien]

i'm not for the banning of salt, especially in restaurants.

 

like most things, if used responsibly, salt is perfectly harmless and can go a long way to enhancing the quality of the food you are eating both in terms of taste and nutritional value.

 

the problem comes with irresponsible uses of salt. restaurants already need to pass regular health inspections, why not add a section to that for responsible usage of salt surely that falls under the realms of health.

 

the US it seems, needs to learn the meaning of the word 'moderation' and not in the sense of forum moderation.

[Dudde]

This bill kinda tells me that the legislators of NY simply don't have enough important issues to keep busy on.

[CharonY]

I would assume that that one would not pass. But it makes me wonder, what are the requirement to put a bill up for vote?

[ecoli]

I would assume that that one would not pass.

I hope you're right, but I'm not so sure that's a good assumption. The City has made little effort to hide it's desire to intrude into people's lives, whether at home or at school.

 

This last link has really got me scratching my head. It assumes that what you know about has to be healthier than what you don't. It almost makes me want to shout *corporate conspiracy*... but of course, that would be improbable.

[Sisyphus]

It's certainly ridiculous. But why do you say it's immoral?

[ecoli]

It's certainly ridiculous. But why do you say it's immoral?

 

Because I see this type of gov't intrusiveness as "evil." If we hold that, in general, an immoral act is one that causes harm to others, I see these types of legislation as harming personal freedom and free choice.

 

If I want to eat at a restaurant that serves me rat poison (as long as I want to) what business is it to some suit in washington, albany or city hall?

[Sisyphus]

I agree that it's harmful, but it also seems to be motivated by good intentions. If the standard for "immoral" is just "does more harm than good," then in the case of legislation morality would just mean effectiveness, no?

[ecoli]

I agree that it's harmful, but it also seems to be motivated by good intentions.

Politicians wanting power/influence over people's personal lives and businesses doesn't sound like good intentions to me.

 

And, just in case you want to make the case that some politicians are truly benevolent in intention, first read this.

 

 

If the standard for "immoral" is just "does more harm than good," then in the case of legislation morality would just mean effectiveness, no?

if you accept that politicians hold the public interest at heart, then perhaps. I don't believe this, however. See above.

 

However, even if this wasn't true, understanding what is and isn't effective legislation and acting accordingly should be a primary feature of gov't. This means removing laws that don't work. However, they say there's nothing more permanent than a temporary gov't measure.

[Sisyphus]

Hey, I’m plenty cynical. I don’t think any politician exists who always puts the public interest first. But do you really believe that politicians never believe that their constituencies will be better off because of their actions?

 

I just don’t see what the ulterior motive is here. Eating a lot of salt is unhealthy. By restricting it, they hope to make people healthier. They seem to think this will work, and consider the end (healthier people) to justify the means. That seems to be as far as the thought process goes. What do you suppose the real motive is, if not that?

[ecoli]

Hey, I’m plenty cynical. I don’t think any politician exists who always puts the public interest first. But do you really believe that politicians never believe that their constituencies will be better off because of their actions?

 

I just don’t see what the ulterior motive is here. Eating a lot of salt is unhealthy. By restricting it, they hope to make people healthier. They seem to think this will work, and consider the end (healthier people) to justify the means. That seems to be as far as the thought process goes. What do you suppose the real motive is, if not that?

get re-elected. They're/He's trying to appease a subset of their constituents (maybe hyper-concerned mothers) by screwing over everyone else.

[The Bear's Key]

Don't confuse incompetence for malice. Some people are really ignorant/ naive, unable to consider their actions or foreseeable variables wisely.

 

This could also go under politics I suppose:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/new-york-restaurants-salt-ban

 

What do you guys think about the ethics of this type of Nanny state-ism.

Yes, incredibly stupid. Kind of like the no whorehouses rule.

 

I can see doing away with new lab-formulated ingredients that are proven harmful and lacking in nutrients, but to a staple of food thousands of years old? Ridiculous.

 

Plus salt is nutriciously critical for health.

 

 

And, just in case you want to make the case that some politicians are truly benevolent in intention, first read this.

So what?

 

...studies the behavior of politicians and government officials as mostly self-interested agents

It's not fact, and does say "mostly" anyway.

 

Disagree with lots of it. The part above sounds like a capitalism mantra, of "self-interested" agents who can't possess a true regard for others in a business life.

