Welcome to the nation of Fatistan.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, I know that but there is no constitutional authority for the FDA.

It is interesting to note the existance of the FDA, the DEA, the ATF, and such.


If one askes what an "agency" is, it turns out that an agent, or an agency is a person, or organization empowered to act in the absence of the President. ( Which should indicate that the power to enforce these laws comes from Executive bullying rather than from the traditional route laws take through Congress.


In other words, I agree. ( Though Tivodan did actually produce a legal looking document that had Congress' fingerprints all over it once. I wish I could reference it for you now, but I lost it. )

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, I know that but there is no constitutional authority for the FDA.

Where does it say the government cannot establish regulatory agencies of this sort?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos Where does it say the government cannot establish regulatory agencies of this sort?

It doesn't need to say it. The fact that it doesn't say it is enough. The only powers the federal government has are those specifically given to it in the Constitution. The power must be specifically stated in the Constitution or else the government does not have that power.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor It doesn't need to say it. The fact that it doesn't say it is enough. The only powers the federal government has are those specifically given to it in the Constitution. The power must be specifically stated in the Constitution or else the government does not have that power.

It doesn't say anything specifically disallowing this?

That means that the FDA is covered under the power to regulate commerce. I refer you to article I section 8.

One could argue (possibly successfully if it ever came to court) that clause was written to mean interstate commerce and not commerce among the area covered by the states. I don't care. I am making a moral judgment that it is in my best interests and the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America to interpret the constitution in a specific way.

I feel obligated to make this moral judgment because I am not a machine and I know large numbers of people would hypothetically die otherwise. This is also why I would strongly argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to nerve gas and hydrogen bombs.

Would you do it? Would you cause all that pain and suffering over the literal interpretation of a document? No, I'm not implying that you are evil if you disagree with me. Evil implies causing harm when you saw yourself as having a choice not to. As near as I can tell you are merely a man of principles. If this is the case I am afraid we are at an impasse because I am not a man of principles at heart and there really is no reconciling those viewpoints.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Thanatos It doesn't say anything specifically disallowing this? That means that the FDA is covered under the power to regulate commerce. I refer you to article I section 8. One could argue (possibly successfully if it ever came to court) that clause was written to mean interstate commerce and not commerce among the area covered by the states. I don't care. I am making a moral judgment that it is in my best interests and the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America to interpret the constitution in a specific way. I feel obligated to make this moral judgment because I am not a machine and I know large numbers of people would hypothetically die otherwise. This is also why I would strongly argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to nerve gas and hydrogen bombs. Would you do it? Would you cause all that pain and suffering over the literal interpretation of a document? No, I'm not implying that you are evil if you disagree with me. Evil implies causing harm when you saw yourself as having a choice not to. As near as I can tell you are merely a man of principles. If this is the case I am afraid we are at an impasse because I am not a man of principles at heart and there really is no reconciling those viewpoints.

The government didn't choose the proper path to draw up the legislation, and let it pass on it's own merrit. They forced it through by Executive Order.


The sad thing is that now, all these years later, they have educated all of your children, and if the law does get re-examined, you have to consider how the brainwashed masses will vote.


The whole playing field once again has been slanted to favor the bastards with money, and an agenda by our very own government, the people empowered to protect the very mechanisms used to subvert the law.

[Nigh Eve]

Science Daily — Less than 3 per cent of UK 11 year olds are taking enough exercise, suggests research published ahead of print in the Archives of Disease in Childhood. It is recommended that kids spend at least an hour a day doing some form of moderate to vigorous physical activity, in a bid to promote good health and stave off the risks of subsequent obesity and diabetes.

1 hour of moderate/vigorous exercise? Why must we train our children to be the ideal image of modern "health" that we see in magazines? Walking and interacting with our environment is generally all the exercise a healthy eating individual should really require to maintain physical and mental stability (assuming the individual is so in the first place).

It's not so much that people don't exercise but that we've made things so easy that exercise becomes uneccesary. Genetically animals tend to be organized in a way that promotes gathering food and socializing, humans are no exception, not physically exerting ourselves in order to look "good". Historically that was all the exercise we needed and now we are forced to spend extra time keeping ourselves in good health when we do not feel naturally compelled to do so and you would call us on poor habits or attitudes because of these?

I thoroughly enjoy walking about and gathering my own food, or fishing but we can no longer perform such activities on a regular basis. We've created a world where farming from more then local sources are required and regulations on hunting and other food gathering is required to sustain the massive populations.

One thing that makes this issue so much worse is the readily available processed foods and junk foods. Many would argue these products are much more harmful then not lifting weights and doing crunches and lunges. I am a vegetarian by choice (eat fish too but only if it doesn't come processed like fish sticks) and I don't excericise regularly yet I'm in the healthy bracket. Exercise for me usually comes from walking to my classes or to the grocery store, or work. I use my car only for long distances. I suppose roofing can be considered excercise but I'm still lazy because I dislike the whipped concept of work and why wouldn't I? The job still gets done well. And even so, desk jobs and sitting in desks at class are our own creation so I still feel cautioned by placing blame on individuals.

