61–70 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! Depends who you ask. Some people understand the risks of junk food but still want it (same as with alcohol and tobacco). Junk food also tends to be cheaper per calorie.
Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?
Not bellow junk food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! Depends who you ask. Some people understand the risks of junk food but still want it (same as with alcohol and tobacco). Junk food also tends to be cheaper per calorie.
Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll end up needing if you are obese - these treatments will be funded out of the taxpayer's pocket, when that money could be going to better schooling, infrastructure, or some other use.
This is also true with privately-funded health care based on insurance with shared risk pools that don't take behavioral risk factors in to account. It's the very definition of a moral hazard. But if you accept that argument, where is the line? What personal decisions, if any shouldn't be subject to regulation?
Edit: I can't give you a list of personal decisions that I think should be subject to regulation, because it's not as simple as that, and there's a debate to be had for each one, and that will depend on circumstances and ideology. But I do think that in this case it's reasonable, since the cost of treating diabetes patients is crippling a small, poor country.
It doesn't help that there are little healthy options in local schools. Most schools have a single privatised canteen that offers a lunch option (typically chicken curry and rice or chicken chow mein) with the rest being soda drinks, chocolate bars or salty chips. I don't remember apples or bananas being an option unless you brought it from home. But you don't want to be the kid eating a banana when everyone around y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fat slob overflowing the seat next to me on an aeroplane has a direct effect on me and I would be perfectly happy for measures to be taken to mitigate it.
Or we could get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow airlines to charge based on weight/have assigned seating types. But I imagine that wouldn't go over very well with the people who want to ban junk food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll end up needing if you are obese - these treatments will be funded out of the taxpayer's pocket, when that money could be going to better schooling, infrastructure, or some other use.
By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?
> Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs? Not bellow junk food.
Hell, I'd be willing to bet that more people who eat junk food become effective "junk food addicts" and develop resultant health problesm as a percentage than do people who use LSD, MDMA, or even cocaine.
It doesn't help that there are little healthy options in local schools. Most schools have a single privatised canteen that offers a lunch option (typically chicken curry and rice or chicken chow mein) with the rest being soda drinks, chocolate bars or salty chips. I don't remember apples or bananas being an option unless you brought it from home. But you don't want to be the kid eating a banana when everyone around y…
Eastern European immigrants stayed thin. Chinese immigrants stayed thin. Immigrants from some other countries - mostly south america in my personal experience - all gained weight quickly.
The food does make it much easier to gain weight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll end up needing if you are obese - these treatments will be funded out of the taxpayer's pocket, when that money could be going to better schooling, infrastructure, or some other use.
By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it has to be filed under, "The constitution is not a suicide pact." No social construct, no system of laws and rights trumps the need to be alive to enjoy them. Given the scale of the problem, they were looking at a situation with an outcome grimmer than most wars. I agree with you, this is extraordinary and requires consummate measures.
I lend a lot of weight to the libertarian non-aggression principle, but I think it's generally a mistake to think about social issues in absolute terms. I really don't like coercion, but the NAP, also shouldn't be a suicide pact.