 

 

However, even if this wasn't true, understanding what is and isn't effective legislation and acting accordingly should be a primary feature of gov't.

1,000% agree.

 

This means removing laws that don't work. However, they say there's nothing more permanent than a temporary gov't measure.

What's said and true differs.

 

But I agree to removing -- or at least updating -- laws that don't work.

 

However, you should take a look at how many people on these forums didn't care about removing antiqated laws even if they're no longer enforced. It might tell us something about why bad laws don't go away.

 

You hadn't participated though, so out of curiosity I'd like to know: would you be comfortable if a law you (strongly) wanted repealed had instead remained on the books, and was just technically no longer enforced?

Edited March 11, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[jackson33]

It is NYC only and I agree with the consensus here, the bill will not pass. With out checking actual cases, other than both my folks, humans require a certain amount of 'Iodine' for some gland to function and Iodine is an additive in table salt. After the 'Big Salt Scare', think in the 1960's many cut back or stopped using table salt. One result was an 'inner eye' or balancing problem, which did hit both my parents and thousands of others. Even if they returned to using salt, apparently that gland didn't start up again, whatever it produced. They took supplemental pills (not cheap) the last 20+ years of their life.

 

Aside from this, what it the world would it do to the tourist business or the massive NYC Restaurant Business? Ecoli could go into that business, out there on the Island and make a fortune...

[ecoli]

Don't confuse incompetence for malice. Some people are really ignorant/ naive, unable to consider their actions or foreseeable variables wisely.

 

See to me, that's even worse than malice, in some ways. If a politician's job description is to serve the public interest, then trying to good (or fooling yourself into thinking you have the ability to do good) and failing is worse than just being honest about your malevolence.

 

At least in this country, incompetence is a far worse problem than corruption. Corruption is punished, but people who are chronically inefficient/ bad at their jobs are rewarded. They are rewarded because all they have to do is bring back enough bacon to please 51% of their constituents. Yes, voters are stupid for this, but politicians can do this because they know they can get away with it and they know how to operate within the system. A think this is pretty immoral.

 

So what?

...studies the behavior of politicians and government officials as mostly self-interested agents

It's not fact, and does say "mostly" anyway.

 

Disagree with lots of it. The part above sounds like a capitalism mantra, of "self-interested" agents who can't possess a true regard for others in business life.

 

Yeah, some have corrupted it for that purpose, but the real purpose of studying politics this way is to try to understand actions based on where incentives are coming from. If a politician actually has to do a good job in order to get re-elected, than maybe politicians will be more like to do that.

 

However, if politicians can be corrupt, fatten their wallets, be incompetent, scapegoat problems and still get elected? There's a strong incentive for them to do that, because they stand to gain the most.

 

Sure there are people with stronger moral compasses, and a good and open media system can help if politicians are held accountable and voters are willing to punish bad outcomes. Certainly American politics is better in this regard than many other places, but we are far from immune.

 

However, you should take a look at how many people on these forums didn't care about removing antiqated laws even if they're no longer enforced. It might tell us something about why bad laws don't go away.

 

You hadn't participated though, so out of curiosity I'd like to know: would you be comfortable if a law you had (strongly) wanted repealed instead remained on the books, and was just technically no longer enforced?

But you never know what bad law they can start enforcing in the name of national security, economic turmoil or whatever. So I would certainly say striking down legislation via court order or some other legal process is a must.

 

However, even if you do manage to do remove bad legislation, getting it passed in the first place sets a bad precedence for the possibility of it getting implemented again. So there's that.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, kind of interesting that they're attempting the ban route rather than the tax route. It also won't work, since chefs will just add some salty ingredient instead. And on the whole it is a thoroughly retarded idea. I'd venture that this is pseudolegislation by someone trying to say they're in favor of public health, and possibly also to paint someone else as opposed to health.

[The Bear's Key]

ecoli, did you think antiquated laws should be removed? i.e. transeferred to history books.

 

 

Corruption is punished, but people who are chronically inefficient/ bad at their jobs are rewarded.

Yeah, some have corrupted it for that purpose, but the real purpose of studying politics this way is to try to understand actions based on where incentives are coming from. If a politician actually has to do a good job in order to get re-elected, than maybe politicians will be more like to do that.

 

However, if politicians can be corrupt, fatten their wallets, be incompetent, scapegoat problems and still get elected? There's a strong incentive for them to do that, because they stand to gain the most.