I am a gamer myself, I do note the downfalls of excessive gaming, but I would like to point out that it is a very interactive and usually quite social activity to be had. Much like board games or games like tag, they are games and games are fun. Tag however is simple and very unstimulating for the mind so I still don't see why we should look down upon people who do what comes so naturally to them.

Take a look at the world around you. Do animals require excessive exercise? No, they get all they need through natural means, whether it be walking around and foraging or by hunting. Humans also do other activites like play, or manipulate their enviornment. By eliminating these sources of excerise I expect no less of people. Never heard of an obese dog until I saw one living in a human household.

My conclusion would be that the construct of modern society makes it difficult to achieve health in ways that we must force ourselves to do work that we dislike, like exercise. Yeah, okay, some people enjoy the outcome. But if citizens wish to live in society and have healthy people then society must shape itself in a way that allows for it to happen more naturally rather then forcing people to fit into society and maintain a healthy life at the same time.

Instead of dictating what people should do, offer systems where they can do what's natural to them while getting all the natural exercise they need. That would be much more effective and reasonable in creating your ideal world of healthy people then telling them to do what doesn't come naturally to all of us.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos It doesn't say anything specifically disallowing this?

The fact that it doesn't specifically allow it is enough. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to tell the federal government what limited powers it has.

That means that the FDA is covered under the power to regulate commerce. I refer you to article I section 8.

There is nothing in the commerce clause that allows for agencies such as the FDA - particularly since it isn't commerce itself that the FDA regulates.

One could argue (possibly successfully if it ever came to court) that clause was written to mean interstate commerce and not commerce among the area covered by the states. I don't care. I am making a moral judgment that it is in my best interests and the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America to interpret the constitution in a specific way.

Moral judgements are irrelevant to the discussion. The Constitution means exactly and only what is actually written and the federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically named in the Constitution.

I feel obligated to make this moral judgment because I am not a machine and I know large numbers of people would hypothetically die otherwise. This is also why I would strongly argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to nerve gas and hydrogen bombs.

What you feel is irrelevant: what do you think? The second amendment says what it says and means what it says and whatever moral implications result from it are really irrelevant. If one doesn't like some of those implications then there's an amendment process built into the Constitution.

Would you do it? Would you cause all that pain and suffering over the literal interpretation of a document? No, I'm not implying that you are evil if you disagree with me. Evil implies causing harm when you saw yourself as having a choice not to. As near as I can tell you are merely a man of principles. If this is the case I am afraid we are at an impasse because I am not a man of principles at heart and there really is no reconciling those viewpoints.

I'm suggesting that the Constitution means exactly and only what it says. Whatever moral implications that may be behind it are not particularly relevant. So, while I might not happen to see a need for my neighbor to own a nuclear missile or a canister of sarin gas, there is no authority under the second amendment for the government to tell my neighbor he can't have them. Does it mean I have to sit back and do nothing? No, because the Constitution also has an amendment process.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor The fact that it doesn't specifically allow it is enough. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to tell the federal government what limited powers it has. There is nothing in the commerce clause that allows for agencies such as the FDA - particularly since it isn't commerce itself that the FDA regulates. Moral judgements are irrelevant to the discussion. The Constitution means exactly and only what is actually written and the federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically named in the Constitution. What you feel is irrelevant: what do you think? The second amendment says what it says and means what it says and whatever moral implications result from it are really irrelevant. If one doesn't like some of those implications then there's an amendment process built into the Constitution. I'm suggesting that the Constitution means exactly and only what it says. Whatever moral implications that may be behind it are not particularly relevant. So, while I might not happen to see a need for my neighbor to own a nuclear missile or a canister of sarin gas, there is no authority under the second amendment for the government to tell my neighbor he can't have them. Does it mean I have to sit back and do nothing? No, because the Constitution also has an amendment process.

If you amend the constitution regularly for every little thing and treat nothing as unalterable then you will find that your worldview and mine are the same in terms of outcome. I'd just do less paperwork.

To clarify one little thing, the article I cited allows for regulation of trade. Selling food and medicine is a form of trade, quality control is a form of regulation, and thus its reasonable for us to assume the founding fathers meant something like the FDA would be acceptable. I think they probably meant it to mean only interstate commerce...so if a company which only ever sold their product in the state it was manufactured in ever got a creative lawyer they might be able to force the government to go your route and formally amend the constitution.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos If you amend the constitution regularly for every little thing and treat nothing as unalterable then you will find that your worldview and mine are the same in terms of outcome. I'd just do less paperwork.

But people who believe in what the founding fathers tried to accomplish with limited government won't be constantly amending the Constitution.

To clarify one little thing, the article I cited allows for regulation of trade. Selling food and medicine is a form of trade, quality control is a form of regulation, and thus its reasonable for us to assume the founding fathers meant something like the FDA would be acceptable. I think they probably meant it to mean only interstate commerce...so if a company which only ever sold their product in the state it was manufactured in ever got a creative lawyer they might be able to force the government to go your route and formally amend the constitution.

But they are not regulating the trade itself, they are regulating (unconstitutionally) the products being traded.