Are fast food bans okay?

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Read or be sad.

Do you think it is right for the government to step in and say whether or not people can eat fast food? I for one say no. If someone wants to eat food that may not be good for them, that's for the person to decide, not the government. (Personally, I hate fast food, but that's irrelevant.)

 

[Crimson King]

And the government takes yet ANOTHER step towards Orwellian fantasy. Seriously, telling us what we can or can't eat?

I personally detest fast food, but sometimes it's unavoidable. I shouldn't have that option removed from me because it's bad for me. Cars kill people more than fast food does, but we haven't eradicated that yet.

 

[AltF4]

Hmmm.... what is interesting is that it's hard to draw the line here. Everyone here will be quick to say "No, lol! Of course Uncle Sam shouldn't tell me what I can and can't eat!!!" (Ironically, there is a fast food joint nearby me called "Uncle Sam's", with rather pushy employees.)

But as the article indicates, it is commonplace for city ordinances to ban certain kind of establishments for other reasons. For example, try finding a check cashing store in Scottsdale, Arizona. You can hardly find a gas station. The city prevents "unsightly" establishments from popping up, and forces them either to other areas, or out of business entirely.

Would you also be opposed to that? I fail to see how a city saying "No pawn shops in our city" is seen as acceptable but "No fast food joints" is not?

Do you see the problem?

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

@CrimsonKing: Huh. Funny. I just finished rereading 1984 about three days ago.

@AltF4: Well, I would be opposed to a town not wanting certain stores. I think the American way of life is to not impead the rights of citizens.

 

[Modest_Egoist]

The law would not force the fast food businesses currently in business to close up shop, rather it would keep more from popping up. The article said that there's already 400 or so fast food joints in the area where that law would be enforced, they don't need more.

 

[AltF4]

TheDam:

But you see, I have a hard time saying: "Sure, go ahead and put the XXX Video Store, Check Cashing joint, and the Pawn Shop right next to the Elementary School".

Might I remind you of the plethora of zoning laws that are in place. They prohibit construction of establishments in all sorts of ways.

Why, just recently, a development company wanted to put in some condo's in this empty lot next to my parents' house. But it was rejected by the city because it would be too tall. (You'd be able to see right into everyone's back yards from the condos)

Where do you draw the line? Do you not want ANY government intervention with anything to do with construction?

 

[Kur]

Hmmm.... what is interesting is that it's hard to draw the line here. Everyone here will be quick to say "No, lol! Of course Uncle Sam shouldn't tell me what I can and can't eat!!!" (Ironically, there is a fast food joint nearby me called "Uncle Sam's", with rather pushy employees.)

But as the article indicates, it is commonplace for city ordinances to ban certain kind of establishments for other reasons. For example, try finding a check cashing store in Scottsdale, Arizona. You can hardly find a gas station. The city prevents "unsightly" establishments from popping up, and forces them either to other areas, or out of business entirely.

Would you also be opposed to that? I fail to see how a city saying "No pawn shops in our city" is seen as acceptable but "No fast food joints" is not?

Do you see the problem?

The problem with your argument here is that there is no link between fast food establishments and crime. There is a definite link between pawn shops and check cashing stores and crime.

By the way, if you need a check cashing store or a pawn shop, just take a drive to Mesa. Can't go 2 blocks without seeing 4 of each.

 

[snex]

AltF4, if people dont want XXX stores next to elementary schools, then XXX stores wont be put next to elementary schools.

why?

because people wont shop there! if the government EVER steps in to declare that certain products must be off the market, they already have conceded that such a market exists. if no market existed, then no law would be necessary. see the problem here?

 

[cman]

This essentially strikes me as "Should the government keep people from being stupid?" And the obvious answer to the overall question is of course no, if not for any other reason than it would be impossible because no matter what regulations were put in place, people would find a way to out-dumb them. The relation here is that even if fast food places were banned, people would still eat **** and still eat too much, so their health problems might not decrease drastically. Now if you wanted to ban all convenience foods, and ration all food purchases, then we might be on to something.

Also- 1984 was an amazing book.

