Wisconsins phosphate ban = filthy dishes! (work, water, road)

[FryGuy]

Originally Posted by BadgerGrl

No one is addressing my overall point, so I see no reason to keep trying to restate it in plain English. Hey, today I noticed the word 'phosphate' on the front of my bottle of Listerine. There ought to be a law!

Remember, sometimes the results of so-called good intentions are no better than the issue they intended to resolve. Someone mentioned DDT...ok, so now there are more bald eagles flying around, but at a price of many more human deaths due to malaria. Of course we see the eagles here in the US and not the victims of malaria, so out of sight, out of mind I suppose. The war on poverty has managed to accomplish the goal of keeping generations of poor just that--poor. More ppl collect food stamps than paychecks now, and that's a big problem when the takers outnumber the producers (who is John Galt, btw?) Laws and regulations created with good intentions and warm, fuzzy feelings do not necessarily bring about good results. I'M NOT SAYING the phosphate ban (only in dish detergent, apparently) will not produce clean sparkly water, just that every good intention does not always bring about good results.

Ok, I said I wouldn't try again to make my point but I changed my mind. You may now continue to tell me how phosphates ruin the water and we need gov't to tell us what to do.

I am not quite sure that I understand your point. It seems to be that government is bad. That is a popular sentiment these days and I understand why some people have it. My question for you is, what purpose does the government have if not to protect its citizens.

You give wildly different examples to make your point, but they don't fit the example in this thread. The purpose of banning phosphate is to protect the water supply while the cost (spotty dishes) is minimal.
The war on poverty was a far reaching set of policies that has been of questionable success. It is much more complex than a phosphate ban. I can admit that its controversial, but to use it as an example that there should be no regulation, no matter how small is silly. Not to mention the fact that some of the most popular US policies of the past 100 years came out of that such as Medicare and Social Security. Or that there was poverty long prior to the war on poverty and that there is poverty afterward. There is no evidence, that any legislation has kept generations poor. And your statement that more people collect food stamps than paychecks is laughable and doesn't warrant further comment.

I like the use of the DDT example though. It's the typical anti-government line that shows that pinko liberals and environmentalist care more about nature than people. Millions of malaria deaths for a few bald eagles.
Too bad its not true. DDT is in use in numerous countries for malaria abatement. Many more countries choose not to use it because it is a carcinogen to humans and because overuse leads to resistance among mosquitoes. The reason it was banned was because or risk to humans and because spraying it wildly turned out to be counter productive. The reason it is banned in the U.S. is because there is no malaria here so why use it given the risks?

Given the choice almost all people will go for the cheapest easiest solution, no matter how dangerous it is to others. Why should someone else's decisions affect me? You still haven't answered that question. That is what I think is the basic role of government, to protect me from other people's bad decisions. Whether that be crime or fraud or dirtying public drinking water.

You seem to want no government or at least a government that causes you no inconvenience.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by BadgerGrl

I did not say that the end result (clean water) was not worth an effort, both for ourselves and future generations. But thanks for putting words in my mouth, really appreciate that. I am saying that the means of doing so are flawed--to make new laws every day that further restrict personal liberties is wrong. Why does every issue require more laws & regulation? If phosphates are so bad, why don't detergent manufacturers self-regulate and simply not make them available? Why does everything have to require government intervention? B/c that gives the gov't more control over our lives, and someday we will reach the point where we can do nothing for ourselves, everything will require gov't approval or assistance. I like thinking for myself, and I'm sure you all do too.

Your post seems to be a bit thin on History and on basic Environmental Science.

I can link some sites if you wish.

[SacalaitWhisperer]

Originally Posted by Ultracorp

Stupid govment always banning things. I want to be able to use DDT again!

0.o

You're not a smart person . You've proven that. Got it.

[BadgerGrl]

Originally Posted by FryGuy

You give wildly different examples to make your point, but they don't fit the example in this thread.

Those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that good intententions do not necessarily lead to good results. Reading the whole post may help.


[/quote]Given the choice almost all people will go for the cheapest easiest solution, no matter how dangerous it is to others. Why should someone else's decisions affect me? You still haven't answered that question. That is what I think is the basic role of government, to protect me from other people's bad decisions. Whether that be crime or fraud or dirtying public drinking water[/quote]

Why should your decisions affect someone else? Because you've deemed it to be superior?

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by BadgerGrl

Those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that good intententions do not necessarily lead to good results. Reading the whole post may help.

Given the choice almost all people will go for the cheapest easiest solution, no matter how dangerous it is to others. Why should someone else's decisions affect me? You still haven't answered that question. That is what I think is the basic role of government, to protect me from other people's bad decisions. Whether that be crime or fraud or dirtying public drinking water[/quote]


Why should your decisions affect someone else? Because you've deemed it to be superior?[/quote]

Look up 'Spillover Costs'.

That would aid your understanding of the situation tremendously.

And you seem oblivious to basic Environmental Science, yet you speak on the matter in broad, philosphical terms.

Why is that?

I would look at some of the first water regs passed in theis country (ca 1870) in California:

Why were they passed?

What did gold mining have to do with their passage?

[FryGuy]

Originally Posted by BadgerGrl

Why should your decisions affect someone else? Because you've deemed it to be superior?

You're right, since no decision doesn't affect someone in some way, let's not do anything.

If you can't accept the premise that everyone has a right to clean water, or that this right is superior to the right to have spotless dishes, then you are right and there is no point to having this discussion. But I think most people would think that line of reasoning is utterly ridiculous.

Have a good day.

[BadgerGrl]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

Given the choice almost all people will go for the cheapest easiest solution, no matter how dangerous it is to others. Why should someone else's decisions affect me? You still haven't answered that question. That is what I think is the basic role of government, to protect me from other people's bad decisions. Whether that be crime or fraud or dirtying public drinking water

Why should your decisions affect someone else? Because you've deemed it to be superior?[/quote]

Look up 'Spillover Costs'.

That would aid your understanding of the situation tremendously.

And you seem oblivious to basic Environmental Science, yet you speak on the matter in broad, philosphical terms.

Why is that?

I would look at some of the first water regs passed in theis country (ca 1870) in California:

Why were they passed?

What did gold mining have to do with their passage?[/quote]

Does passively insulting others' intelligence work for you often? My point was that citizens are willingly giving up their liberties everyday in exchange for govt "protection," which is a real shame. OP was upset over the increasing control over her life, so I was simply informing her of what is to come.

[BadgerGrl]

Originally Posted by FryGuy

Have a good day.

Thank you, I will!

[crazyme4878]

Originally Posted by BadgerGrl

Why should your decisions affect someone else? Because you've deemed it to be superior?

Listen, we don't need too much to live: air, water, food. In that order. Now, food gets a little tricky to protect for the common good. But don't you think that protecting our air and water should be the highest goal? It is not that I and the others here deem clean water to "be superior" to clean dishes. It is superior. Superior over almost all other things. We cannot choose to live without water--we have to have it whether it will make us sick or not.

I would vote to rid the government of all other current involvement--taxes, education, roads, etc.--before I removed the right of it to protect and secure clean water and air.

[Alicia Bradley]

The variety of Cascade sold at Costco is phosphate-free (I was surprised when I checked, actually) and cleans dishes very well.