Obese People, Smokers, and Other Unhealthy People

It's not a free market. For example, the production of the main ingredient, corn, in McDonald's chicken nuggets is subsidized by the government.

The morbidly obese person who doesn't take care of himself receives more subsidized health care from the emergency room on average than the healthy person but doesn't pay more in taxes for it.

That is even worse. Why is Mcdonalds allowed to operate in the first place? Why give that morbidly obese person a chance to be morbidly obese? It is like putting drugs in front of somebody at a low price and expecting them not to take it. It is not just Mcdonalds... most food is unhealthy. Why does the government allow this poison to be sold? It is ridiculous. We sent man on the moon yet we don't have healthy food, one of our basic needs. Are we progressing, or are a few progressing at the expense of the masses? Certainly seems like the latter.

Then why let you exist? You are only perverting the minds of others who choose to make decisions of their own volition. For what reason are you "permitted" to speak freely? From where do you think you derive that power?

If you wish to start deciding who gets to exist and who doesn't, tell me where you think that power comes from, and define it for me.

It 's not a free market. For example, the production of the main ingredient, corn, in McDonald's chicken nuggets is subsidized by the government.

The morbidly obese person who doesn't take care of himself receives more subsidized health care from the emergency room on average than the healthy person but doesn't pay more in taxes for it.

That is even worse. Why is Mcdonalds allowed to operate in the first place? Why give that morbidly obese person a chance to be morbidly obese? It is like putting drugs in front of somebody at a low price and expecting them not to take it. It is not just Mcdonalds... most food is unhealthy. Why does the government allow this poison to be sold? It is ridiculous. We sent man on the moon yet we don't have healthy food, one of our basic needs. Are we progressing, or are a few progressing at the expense of the masses? Certainly seems like the latter.

Then why let you exist? You are only perverting the minds of others who choose to make decisions of their own volition. For what reason are you "permitted" to speak freely? From where do you think you derive that power?

If you wish to start deciding who gets to exist and who doesn't, tell me where you think that power comes from, and define it for me.

What are you talking about? There has to be rules. I am saying my opinion. I think its messed up to allow the crap excuse of 'food' that mcdonalds and others are selling.

It 's not a free market. For example, the production of the main ingredient, corn, in McDonald's chicken nuggets is subsidized by the government.

The morbidly obese person who doesn't take care of himself receives more subsidized health care from the emergency room on average than the healthy person but doesn't pay more in taxes for it.

That is even worse. Why is Mcdonalds allowed to operate in the first place? Why give that morbidly obese person a chance to be morbidly obese? It is like putting drugs in front of somebody at a low price and expecting them not to take it. It is not just Mcdonalds... most food is unhealthy. Why does the government allow this poison to be sold? It is ridiculous. We sent man on the moon yet we don't have healthy food, one of our basic needs. Are we progressing, or are a few progressing at the expense of the masses? Certainly seems like the latter.

Then why let you exist? You are only perverting the minds of others who choose to make decisions of their own volition. For what reason are you "permitted" to speak freely? From where do you think you derive that power?

If you wish to start deciding who gets to exist and who doesn't, tell me where you think that power comes from, and define it for me.

What are you talking about? There has to be rules. I am saying my opinion. I think its messed up to allow the crap excuse of 'food' that mcdonalds and others are selling.

I'm talking about the fact that we they are free to produce their "crappy" food, just as you are free to espouse your personal ideology, of whatever quality it might be.

Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing. If I want to eat what I choose, smoke, drink, and call you names, it's my choice. If I want to produce food that's unhealthy, I can do that as well.

If you choose not to eat it, that's your choice also.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

[Scott]

I do want it to be legal for peddlers of addictive, unhealthy food like McDonald's to operate for the sake of freedom in the same way and to the same degree that I want it to be legal for people to sell drugs like cocaine or to be legal to engage in activities like prostitution. I am not suggesting we criminalize these activities.

I do think it makes more sense to at least in part tax these alleged vices instead of taxing things like the general trading of labor for income and possession of a home.

Even more importantly, I adamantly do not want governmental subsidy, support and bailouts for those unhealthy activities such as eating Big Macs, smoking cigarettes, binge drinking and snorting cocaine.

I think, unfortunately, the government is not trying to do what some people genuinely think is fair or in the best interests of the general public. I think it's all about money, and the government will sell out to any group with a big enough checkbook--be it fast food sellers, drug sellers, war profiteers or the folks producing and peddling the corn syrup. Our freedom and health is bought away like a murderer paying a politician to legalize the murders he commits or paying a judge to dismiss his case. If they kick enough back to the politicians and bureaucrats, the people doing the harm whether they do it by getting customers to voluntarily buy their cheap product made cheap through subsidization and through an asinine tax system or do it by blatantly infringing people's freedom (e.g. the murderer example above) can get their harm-causing business to be subsidized by the government. It's a vicious, common cycle.

Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

So, I can kill and murder indiscriminately as long as I do not violate the right of others to do the same?

Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

So, I can kill and murder indiscriminately as long as I do not violate the right of others to do the same?

Really? Let's break my statement down;

Premise: We are all free to do what we wish
Requirement: We must not violate other men's ability to do the same.

Does that help clarify your purported "contradiction"?

We've had many discussions, and I'm fairly certain that you're a bright enough guy to know what I meant [especially if you read it thoroughly].

Please try to avoid posting one-line red-herrings in the future, if you could, as I think you know where I stand on the concept of individual liberty.

For the american's entailed to this thread, why are you only picking on fast food outlets? I have a friend just returned from the states in awe of the portions served up in all restaurants... far too big he says... enough to feed two.

Why are your restaurants serving such large meals? It skews a persons concept of what is and isn't an acceptable portion for one person since we all look to what is around us to gauge what is acceptable.

We have some restaurants in Australia that do the same thing... especially with pasta. Much better to buy the entree as it is a more correct meal portion.

There are many issues within all aspects of the food industry that can lead a person into the path of obesity... it is not just burger joints.

Another issue is our readiness to use pre-packaged foods rather than create the food ourselves from primary products. A cup cake cooked at home with flour, sugar, eggs and butter is better for you than a cookie pre-packaged did you know? Far less sugar, additives and calories. Because of the carbs it is a better stomach filler also. It's quick to make... less than half an hour and serves as a nice treat for adults and children alike and it's cheaper than the packaged sweets. Rock cakes are another healthier option and tastier than cup cakes. Scones too! So why are we all buying pre-packaged cookies/ biscuits? (Obviously this argument can be extended to all types of pre-packaged foods we use as alternatives to actually cooking from scratch.)

[Scott]

For the american's entailed to this thread, why are you only picking on fast food outlets?

I'm not just picking on them. Insofar as taxpayer dollars are spent to deal with I would indeed suggest increasing the taxes not only on fast food but on all sorts of unhealthy products including cigarettes, alcohol, candy (and any edible product sweetened with refined sugar, corn syrup, artificial sweeteners like Splenda or so on), soda, recreational drugs, etc.

As far as restaurants go, they already usually pay sales tax. But I would suggest an increased sales tax for any product that doesn't meet a certain nutritional standard. But I would base that standard of the ratio of nutritional factors to each other without relation to the size of the dish. A small cookie may have less calories, less sugar and less fat than a big undressed salad, but I would do the standards in a way that the cookie may not meet the standard and the salad will. While its true that poor portion-sizing is a major factor causing people's unhealthiness, I just don't see how its feasible to tax. What if I buy 1000 cookies individually rather than 1 plate of 100 cookies? Would you tax the plate of 100 because its too big and not tax any of the 1000 individually purchased cookies? Would you penalize the person for ordering one big salad with good nutritional ratios instead of penalizing the person for repeatedly ordering small cookies?

For the american's entailed to this thread, why are you only picking on fast food outlets?

I'm not just picking on them. Insofar as taxpayer dollars are spent to deal with I would indeed suggest increasing the taxes not only on fast food but on all sorts of unhealthy products including cigarettes, alcohol, candy (and any edible product sweetened with refined sugar, corn syrup, artificial sweeteners like Splenda or so on), soda, recreational drugs, etc.

As far as restaurants go, they already usually pay sales tax. But I would suggest an increased sales tax for any product that doesn't meet a certain nutritional standard. But I would base that standard of the ratio of nutritional factors to each other without relation to the size of the dish. A small cookie may have less calories, less sugar and less fat than a big undressed salad, but I would do the standards in a way that the cookie may not meet the standard and the salad will. While its true that poor portion-sizing is a major factor causing people's unhealthiness, I just don't see how its feasible to tax. What if I buy 1000 cookies individually rather than 1 plate of 100 cookies? Would you tax the plate of 100 because its too big and not tax any of the 1000 individually purchased cookies? Would you penalize the person for ordering one big salad with good nutritional ratios instead of penalizing the person for repeatedly ordering small cookies?

And what happens, Scott, when the studies are released years from now proving that the items you considered "unhealthy" were actually beneficial for individuals?

Or that they had no effect, and were essentially benign? Would that not constitute theft, as an unjust tax on a product you targeted for its adverse effects that didn't actually exist?

