Some people were upset about smoking begin restricted... Non-smokers were pretty pleased as were most smokers who want to quit (a large proportion), even full-time smokers I've spoken to are happy that it has reduced the amount the smoke and generally improved public spaces.

 

The aim was to improve the health of the nation and to allow non-smokers not to have to breathe second hand smoke.

 

Given the high obesity rate in the US (and many other countries), is it not time for the government to make fast food the next target?

 

*Warning labels on Fast food (Crappy foods cause heart disease etc) similar to cigarette packets could be a start.

*Changes to food supplied in school canteens,

*education of parents to help them stop child obesity (and there own obesity!),

*compulsory nutrition and cooking classes in schools including demonstrations on what happens to the body of the obese.

*Stricter Guidelines and then Large fines for fast food companies (and food manufacturers) that do not meet a minimum nutritional standard in their food.

 

People KNOW that smoking is unhealthy, some will still do it. It seems completely understated in comparison just how unhealthy fast food is, people should still have the choice to eat it, but more in your face education to get through to people.

Tags: fast, food, smoking

Views: 309

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If we didn't have our tax dollars subsidizing stupid people that make stupid choices, your whole argument is invalid.  I vote to not subsidize stupid people.  Protecting life, liberty, and property should be the only function of government.  You do realize that fining fast food companies means stealing their money at the threat of gunpoint and imprisonment when you are dealing with government?  If the companies didn't pay the fines, they would show up with guns, arrest people, and put them in cages.  Stay out of my business and the business of other people.  You have no right to authorize government to use force on others for your view of morality.

I find your position hard to understand, can you clarify?

 

We shouldn't subsidize stupid people? (sounds reasonable, but I'm suggesting taxing junk food addicts addicts? are you saying the citizens trying to buy healthy food who would benefit from subsidies in this specific case are the stupid people?)

 

You seems to be saying the tax system should just be removed? Taxes, fines, whatever we want to call it is the government taking money and then re-distributing the funds on what the government elects to... If you don't pay your taxes you get put in Jail. Thats the society we live in, we already pay tax on food? But then you also say the government should protect life. a) reducing obesity in society would protect life, b)if you removed the tax system how would the government protect anyone, without a police force how is your liberty and property going to do??

 

Furthermore the government uses force based on a general view (sometimes not even a majority view) of morality EVERYDAY - War in Iraq, Arresting drug addicts, fining Jay-Walkers!!!

 

I would love 0% tax and Anarchy, but it won't work because of all the people who act anti-socially on an everyday basis. Of course, I'm suggesting education as a method of improvement for those people.

Certainly,

 

"We shouldn't subsidize stupid people? (sounds reasonable, but I'm suggesting taxing junk food addicts addicts? are you saying the citizens trying to buy healthy food who would benefit from subsidies in this specific case are the stupid people?)"

 

No, I'm stating that the tax money we spend on medicare and medicaid for the health care of the obese, the justification for your argument, is pretty stupid.  If they are dumb enough to get themselves into that position, then I don't see why I should be FORCED to help them out.  Don't confuse being forced, government action, with a genuine want to help others.  I would gladly help someone who is obese exercise and fill them in with the knowledge of how to eat right.  I just don't want to be FORCED via government to do so.  

 

"You seems to be saying the tax system should just be removed? Taxes, fines, whatever we want to call it is the government taking money and then re-distributing the funds on what the government elects to... If you don't pay your taxes you get put in Jail. Thats the society we live in, we already pay tax on food? But then you also say the government should protect life. a) reducing obesity in society would protect life, b)if you removed the tax system how would the government protect anyone, without a police force how is your liberty and property going to do??"

 

I'm also not advocating removing the tax system.  Our government has legitimate and authorized authority to levy taxes.  It's outlined in our constitution.  However, these taxes should not be used for anything other then the protection of life, liberty, and property.  For your assertion that this would protect people's lives is also stretching it a bit.  Your view proposes we protect people at the expense of the liberty of others.  I have no problem with the labels, and education.  What I have a problem is with the fines and extra taxes.  We're going to have a fundamental disagreement here.  I do not believe that government has a right to infringe on someone's liberty unless their actions are threatening the life, liberty, or property of another individual.  The only recourse for the government to enforce the fines is through physical force and violence.  If these companies in your scenario did not pay the fine, would you be willing to kick down their door, and imprison them at the threat of death if they resisted?  As for your second point, I'm also not advocating dissolving the police force, but rather refocus them on real crime, and to respect liberty once again.

