Ban Marketing That Targets Children Under 10?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Well, this may or may not be true, but presumably it could be tested by a few trials (e.g., let's ban advertising for junk food in a couple of cities and see how that correlates with local obesity rates). And we already have the evidence of smoking rates in nations that have banned or tightly regulated tobacco advertising.

Maybe most fast food consumpti ...[text shortened]... ese"? But no one's talking about banning fast food. The thread is about banning advertising.

I think it is all ridiculous.

Maybe most fast food consumption is based on a need for speed. But if even some fast food consumption is based on whiny children whining for fast food, then it seems logical to assume that a ban on advertising aimed at young children would reduce child obesity.

Not true. You would have to prove that fast food causes obesity in the first place. The only studies I have seen show how the amount of times somebody eats fast food correlates with their weight... this proves nothing because the amount of times somebody eats fast food also correlates with the amount of other junk food they eat.

Also, some children are obese who don't eat fast food and some aren't who do. Child obesity more strongly correlates with TV and Video games themselves and not what is on TV or Video games.

And what about the benefits of child targeted marketing? Like Hooked on Phonics and The Slyvan Learning Center?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
[b]All right, but how does big business access these areas? Isn't it via its relationships with government?

Only part. The main issue is its superior purchasing power - including its superior ability to disseminate itself via advertising, which brings us back to the question at the top of the thread.

The biggest of big businesses has to operate with our consent in our sphere. Government has no such limitation.

a.[/b]

" The main issue is its superior purchasing power - including its superior ability to disseminate itself via advertising, which brings us back to the question at the top of the thread."

That advantage is mitigated by the ponderous nature of large enterprises, and their inability to make quick decisions that smaller ones do instinctively. If bigness were total dominance, the GM would not have been in trouble.

"In a democracy, the government has to operate with our consent in all spheres. That's what democracy's for."

American democracy isn't direct, intentionally so. The direct and most effective limitation of government in the US is the Constitution, which is greatly weakened. Recent history says that populism and direct democracy are more dangerous than leaving businesses to their own choices, and letting the market sort out the winners. People voting with their choices happens billions of times a day, elections only every four years.

Originally posted by no1marauder
YOU said: Some parents will just give kids money to spend as they wish. [b]What happens after that isn't our business.

I said: So you have no problem if 10 year olds go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a pack of smokes and a six of Bud.

That's certainly an adequate translation IF you meant what you said. If you didn't mean what you said you should correct it not stubbornly "stand by it".[/b]

" I said: So you have no problem if 10 year olds go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a pack of smokes and a six of Bud."

It is not relevant whether I have a problem with it or not. Their kids aren't my responsibility, nor are they yours. So what happens isn't our business, now is it? Parents not government are responsible for governing their children.

Originally posted by normbenign
" I said: So you have no problem if 10 year olds go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a pack of smokes and a six of Bud."

It is not relevant whether I have a problem with it or not. Their kids aren't my responsibility, nor are they yours. So what happens isn't our business, now is it? Parents not government are responsible for governing their children.

The protection of members of a society is the main purpose of society consistent with the Natural Law. While what adults do which doesn't directly effect others is their own concern, children are not capable of making informed decisions as to what is best for them. And children are not the property of their parents, so that while parent's decisions as to the welfare of their children is entitled to due deference such deference is not limitless.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, I cannot agree that treating children as children violates their "natural rights". Are you a member of NAMBLA?

You do realize your being totally absurd. Treating children as children is the parents responsibility, not the government's.

You can name a whole laundry list of silly stuff that you think the government ought to prohibit, probably including displaying stupidity on internet websites, but that isn't related to any kind of libertarianism I know about.

Think deeply now. My saying that I don't want government taking over parental responsibility, that doesn't translate into that I favor no guidance or direction from parents. I simply believe that parents are in a better position to do the job and take the individual child into account. Now slowly, let's apply that to the smokes and beer. I don't want the government's nose in my business as parent. I don't want my ten year old smoking and drinking beer, but the government is not going to stop that from happening, is it now. If I can't do it, the nanny state will not do it either.

By the way are you a member of NAMBLA?

Originally posted by normbenign
You do realize your being totally absurd. Treating children as children is the parents responsibility, not the government's.

You can name a whole laundry list of silly stuff that you think the government ought to prohibit, probably including displaying stupidity on internet websites, but that isn't related to any kind of libertarianism I know about. ...[text shortened]... it, the nanny state will not do it either.

By the way are you a member of NAMBLA?

I'm not interested in the government prohibiting a "lot of silly stuff".

I am interested in the protection of children. You don't seem to be. Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The protection of members of a society is the main purpose of society consistent with the Natural Law. While what adults do which doesn't directly effect others is their own concern, children are not capable of making informed decisions as to what is best for them. And children are not the property of their parents, so that while parent's decisions as to the welfare of their children is entitled to due deference such deference is not limitless.

"The protection of members of a society is the main purpose of society consistent with the Natural Law."

But total protection results in total tyranny.

"children are not capable of making informed decisions as to what is best for them. And children are not the property of their parents, so that while parent's decisions as to the welfare of their children is entitled to due deference such deference is not limitless."

