TRHLIM

acesfull86 said:
I lol at “minor inconveniences during a pandemic.” Disingenuous flattening of a complicated, ever changing situation that stretched over multiple years. Gets more pronounced the further away we get from it.
Click to expand...
You dont think shutting doen the entire economy and forcing people in their homes for months while also ruining a generation of children education while also demanding old people die alone and not letting people go to their place of worship while also setting up snitch lines for people who socialized was minor?

You must be a fascist
 
sturg33 said:
Alternatively, what if we just let people do the things they want to do?

No no, need daddy government to decide for me
Click to expand...
for sure that is an option

i for one am glad for public health measures like fluoride in the water

and am grateful the Reagan Administration took seriously the scientific analysis of what was causing the hole in the ozone layer and participated in an international effort to ban certain types of airconditioning
 
vive la resistance!!

how did the resistance to the regulatory changes regarding charcoal burning stoves manifest itself

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — because whenever governments move to regulate household fuel, there’s nearly always pushback. With charcoal-burning stoves, resistance showed up in several forms, depending on time and place:

1. Cultural and culinary resistance​

  • Flavor and tradition: In places like France, Italy, Japan, and China, many cooks believed (and still believe) that food prepared over charcoal has superior taste. Bakers, grillers, and even coffee roasters resisted giving up charcoal.
  • Symbol of comfort and familiarity: Charcoal stoves were compact, portable, and familiar, especially in poorer urban households and in rural areas. Families often resisted switching to “newfangled” fuels until forced.

2. Economic resistance​

  • Fuel cost: Gas and electricity required fixed hookups and monthly bills. Charcoal, though messy, was cheap, could be bought in small quantities, and didn’t tie families to utility companies. Working-class households often resisted transitions that made cooking more expensive or less flexible.
  • Occupational interests: Entire trades depended on charcoal — woodcutters, charcoal burners, small vendors. In many European and Asian cities, charcoal sellers protested or lobbied against restrictions because it meant a direct loss of livelihood.

3. Political/legal pushback​

  • Street vendors and small businesses: In Paris, Rome, London, and New York, charcoal braziers were common for roasting chestnuts, kebabs, or sweet potatoes. When cities banned open charcoal fires in public streets for safety reasons, vendors resisted, sometimes openly ignoring ordinances.
  • Informal economies: In colonial cities (like Calcutta, Manila, or Lagos), charcoal burning persisted in defiance of regulations. Police enforcement was uneven, and the bans were often seen as anti-poor.

4. Black-market and informal use​

  • Even when bans existed (e.g., in 19th-century Parisian tenements), people secretly continued using charcoal braziers indoors because they were compact, gave quick heat, and didn’t require paying for gas service.
  • In some places, charcoal use was pushed into the shadows rather than eliminated—much like how indoor smoking persisted after bans until social norms shifted.

5. Cultural nostalgia and identity​

  • Long after gas and electricity became mainstream, charcoal stoves remained symbols of “authentic” cooking in immigrant and working-class communities. In Japan, for example, the shichirin (small charcoal brazier) survived in restaurants even as most homes went electric or gas. In Italy and France, traditionalists argued that bread, pizza, or meats tasted different without charcoal.
✅ So resistance wasn’t one big political movement but rather a combination of:

  • Everyday defiance (people kept using stoves in secret).
  • Economic lobbying (fuel sellers and vendors opposing bans).
  • Cultural attachment (belief that food quality suffered).
  • Class-based resistance (poor households resisting “modernization” that cost more).
Over time, as gas/electric service got cheaper and more widespread, the resistance softened—charcoal stoves became niche rather than mainstream, much like we may see with gas stoves in the 21st century.
 
i would hate to suggest that anyone around here might be influenced by corporate propaganda, so apologies if any offense is given in what follows

is the "cooking with gas" campaign mostly propaganda

ChatGPT said:​

Yes — the “Now you’re cooking with gas!” slogan was not just a catchy phrase, it was deliberate propaganda created by the natural gas industry to win over the public. Here’s the background:

Origins of the phrase​

  • The phrase was coined in the 1930s by advertising copywriters for the American Gas Association (AGA).
  • They wanted to sell gas as modern, clean, fast, and superior compared to coal, wood, or kerosene stoves — and to fend off competition from electric stoves, which were gaining popularity.
  • It spread into popular culture when the AGA planted the slogan with comedians and radio personalities. Most famously, Bob Hope used it in his radio routines, and later Bugs Bunny repeated it in a 1940s cartoon — classic ad seeding.

