What's the purpose of "feel good" regulations?

[Azwethinkweizm]

Let me give two examples:

1) I went to high school in the public Texas education system and they have a system, and have had it for awhile, that you can't get more than one order of potatoes at once. I remember the first time I came across this I got 2 things of mashed potatoes and they said I could only get one. My reaction was simply "I have the money for it, why can't I get it?" They said I had to go a separate time so I walked around the line 10 feet and ordered another mashed potato.

2) At my Wal-Mart, you are not allowed to buy more than 3 cartons of Marlboro per day per customer. My uncle is a heavy cigarette smoker and since Texas has cheap cigs, he decided to buy a lot so he can stock up for the rest of the year. So I walk with him to get them while I get some other stuff. They tell him this rule that he can only get 3 cartons so I walk over to see what the problem is. I simply say "Ok, you can either sell me 5 cartons of these or you can just sell me the 3 and I can walk across the street to a gas station and buy the other 2." and she says "Alright, I'll sell you 3."


What's the purpose of having these needless regulations that anybody with common sense can get around? Do the people in our state and national captials need something to do so badly that they do this garbage?

[Papero]

The cigarettes could be due to supply.

[shade]

Let me give two examples:

1) I went to high school in the public Texas education system and they have a system, and have had it for awhile, that you can't get more than one order of potatoes at once. I remember the first time I came across this I got 2 things of mashed potatoes and they said I could only get one. My reaction was simply "I have the money for it, why can't I get it?" They said I had to go a separate time so I walked around the line 10 feet and ordered another mashed potato.

2) At my Wal-Mart, you are not allowed to buy more than 3 cartons of Marlboro per day per customer. My uncle is a heavy cigarette smoker and since Texas has cheap cigs, he decided to buy a lot so he can stock up for the rest of the year. So I walk with him to get them while I get some other stuff. They tell him this rule that he can only get 3 cartons so I walk over to see what the problem is. I simply say "Ok, you can either sell me 5 cartons of these or you can just sell me the 3 and I can walk across the street to a gas station and buy the other 2." and she says "Alright, I'll sell you 3."


What's the purpose of having these needless regulations that anybody with common sense can get around? Do the people in our state and national captials need something to do so badly that they do this garbage?

Sounds like you need to go here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[Polkovnik]

surprisingly, according to shade, ron paul will fix such school policies and wal mart's rule of 3 cigarette cartons a day.

[Shameless]

surprisingly, according to shade, ron paul will fix such school policies and wal mart's rule of 3 cigarette cartons a day.

Back in school, my teacher made me take a hall pass to the bathroom. Will RP fix this injustice?

[shade]

surprisingly, according to shade, ron paul will fix such school policies and wal mart's rule of 3 cigarette cartons a day.

School policies are government policies.

Restrictions on cig sales is usually to try to fight cig smuggling which happens due to high taxation of cigs in other areas (buy where taxes are low, sell on black market where prices are high due to taxes).


Both government policies.

And no, Ron Paul won't fix them. But he has started a new organization to field candidates at all levels of government. So presumably, a Ron Paul candidate on your school board, city council, or state legislature would go a long way towards removing stupid regulations.


Back in school, my teacher made me take a hall pass to the bathroom. Will RP fix this injustice?

You are a worthless troll who deserves all the government you get.

[Shameless]

You are a worthless troll who deserves all the government you get.

Lol, are you kidding? Obviously RP won't fix a specific school's cafeteria policy, nor should he, because it would be a massive waste of time.

[shade]

Lol, are you kidding? Obviously RP won't fix a specific school's cafeteria policy, nor should he, because it would be a massive waste of time.

And obviously you can't read.

[Shameless]

And obviously you can't read.

Sorry, I'm not sure why RP should have any involvement, no matter how tacitly. Maybe there's a good reason for the rule (for instance, they probably are trying to encourage kids to have a well balanced meal by only allowing them one of every food group).