 

[Eriatarka]

Straight away this got shot down as the government trying to tell us what we can and can't eat, when that's beside the point really. If they could limit the amount of fast food stores in cities (Not ban them, just not have so many of them so that lazy/impulse buying of fast food is discouraged.), people would be healthier. Which is good for them. And never mind that you can instantly attack it and say we're having more freedoms taken away from us, this obesity thing would be less of a problem.
Fine if you want to chalk that up as a win to the government, but the fact is that this loss of a freedom that you're better off not exercising, is just a by-product of trying to fight obesity, it's not them pushing us around because they can.

So yeah, I'm against an outright ban on fast food restaurants, but not because I'm scared of the government going mad and taking away our liberties.

 

[AltF4]

Snex:

(You know that for the most part, I'm playing devil's advocate here so cut me a little bit of slack!)

But does that mean we should allow anything which "has a market"? Prostitution, (currently) illegal drugs, duels, high explosives, military grade weaponry, child pornography, etc... There would be a market for all of those things, should we allow them? I don't see the free market as being the ultimate decider in what is and isn't right. It certainly is not.

My gut tells me that yes, the local government should be able to tell the Pawn Shop that they can't build just anywhere they want. This is the entire rationale behind zoning and city planning. And it doesn't seem like much of a leap to go from dictating where a pawn shop can and can't go, to dictating a McDonalds.

Besides, if we here in the DH are *so* against the government trying to keep the populace healthy "against our wills" why do I not see any outrage over government taxing of cigarettes. US government has been making a deliberate and overt effort to slowly get rid of smoking entirely. I'm not trying to derail the thread, but there are plenty of precedents in this line of legislature. It's not like it's out of thin air.

 

[arrowhead]

But does that mean we should allow anything which "has a market"? Prostitution, (currently) illegal drugs, duels, high explosives, military grade weaponry, child pornography, etc... There would be a market for all of those things, should we allow them? I don't see the free market as being the ultimate decider in what is and isn't right. It certainly is not.

none of those are required for normal life, but food is. some people can't afford spending the money/time to buy/cook quality food

 

[Mewtario]

I never liked the government, as my brother puts it, "playing big brother"

 

[1337marth]

We in America have "Freedom". Then they say what we can and can not eat. They should not ever be able to take our things away, because it is our freedom of choice. So American government needs to get over it.

 

[snex]

Snex:

(You know that for the most part, I'm playing devil's advocate here so cut me a little bit of slack!)

But does that mean we should allow anything which "has a market"? Prostitution, (currently) illegal drugs, duels, high explosives, military grade weaponry, child pornography, etc... There would be a market for all of those things, should we allow them? I don't see the free market as being the ultimate decider in what is and isn't right. It certainly is not.

most things that have a market *should* be allowed to be sold. "vice crime" has no good effects. it creates criminals where there wouldnt be otherwise, and it forces black markets to use *real* crime to defend their business. the only things that should be outright banned are things that violate the rights of others who are unwilling. murder-for-hire violates the right to live of victims. child pornography violates the rights of children. etc etc. but whose rights are violated if you want to smoke weed, visit a willing prostitute, or down a disgusting greasy rat burger? nobody's.

My gut tells me that yes, the local government should be able to tell the Pawn Shop that they can't build just anywhere they want. This is the entire rationale behind zoning and city planning. And it doesn't seem like much of a leap to go from dictating where a pawn shop can and can't go, to dictating a McDonalds.

the local government is supposed to represent the people. that is the kind of government we have (or so i was told by my social studies teacher), a representative constitutional republic. the only time governments should go against the will of the majority is when somebody's constitutional rights are violated.

as i demonstrated above, it is a logical impossibility for a government to be following the will of the people when it decides to ban a product or service. if the people truly did not want that product or service, there would be nobody stupid enough to try to sell it - it wouldnt make any money. so what is the government doing then? it is ignoring its duties and deciding "whats good for us" in its own opinion. that is not why government exists.

Besides, if we here in the DH are *so* against the government trying to keep the populace healthy "against our wills" why do I not see any outrage over government taxing of cigarettes. US government has been making a deliberate and overt effort to slowly get rid of smoking entirely. I'm not trying to derail the thread, but there are plenty of precedents in this line of legislature. It's not like it's out of thin air.

taxing is not prohibiting the sale of. tax things to your heart's desire. apply import tariffs to your heart's desire. take a piece of the action and put it to good use doing what you should be doing - following the will of the people. taxes fit quite comfortably into free market models.

