Bloomberg bans donations of some food to the poor/homeless.

[quasinormal]

I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

Originally Posted by Anuba

I'm trying to find a source for this news item that isn't FOX Nation or various right-wing blogs, but I've had little luck so far.

Originally Posted by hulugu

Yeah, the original source is the New York Post, however the local CBS affiliate also covered the story in March.

This happened 6 months ago. Sounds like a beat up/far-right wet dream to me.

[splitpea]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

I'm typically a proponent of people doing what they want as long as it doesn't impact others (the whole, right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose deal) but in our modern society we are more dependent and connected to each other so it can be easy to draw a line showing Person A directly, or indirectly, impacting Person B (even if that line is with regards to private health insurance and premiums). It's certainly a sticky situation and one that I think will move further away from black and white and deeper into a gray area. I mean, on one hand I don't think there should be a public or private entity dictating how people lead their lives but on the other hand what happens when the choices a minority of people make have an detrimental impact on the population as a whole?

I think this is the clearest explanation I've seen of what's behind the deep divide we're seeing in American politics.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

Why are junk food people criminals? They follow all government guidelines, and the food they sell isn't literally addictive. We know what's in it and have a good idea about the effects.

You can dislike them, hell I refuse to eat the stuff, but it's hardly fair to label an industry criminals because the food they sell isn't vegan approved.

I'm not one for banning anything, but junk food can totally be addictive to some people.

More people need to be educated on nutrition, proper portion sizes, etc. Let people make their own decisions but many people just don't know what to do.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I'm not one for banning anything, but junk food can totally be addictive to some people.

More people need to be educated on nutrition, proper portion sizes, etc. Let people make their own decisions but many people just don't know what to do.

The internet can be addictive too.

Regulate how long you can be on the internet per day?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

I guess where we might differ is that you seem to see us on an inevitable path towards authoritarianism, and have a desire to mold this authoritarianism to match your own personal value structure, whereas I seek to end it lock, stock, and barrel.

If you choose to live as part of a civilization there are compromises to be made as that's just the nature of the beast. If you lived on a private island you could dynamite the hell out of it if you so desired but if you lived in a local subdivision you can't start blast mining in your back yard for obvious reasons. I don't think it's authoritarian to tell people that live in brush fire areas they can't have tire fires but on the flip side I'd really like it of the PATRIOT Act finally died and Habeas Corpus was reinstated. It's not my personal values that I want reflected in the government but the collective values of our society.

You might seek the controlled growth of government, while I seek its dismantling and return to a severely limited government which provides it's citizenry only with a national defense, basic infrastructure, and an assurance of justice especially for attacks against liberty, private property, and basic human freedom.

If the success of that path was totally out of the realm of possibility would you still venture down it or would you direct your energy to an achievable goal of keeping the government as least invasive as realistically possible?

The way I see the world, the more gray areas you have, the less easy it becomes for otherwise intelligent people to determine right from wrong, and for society to move towards prosperity and freedom instead of willfully away from it.

The way I see it, the more black and white a world view the easier it is for ignorance to take hold because it requires no critical thinking. Is killing someone okay (white) not okay (black) or does it depend on the situation (gray)? Context is king and w/o it we are just applying predefined rules to every situation without ever investigating whether or not we taking the proper course of action.

As for the affect of people on each other, at least with private institutions like insurance (when not over regulated by gov't) you can buy insurance which matches your lifestyle. In a pure free market, there'd be drastically different life/health insurance rates for the obese than the healthy.

In a pure free market we'd most likely end up with one private health insurance provider and that wouldn't work out well for anyone except for the executives and shareholders of said company. Obesity is a low hanging fruit of an example. How about people with MS, leukemia or dwarfism? The disabled? The elderly?

Living under the thumb of a corporation isn't any different than living under the thumb of a government and I'd prefer to avoid both scenarios.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

The internet can be addictive too.

Regulate how long you can be on the internet per day?

Oh definitely. Almost anything can be addictive. Except maybe going to the dentist. haha

[balamw]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Oh definitely. Almost anything can be addictive. Except maybe going to the dentist. haha

Even that.

B

[iJohnHenry]

Thin Homeless are harder to spot.

And bones are the new thin.

