Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Aug-12-08, 07:37
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default Old-Fashioned Paternalism Is Back

Old-Fashioned Paternalism Is Back

One of the hot new ideas in the academy is “libertarian paternalism.” Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, authors of the book “Nudge,” say the goal is “enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people” and “gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better.” An example: letting companies enroll workers in 401(k) plans unless they object.

But there’s an older and more prevalent notion about how to get people to do things that will make their lives better. You might call it coercive paternalism, and it’s thriving.

The most prominent examples are in California, which was once synonymous with freedom. City officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles intend to ensure that individuals are free to do what they want, if what they want is good for them.

San Francisco, like New York and Seattle, has decreed that chain restaurants must put nutrition information on menus. This policy, a specimen of libertarian paternalism, rests on the unproven assumption that, in the Information Age, people get fat for lack of knowledge rather than lack of willpower. No one seems to have noticed that our forebears, who didn’t have access to nutrition data, generally managed to avoid obesity.

But San Francisco recently came up with another gambit in the name of public health. It’s the first city in the nation to outlaw the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies.

What is this supposed to accomplish? Trying to reduce smoking by banning pharmacy sales is like trying to discourage driving by banning Chevys. Tobacco addicts have plenty of other places to get their fix.

At least they do for now. Mitch Katz, director of the Department of Public Health, insists that San Francisco “isn’t a nanny state.” But he leaves no doubt about his grand ambition: “I am not in favor of anybody smoking or anybody selling tobacco.”

Until he brings about complete prohibition, the ban will have perverse consequences. The most obvious is to deprive one type of retail establishment of revenue and divert the dollars to other businesses. Marginal neighborhoods will become less attractive sites for pharmacies but more appealing to liquor stores, which is a novel approach to urban renewal.

In Los Angeles, driving out certain businesses is not a potential side effect — it’s a conscious policy. The city council recently prohibited the opening of fast-food outlets in the poor, 32-square-mile area known as South Los Angeles. If you’re a global corporation selling inexpensive meals to go, Los Angeles has a message for you: Invest anywhere but here. Apparently a vacant lot is better than a Burger King.

Councilwoman Jan Perry believes the measure will assure the locals “greater food options.” The Los Angeles Times reports she “said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.”

Of course, it could do that without punishing outlets that don’t need luring. But if vegetarian and seafood restaurants didn’t see the area as profitable before, this law won’t change their calculations. It takes an Orwellian mindset to imagine that shutting out McDonald’s and KFC will expand, not diminish, the range of dining options in South Los Angeles.

All it will accomplish, as several fast-food workers told the city council, is to deprive residents of jobs in the forbidden outlets. Does anyone think unemployment will improve their diet? Or that a community with fewer jobs will be a more inviting place for preferred restaurants?

Municipal lawmakers blame the chains for obesity, as though these restaurants abduct locals and force them to eat salty, fatty fare. In reality, people in South Los Angeles patronize these places because they like tasty meals at a low price, and because they put less importance on staying slim and living till age 90 than some people think they should.

Libertarian paternalists may think they know better than you how you should live, but generally they limit themselves to promoting informed choices. Coercive paternalists have a simpler approach: telling us what to do.

The advocates say they are not trying to create a nanny state, and they’re right. To call these nanny-state measures grossly overstates the intrusiveness of nannies.

http://www.mexiadailynews.com/opini...=secondarystory
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Aug-12-08, 11:42
Caraboo109's Avatar
Caraboo109 Caraboo109 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 164
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/228/160 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ontario, Canada
Default

I don't have an issue with pharmacies not being allowed to sell cigarettes. Here in Ontario, all cigarettes must be hidden from plain view at all times at any store, and pharmacies have not sold them for years now.
Not allowing any businesses to establish in poor neighbourhoods is counterproductive and will keep them poor. When you bring in businesses you create jobs, put more money into the community and attract more businesses.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Aug-12-08, 12:07
1000times 1000times is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 440
 
Plan: eat less, exercise more
Stats: 229/185/154 Male 66 inches
BF:41%/28%/13%
Progress: 59%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caraboo109
Not allowing any businesses to establish in poor neighbourhoods is counterproductive and will keep them poor. When you bring in businesses you create jobs, put more money into the community and attract more businesses.

L.A. is not banning "any" (i.e., "all") businesses, just fast-food joints. The jobs created are mostly of the part-time low-paying variety with few or no benefits. They put no money into the community, just transfer money from some members of the community to others, with some skimmed off the top for the mostly absentee owners/shareholders of the restaurants. And I doubt very much that fast-food joints are all that big an attraction for corporate site selection committees.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Aug-12-08, 15:56
Caraboo109's Avatar
Caraboo109 Caraboo109 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 164
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/228/160 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ontario, Canada
Default

Let the neighbourhood decide if they want the low paying jobs versus none. Why deny a poor neighbourhood economic opportunity, even if it is Rotten Ronnie's or some other restaurant? That's my point. The politician could turn around and ban 7-11's under the guise that those types of establishments encourage violence and loitering.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Aug-12-08, 18:25
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caraboo109
Let the neighbourhood decide if they want the low paying jobs versus none.


?