 

[AltF4]

as i demonstrated above, it is a logical impossibility for a government to be following the will of the people when it decides to ban a product or service. if the people truly did not want that product or service, there would be nobody stupid enough to try to sell it - it wouldnt make any money. so what is the government doing then? it is ignoring its duties and deciding "whats good for us" in its own opinion. that is not why government exists.

No, this is not true at all. There does not need to be a majority for a market to exist. It is perfectly possible for a market for a product or service to exist with the vast majority of citizens being against said product or service.

In order to "have a market" only a small number of people with sufficient money needs to exist. The free market does not represent "the will of the people". That's what we have a government for: To represent the will of the people. In your model, we wouldn't need a government at all! The free market would just take care of everything. But this is not the case.


I do not find it "Un-American" to allow the local governments to make decisions on behalf of the people. Everyone else in this thread seems to be strawman'ing the issue into a "The US Government is banning fast food completely!" But this is not the case.

This is a local government, stepping in and prohibiting any additional fast food joints from being built in an area. This is clearly within their legal bounds to do so, and who are we to say that it is wrong morally? It most likely makes sense in the context of that local region. Context is everything in these cases. That is why this sort of power is delegated to local governments. Because they can more accurately decide what is right for that that specific location than we can across the country.

 

[GhostAnime]

hmm.. i think somebody asked where 'where do you draw the line?'

well, i personally am not against anybody selling anything that takes somebody else's right away. banning fast food just seems so ridiculous to me. it is actually convenient for a lot of people, too.

 

[snex]

No, this is not true at all. There does not need to be a majority for a market to exist. It is perfectly possible for a market for a product or service to exist with the vast majority of citizens being against said product or service.

In order to "have a market" only a small number of people with sufficient money needs to exist. The free market does not represent "the will of the people". That's what we have a government for: To represent the will of the people. In your model, we wouldn't need a government at all! The free market would just take care of everything. But this is not the case.

that is because a truly free market would offer right-violating products like murder-for-hire outfits. there are also products/services that naturally lead to monopolies, and this is another area where i feel a government should step in. things like telephone lines or electricity form natural monopolies, so a government needs to prevent these companies from just arbitrarily charging whatever they want.

im not sure why you bring up majorities vs minorities above, as i did not mention them at all in what you responded to. if even one single individual wants a product that violates nobody's rights, and the other 5,999,999,999 people on earth do not want that product, that is not a valid reason to ban the product. the other 5,999,999,999 can simply refuse to buy it.

I do not find it "Un-American" to allow the local governments to make decisions on behalf of the people. Everyone else in this thread seems to be strawman'ing the issue into a "The US Government is banning fast food completely!" But this is not the case.

This is a local government, stepping in and prohibiting any additional fast food joints from being built in an area. This is clearly within their legal bounds to do so, and who are we to say that it is wrong morally? It most likely makes sense in the context of that local region. Context is everything in these cases. That is why this sort of power is delegated to local governments. Because they can more accurately decide what is right for that that specific location than we can across the country.

what possible justification could the local government have for this ban? presumably they want people in the area in which the ban covers to get healthier, but is that what the actual effect will be?

first of all, the companies only want to build there in the first place because thats where their customers reside. you dont see mcdonalds' going up in wealthy neighborhoods not because the government bans them there, but simply because wealthy people dont want to eat at mcdonalds. by forcing fast food companies to build elsewhere, all you have done is made it inconvenient for the people who want fast food to go get it. instead of walking 3 blocks to mcdonalds - which is healthy both for themselves and the environment, youve forced them to drive 3 miles to mcdonalds, which is less healthy for them and for the environment.

secondly, what exactly do you expect to build in the place of where fast food restaurants would have gone? you cant build health food stores, because the residents there cant afford to shop at them. now instead of paying a small amount for unhealthy food, you have people that cant buy food at all because they dont make enough money. not that this would be an issue since no health food store would be crazy enough to put up shop there in the first place. what you will end up with is empty lots that nobody will want to buy because residents cant afford to shop there and the products and services they DO want and can afford arent allowed by government to set up.

fast food is by no means healthy, but simply telling them they cant put up shop in areas where people want them is not a solution. it can only worsen the problem.