Of course, But parents are responsible for making informed decisions, and enforcing them. I can see a State interest in children if parents are negligent, especially criminally negligent. But it is also possible for government to overstep it's proper bounds, something that every true libertarian I know is highly aware of.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not interested in the government prohibiting a "lot of silly stuff".

I am interested in the protection of children. You don't seem to be. Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them.

" I am interested in the protection of children."

Are you at all interested in protecting them from the excesses of government?

"You don't seem to be."

How so? You seem to think that government is better at looking after kids than are parents. That is the case only in very limited cases of parental abuse and malfeasance.

"Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them."

I don't recall anyone saying that. I do believe that parental authority trumps the government, unless the children are being harmed physically. Government intervention ought to be emergency, and I am troubled by the tendency for government to get involved in stuff like advertising, but standing by while parents batter children to death, or starve and torture them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not interested in the government prohibiting a "lot of silly stuff".

I am interested in the protection of children. You don't seem to be. Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them.

Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them

Neither does/should the government.

Originally posted by tomtom232
[b]Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them

Neither does/should the government.[/b]

Where do you think the priority ought to lie?

Originally posted by normbenign
Where do you think the priority ought to lie?

Federal--> State--> City--> Parent--> Child

This is the chain of law. No one entity can be allowed to break this chain.

If the federal laws try to replace the state laws then we have no reason for states; if the federal/state laws try to replace the city laws then we have no reason for cities; and if any of these laws try to replace a parent then we have no reason for parents.

Originally posted by normbenign
"The protection of members of a society is the main purpose of society consistent with the Natural Law."

But total protection results in total tyranny.

"children are not capable of making informed decisions as to what is best for them. And children are not the property of their parents, so that while parent's decisions as to the welfare of their ch ...[text shortened]... rstep it's proper bounds, something that every true libertarian I know is highly aware of.

Of course it's possible for government to overstep its proper bounds. But I fail to see how forbidding children from purchasing cancer causing tobacco products or alcohol with all the associated physical and mental issues that that drug can cause is doing so.

I never advocated "total protection" whatever that means.

Originally posted by tomtom232
[b]Parents don't own their children and shouldn't have unlimited power over them

Neither does/should the government.[/b]

No one said it did/should.

Originally posted by normbenign
" I am interested in the protection of children."

Are you at all interested in protecting them from the excesses of government?

"You don't seem to be."

How so? You seem to think that government is better at looking after kids than are parents. That is the case only in very limited cases of parental abuse and malfeasance.

"Parents don't own ...[text shortened]... g, but standing by while parents batter children to death, or starve and torture them.

Sure.

No that is a Strawman; I never suggested or claimed that government is better at looking after kids than parents. I have said quite the opposite on this Forum on many occasions (recently in the Circumcision thread).

I would say that a parent that allows his ten year old to smoke or drink alcohol is guilty of serious malfeasance. Do you disagree? If not, then we are saying the same thing. If so, I think that's a rather extreme position.

Nor can a parent always be around their kids, so a law banning children from buying certain harmful products doesn't necessarily impinge on a parent's relationship with his child at all. Sure maybe it's a slight inconvenience that Dad has to walk down to the local grocer to get his Buds and Marlboros but that seems a minimal burden in a regulatory scheme meant to keep children from using undoubtedly harmful products.

In general I agree that government has interfered with the family too much in recent decades; Family court dockets have utterly ballooned and most cases are dubious child "neglect" or "PINS" cases where no deference is granted parental decision making and the law allows Judges to make virtually unfettered decisions on "what's in the best interest of the child". Most people don't get much worked up over this because those so interfered with are overwhelmingly poor and mostly minority.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sure.

No that is a Strawman; I never suggested or claimed that government is better at looking after kids than parents. I have said quite the opposite on this Forum on many occasions (recently in the Circumcision thread).

I would say that a parent that allows his ten year old to smoke or drink alcohol is guilty of seri ...[text shortened]... r this because those so interfered with are overwhelmingly poor and mostly minority.

" I would say that a parent that allows his ten year old to smoke or drink alcohol is guilty of serious malfeasance. Do you disagree?"

My personal choice would be to prevent my children from smoking, and to limit their drinking, although beer and wine were always allowed for my kids in reasonable quantities. I felt, and experience has proven me right that those things never became "forbidden fruits". Other parents may believe differently. This is a clear example of why democracy is not a good form of government. We ought never be in a position to vote away the rights of others.

You may be Ok with busybody regulators, but I am not. The clear evidence is that kids can and will get their smokes and beer regardless of the nanny state. To some extent they may evade the will of their parents, but it is less likely if the parents are actively involved. The regulations give the lazy parent a pass, in that he can leave the responsibility to the store and government.

Personally, I don't see any reason for a parent to permit a child to smoke, but that's me. I don't want to impose either my atheism or any other personal values on everyone in society. We have the nanny state which "protects" kids from tobacco, virtually forcing kids onto powerful drugs like Ridlin, or vaccines in order to get into public schools. Again, if it was a personal choice, I'd rather have my kid smoking than on Ridlin.