Maybe we just shouldn't be selectively taxing items for the "harm" they cause society, because in reality we can't necessarily prove the extent of the "harm" they cause in each individual's case!

Otherwise, look out for the demands for reparations years down the road!!!

Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing. If I want to eat what I choose, smoke, drink, and call you names, it's my choice. If I want to produce food that's unhealthy, I can do that as well.

If you choose not to eat it, that's your choice also.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

Locke fully supports whitetrshsoldier’s position. We, the people have entered into a social contract with the government whereby it has the authority to do what is necessary to preserve our property rights. Our bodies are considered to be property and, therefore, our property rights include our individual freedom. The government, therefore, lacks the authority to restrict your or my choice of what to do as long as it does not harm others. The underlying assumption is that we are reasoning animals capable of taking care of our own bodies.

We chose our bed and are laying in it. If we collectively decide we were wrong and need a personal caregiver to control more of our unreasoning passions, we must amend the social contract accordingly -- and sacrifice more of our freedom.

Make up your collective mind, folks.

I think you are right, Dewey. But we cannot make up our collective mind until we know the facts. Alethia is right, and we should all cook and bake helathy food, therefore cookery and household management should be taught to all.Therefore, the powers of the multinationals should be curbed by central government because the multinationals are often detrimental to our health and the sustaining environment.The Nanny State need to exist in proportion to the dangers to those many citizens ill-equipped to deal with the dangers to health in modern living.

The Nanny State is easy to legislate for, quantify and qualify, but the dangers to gullible citizens have to be quantified and qualified too and this is not so simple especially when the multinationals and nationals do such efficient lying for PR.I hardly have to provide examples of lies, seductiveness,suggestiveness, and exaggerations within current advertisements do I?

I think you are right, Dewey. But we cannot make up our collective mind until we know the facts. Alethia is right, and we should all cook and bake helathy food, therefore cookery and household management should be taught to all.Therefore, the powers of the multinationals should be curbed by central government because the multinationals are often detrimental to our health and the sustaining environment.The Nanny State need to exist in proportion to the dangers to those many citizens ill-equipped to deal with the dangers to health in modern living.

The Nanny State is easy to legislate for, quantify and qualify, but the dangers to gullible citizens have to be quantified and qualified too and this is not so simple especially when the multinationals and nationals do such efficient lying for PR.I hardly have to provide examples of lies, seductiveness,suggestiveness, and exaggerations within current advertisements do I?

Belinda,

When you're calling for the regulation [that is, the government deciding FOR me what I can and cannot do and WHAT a private company can and cannot do], then YES, you MUST PROVIDE evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that even the most casual consumer of the products produced suffer dier consequence that sufficiently require the controls you wish to implement.

If you can't, you are not justified in STEALING MY MONEY to DEPRIVE ME OF MY FREEDOMS.

In a "free" society, is that really too much to ask?

I think you are right, Dewey. But we cannot make up our collective mind until we know the facts. Alethia is right, and we should all cook and bake helathy food, therefore cookery and household management should be taught to all.Therefore, the powers of the multinationals should be curbed by central government because the multinationals are often detrimental to our health and the sustaining environment.The Nanny State need to exist in proportion to the dangers to those many citizens ill-equipped to deal with the dangers to health in modern living.

The Nanny State is easy to legislate for, quantify and qualify, but the dangers to gullible citizens have to be quantified and qualified too and this is not so simple especially when the multinationals and nationals do such efficient lying for PR.I hardly have to provide examples of lies, seductiveness,suggestiveness, and exaggerations within current advertisements do I?

The expectation that "the nanny state" will act with less corruption, or more in the best interests of the population, than a competing arrangement of corporations, has - as far as I know - never been qualitatively or quantitatvely substantiated.

In practical construction and application, "the nanny state" is simply another form of corporation, with income, expenses, and a president, board, and staff. The power that corrupts corporations equally corrupts governments.

Giving "the nanny state" power over all only lends absolute power toward absolute corruption, which is why history tells us that socialist systems almost inevitably lead to tyranny.

When corporations and wealthy individuals can compete against any particular ideology in the administration of government, and compete against each other via free speech and a free marketplace, then such power is broken up over the political and economic landscape. While some might see this as imperfect, it's still, IMO, better than providing tyrannical forces the engine (socialism) by which they can accumulate and employ absolute power over a society.