 

"Furthermore the government uses force based on a general view (sometimes not even a majority view) of morality EVERYDAY - War in Iraq, Arresting drug addicts, fining Jay-Walkers!!!"

 

All examples of government overstepping their authority.  Our government used to allow white men to own black men.  That doesn't mean it was ok just because government allowed it. 

 

"I would love 0% tax and Anarchy, but it won't work because of all the people who act anti-socially on an everyday basis. Of course, I'm suggesting education as a method of improvement for those people."

 

I'm not advocating 0% tax or anarchy, I'm advocating liberty and for government and my fellow citizens to respect that liberty.  You are not suggesting education when you assert fines should be levied.  You are advocating physical force when you advocate fines.

 

See, George Ought to Help

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs&feature=player_embedded

You say you agree with legitimate taxation in principle (because its in the constitution), doesn't it follow then that you also agree with the use of force to make people pay up? if there was no repercussions from avoiding tax why would anyone pay? and who decides what sort of taxation is legitimate? which taxation do you think is legitimate? Which services should these legitimate taxes pay for and which should be removed? why would your view of legitimate be any more valid than mine, or the majority?

 

example. Everyone uses roads (paid for by taxes), whether you have things delivered to your house, you walk to the shops etc. its not like you could just tax drivers, we all use roads. Roads don't protect life, liberty or property, they are useful, but in theory we don't need them we could just drive over grassland (very impractical in modern society of course), do you agree that roads are a legitimate use of tax money even though they don't protect the 3 things you state are necessary requirements for a legitimate use?

Some people that earn high incomes and therefore pay higher taxes might use the roads less than say a taxi driver, why, on your logic, should they subsidize stupid people ("get a better job and earn more money like me") who earn less money, to use the roads? Furthermore, people who earn more might live in a nicer area and are less subject to crime, why should they pay to help poor people be protected by the police? Why should their liberty be infringed when they are not directly threatening the life or property of others? you tell me?

 

I would think you have to remove taxes and use a "pay as you go" system, which would lead to most poor people becoming bankrupt (and dead) very quickly (maybe that is because they are stupid people and deserve it?), but you state you do not want to remove all taxes. how does your position remain consistent (protect liberty, life, property) and taxes remain legitimate and not infringe on the liberty of anyone at any time?




"See, George Ought to Help"

Seems like a melodramatic representation... how many tax evaders have their door knocked down and guns pointed at them? have you been watching too many movies? a knock on the door and an arrest warrant would be the norm. if you decide to fight the police you may have a problem, but why would you do that? why not fight them in court? or petition the government now rather than waiting for the bills to add up, or emigrate.


"You say you agree with legitimate taxation in principle (because its in the constitution), doesn't it follow then that you also agree with the use of force to make people pay up? if there was no repercussions from avoiding tax why would anyone pay? and who decides what sort of taxation is legitimate? which taxation do you think is legitimate? Which services should these legitimate taxes pay for and which should be removed? why would your view of legitimate be any more valid than mine, or the majority?"

 

First off I don't expect many services from government.  I expect them to keep foreign countries from shooting at us, provide retributive punishment for property crime, and pretty much stay out of my business other wise.  That doesn't mean invasive, imperialist, nation building either.

 

"example. Everyone uses roads (paid for by taxes), whether you have things delivered to your house, you walk to the shops etc. its not like you could just tax drivers, we all use roads. Roads don't protect life, liberty or property, they are useful, but in theory we don't need them we could just drive over grassland (very impractical in modern society of course), do you agree that roads are a legitimate use of tax money even though they don't protect the 3 things you state are necessary requirements for a legitimate use?"

 

Well, if roads were pay by use, you'd have no reason to tax people for them.  No I don't think they are a legitimate way to use tax money.  The main wear and tear is caused by big business shipping their goods in semi's.  Cars don't do that much damage to roads, the heavy trucks do the damage.  GE didn't pay any taxes this year. 

 

"Some people that earn high incomes and therefore pay higher taxes might use the roads less than say a taxi driver, why, on your logic, should they subsidize stupid people ("get a better job and earn more money like me") who earn less money, to use the roads? Furthermore, people who earn more might live in a nicer area and are less subject to crime, why should they pay to help poor people be protected by the police? Why should their liberty be infringed when they are not directly threatening the life or property of others? you tell me?"

