And other bit of my freedom is chipped away. I wouldn’t say I am against UHC as much as I am extremely wary of it, and that is one of the primary reasons: I can see politicians leveraging UHC in arguments when they are attempting to ban the next politically (but perhaps not publicy) unpopular and supposedly unhealthy choice.
As I see it, what we eat is none of the government’s business for four reasons. First, it’s just none of their business. Government exists to protect our freedom of choice, not to tell us what to choose. Second, even when the government has an earnest desire to help people be healthier, they’re usually not competent enough to do so. As I argued in an earlier thread, the FDA’s diet advice has done more harm than good. The last generation has seen as massive increase in governing meddling and a massive increase in obesity. Of course correlation does not prove causation, but it sure doesn’t prove lack of causation either. Third, even if the government had the right and the intelligence to dictate our food choices, lobbyists from the food industry would undermine the effort. Considering that lobbyists have already had on the FDA’s dietary guidelines, it’s a safe bet that they’d also control actual laws. Fourthly, people just dislike being bossed around. If bureaucrats try to force us to ditch pizza in favor of lima bean soup, plenty of people will eat more pizza just out of spite. I’ll be one of them.
Perhaps I’m being naive, but wouldn’t it make more sense to just eliminate the subsidies? If the government didn’t giveth, it would have no grounds for takething.
Yeah. I agree. The Gov should forbid smoking in public buildings if they want. Restaurants and bars are not public though. And, no one is forced to go to smoking restaurants/bars, or to work at them. That is where I have the issue.
Sorry if I am focusing to much on smoking bans. I will focus more on foods, since that seems to be the main point of thread.
Perhaps I’m being naive- but the American people are the government. If enough of us write our Congresscritters in support of taxes on high fructose corn syrup, as an example, then those tax and health policies would be fair.
You think ‘the deathers,’ backed by Republicans and Big Health are going nuts right now. The farmers, backed by farm state Republicans and Big Food will never allow cuts in Federal farm subsidies. These farm subsidies provide these cheap calories that make us fat and sick.
If they need the job, yes they are forced to work there. And in realistic terms without the ban customers have the choice of putting up with smoke or just not going to such places at all.
As the saying goes, “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”, and that applies to smoking too. You want to poison yourself, that’s your business; but you have no right to poison other people at the same time.
Welcome to the land of the free, 'eh? Unless I’m being whooshed here, there isn’t a single type of totalitarian dictate that wouldn’t be valid under your “plan”.
I agree. Even the most restrictive locales allow smoking in private hotel rooms, for instance, but many properties are going 100% smoke free in response to consumer demands.
I’ve never understood why this is such a large issue. If you don’t like the fact that your local (restaurant, bar, grocery store, casino, gun store, bowling alley, movie theater) permits/prohibits smoking then vote with your wallet and support the competition which does things to your liking. We do that with everything else; why not smoking?
If that is the only job available, then yes…I guess they are forced to work there. There is usually more than one job available at any given time, though. Also, they can continue to look for jobs in smoke free environments. A lot of people work jobs that expose them to unhealthy things…coal miners, toll booth attendants, etc. Are you saying all of these people are forced to work there?
And the saying, “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”, only makes sense in situations where the owner of the nose is not aware that the other person is going to swing their arm. In this case, it should read more like, “If you VOLUNTARILY enter an establishment where people are known to be swinging their arms, then you expose your nose to whatever negative effects arm swinging has on your nose.”
Are you really saying that anyone who pays taxes has the right to control the people that make use of that money?
I pay school taxes, can I dictate how much your child studies? I pay Social Security taxes: How is your grandmother doing? My dollars support emergancy services: Should you really be hiking way out there, we might have to rescue you. Does anyone you know have a goverment job? Can I be on their review board? Have you had your prostate checked recently? When are you getting your flu vaccine shot? Don’t run with scissors, you will get hurt. No more cookies for you, you will get a tummy ache and spoil your supper.
Your money does not trump my liberties.
A nice, quick review of the The Road to Serfdom. Well played. Extremely well played.
Or in other words: because the government is already involved, the government must get more involved.
The delusion, of course, is thinking that any individual citizen (meaning: you and me) really has the ability to exercise control or power over the decisions you describe above. We will have zero power, once that authority gets transferred to federal bureaucrats.
They have the decision-making authority, not us, and will respond to their own incentives, special interest pressures, and a host of other influences other than what you and I want. Maybe they will do a good job. Maybe they won’t. But they sure won’t be accountable to us.
The way to keep our liberties intact, and to retain decision-making control for ourselves, is not to give it away in the first place. Which amazingly, 10’s of millions of people are clamoring to do.
In many cases your freedom has already been chipped away.
Sometimes most all of the food choices are unhealthy. Ever been thirsty only to find
the fast food place only has unhealthy choices (fried flour and sugary drinks)? You could argue, “Just don’t eat there”…but sometime (especially while traveling) you’re stuck in situations where 95% of everything on the menu is crap. Your freedom to make good food choices are not that easy, and usually more expensive.
In my high school (granted a few years ago), coke machines were eveywhere because coke paid for part of the band uniforms.