And if you really want this changed, why hope someone from your district becomes involved in his campaign? Why not go out to your school board and get it fixed right away?

Your post reeks of RP cheerleading, and it bothers me.

[shade]

Sorry, I'm not sure why RP should have any involvement, no matter how tacitly. Maybe there's a good reason for the rule (for instance, they probably are trying to encourage kids to have a well balanced meal by only allowing them one of every food group).

And if you really want this changed, why hope someone from your district becomes involved in his campaign? Why not go out to your school board and get it fixed right away?

Your post reeks of RP cheerleading, and it bothers me.

I guess you still haven't read.

Let me spell it out for you:
The presidential campaign is over and he started a new thing called the "Campaign for Liberty" that focuses on supporting and promoting libertarian minded candidates at all levels of government. He is going to apply his campaign infrastructure and volunteers towards dozens of candidates across the country at all levels of government.

So, like I said earlier: In theory, the campaign for liberty could support a school board member or city council member that would actually be able to remove meaningless regulations and stupid rules.

And no, Ron Paul won't fix them. But he has started a new organization to field candidates at all levels of government. So presumably, a Ron Paul candidate on your school board, city council, or state legislature would go a long way towards removing stupid regulations.

[Shameless]

So, like I said earlier: In theory, the campaign for liberty could support a school board member or city council member that would actually be able to remove meaningless regulations and stupid rules.

Did you read my post? Maybe this rule isn't meaningless or stupid. Maybe there is a point to it. I think you were looking to promote RP's latest gambit and jumped on this a little too fast.

[Mr. Heskey]

All it is is the government trying to be a nanny state. I say let the people do what they choose. It at least warms my heart to know that social Darwinism has some kind of merit to it.

If people want to smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, let them do it. But if they get cancer, don't expect me to foot the hospital bills or for me to feel the least bit sorry for them.

[TFS]

The potatoes thing is reasonable: the school only makes so much food and has to ensure everyone that wants some is able to get some, and also too much of any one food group is bad for you.

Common sense on that one. Ron Paul has no purpose in relation to this thread.

[avix123]

I think all shade wants to get across is from Ron Paul's book of ideals the federal government might be the one behind a lot of regulations around the country. To people that follow a more limited government ideal, it makes more sense for the local government organizations to make such petty decisions like these.

[shade]

Did you read my post? Maybe this rule isn't meaningless or stupid. Maybe there is a point to it. I think you were looking to promote RP's latest gambit and jumped on this a little too fast.

You still have not read my posts. This is really funny.

Restrictions on cig sales is usually to try to fight cig smuggling which happens due to high taxation of cigs in other areas (buy where taxes are low, sell on black market where prices are high due to taxes).

So, yes, I see that there can be reasons behind seemingly silly regulations.


The only reason I brought Ron Paul in to this is because the OP was asking a question/complaining about all of our seemingly meaningless and/or silly regulations. For example, not being able to buy 2 mashed potatoes at once, but he was still able to by a 2nd one after walking around in line again.


Ron Paul would agree that such regulations, regardless of what level of government is responsible for it, are stupid nanny state bs that limit liberty.

Segway: If you would rather not have these kinds of silly regulations and rules imposed on you by government, you might want to look at the campaign for liberty which seeks to exactly reduce such bs.




Just because having too much potatoes can be bad for you, does not mean the government should limit how many potato servings you can eat. This is a fundamental principle of liberty: Letting you do what you want and you are responsible for the outcome. Maybe the government doesn't know that you run track and you want the extra carbs for energy.

[Mattjam]

The potatoes thing is reasonable: the school only makes so much food and has to ensure everyone that wants some is able to get some, and also too much of any one food group is bad for you.

But the thing is he can go back through the line and get another.

[kingofallmedia]

i could see if we were in a war or someth...

well i could see if our economy wasn't as lucrative as it has been in the pas...

