Reply #48: Excellent points! [View All]

[telamachus]

Governments do regulate things that are dangerous. That is perhaps one of the most import role of our government.

One could find little argument against controlling TOXINS in food, air, and water but we are talking about a non toxic food ingredient.

The middle ground for some is to let the market dictate to some extent what is put out to eat. As people are educated they can make a choice to eat trans fat or not. Giant food companies will adapt to market shifts as we have seen in the past 3 decades in the organic food market.

Th primary issue for me is that although it would be great if we were all healthy some people enjoy their french fries and chips. Do you remember when MCDonalds switched to vegetable oil from animal fat? Well I will tell you that the animal fat fries were way better tasting be we adapted be cause enough of us (the smart ones) fought for a market change.

The issue of 'social policy' has always been the cornerstone on dictatorships and fascist countries.

This is a code word for master plans and we all know where those lead.

It is all well to set a precedent about trans fat but what if those in control in the future want even more social control? Fantasy I think not because the precedent will have been set.

I fully agree that the libertarian view has some MAJOR flaws especially in their views of environmental policy. I don't know if they are BS but I have had many a debate with local libertarians.

I am not sure what you mean about the 2nd amendment because I believe that many Americans leave out the first part of it.