[classicaliberal]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

If you choose to live as part of a civilization there are compromises to be made as that's just the nature of the beast. If you lived on a private island you could dynamite the hell out of it if you so desired but if you lived in a local subdivision you can't start blast mining in your back yard for obvious reasons. I don't think it's authoritarian to tell people that live in brush fire areas they can't have tire fires but on the flip side I'd really like it of the PATRIOT Act finally died and Habeas Corpus was reinstated. It's not my personal values that I want reflected in the government but the collective values of our society.

It's an easy task to simply draw on the extremes... I might discuss the Patriot Act as a form of Tyranny, you might discuss local brush fire laws as evidence of the need for structure... but neither of these advance the actual conversation that needs to occur. We both seemingly agree that we need some government, neither of us are Anarchists (I'm assuming you know the difference between Anarchist and libertarian / classical liberal). I think we also agree that more government equals less liberty... as government expands, freedom must necessarily shrink. So, the question is whether the status where we reside today represents too much government, about right, or not enough. I clearly fall on the side of too much government. You seem to think about right or maybe not enough. It's a disagreement I doubt we'll solve.

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

If the success of that path was totally out of the realm of possibility would you still venture down it or would you direct your energy to an achievable goal of keeping the government as least invasive as realistically possible?

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, otherwise I wouldn't put effort in.

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

The way I see it, the more black and white a world view the easier it is for ignorance to take hold because it requires no critical thinking. Is killing someone okay (white) not okay (black) or does it depend on the situation (gray)? Context is king and w/o it we are just applying predefined rules to every situation without ever investigating whether or not we taking the proper course of action.

I think you're misrepresenting or not understanding my point. My black/white comment applies only and directly to the role of government. If we can define succinctly and clearly what the role of government is (enumerated powers in teh constitution would be a great place to start) as opposed to a completely open ended definition (ala powers devised through a purposeful misreading of the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, etc.), we're far better off. The government is supposed to have a strictly defined set of responsibilities, and to be limited to those responsibilities in order for liberty to remain strong. Once the gray areas were born, it opened the flood gates to governmental growth.

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

In a pure free market we'd most likely end up with one private health insurance provider and that wouldn't work out well for anyone except for the executives and shareholders of said company. Obesity is a low hanging fruit of an example. How about people with MS, leukemia or dwarfism? The disabled? The elderly?

We discussed this. I'm not an anarchist, or an anarcho capitalist. Anyway, are you suggesting in a system where there was a system of justice, that private institutions wouldn't be required to service contracts they made with private individuals? The constitution gives the government this task... to ensure contracts are withheld.

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

Living under the thumb of a corporation isn't any different than living under the thumb of a government and I'd prefer to avoid both scenarios.

Business you do with a corporation is of your own free will. You choose to do business with them (assuming monopolies are controlled by government). Government is the opposite. You are compelled and forced through coercion to do business with them whether you like it or not. It's a very important distinction that most on the left miss regularly.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Don't worry everyone, big government and liberalism will take care of the needy. We don't need your we don't need your charity and willful giving. We will take what we need from you via coercion and taxation, and buy the poor people food that won't make them overweight! Damn you private charities, damn you religious charities, your disgusting nutrient and calorie rich foods are no longer welcome here in New York.....

despite your extremist rant, if you're in new york and want to give food to the poor, you're free to do it. Giving food to charities for distribution continues, giving food to your church food drive continues, giving food to the homeless and poor has not been made illegal........you've just given us another example of the distortions the right wing chatterazzi have been feeding the public

[balamw]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

My black/white comment applies only and directly to the role of government. If we can define succinctly and clearly what the role of government is (enumerated powers in teh constitution would be a great place to start) as opposed to a completely open ended definition (ala powers devised through a purposeful misreading of the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, etc.), we're far better off. The government is supposed to have a strictly defined set of responsibilities, and to be limited to those responsibilities in order for liberty to remain strong. Once the gray areas were born, it opened the flood gates to governmental growth.

So as it turns out, in this thread, we are not talking about the federal government. We are talking about the government of the City of New York, that has apparently made (in March 2012) an administrative decision of what kinds of donations to accept for their city-operated homeless shelters.

In your view, should the city play a role in sheltering their homeless population? (i.e. is this an appropriate role/power for this government?)