Propaganda elements​

  • Industry-funded: The slogan was part of a coordinated campaign financed by gas utilities to shape consumer perceptions.
  • Cultural embedding: By making the phrase sound like everyday slang, the industry blurred the line between advertising and culture. People used it as a metaphor for “doing well” without realizing it was corporate marketing.
  • Defensive positioning: At the time, electric utilities were pushing “cook with electricity” as safer and cleaner. The gas industry needed to defend its market.

Impact​

  • The campaign was very successful — it gave gas cooking a cultural prestige that lasted for decades. Even today, many people instinctively think of gas as the “chef’s choice,” despite evidence about health risks.
  • It was so effective that the phrase outlived the campaign itself, becoming a permanent part of American idioms.
✅ So yes: “Cooking with gas” was mostly corporate propaganda disguised as everyday wisdom. It parallels how tobacco companies once used cultural seeding (doctors in ads, Hollywood movies) to normalize smoking.
 
nsacpi said:
i don't think so...contempt for reason, the scientific method, evidence-based policy is the defining characteristic of large part of our body politic...it is not a fringe...it has captured the presidency among other thangs...seems like a rather important development to me...more important than some of its individual manifestations such as the shambolic tariffs policy
Click to expand...
Contempt for science is not a foundation of libertarianism.

Turns out I am a weirdo who is vaccinated, vaccinates my kids, trusts public health institutions, etc. I just don’t believe the government should throw you in prison if you walk on the beach, take away your job if you don’t get vaccinated, etc.

Why you can’t differentiate the two is your problem. Comparisons to Maoism noted
 
so am i wrong to suggest folk Libertarianism contributes to deaths...no i think the factual basis is quite strong...folk Libertarianism values "letting people do what they want to do." And in various ways objects to things like fluoride in the water, regulations to prevent ozone depletion, regulations to phase out charcoal burning stoves, regulations to phase out gas stoves. Those are just some examples. Efforts to deal with congestion in densely populated areas. Efforts to deal with climate change. And there are many more. And all for essentially ideological (i want to be left alone) reasons.
 
Last edited:
Was there an explicitly Libertarian component to the resistance to banning charcoal burning stoves and is there an explicitly Libertarian component to regulations that will phase out gas stoves.

ChatGPT said:​

That’s a fascinating way to frame it — because while the language of liberty and choice was not as formally articulated during the charcoal stove era as it is now with gas, we can see some important parallels.

Charcoal stove resistance (19th–early 20th century)​

  • Not explicitly Libertarian: Libertarianism as a political ideology wasn’t formalized in the way we understand it today. Resistance to bans on charcoal was less about abstract liberty and more about practical survival (poor families defending cheap fuel, vendors defending their livelihoods).
  • But… liberty-like rhetoric was present:
    • Small tradesmen and vendors framed regulations as overreach by urban authorities who were seen as favoring elites.
    • Some newspapers criticized bans as “nannying the poor” — echoing themes of paternalism and loss of autonomy.
    • Enforcement often had a class dimension: wealthier families with gas lines could comply, while the poor saw it as coercion. That created a narrative of freedom versus government intrusion.

Gas stove debates today (21st century)​

  • Yes, explicitly Libertarian themes are central.
    • Opponents of regulation frame gas stove restrictions as a threat to personal freedom, consumer choice, and lifestyle autonomy.
    • The slogan “Don’t mess with my gas stove” (popularized after a 2023 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission official floated a possible ban) was taken up by libertarian-leaning politicians and commentators.
    • Think tanks with Libertarian or free-market orientations (like Cato, Heritage, Americans for Prosperity) have published pieces attacking gas stove regulations as government overreach.
  • State-level laws: More than 20 U.S. states with Republican or libertarian-leaning legislatures have passed “preemption laws” that explicitly forbid cities from banning gas hookups — a legal embodiment of the freedom/choice framing.
  • Lifestyle freedom: The gas industry amplifies Libertarian themes by portraying electrification as an attack on “the way people want to live” (much like coal and tobacco industries once did).