[Spike Lee]

Of course Ron Paul also ignore other types of slavery including economic. But it's okay. Because under Paul's prerequisites of government, any form of slavery aside from government is totally deserved on the individual.

[Yuseke]

Tha gub'ment took mah taters!

[shade]

Of course Ron Paul also ignore other types of slavery including economic. But it's okay. Because under Paul's prerequisites of government, any form of slavery aside from government is totally deserved on the individual.

Economic slavery???? Like the various levels of government taking 45% of what I earn? Like the government putting you and I in debt with the stroke of a pen?

Guess what: You owe about $175k right now. Until you have $175k accumulated, you are a complete slave. Once you have more than that at least you will be able to pay your debt if that ever comes to pass and avoid debtors prison. You will still be a 40% slave to the government in the mean time.

Wow, economic slavery, brilliant one there Spike. Glad to see you agree with Ron Paul.



Obviously that is not what you were referring to. I don't have a clue what you were even trying to get at regarding slavery. Ron Paul does not support any kind of slavery at all. Where do you get this shit?

[GALLIENVS AVG]

Economic slavery???? Like the various levels of government taking 45% of what I earn? Like the government putting you and I in debt with the stroke of a pen?

Guess what: You owe about $175k right now. Until you have $175k accumulated, you are a complete slave. Once you have more than that at least you will be able to pay your debt if that ever comes to pass and avoid debtors prison. You will still be a 40% slave to the government in the mean time.

Wow, economic slavery, brilliant one there Spike. Glad to see you agree with Ron Paul.



Obviously that is not what you were referring to. I don't have a clue what you were even trying to get at regarding slavery. Ron Paul does not support any kind of slavery at all. Where do you get this shit?

It's interesting. I always see people mention some form of slavery when they talk about Ron Paul, but they never seem to clarify.

[Mugatu]

In Canada the government has gone from banning smoking in public places, including private businesses, to now banning the visual display of them in stores. It's nice to know that my taxes are going towards all that shelf paneling across the nation in order to do this. Those cigarette cases with gigantic warning labels about the evils of tobacco were just far to tempting for me not to buy. Not to mention the extremely high prices do to a high taxation.

This thread was a funny read though. Sometimes I wonder why people like Shade even bother but then I remember, in life, its more about the journey then the destination itself.

[Frosty]

In Canada the government has gone from banning smoking in public places, including private businesses, to now banning the visual display of them in stores. It's nice to know that my taxes are going towards all that shelf paneling across the nation in order to do this. Those cigarette cases with gigantic warning labels about the evils of tobacco were just far to tempting for me not to buy. Not to mention the extremely high prices do to a high taxation.

This thread was a funny read though. Sometimes I wonder why people like Shade even bother but then I remember, in life, its more about the journey then the destination itself.

I agree with banning them in public places. The second-hand effects of smoking are harmful to those around you (unlike, say, the second-hand effects of marijuana).

[shade]

In Canada the government has gone from banning smoking in public places, including private businesses, to now banning the visual display of them in stores. It's nice to know that my taxes are going towards all that shelf paneling across the nation in order to do this. Those cigarette cases with gigantic warning labels about the evils of tobacco were just far to tempting for me not to buy. Not to mention the extremely high prices do to a high taxation.

This thread was a funny read though. Sometimes I wonder why people like Shade even bother but then I remember, in life, its more about the journey then the destination itself.

Sometimes I just wish I could shake people awake and they would understand.

[chrisvet]

Lol, are you kidding? Obviously RP won't fix a specific school's cafeteria policy, nor should he, because it would be a massive waste of time.

Lets add another idea here: A more libratarian minded school system would have a privately rented cafeteria space that would compete for bidding on a yearly basis. They would supply their goods for the lowest price possible, without hurting our tax dollars by a school run cafeteria. If they sucked, company gets the boot. Efficiency level skyrockets whenever the threat of competition is lingering around. Gov't telling what our kids can and cannot eat is bullshit Nanny state socialism. Fuck that. I don't need a panel of gov't health experts sucking tax dollars to run the lives of my family / kids.