[Scott]

If you replace the word socialism with the word statism, I agree with what Meleagar wrote in the post immediately preceding this one. We see an example of the type of flaws common in big government with the fact that in a supposed attempt to reduce health care costs or otherwise improve the health care system in many countries including the United States the government has created a system that subsidies health care coverage in a way that increases overall costs while not leading to better outcomes, marked by the fact that the healthy person pays taxes on his gym membership to pay for health care subsidies that are more often used by unhealthy people who buy and eat non-carbonated sugar water and don't pay any taxes on it. The inherent flaws of taxation and government spending lead to a system in which healthy people have to pay via taxes for unhealthy people's unhealthy choices which of course reduces the economic incentive for unhealthy people to not make the choices that will increase the health care costs that would be present in a more free society. In such a system, increasing taxes on unhealthy things like cigarettes is a way to partially undo the harmful effects of the statism (forcing healthy people to pay for unhealthy people's health care) and is a lot more agreeable than the stronger more fundamental reforms that a real libertarian, anarchist or borderline anarchist would want (e.g. to eliminate or nearly eliminate taxation and government spending all-together).

***

And what happens, Scott, when the studies are released years from now proving that the items you considered "unhealthy" were actually beneficial for individuals?

That's a valid concern. But I think that the scientific method can be used with a fair amount of certainty to discern which activities are unhealthy. For example, I do not see much risk that future studies will show that cigarettes are actually not unhealthy. I can name things which most of us are convinced have been scientifically shown to be unhealthy, like cigarettes, but I wouldn't leave it up to me but rather up to scientists performing the scientific method which is necessarily reproducible meaning we do not have to take any one scientist or group of scientists words.

Would that not constitute theft, as an unjust tax on a product you targeted for its adverse effects that didn't actually exist?

I think all taxes constitute theft by definition. But, particularly if the revenue is being used to pay for government spending on health care, I would much rather, create or increase taxes on something I think has been scientifically shown to be unhealthy like cigarettes or soda than on trading income for labor or owning a modest sized home.

Freedom hasn't the luxury of picking and choosing.

We are all free to do what we wish, as long as we do not violate another's right the same liberty.

So, I can kill and murder indiscriminately as long as I do not violate the right of others to do the same?

Really? Let's break my statement down;

Premise: We are all free to do what we wish
Requirement: We must not violate other men's ability to do the same.

Does that help clarify your purported "contradiction"?

We've had many discussions, and I'm fairly certain that you're a bright enough guy to know what I meant [especially if you read it thoroughly].

Please try to avoid posting one-line red-herrings in the future, if you could, as I think you know where I stand on the concept of individual liberty.

I was only posing that question to begin an exploration of the limits and extents of individual freedom as you propose. I will ask more "relevant" questions from now on, I promise.

As we are all well aware conceptions of words like individual freedom vary widely. Where conceptions of individual freedom conflict is there a mechanism for peaceful resolution, is it just might makes right or is some other mechanism involved?

When corporations and wealthy individuals can compete against any particular ideology in the administration of government, and compete against each other via free speech and a free marketplace, then such power is broken up over the political and economic landscape. While some might see this as imperfect, it's still, IMO, better than providing tyrannical forces the engine (socialism) by which they can accumulate and employ absolute power over a society.

That is all well and good but requires a real free market.

That's a valid concern. But I think that the scientific method can be used with a fair amount of certainty to discern which activities are unhealthy. For example, I do not see much risk that future studies will show that cigarettes are actually not unhealthy. I can name things which most of us are convinced have been scientifically shown to be unhealthy, like cigarettes, but I wouldn't leave it up to me but rather up to scientists performing the scientific method which is necessarily reproducible meaning we do not have to take any one scientist or group of scientists words.

Science of this sort often takes a long time and is fraught with competing political and commercial agendas. For example I recently read of some long term very large longitudinal studies of diet and health that point to processed carbohydrates such as those found in bread as a factor in obesity and poor health that far outweighed fat and sugar. Even the researchers were surprised at the result. One of them said "The healthiest part of your morning toast is the butter."

This overturns contemporary conventional wisdom which was based on more limited and less comprehensive studies and then conflated by a relentless and ubiquitous media campaign by commercial interests seeking to cash in by creating fear and new products to assuage that fear. The people and then the government were just sucked into the vortex.

Fifty years ago oleomargarine was touted as better than butter. It is taking decades to get over that false information campaign.

I think all taxes constitute theft by definition. But, particularly if the revenue is being used to pay for government spending on health care, I would much rather, create or increase taxes on something I think has been scientifically shown to be unhealthy like cigarettes or soda than on trading income for labor or owning a modest sized home.

If taxes are theft then it is a strange sort of theft since people get to participate. It may be very indirect participation but that is just part of living with a lot of other people.

Why you particularly object to government paying for health care is a strange position since government is already paying for over 40% of the health care in the US.