 

[Modest_Egoist]

I do not find it "Un-American" to allow the local governments to make decisions on behalf of the people. Everyone else in this thread seems to be strawman'ing the issue into a "The US Government is banning fast food completely!" But this is not the case.

I'm not strawman'ing this issue if you read my post above yours.

fast food is by no means healthy, but simply telling them they cant put up shop in areas where people want them is not a solution. it can only worsen the problem.

In the case of the article in the OP, there are already 400 fast food joints in a 32-mile radius. I'd say that's good enough.

 

[snex]

In the case of the article in the OP, there are already 400 fast food joints in a 32-mile radius. I'd say that's good enough.

youd be wrong. "enough" is defined as when the supply meets the demand. if 400 fast food joints in a 32-mile radius still leads to long waits, then 400 fast food joints in a 32-mile radius is not enough.

 

[Modest_Egoist]

So you're saying that they should have a fast food joint at every corner if that helps keep lines short?

 

[ComradeSAL]

Snex, do you think drugs like heroin and cocaine should be allowed to sell on a free market? It seems like you would need to honestly believe this for your "it has demand and doesn't violate other people's rights" argument to hold water.

Otherwise it's a convincing argument.

 

[snex]

So you're saying that they should have a fast food joint at every corner if that helps keep lines short?

long lines at a fast food place means that the food isnt fast. if another competing place opened up across the street, they would both still be able to operate at a profit, and now that there is more competition, prices will fall and quality will increase. you dont seem to get what supply and demand curves are...

comradeSAL, why shouldnt those drugs be legal? theres already a topic on that so post there.

 

[ComradeSAL]

It was more a simple question to help me make sense of your position than a counterargument. Also, sorry: didn't see the other topic.

In fact, I think I generally agree with you. Arguments could probably be made that selling fast food infringes on rights in some indirect and nebulous way, but I'm not seeing it. Drugs are a slightly less cut and dry matter, but I won't go into that here.

 

[M@v]

I personally like having fast food here and there(Wendy's and Arby's Ftw). However, the shame of it is many think you can eat it everyday, and thats when the fat guy sues mcdonalds because hes fat....


.......

.......


But really, you cant avoid idiocy, its everywhere. Go as far as ban fast food for some? No for 2 reasons.

1. Restricts our rights
2. The fast food companies will war it, and 99% win.

Hey look at the bright side. America isnt the most obese nation percent wise anymore. Australia is with 26% of their population. We are a second with a low 25%....

 

[samdaballer]

I find this as the government having too much control, it would be of much better interest for congress to pass laws mandating substantially healthier foods at fast food restaurants. and yes i understand the article is about local govt. But I think that congress should step in and create new laws to make foods at these restaurants healthier, a majority of the meals in fastfood restaurants are extremely high in fat, sodium and calories, so much that a full meal has more of these than you need in a day.

 

[snex]

I find this as the government having too much control, it would be of much better interest for congress to pass laws mandating substantially healthier foods at fast food restaurants. and yes i understand the article is about local govt. But I think that congress should step in and create new laws to make foods at these restaurants healthier, a majority of the meals in fastfood restaurants are extremely high in fat, sodium and calories, so much that a full meal has more of these than you need in a day.

how do you propose to do this without significantly affecting the cost of the food? and who has to pay that cost? its not congress, and its not the fast food companies. its the low-income folks who eat at them.

 

[marthanoob]

I see many people mentioning 1984. What about the bestselling contrast to the libertarian 1984, the socialistic book, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?
It's a great book; I suggest everyone read it.

The government was actually pressured to create the Food and Drug Administration and pass meat handling laws after this book became popularized.

 

[snex]

I see many people mentioning 1984. What about the bestselling contrast to the libertarian 1984, the socialistic book, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?
It's a great book; I suggest everyone read it.

The government was actually pressured to create the Food and Drug Administration and pass meat handling laws after this book became popularized.

nobody is claiming the government shouldnt propose and enforce regulations - we are saying it has no right to BAN things that dont infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[Firus]

Straight away this got shot down as the government trying to tell us what we can and can't eat, when that's beside the point really. If they could limit the amount of fast food stores in cities (Not ban them, just not have so many of them so that lazy/impulse buying of fast food is discouraged.), people would be healthier. Which is good for them. And never mind that you can instantly attack it and say we're having more freedoms taken away from us, this obesity thing would be less of a problem.
Fine if you want to chalk that up as a win to the government, but the fact is that this loss of a freedom that you're better off not exercising, is just a by-product of trying to fight obesity, it's not them pushing us around because they can.