 

Police don't protect you.  You protect you.  Self protection is your duty, and that you state it's the police's job to protect people is reflective of statist thuggery you propose.  You do realize the police have no duty to protect anyone?  They do it for fear of losing their job or out of the kindness of their hearts, nothing else. 

 

"I would think you have to remove taxes and use a "pay as you go" system, which would lead to most poor people becoming bankrupt (and dead) very quickly (maybe that is because they are stupid people and deserve it?), but you state you do not want to remove all taxes. how does your position remain consistent (protect liberty, life, property) and taxes remain legitimate and not infringe on the liberty of anyone at any time?"

 

Liberty doesn't mean success.  It means being free from government intrusion in your life, that's it.  If we were taxed a lot less, it wouldn't be that much of an intrusion upon our liberty.  Whenever you are governed, you give up a certain amount of liberty.  I realize that.  I don't think our government should be in the business of telling people how to live their life, nor should anyone else. 

"provide retributive punishment for property crime"

"Police don't protect you.  You protect you"

So you don't want the police to protect you? so who is going to hunt down the criminals who stole your car? are you going to do it vigilante style? and then cuff them and hand them over to the law courts (who you are paying taxes for apparently, that one is allowed?), but why take them into the law courts? why should I pay tax to keep the courts running? if the police are not around to protect them I should just shoot them, right? before they shoot me. because thats not a crime against property, the criminal should have protected himself, "you protect you" right?

Is this a joke or are you genuinely advocating that we should go back to a kill or be killed lifestyle in our everyday lives?? You should read more by Thomas Hobbes.

 

You may be happy to hole yourself up at home with a shotgun ready to kill trespassers, but what about if you had a daughter at school and she got shot by someone? is that ok? she should have protected herself, right? You started saying the government has a responsibility to protect life, and now you are saying that "you protect you"... which is it? Why have an army when "you protect you"? shouldn't you be taking on foreign invaders "Rambo style"??

 

 

"

"provide retributive punishment for property crime"

"Police don't protect you.  You protect you"

So you don't want the police to protect you? so who is going to hunt down the criminals who stole your car? are you going to do it vigilante style? and then cuff them and hand them over to the law courts (who you are paying taxes for apparently, that one is allowed?), but why take them into the law courts? why should I pay tax to keep the courts running? if the police are not around to protect them I should just shoot them, right? before they shoot me. because thats not a crime against property, the criminal should have protected himself, "you protect you" right?

Is this a joke or are you genuinely advocating that we should go back to a kill or be killed lifestyle in our everyday lives?? You should read more by Thomas Hobbes."

 

Ok, where to begin.  First your example about the car.  They aren't protecting me, they would be protecting my property, after it was stolen, which I would expect them to do.  Retributive punishment for property crime.  If my car was being stolen on my property, you bet your ass the people stealing it would be getting a gun pointed at them, and if they displayed a weapon, they'd be getting shot.  I would hold them there until the police got there, and they could arrest and detain them, or I'd be explaining why I had to shoot someone.  That's what my tax dollars are for.  Where have I advocated anarchy here?  You keep trying to link me to that, but I'm not advocating that.  There is a difference, a big one in fact, between libertarianism and anarchy.  I am an advocate for non initiation of force.  The people stealing my car would be doing so by force and against my will.  I have a right to protect my property from forceful attempts to be taken unjustly. 

"You may be happy to hole yourself up at home with a shotgun ready to kill trespassers, but what about if you had a daughter at school and she got shot by someone? is that ok? she should have protected herself, right? You started saying the government has a responsibility to protect life, and now you are saying that "you protect you"... which is it? Why have an army when "you protect you"? shouldn't you be taking on foreign invaders "Rambo style"??"

 

First off, I wouldn't indiscriminately shoot people on my property.  If you pose a danger and are threatening my life or the lives of others on my property, I will use force as necessary to protect my life or the life others on my property.  That is the natural right of self defense that we are all entitled to.  As for my imaginary daughter getting shot, it would likely be at school.  If you wanted to commit a mass murder against people that you know can't defend themselves, where would you go?  The logical place is somewhere where they won't have guns.  I guarantee you a "No Guns" sign ever prevented an armed criminal act from taking place.  