That's exactly what they did. Poor communities petitioned their elected officials to get the fast food out of their neighborhoods. Please don't think that you're dealing with passive folks in poor Los Angeles. VERY activist. You can bet that the church groups were all sorts of up in the city council's business on this one. Fast-food restaurants are (rightly) seen as drains on their communities, offering poverty wages at best and, now, obesity at worst. They make up catchphrases like "food apartheid". They form a Bus Riders Union. They participate in the struggle for the betterment of their communities to a degree that puts the rest of us to shame.

Anyhow, I don't think that the opinions of the Chicago punditry weigh heavily on the minds of California politicians who are just (gasp) doing what their constituents ask them to do.

I can't believe I spent two paragraphs responding to a blog this stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 07:41
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Poor communities petitioned their elected officials to get the fast food out of their neighborhoods.


I've looked online and haven't found anything that suggests this was a community effort....do you have something you can link to that shows this community effort to get fast food restaurants out of the neighborhoods where the moratorium is now in effect?
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 08:13
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
I've looked online and haven't found anything that suggests this was a community effort....do you have something you can link to that shows this community effort to get fast food restaurants out of the neighborhoods where the moratorium is now in effect?


Community Coalition spearheaded most of it, from what I've heard. Marqueece Harris-Dawson is still in charge there. Get to Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 08:41
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
Community Coalition spearheaded most of it, from what I've heard. Marqueece Harris-Dawson is still in charge there. Get to Googling.


In my mind there is a difference between a vocal group within a community (different than you alluded - "Poor communities" petitioned their elected officials) versus the community itself taking action for change.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 09:03
kyrasdad's Avatar
kyrasdad kyrasdad is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,060
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 338/253/210 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
Community Coalition spearheaded most of it, from what I've heard. Marqueece Harris-Dawson is still in charge there. Get to Googling.

Not that I care in particular, but often we see interest groups portray themselves as representative of the community, and in fact they can be pretty narrow. I dunno about this case in particular, but it is difficult to imagine your average person walking down the street wishing that Popeye's chicken or Burger King weren't there.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 10:09
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Heh, you all have bitten off more than you can chew, eh? You've got a lot of work ahead of you if you're looking to discredit a 100-history of Los Angeles community organizing with flippant, bloglike dismissals. Paternalism is an easy call for people who have never seen 20,000 poor Angelinos trying to cram into a city hall council chambers that holds 1,200.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
In my mind there is a difference between a vocal group within a community (different than you alluded - "Poor communities" petitioned their elected officials) versus the community itself taking action for change.


What would YOU suggest the poor of Los Angeles do to get their voices REALLY heard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyrasdad
it is difficult to imagine your average person walking down the street wishing that Popeye's chicken or Burger King weren't there.


You and I must walk on different streets. I don't know much about Oklahoma or Missouri, but out here in California we get down to business on the stuff we don't like. Thirty-five years ago, I remember telling my Washington aunt that restaurants here had "smoking sections". She thought I was lying.

Community Coalition just made South Central Los Angeles a better place, even in this small way. I suggest we wish them well and pray that our own communities one day have the guts to do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 10:12
LessLiz's Avatar
LessLiz LessLiz is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,938
 
Plan: who knows
Stats: 337/204/180 Female 67 inches
BF:100% pure
Progress: 85%
Location: Pacific NW
Default

"I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your flippant bloglike dismissals down"
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 11:20
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
You and I must walk on different streets. I don't know much about Oklahoma or Missouri, but out here in California we get down to business on the stuff we don't like. Thirty-five years ago, I remember telling my Washington aunt that restaurants here had "smoking sections". She thought I was lying.

That's for sure, the grassroots thing is very big in local and even state level politics. Just go to any supermarket parking lot and you'll run into someone getting signatures for petitions to put on the ballot.

We had big push for alcohol free beaches recently. The city hall was packed. I guess you could always portray the families and residents that supported it as a special interest group but I'd be willing to bet the opposition (restaurants, chains that sell bottles of booze) probably contributes a lot more to campaign funds. Somehow the city council found the fortitude to do what the residents wanted.

It is working. Crime is down. Littering is down. The beaches are much more family friendly.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 12:30
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
What would YOU suggest the poor of Los Angeles do to get their voices REALLY heard?


Gee, well, if the folks in south LA don't want fast food restaurants in their area they can stop spending their money within those establishments, refuse to eat the food at such places and refuse to work there - no clientle, no workers, no business....the market does work too!
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 13:06
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Quote:
if the folks in south LA don't want fast food restaurants in their area they can stop spending their money within those establishments


You RADICAL! Going around touting personal responsibility. Sheesh. Freak!

Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Wed, Aug-13-08, 13:13
kyrasdad's Avatar
kyrasdad kyrasdad is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,060
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 338/253/210 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
You and I must walk on different streets. I don't know much about Oklahoma or Missouri, but out here in California we get down to business on the stuff we don't like. Thirty-five years ago, I remember telling my Washington aunt that restaurants here had "smoking sections". She thought I was lying.

Community Coalition just made South Central Los Angeles a better place, even in this small way. I suggest we wish them well and pray that our own communities one day have the guts to do the same.


Would it make sense that if the communities really didn't want these joints (and don't get me wrong, I hate 'em too) that they would cease to patronize them, and they would vanish, if this was truly the will of the majority of the community?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:43.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.