Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#81

Post by Zak »

noarchy wrote: post #70
Zak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're willing to set the NAP aside for junk food, your bar for setting aside the NAP is likely pretty low. But my own perspective is that of a person who scrutinizes what I put in my body. I've never felt that I needed someone else to make that decision for me.

Under normal circumstances, I'm not. In a public health emergency, I might be.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#82

Post by concinds »

slaveofallah93 wrote: post #80
concinds wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonalds is actively making people less healthy, and profiting from it. Why should they not be banned? Where's the downside to banning them?

The downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.

On the one hand, everybody would end up healthier, smarter, more productive, more attractive, richer (less healthcare spending), more psychologically healthy (the gut is the 2nd brain, bad diet means bad emotional health), will live longer, have their friends and family live longer.

On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of view, and harmful even at low doses).

Nothing comes "free". If there is an alcoholic in the family, that lowers the whole family's nurturance level, degrades the marriage, increases the probability of divorce, and undeniably hurts the kids. Sugar addiction is no different from alcohol addiction. The addict isn't the only one who suffers. Similarly, if your social circle is fat, you're more likely to be, and stay, fat. Getting rid of junk food has no downsides, unlike getting rid of alcohol. Junk food is harmful even in low doses, whereas alcohol isn't in moderation.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#83

Post by baddox »

iopq wrote: post #76
finid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's up to individuals to make decisions about what they do and do not eat and live with the consequences. True, but when that level of individual freedom has negative repercussions on the community, the government has to step in. Else the society will cease to be. Imagine if our (USA) govt allowed us to buy gas (fuel, petrol) with lead in it, ignoring the long term impact of lead in the environment. Individual freed…

> True, but when that level of individual freedom has negative repercussions on the community, the government has to step in Good, then I guess the government should tell everyone to exercise too? I mean, people not exercising has negative repercussions on the community, so the government has to step in. Mandatory exercise for everyone. I guess the same logic applies to limiting gaming/Internet time too.

Mandatory exercise is certainly consistent with banning unhealthy food, but I wonder why (presumably) very few people who advocate the latter would advocate the former. My guess is that the enforcement mechanisms feel different on the surface, because forced exercise requires physical force (or fines, etc.) on each individual, while banning junk food requires force on manufacturers and/or retailers (I'm not sure the distinction is very clear, since these entities are comprised of individuals). Yet that doesn't feel like a sufficient explanation, since many people advocate the prohibition of certain drugs, which does require the use of force against individuals.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#84

Post by mirimir »

olalonde wrote: post #62
TuringNYC wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does one draw the line? Hard drugs?

As an individualist, I believe competent adults should be allowed to draw their own line. But if I had to compromise, hard drugs does seem like a more reasonable line.

Refined sugar might be considered a "hard drug".

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#85

Post by baddox »

vosper wrote: post #33
Zak wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a significant distinction between polluting the environment, which harms other people directly and making unhealthy decisions in one's own life, which has only indirect effects on others.

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.

Likewise, if an individual makes a choice that causes his or her taxable income to decrease, he or she has arguably (by the same argument) directly effected other people's lives by reducing the tax revenue of the country.

Ought governments impose some incentive for individuals to earn as much taxable income as possible?

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#86

Post by urda »

pjc50 wrote: post #72
realusername wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I've tried to argue for the French ban of unlimited soda refills, I was called a "Stalinist" so I probably won't say much on this one. I hope it will help to reduce their obesity rates.

Having only one soda is definitely as bad as being in the gulag, I'm sure.

Can we drop the hyperbole, and no you don't definitely need to exaggerate.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#87

Post by baddox »

concinds wrote: post #82
slaveofallah93 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside is that you can't get cheap tasty meals from McDonalds.

On the one hand, everybody would end up healthier, smarter, more productive, more attractive, richer (less healthcare spending), more psychologically healthy (the gut is the 2nd brain, bad diet means bad emotional health), will live longer, have their friends and family live longer. On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of v…

These two things could both be true:

1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society.

2) Any government with the authority to ban restaurants would choose which restaurants to ban incorrectly, due to honest mistakes, influence from lobbying, or other reasons, and the end net effect on society would be negative.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#88

Post by lend000 »

concinds wrote: post #65
lend000 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd be fine with both. Where's the conflict?

Huge difference. One allows free association, whereas the other involves using government force to take away freedom.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#89

Post by concinds »

baddox wrote: post #87
concinds wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, everybody would end up healthier, smarter, more productive, more attractive, richer (less healthcare spending), more psychologically healthy (the gut is the 2nd brain, bad diet means bad emotional health), will live longer, have their friends and family live longer. On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of v…

These two things could both be true: 1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society. 2) Any government with the authority to ban restaurants would choose which restaurants to ban incorrectly, due to honest mistakes, influence from lobbying, or other reasons, and the end net effect on society would be negative.

Ok.

1. I support ban/taxes on junk food.

2. Government doesn't do it, does something else.

3. I' still not satisfied, and still support ban/taxes on junk food.

I have opinions. So do you. What the government does is irrelevant to what I believe.

Re: As Obesity Rises, Remote Pacific Islands Plan to Abandon Junk Food

#90

Post by gydfi »

finid wrote: post #15

In 2011, as a condition for joining, the World Trade Organization ordered Samoa to eliminate the ban within a year. Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! So that's one of the aims of the WTO, to promote corporate interests, even when it's bad for the general population.

It's funny because the people most likely to trust the government with the power to ban junk food are the ones least likely to trust the government to can mind-altering drugs.
Post reply on HN