Let me give two examples:

1) I went to high school in the public Texas education system and they have a system, and have had it for awhile, that you can't get more than one order of potatoes at once. I remember the first time I came across this I got 2 things of mashed potatoes and they said I could only get one. My reaction was simply "I have the money for it, why can't I get it?" They said I had to go a separate time so I walked around the line 10 feet and ordered another mashed potato.

2) At my Wal-Mart, you are not allowed to buy more than 3 cartons of Marlboro per day per customer. My uncle is a heavy cigarette smoker and since Texas has cheap cigs, he decided to buy a lot so he can stock up for the rest of the year. So I walk with him to get them while I get some other stuff. They tell him this rule that he can only get 3 cartons so I walk over to see what the problem is. I simply say "Ok, you can either sell me 5 cartons of these or you can just sell me the 3 and I can walk across the street to a gas station and buy the other 2." and she says "Alright, I'll sell you 3."


What's the purpose of having these needless regulations that anybody with common sense can get around? Do the people in our state and national captials need something to do so badly that they do this garbage?

Shade did a good one explaining these. On the topic of liberty:
Free market regulations are not significant in the scope of regulations enforced by different levels of government. A company is quickly rendered uncompetative when it fails to meet the needs of its customers, replaced by a more efficient competator (the markets natural moderator.)

Quoted by Magatu: in life, its more about the journey then the destination itself.

Genius words spoken by myself all the time. :boink:

Quoted by Shade:
Guess what: You owe about $175k right now. Until you have $175k accumulated, you are a complete slave. Once you have more than that at least you will be able to pay your debt if that ever comes to pass and avoid debtors prison. You will still be a 40% slave to the government in the mean time. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Loss for words.
Originally Posted by Shade
Restrictions on cig sales is usually to try to fight cig smuggling which happens due to high taxation of cigs in other areas (buy where taxes are low, sell on black market where prices are high due to taxes).

Yes, and the whole fucking point is if there were no bullshit taxes on cigarettes, Smuggling wouldn't be a problem. Another "Gov't creates problem, problem gets worse, Gov't creates more laws/regs as a bandaid to correct 2nd problem, ad infinity."

Just because having too much potatoes can be bad for you, does not mean the government should limit how many potato servings you can eat..

Fuckin' A. I don't want gov't telling me or my kids what we can and cannot eat, if the rest of you need someone to baby sit you, move to Cuba.

[Spike Lee]

Lets add another idea here: A more libratarian minded school system would have a privately rented cafeteria space that would compete for bidding on a yearly basis. They would supply their goods for the lowest price possible, without hurting our tax dollars by a school run cafeteria. If they sucked, company gets the boot. Efficiency level skyrockets whenever the threat of competition is lingering around. Gov't telling what our kids can and cannot eat is bullshit Nanny state socialism. Fuck that. I don't need a panel of gov't health experts sucking tax dollars to run the lives of my family / kids.

What happens when a corporation buys out all the competition and charches whatever they want? Or what about the families that can barely afford the food?

[chrisvet]

What happens when a corporation buys out all the competition and charches whatever they want? Or what about the families that can barely afford the food?

Corp buyouts, no problemo, if they fuck up, competition boots their ass.
Under Rons system, poor families would quickly become middle class by keeping 95% of their income, along with enjoying a massive price reduction in goods / services due to eliminated taxes.

Of course Ron Paul also ignore other types of slavery including economic. But it's okay. Because under Paul's prerequisites of government, any form of slavery aside from government is totally deserved on the individual.

Shit I missed this comment Spike, RP is clearly for equal rights under the law, period, end of argument. Slavery has been abolished, we're all fucking equal. (except special interests who are apparently more equal than white males like me, but big fucking deal, I don't whine about my disadvantages)

One great Ron Paul Fact: The only guy I remember who gets elected to PResident only to give power back to the people / states. Total winner.