So yeah, I'm against an outright ban on fast food restaurants, but not because I'm scared of the government going mad and taking away our liberties.

It's not an outrage because the government is "pushing us around because they can", it's because they're trying to FORCE US to be healthy. We're allowed to be fat if we want. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you're not allowed to be above a certain weight. If I want to eat nothing but junk food until I get a heart attack, then I should be able to. If I want to eat no junk food whatsoever and be healthy I should be allowed to do that. If I want to eat a normal amount of junk food, I should be able to do that. By trying to stop obesity in this way, they are in fact limiting what we can and cannot eat. And this is truly to stop obesity but keep in mind that not all of the USA is obese. What if you're responsible about what you eat but you'd like to splurge on fast food every once in a while? How is it fair to those people to say "Sorry, we're trying to stop obesity so you're not allowed to have fast food."

This whole concept is stupid. People will get fat in other ways. It's like putting healthy food in school cafeterias. What's stopping kids from taking in a lunch which will be twice as unhealthy as before, possibly sharing it with others around them? This whole attempt to stop obesity isn't doing anything and it's taking away rights that shouldn't be taken away.

 

[Eriatarka]

I agree with you Firus, I'd be fairly annoyed too if I wasn't allowed get a burger in the city, which is why I said I think limiting the number of fast-food restaurants is a good idea. Just to discourage impulse buying of junk food. If people want fast food, they should be able to get it, but I'd imagine there are a lot of people who buy this food simply because it's so convenient to get, since they're never more than 10 steps away from a Big Mac. If there were fewer fast food restaurants around, people who make idle decisions about where to eat might be more likely to choose healthier restaurants.

Again, if you want to get fast food you should be able to get it , but the sheer number of McDonalds and Burger Kings et al in cities makes getting into the habit of eating in those places all too easy.

 

[snex]

I agree with you Firus, I'd be fairly annoyed too if I wasn't allowed get a burger in the city, which is why I said I think limiting the number of fast-food restaurants is a good idea. Just to discourage impulse buying of junk food. If people want fast food, they should be able to get it, but I'd imagine there are a lot of people who buy this food simply because it's so convenient to get, since they're never more than 10 steps away from a Big Mac. If there were fewer fast food restaurants around, people who make idle decisions about where to eat might be more likely to choose healthier restaurants.

Again, if you want to get fast food you should be able to get it , but the sheer number of McDonalds and Burger Kings et al in cities makes getting into the habit of eating in those places all too easy.

why is it so typical for people who dont understand economics to blame the companies?

HINT: starbucks and mcdonalds arent on every block to make you get into the habit of eating there. theyre there because thats what it takes to meet the demand of the consumers.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND PEOPLE, its freaking basic econ 101.

 

[Eriatarka]

I'm not blaming the companies for anything, of course the reason those restaurants are there and remaining open is that there's demand for them and they're all turning profits. But it's not a stretch to say that on top of the people who buy fast food because they want it and will go out of their way to get it, the people who on their own make those restaurants viable, fast food restaurants get further business from people who buy their food because it's a more immediately obvious choice than any healthier alternative. And if limiting the number of fast food restaurants in cities helps dissuade those people from getting into the habit of going to those places, it's a win for their health.

 

[snex]

I'm not blaming the companies for anything, of course the reason those restaurants are there and remaining open is that there's demand for them and they're all turning profits. But it's not a stretch to say that on top of the people who buy fast food because they want it and will go out of their way to get it, the people who on their own make those restaurants viable, fast food restaurants get further business from people who buy their food because it's a more immediately obvious choice than any healthier alternative. And if limiting the number of fast food restaurants in cities helps dissuade those people from getting into the habit of going to those places, it's a win for their health.

but if thats what people actually wanted, thats the situation that would already exist due to the free market.

the government is supposed to represent the will of the people. if the people will a mcdonalds on every block, laws mandating anything else are going against the people.

 

[blazedaces]

the government is supposed to represent the will of the people.

Is this necessarily true? I would the say the role of government is a bit debatable, wouldn't you? I mean, "the role of government" implies that governments have a role, that they aren't simply free entities (like people) making decisions that for the most part benefit themselves.