Should they be free to operate the shelters as they see fit or should they be compelled/forced to accept all in kind donations?

If these were 100% privately operated homeless shelters without any government involvement or assistance, can those shelters make the decision on their own of what kind of donations to accept or reject?

B

[classicaliberal]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

despite your extremist rant, if you're in new york and want to give food to the poor, you're free to do it. Giving food to charities for distribution continues, giving food to your church food drive continues, giving food to the homeless and poor has not been made illegal........you've just given us another example of the distortions the right wing chatterazzi have been feeding the public

Originally Posted by balamw

So as it turns out, in this thread, we are not talking about the federal government. We are talking about the government of the City of New York, that has apparently made (in March 2012) an administrative decision of what kinds of donations to accept for their city-operated homeless shelters.

In your view, should the city play a role in sheltering their homeless population? (i.e. is this an appropriate role/power for this government?)

Should they be free to operate the shelters as they see fit or should they be compelled/forced to accept all in kind donations?

If these were 100% privately operated homeless shelters without any government involvement or assistance, can those shelters make the decision on their own of what kind of donations to accept or reject?

B

The real story here is not about New York, Bloomberg, or a bit of Jewish food... the bigger issue here is the big-government liberal policies which divorce people entirely from personal responsibility, and society/communities relying on each other. What this collectivist movement has done over the past century to decimate private charity, charitable organizations, while expanding the government rolls of welfare, medicare, food stamps, is nothing short of astounding. We used to take care of eachother, but today the nameless faceless government does it for us. There's no incentive for personal accountability, there's less and less value being placed on willful charity and what I'd call true community sacrifice... instead what we're left with is program which destroys real community social awareness, incentivises the status quo of poverty, and separates the poor from the rest of society reducing the liklihood that they join the productive sector in the future. It's bad for the poor, it's bad for the taxpayers, its bad for society.

Bloomberg dictating that individual private citizens can no longer give charitably to a public homeless shelter is just the latest example. No one has suggested he didn't have the right or the legal authority... just not the moral authority.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

The real story here is not about New York, Bloomberg, or a bit of Jewish food... the bigger issue here is the big-government liberal policies which divorce people entirely from personal responsibility, and society/communities relying on each other. What this collectivist movement has done over the past century to decimate private charity, charitable organizations, while expanding the government rolls of welfare, medicare, food stamps, is nothing short of astounding. We used to take care of eachother, but today the nameless faceless government does it for us. There's no incentive for personal accountability, there's less and less value being placed on willful charity and what I'd call true community sacrifice... instead what we're left with is program which destroys real community social awareness, incentivises the status quo of poverty, and separates the poor from the rest of society reducing the liklihood that they join the productive sector in the future. It's bad for the poor, it's bad for the taxpayers, its bad for society.

Prove this otherwise empty rant with facts. Illustrate how the "collectivist movement" has "dedecimate[d] private charity, charitable organizations, while expanding the government rolls of welfare, medicare, food stamps."

Illustrate how "we used to take care of each other" but now do not.

[elistan]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

The real story here is not about New York, Bloomberg, or a bit of Jewish food... the bigger issue here is the big-government liberal policies which divorce people entirely from personal responsibility, and society/communities relying on each other.

I take it then that you are a Libertarian/libertarian, preferring no government oversight whatsoever at any level, except the federal powers enumerated in the US Constitution? No city, county, or state government?

And if I am mistaken, would you mind sharing just what roles the city, county and state governments should have? Is marriage regulation okay, or is that an intrusion into personal responsibility to manage property? Is licensing (i.e., license to practice medicine or law or fly a commercial airplane, etc.) a proper role or is that divorcing people from their personal responsibility to vet a healthcare provider or legal counsel or pilot/airline? What about roads and bridges, or is that divorcing people from relying on each other and their community for transportation infrastructure? What about regulation of toxic waste, so that a lead-acid battery company doesn't dump lead contaminated soil on your yard? Noise regulations prohibiting construction during sleeping hours? Zoning laws? Firearms usage within city limits? Speed limits? Vehicle safety standards? Water rights? Yadda yadda yadda. Many cities have their codes online, as well as states and their statutes, to look through for further examples.

I'm just curious where, if anywhere, you draw the line between what's "okay" (e.g., ?) and "not okay" (e.g., providing food to the hungry) for a city/county/state to do.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

It's an easy task to simply draw on the extremes...