Edit: also can you elaborate "economic slavery" from first sentance in your post.

[Spike Lee]

Corp buyouts, no problemo, if they fuck up, competition boots their ass.
But their is no competition when a monopoly takes things over.

Under Rons system, poor families would quickly become middle class by keeping 95% of their income, along with enjoying a massive price reduction in goods / services due to eliminated taxes.

The poor may be able to keep their money but so will the current middle class and so will the rich. The cost of living will rise since everyone has more money in their pockets. So classes won't change.

Shit I missed this comment Spike, RP is clearly for equal rights under the law, period, end of argument. Slavery has been abolished, we're all fucking equal. (except special interests who are apparently more equal than white males like me, but big fucking deal, I don't whine about my disadvantages)
What about when bussiness uses unfair practices to drive out smaller ones?

[chrisvet]

But their is no competition when a monopoly takes things over.

Monopoly can't exist if someone comes in to kick ass. Therefore, if the so called monopoly delivered best goods / services for lowest prices, they win.

Gov't actually helps create / sustain monopolies, another libratarian discussion.

The poor may be able to keep their money but so will the current middle class and so will the rich. The cost of living will rise since everyone has more money in their pockets. So classes won't change.

Relative class won't change, but living standards will rise which is the whole point. You're really arguing that if we give 20K to every family in tax savings a year they'll still be poor because prices will go up.

On the contrary, many prices will remain constant in most cases and even go down. More R&D money for companies equals higher techs to deliver goods/services for less. its the main reason companies have outsourced.

Bottom line is our productivity will actually go up, thus raising living standards. Remember its free market enterprise that raised our living standards, not gov't. Goto Poor areas of China / former USSR / Cuba for examples of how gov't fucked up living standards.

[Spike Lee]

Monopoly can't exist if someone comes in to kick ass.
The presence of a monopoly means that there is no competition. So there isn't anyone that will come in and kick one out except forces that are not from the market (ie government).

Therefore, if the so called monopoly delivered best goods / services for lowest prices, they win.


A monopoly can set whatever prices they want since they have no competition.
Gov't actually helps create / sustain monopolies, another libratarian discussion.
I agree with you on this, but it isn't happening here.

Relative class won't change, but living standards will rise which is the whole point. You're really arguing that if we give 20K to every family in tax savings a year they'll still be poor because prices will go up.
Initially they will, and I agree that the initial impact of deregulation will have a healthy effect, but it sure isn't going to last long. Look no further to the period in America between the civil war and WWI or even better, look at the Miracle of Chile.
On the contrary, many prices will remain constant in most cases and even go down. More R&D money for companies equals higher techs to deliver goods/services for less. its the main reason companies have outsourced.
Eventually, they are going to get bought out. And like you said, ultimately, isn't the bussiness going to have a ruthless approach to things?
Bottom line is our productivity will actually go up, thus raising living standards. Remember its free market enterprise that raised our living standards, not gov't. Goto Poor areas of China / former USSR / Cuba for examples of how gov't fucked up living standards.
Productivity will go up. But I am skepticle on whether it will mean good for the worker.

[chrisvet]

The presence of a monopoly means that there is no competition. So there isn't anyone that will come in and kick one out except forces that are not from the market (ie government).
A monopoly can set whatever prices they want since they have no competition.

*pops another pain killer* (stubbed my fucking toe :mad: ) Nothing is forever including monopolies, but moreso discussing monopolies and "free market bids for school cafeteria operation" in the same sentance is like discussing a baby sitting job and M16 rifles. Oil/Water, doesn't mix, not going to happen.

Rest of your post is not bad.

[Spike Lee]

*pops another pain killer* (stubbed my fucking toe :mad: ) Nothing is forever including monopolies, but moreso discussing monopolies and "free market bids for school cafeteria operation" in the same sentance is like discussing a baby sitting job and M16 rifles. Oil/Water, doesn't mix, not going to happen.