 

Government does have a responsibility to protect life.  However, ultimately it's your responsibility to protect your life first.  It's a shared responsibility with the main burden being upon yourself.  The thing about foreign invaders is also a non starter.  First off, you'd have to be fucking insane to do a land invasion of the U.S. and it is 99% probably never going to happen.  Second, what would you do, run and hide?

"They aren't protecting me, they would be protecting my property"

ok, granted Obviously a car is property, that was a bad example. you want a police force that you can call up to get your car back, granted. If you are being held in a hostage situation do you want the police to help free you? When you say "property" do you also mean your life? because you stated: "I expect them to keep foreign countries from shooting at us, provide retributive punishment for property crime" but also stated earlier "life, property and liberty" as 3 distinct things, which led to me expecting that life and property were distinct items in this discussion and hence you only expect the government to provide retribution against property crime and not to help you if you are in a life threatening situation.

 

Can you confirm would you advocate a full police force to act in any case where life, property and liberty are threatened? or just property? regardless of the role of the police force, I pointed out in an earlier part of the thread that people with higher incomes who live in nicer areas would be subsidizing high crime areas, or that people who can't afford to pay for the police force would be left to fend for themselves if they had something stollen. Why should the rich have their financial liberty infringed to protect the poor in your outlined society?

 

my point is simply that governments currently play a role in protecting those who can't defend themselves or are uneducated (children for a start, but adults too) or poor, or addicted to drugs. Your view seems to be that government should only provide the basics that you personally and people like you (able to afford your own healthcare, educated, capable of shooting anyone who threatens you - if you had a daughter would she be capable of shooting a threatening intruder if you were out?, etc.) require. I am making assumptions about your living conditions, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Ultimately what I am trying to ascertain is whether we should just agree to disagree about what the role of government should be or if your position has something i should incorporate into my own thinking about the role of government. Currently I am completely against the idea of government only supporting people with money which is what a result of removing all public services except national defence and a very basic police force/law court would entail. Even if lower taxes would allow some poor people to then be able to afford basic private health care would they also be able to afford education, all the toll roads you'd need in your view, etc.

 

"The thing about foreign invaders is also a non starter.  First off, you'd have to be fucking insane to do a land invasion of the U.S. and it is 99% probably never going to happen.  Second, what would you do, run and hide?"

Your national defence is well funded by taxation, agreed. And would in your picture continue to be in your ideal society. are you happy to subsidize those who have no money but live in your country because national defence is of benefit to you? my contention was that you seemed to be against paying to help the "stupid people" as it was an infringement of your liberty.

on the second point, my position is that I would hope that if i was put in a situation where i had to defend myself or my family I would do it, but that I would rather pay the government to have preventative measures like police on the streets to try and prevent crime, programmes to control/educate against anti-social behavior and lower poverty which can lead to crime etc.

I have no problem about people wanting to help less fortunate people.  However, the government is not the vessel for that to occur.  Government, by its nature, can only make people dependent upon it, thus growing the size and scope of government so it infringes on the liberty of everyone, like it currently is doing.  Government does not teach people to fish, it feeds them for a day.  I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Seems like a melodramatic representation... how many tax evaders have their door knocked down and guns pointed at them?

Not at all. The film's script already explains why your rhetorical question doesn't challenge this analysis:

Almost everyone pays the bills without protest, they know the agents are prepared to use as much force as necessary to overpower you if you resist.

To persuade yourself that this is true, simply consider what would happen if it was not so. If this was not the case, people would quickly learn that by resisting powerfully enough, the tax collectors will leave you alone. Knowing this, most will resist, and the state (denied its lifeblood of extorted funds) will collapse.
exactly.  there's no such thing as second-hand fast food
You did quickly get to the meat of my posisition. So it is just posible that our differences amount to little past an overarching thread titleon your part. Personal drug use is my primary example. You're correct that I wouldn't choose to inject transfat. However I have chosen to inject other things that plenty of people find just as objectionable. It does pose an extra level of risk, but w/o government force, there is no reason for it to affect anyone else. Left to their own an insurance co. would set health insurance rates accordingly. I think they already do this for smokers.

Fraud is another thing that governments may have a legitimize right to protect people from. If drugs were legal, as you say, then a seller would want to label their product. If an item is sold as 10 miligrams of something then making sure that is what they have is another legitimate function of gov.. Imo, anything other than protecting citizens from force and fraud is overstepping its legitimize function. So protecting me from my own bad decisions is an arangment of my rights.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service