-blazed

 

[Jack Kieser]

but if thats what people actually wanted, thats the situation that would already exist due to the free market.

the government is supposed to represent the will of the people. if the people will a mcdonalds on every block, laws mandating anything else are going against the people.

Yes, the government is supposed to fully represent the will of the people, which is why we choose our President's based purely from popular vote.

OWAI-

The Founding Fathers had enough forethought to realize that, though on an individual basis people may make sound decisions, in a large enough group (say, a country) those same people might not know what's best for them or the world around them. They might try to elect a dude they'd like to have a drink with, as opposed to a man who could fix national problems.

The government should be looking out for the best interests of the people because their main job, first and foremost, should be the protection and safeguarding of citizens, whatever that may mean. If that means that the public, due to irresponsibility, is quickly making itself the least healthy nation on the planet, that may justify a governmental body (city, state, or federal) to step in to protect the best interests of the people.

If American citizens want to act like irresponsible children and start endangering the well-being of the country, the government will end up having to treat them like like children to safeguard the future of the country.

 

[Eriatarka]

But presumeably no-one actually wants to be obese or unhealthy, what they want is to eat McDonalds. Ideal scenario is for people to be able to eat loads of junk food and remain healthy. But people can't have both, so in that sense their 'will' is already being infringed on.
I can't argue against the free market, but rather than saying that a limit on fast food restaurants would be going against the will of the people to eat fast food freely, you could say it's bowing to their will to be healthier.

(I know this arguement only works on the presumption that the ~25% of the population that are obese would prefer to be healthy but can't break their dependence on fast food without it being forcibly removed from them, but it's just another take on the arguement.
ie. that peoples actions do not necessarily demonstrate their will. People's desire for health may be greater than their desire for junk food, even if they don't act accordingly.)

 

[snex]

claims about acting "in the best interests of the people" are exactly the types of claims used by totalitarian systems known for oppressing their citizens throughout the world. its a farce and you know it. elected officials know diddly about "whats best" for you or anybody else. it simply isnt their job to have that knowledge or to operate under the pretense that they do.

officials, for the most part, ARE elected based on popular vote. we just use an archaic electoral college system that was created before computers could count votes in an instant. and even the electoral college is not applied for most elections. it certainly wasnt used to put the dopes who want to institute these bans in place. they were elected purely on a majority ballot of the citizens who voted.

 

[snex]

But presumeably no-one actually wants to be obese or unhealthy, what they want is to eat McDonalds. Ideal scenario is for people to be able to eat loads of junk food and remain healthy. But people can't have both, so in that sense their 'will' is already being infringed on.
I can't argue against the free market, but rather than saying that a limit on fast food restaurants would be going against the will of the people to eat fast food freely, you could say it's bowing to their will to be healthier.

(I know this arguement only works on the presumption that the ~25% of the population that are obese would prefer to be healthy but can't break their dependence on fast food without it being forcibly removed from them, but it's just another take on the arguement.
ie. that peoples actions do not necessarily demonstrate their will. People's desire for health may be greater than their desire for junk food, even if they don't act accordingly.)

thats a contradiction. if their desire for health were greater than their desire for junk food, theyd do what it took to be healthy. their actions do indeed demonstrate their will. how could it be otherwise? nobody is *forcing* them to eat mcdonalds.

 

[Jack Kieser]

claims about acting "in the best interests of the people" are exactly the types of claims used by totalitarian systems known for oppressing their citizens throughout the world. its a farce and you know it. elected officials know diddly about "whats best" for you or anybody else. it simply isnt their job to have that knowledge or to operate under the pretense that they do.

officials, for the most part, ARE elected based on popular vote. we just use an archaic electoral college system that was created before computers could count votes in an instant. and even the electoral college is not applied for most elections. it certainly wasnt used to put the dopes who want to institute these bans in place. they were elected purely on a majority ballot of the citizens who voted.

I hate to point out the obvious, but that is, of course, assuming that totalitarian systems are inherently inferior to democratic ones.

EDIT: I forgot to add... if these 'elected officials' don't know what's best for the people who elected them... then why are they elected in the first place? I thought that they were elected to represent the people in their city/district/state/country. They can't do that if they 'know diddly' about what's best for their constituents.