Rest of your post is not bad.

Basically what I am trying to say is, that maybe this system that Paul advocates for hasn't been used since the gilded age for a reason. Like the old addage, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. I may not convince you on the subject, but I'm glad we at least talked about it without getting too emotional about it.

[chrisvet]

Basically what I am trying to say is, that maybe this system that Paul advocates for hasn't been used since the gilded age for a reason. Like the old addage, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. I may not convince you on the subject, but I'm glad we at least talked about it without getting too emotional about it.

Yes, I like you more than you think.
System completely changed when fed took over, income tax was instilled. From then it turned into a charade of tossing the most bones with our extorted tax dollars to the loudest whining groups in exchange for short term election points; completely ignoring long term affects of our system. From there, its spawned into society destroying shit (that we need not get into). Founding dads had it right all along. Income tax a big no no because it destroys society. (mega good quotes from prominant men in the past on this, but not a big deal because I understand the entire scenerio and can tell you why things are fucked up today in about 20,000 words)


Eventually, they are going to get bought out. And like you said, ultimately, isn't the bussiness going to have a ruthless approach to things?Forgot to respond to this one:
Yes, but they're moderated by competion. Win/Win for us all.

Also apply that logic to politicians: a monopoly on our tax money used by any means (including fucking us over) in exchange for votes. Those cocksuckers have all the power when they can spend our money for their 'own' interests of political gain. The system is what made them ruthless, overall they're mostly not bad people.

[pantomime]

Everyone needs to chill out. Is it really worth all of your time? Spewing statistics and political jargon and other bullshit to other people who are also spewing statistics and political jargon and other bullshit?

Ron Paul guy. Give it up. If you know so much about this why don't you speak about it as if it were your own, not some other persons bullshit. Have an original thought, please.

[Mugatu]

Everyone needs to chill out. Is it really worth all of your time? Spewing statistics and political jargon and other bullshit to other people who are also spewing statistics and political jargon and other bullshit?

Ron Paul guy. Give it up. If you know so much about this why don't you speak about it as if it were your own, not some other persons bullshit. Have an original thought, please.

Sounds to me as if you are asking if it is worth it to have a political debate based on statistics and ideology. Yes, yes it is.

As for the "Ron Paul guy" comment, I fail to see what it is exactly that you are complaining about. A good idea is a good idea regardless of who came up with it. By your logic 99.9% of all political debates should cease because the individual in question did not come up with the theory themselves.You might as well throw math and science in there as well. Or perhaps you simply are looking for him to "jazz it up" so it sounds like he made it up himself.

We need change man! Change!

[shade]

But their is no competition when a monopoly takes things over.


The poor may be able to keep their money but so will the current middle class and so will the rich. The cost of living will rise since everyone has more money in their pockets. So classes won't change.


What about when bussiness uses unfair practices to drive out smaller ones?

That does not happen in a free market. It can only happen in markets with government imposed barriers to entry.

Here is why: When a monopoly starts charging too much, if in a free market with no government barriers to entry (miles of red tape and regulations), then new competitors emerge.

It happens every day in industries like technology where the regulations are still minimal for many technologies.

You don't like monopolies? Then get the government out of regulating business. Why do you think there are cable and phone company monopolies? Government regulation.

The presence of a monopoly means that there is no competition. So there isn't anyone that will come in and kick one out except forces that are not from the market (ie government).Sheer complete and utter ignorance of market forces.

When a company charges more than the market will bear, someone will undercut. That is how supply and demand works. As long as there is no legislation that prevents someone from entering the market (like *cough* cable regs) then someone will.


Basically what I am trying to say is, that maybe this system that Paul advocates for hasn't been used since the gilded age for a reason. Like the old addage, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. I may not convince you on the subject, but I'm glad we at least talked about it without getting too emotional about it.

Yes, because it is harder for power hungry people to exploit.