Comparison​

  • Charcoal resistance: Grounded in class, livelihood, and tradition. The “freedom” rhetoric was implicit, not ideological.
  • Gas stove resistance: Explicitly wrapped in Libertarian/free-market language — “keep the government out of my kitchen,” “consumer choice,” “big government overreach.”
 
sturg33 said:
One of my favorite things to monitor in society today is how affirming chatgpt is to everything and dumb people think they are smart due to it
Click to expand...
South Park just did an episode about this and it was brilliant.

Ask Chat GPT what it thinks of your idea to start a restaurant where you use fries as salad
 
are you up for helping me explain why Libertarianism can cause deaths

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, I can help with that. There are a few ways to frame why Libertarianism—as a political philosophy emphasizing minimal government, individual freedom, and market solutions—can lead to deaths in practice. It depends on the angle you want (historical examples, public policy, or theoretical critique). Here are some core points you could use:

1.​

  • Minimal regulation: Libertarians often oppose safety regulations, like seatbelt laws, building codes, workplace safety rules, or bans on harmful substances. Without these, preventable accidents and deaths increase.
  • Examples:
    • Cities without strong building codes have higher fatalities in earthquakes or fires.
    • In the early 20th century, unregulated food and drug markets caused widespread poisoning and death (e.g., contaminated milk, patent medicines).

2.​

  • Market-only approach: Libertarians typically oppose universal healthcare, arguing it should be left to private markets. But healthcare is not a normal commodity—if you can’t pay, you can literally die.
  • Examples:
    • In the U.S., tens of thousands die each year from lack of access to affordable healthcare, a problem aggravated by libertarian opposition to public insurance expansions.

3.​

  • Externalities ignored: Libertarianism resists government intervention in pollution control, preferring private lawsuits. But individuals can’t realistically sue over widespread, diffuse harms like climate change or air pollution.
  • Examples:
    • Studies show significant premature deaths from air pollution that stronger regulations could prevent.
    • Climate change intensifies deadly heatwaves, floods, and storms.

4.​

  • Weak investment in public infrastructure: Libertarians often resist taxation for things like public health systems, clean water, and disaster preparedness. This undercuts collective protections that save lives.
  • Examples:
    • Cholera outbreaks occur where clean water systems aren’t publicly maintained.
    • COVID-19 showed that public health systems need coordinated state action, not just individual choice.

5.​

  • Gilded Age U.S.: Before workplace safety laws, thousands died annually in industrial accidents.
  • COVID-19 Libertarian responses: Some leaders resisted mask mandates, vaccines, or lockdowns on libertarian grounds, leading to higher death tolls compared to places with stronger public health measures.
👉 So the overarching argument is: Libertarianism can cause deaths because it denies or downplays the role of collective protections against risks that individuals can’t handle on their own. In modern societies, many life-saving measures (vaccines, clean air, safe infrastructure, emergency response) require collective action, regulation, or redistribution that libertarians resist.
 
Essentially the argument is this. Libertarianism could attempt a rational critique of regulations. And I think that would be a great thang. But for the most part Libertarians are satisfied with banging on the table that they just want to be left alone. And that can lead to very bad public policy with many deaths. Obviously, some of y'all are more willing to consider a more rational approach. Others will go down with the good ship "Leave Me Alone."

I've mentioned congestion pricing and regulations to phase out natural gas as recent examples where there has been a reflexive reaction against policies that at a minimum are worthy of informed discussion.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Essentially the argument is this. Libertarianism could attempt a rational critique of regulations. And I think that would be a great thang. But for the most part Libertarians are satisfied with banging on the table that they just want to be left alone. And that can lead to very bad public policy with many deaths. Obviously, some of y'all are more willing to consider a more rational approach. Others will go down with the good ship "Leave Me Alone."
Click to expand...
If you weren’t so incredibly bad faith from the start, this post would have actually led to an interesting discussion.

But we got Marin county moms compared to Maoists is a turd in the punch bowl.
 
Oh bad faith from the start. Well I simply responded in kind to a post accusing people on the left of cheering the deaths of their ideological opponents. Funny how only certain kinds of bad faith merit an objection. At least I've provided some factual basis for the assertion that libertarian ideology (I'm being careful with my capitalization) can and has caused significant numbers of deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top