"Fred E Brown" <fredebrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"invalidd" <invalidd@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in message
>news:jfm7dd$om3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Fred E Brown wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The country is becoming such a Nanny State, people want to regulate
>> ...
>>> how much salt we can have in out food
>>
>> Bizarrely there are now cases of hyponatremia amongst people who eat
>> healthy food, drink lots of water and exercise regularly, because staples
>> like breakfast cereals, bread and meat have been forced to contain less
>> salt.
>>
>> When the nanny state dictates that adults should consume no more than 6g
>> of salt per day, it's usually overlooked that 6g is an ideal amount, and
>> adults shouldn't consume less than 6g either.
>
>Unintended consequences at work. Most Nanny State laws are of the "feel
>good" variety passed by legislators currying favor with special interests.
Many are passed just to make the legislators themselves feel good.
Rarely indeed are any laws examined for consequences by those who make
them. They only get well-scrutinzed when somebody outside the
legislature notices and complains.
As others have pointed-out, lawmakers really don't have the TIME to
read the several hundred pages of most laws passed and try to figure
out what effects each line will have.
That's really SAD, when you think of the fact that most people putting
their signatures to the dozens of pages in a mortgage-contract usually
have a far better of what they're agreeing to than most legislators
have of the laws that effect thousands if not millions of people.
There SHOULD be a clause in the Constitution that *NO* law can get
passed until each legislator voting for-or-against can say he/she has
completely read the bill, and make a *reasonable* attempt at
explaining what each paragraph says, does, or implies.
But you know what chance THAT sort of amendment would have of passing.
;-{
It would be interesting though, to see what logic was used by
opponents of such a change. Probably be based on an attack of the
person who proposed such an amendment. I believe that's called an "Ad
Hominem" attack.
Checking ... Yep:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
|