 

Sure there are people with stronger moral compasses, and a good and open media system can help if politicians are held accountable and voters are willing to punish bad outcomes.

There's always a reasonable solution.*

 

So keeping that in mind -- and of the thieves who profit from bad government and make sure to keep it like that -- might we have any reasonable fixes to the problem?

 

Example...

 

Has any place tried letting citizens vote directly on the salary of elected government officials? A fantastic job -- high salary, earned and deserved. Corrupt job -- gets minimum wage.

 

 

 

But you never know what bad law they can start enforcing in the name of national security, economic turmoil or whatever. So I would certainly say striking down legislation via court order or some other legal process is a must.

But a fix might exist for that as well. Amendment to the Constitution that any high emergency law must continue to be voted on every ten years until it doesn't get enough votes, at which point it dies.

 

Might be reasonably functional if done properly(the operative word).

 

However, even if you do manage to do remove bad legislation, getting it passed in the first place sets a bad precedence for the possibility of it getting implemented again. So there's that.

Yeah, sure. But perhaps not if while removing it, the government must also declare in a binding oath that the faulty law can't return.

 

 

*Always.

 

Just visualize the math: the chances of finding it -- usually won't be that easy -- VS the near *zero* chances for lack of trying what's supposedly "impossible". Even lottery odds will go from 1:1,000,000,000 to perhaps 1:100,000,000,000,000 if you don't play (i.e. happening upon a lost winning ticket on the ground)

[ecoli]

I'm all for instituting a meritocracy. Makes more sense than having poli's vote for their own salaries.

[The Bear's Key]

Don't like it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit).[1] In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition.

I prefer keep our system,* but we vote on each individual lawmaker's salaries -- in your relevant district obviously. Far simpler, less abusable.

 

 

*(Not to drastically alter it to something that unrecognizable without extensive test runs)

[Mr Skeptic]

I prefer keep our system,* but we vote on each individual lawmaker's salaries -- in your relevant district obviously. Far simpler, less abusable.

 

However, that may still be problematic. Consider for example, I heard a story of some person who volunteered to be a judge, for free. In reply, he got "the people can't afford that". So long as there is money to be made via corruption, the salary of important people could be rather insignificant. There's also the chance that people would vote a really low salary on principle, since they themselves earn a low salary. So if anything, let me suggest that what people vote on is a percentage of a given salary, rather than directly for a dollar amount.

[ecoli]

Don't like it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit).[1] In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition.

I prefer keep our system,* but we vote on each individual lawmaker's salaries -- in your relevant district obviously. Far simpler, less abusable.

 

 

*(Not to drastically alter it to something that unrecognizable without extensive test runs)

 

By voting on salary, you are awarding perceived talent/ability. I don't see what distinction you're making.

[Sisyphus]

I think a government salary is extremely low on the list of reasons most people run for office.

[The Bear's Key]

However, that may still be problematic. Consider for example, I heard a story of some person who volunteered to be a judge, for free. In reply, he got "the people can't afford that".

The judge wouldn't have a choice in the salary voted amount on.

 

(kind of funny, the historical root of "salary" is on topic )

 

 

By voting on salary, you are awarding perceived talent/ability. I don't see what distinction you're making.

It's a pretty big distinction. A meritocracy rewards politicians before they hold office, where my suggestion is to reward them after. Meaning, a politician gets normal salary to begin, then next eletion it goes up or down -- if they got re-elected.

 

With meritocracy, however, you'd still have lies + character assassination to make a good person seem "unworthy" for holding office. It'd likely get out of hand quickly, ending with the powerful in rule once again.

 

I think a government salary is extremely low on the list of reasons most people run for office.

Don't get hung up on the wage aspect itself -- voting on it serves a broader purpose than luring people to office who seek to earn money.

 

It's a reflection of their job in a way that no poll can begin to approach.

 

Here's the advantages I see...

 

 

• Better than any poll. A low salary reveals most other citizens think similarly of the elected leader's job. It makes voting them out much easier.

 

• And if the current leader has a very low salary, then it's a nice visible indicator of electability for any good replacement leader considering a run for office.

 

• Which becomes an incentive for elected leaders to work harder, smarter.

 

• It might also deter crooks from running, as....

 

• Fewer legit businesses might desire to associate with a visibly incompetent/crooked politician, and if so, the worst of the business lot will remain surrounding the politician -- all their eggs neatly in one basket (a good thing for us).