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

... the bigger issue here is the big-government liberal policies which divorce people entirely from personal responsibility, and society/communities relying on each other.

You are your own best example.

[Iscariot]

A Boston study shows 1 in 3 homeless are clinically obese, while not even 2% are underweight.

I'm not sure that a nanny-state style ban is the right solution to the problem, but it's hardly a case of some bizarre authoritian librool marxofascist conspiracy. New York shelters may be experiencing a legitimate problem with malnutrition, and the subsequent increased health risks. There's lots of data showing an increased prevalence in homeless and food insecure individuals of: iron deficiency anemia, obesity, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, depression*, gastrointestinal problems, deficiency in iron, magnesium, zinc, folic acid, and calcium, et cetera et cetera. Access to poor quality food may be exacerbating legitimate health problems and taxing the system in a much more damaging fashion.


______________
*Mayo Clinic is one of many health organizations suggesting a link between diet and depression

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

A Boston study shows 1 in 3 homeless are clinically obese, while not even 2% are underweight.

Link please.

...I'm not sure that a nanny-state style ban is the right solution to the problem, but it's hardly a case of some bizarre authoritian librool marxofascist conspiracy. New York shelters may be experiencing a legitimate problem with malnutrition, and the subsequent increased health risks. There's lots of data showing an increased prevalence in homeless and food insecure individuals of: iron deficiency anemia, obesity, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, depression*, gastrointestinal problems, deficiency in iron, magnesium, zinc, folic acid, and calcium, et cetera et cetera. Access to poor quality food may be exacerbating legitimate health problems and taxing the system in a much more damaging fashion.

I'm glad to see you post this. The continued assumption that calories are calories ignores the realities of human nutrition.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

I think you're misrepresenting or not understanding my point. My black/white comment applies only and directly to the role of government.

I misunderstood you point though it doesn't seem to change our views on B&W vs shades of gray. I don't anything is truly B&W and that outlook, IMO,falsely over-simplifies a nuanced and inherently complex world. Some parts of federal government are too expansive and some parts are not expansive enough. I'm not a strict constitutionalist so I view the Constitution as a frame work that was intentionally written with mechanisms for growth and adaptability built into it. Typically I think government should be a tool of the people and reflect their wishes but sometimes government needs to do things that are unpopular. For example, lots of people were upset in 1957 when the Little Rock 9 went to school but the Feds made the right call. This is an example of of government expansion extending, not contracting, liberty in America and would certainly qualify as a shade of gray. On the flip side the Feds made the wrong call over a decade earlier when they forced Asian Americans into internment camps.

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

We used to take care of eachother...

How well of a job did we actually do? How well were minorities taken care of prior to the Civil Rights movement? How about the working class before labor laws instituted guidelines for safety and compensation? The environment before pollution regulations? Who is taking care of the 10's of millions of Americans that can't afford/can't qualify for medical coverage because it's not it the best financial interest of for profit health insurance companies to actually pay for medical coverage? The poverty rate was 22% in 1950 and was cut in half by the early '70s. Just a coincidence that LBJ's declared a War on Poverty in '64? There is not enough state and private aid out there to deal with all the individuals that need help. When the middle class, the main source of funding for many of these public and private programs, is slipping from the 'donor' category into the 'recipient' category it's a double whammy on the groups that are trying to provide assistance.

I think the private sector should have first crack at policing its own brass but when it fails outright it's up to the people to use their tool called government to address the problem. For example, the video game industry has avoided government oversight by successfully implementing and enforcing its own game rating system. On the flip side, the pharmaceutical company that knowingly produced medicine in a facility that was cited for 90 violations of clean room contamination which lead to the deaths of 32 people and the sickening of hundreds more is an example of self-regulation at its worst.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

We used to take care of eachother ...

When?

Please cite this era when human beings used to take care of each other before the "faceless government" took over and ruined everything.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

When?

Please cite this era when human beings used to take care of each other before the "faceless government" took over and ruined everything.

Possibly when humanity was still a collection of tribes that stayed under Dunbar's number. Small pockets of society can band together for the common good but the larger the population the less likely this is to happen (this is the reason small communs can work but large scale communism does not).