[chrisvet]

Everyone needs to chill out. Is it really worth all of your time? Spewing statistics and political jargon and other bullshit to other people who are also spewing statistics and political jargon and other bullshit?

Ron Paul guy. Give it up. If you know so much about this why don't you speak about it as if it were your own, not some other persons bullshit. Have an original thought, please.

You're right, must accept defeat / ignore past history, march towards a new world order. You with me comrade?

That does not happen in a free market. It can only happen in markets with government imposed barriers to entry.

Here is why: When a monopoly starts charging too much, if in a free market with no government barriers to entry (miles of red tape and regulations), then new competitors emerge.

It happens every day in industries like technology where the regulations are still minimal for many technologies.

You don't like monopolies? Then get the government out of regulating business. Why do you think there are cable and phone company monopolies? Government regulation.

Fact: The very regulations that keep out smaller competition from emerging (due to incredible overhead / capital expendatures required to comply) are Lobbied for BY big business:

A. Masking these regulations in the name of Safety
B. WIth 1 sole purpose: To sqaush the little guy from Emerging.

Period.

Story @ our House: Had a septic guy @ the house last summer, biggest guy in town, new truck with all the bells & whistles. He was complaining about other guys in town with beat up trucks undercutting him by $50, $60 bucks per pump out. Then he went on to say he started a chapter in our Area which lobbies to ensure Septic trucks meet certain standards. I asked Why? what's the safety concern? sewage dripping on the road? His answer: "Its not right when guys show up in 25 year old beat up trucks, and they need to take (for a fee) a safety course our organization created with the help of the provincial gov't."

A. It had Absoluutely nothing to do with safety and Everything to do with a cocksucker trying to get gov't to close down the smaller competition in the name of safety.

I almost threw him off the lawn, but did something better: When 1 of the 2 septic systems clogged up in a small retail shopping center we own north of here last winter, we were forced to get a pumpout every week till the ground thawed in March. (about 10 or so pump outs)
Do you think we called him over Jan / Feb? Hell no, we got a small guy and would have got him even if his price was the same as the big guy. (BTW, the small guy came in @ $75.00 cheaper per load due to our volume, savings of about $750.00 plus tax over the winter.)

Thank you Shade for reminding us of how Monolpolies are created.

[shade]

Ron Paul guy. Give it up. If you know so much about this why don't you speak about it as if it were your own, not some other persons bullshit. Have an original thought, please.

I have since 3/23/2003 long before I knew Ron Paul even existed. He agrees with me.

[_Joe]

Let me give two examples:

1) I went to high school in the public Texas education system and they have a system, and have had it for awhile, that you can't get more than one order of potatoes at once. I remember the first time I came across this I got 2 things of mashed potatoes and they said I could only get one. My reaction was simply "I have the money for it, why can't I get it?" They said I had to go a separate time so I walked around the line 10 feet and ordered another mashed potato.
They have a problem with obesity in Texas, they're probably trying to combat that. If fat kids have to get up to get extra fries, they're gonna be less likely to do so. But, like you said, they can't not allow you to buy two, so this is all the deterrent they can use.

2) At my Wal-Mart, you are not allowed to buy more than 3 cartons of Marlboro per day per customer. My uncle is a heavy cigarette smoker and since Texas has cheap cigs, he decided to buy a lot so he can stock up for the rest of the year. So I walk with him to get them while I get some other stuff. They tell him this rule that he can only get 3 cartons so I walk over to see what the problem is. I simply say "Ok, you can either sell me 5 cartons of these or you can just sell me the 3 and I can walk across the street to a gas station and buy the other 2." and she says "Alright, I'll sell you 3."
Again, it's either something with supply or its to prevent people from smoking more. The more trips they have to make, the less likely they are to get more. Now, again, if they impose strict rules (like one carton at a time) they lose so much business they probably won't sell tobacco anymore. That's probably why the 3 cartons.