Make an observation sometime (in fast food restaurants, malls, small grocery and bodeaga’s) of what percentage of products offered are unhealthy choices. Some places that percentage is 95% or higher.
Don’t ban everything unhealthy…just make sure good choices are available and at a comparable price.
Sadly true. You might be better off at another board comprising only card-carrying freedom lovers. No debate necessary, unless it’s about who loves freedom the most.
Really? Fucking REALLY? Some of you care so much about what other people eat that you want to pass legislation?
Count me among the sickened and speechless.
I agree with your premise but disagree that it would be a bad thing. When I said there is no inherent wrongness about paternalism, that leaves open some wrongs and some rights. A lot of people, for the sake of brevity, ease, or consistency, would like to have it one way or the other. I feel we’re at least smart enough to deal with a bit of complexity.
Smoking’s bad. No sane study comes to the conclusion that doing so is good for your health. Therefore, I don’t care if the government bans it on the basis of “we’re protecting you from you”. In this case, the government’s correct, they SHOULD protect us from ourselves. I don’t follow that all cases of slipperly slope must slide into some inevitable extreme
As you say, its impossible or implausible to change the makeup of government to equally represent all groups. The one we have is about as good as we’re gonna get. So by the definition, those people are represented and I have no qualms about using government power to protect them from themselves.
I disagree because people, left to their own devices, do not always make the right choice. Since the government is made up of people, albeit rich people, they are just as likely to make a good or bad decision as a single person by himself. Since a single person by himself has little chance to affect change on this vast scale, I’d rather let the government do it
If it worked that well, smoking would be gone already
Isn’t that like being afraid go to the doctor for a cold because the doctor might tell you that you hav cancer?
UHC would be good for the majority of people. Being against it, or wary of it, solely because it might be used against you in some ineffable way in the future isn’t a valid argument
Your choice is exercised when you choose what government to have through voting. Your choice is not hindered if I have a million more people than you choose a government that you do not like but one that I like. If the people choose a government that wants to ban trans fats or smoking, then choice is still protected. There is no way to give everyone the ability to exercise all of the choices they want.
So fire those people and get some new ones. Your argument is not one against government, but against incompetence, and they exist both in the government and in the private sector. Its simply that the government has more resources and is in the public eye, so it succeeds or fails in a spectacularly large fashion. You choosing to eat a Big Mac is an equal failing of health on your part than some misleading food pyramid. Its just that your choice isnt broadcasted to the nation. Anyone who is morbidly obese and still chooses to eat MacDonalds daily has no business telling the government that they are qualified to make their own choice. They’re not
It takes time to change culture and habits. Smoking used to be everywhere, but its a damn fool who thinks that lobbyists have completely succeeding in preventing curtailment of smoking. Lobbyists may slow down progress, but determined people cannot be stopped forever
Great, so be purposefully unhealthy to spite health. Die early. Maybe the rest of us would do better without you
Snarkiness aside, totalitarianism ends where the people want it to. It is not totalitarian for the people to want to ban some things and not others and there is no reason to assume otherwise. The kind of fearmongering that conspires to equate all regulation with buzzwords like “socialism” or “totalitarianism” degrades civility and harms genuine dialogue. Peddle your fears somewhere else
No, not total control. However, I believe people who pay taxes should have a degree of say in how those taxes are spent, a say that is exercised when they vote in politicians who enact laws such as the ones banning trans fat or smoking. I pay taxes, and as a citizen, I’m entitled to a small say in government balanced against the wants of 300 million others, or the slightly less number of people who are actually citizens and qualified to vote. That is how I exercise my say, and that is how you exercise your say. You can vote in Fatty McSmokesalot, and if enough people agree with you, you’ll get your trans fats and smoking in restaurants. Right now though, more people agree with me, and have voted consistently to put in people who want to ban trans fats and ban smoking. Your freedom is not harmed by my vote, and mine is not harmed by yours.
Your taxes and your child allow you to disagree with material, to run for school board, and yes, dictate how other people’s children study. My grandmother is doing fine thanks to your SS money. If she didn’t have yours, or the ones of hundreds of millions of people, she wouldn’t get emergency service. Taxes pay for park rangers and park administrators who designate spots for hiking. If they close off a trail because it’s too dangerous, then yes, they can do that.
You are misinterpretating, or misunderstanding the amount of control I want to have as a tax payer paying for health care. I am not a doctor. I am not going to look through your medicine cabinet and say which drugs you should take and how much. Besides me, hundreds of millions of other people also pay for it, so it would not be my opinion versus yours, its the collective opinions of all of us who pay taxes and vote who say “hey, maybe we should ban trans fat because its unhealthy and doesnt add anything to food”. That is the amount of control I want over your health: the ability to vote people in who say that maybe you shouldnt eat so many burgers. That doesn’t interfere with your rights whatsoever because if you dont like it, you can just vote Fatty back into office and change the law back
Generally yes. Which is why barring labor and safety laws they will and have historically been badly exploited and abused. Often to the point of killing them.
Except that when all establishments are full of people swinging their arms entering one is only technically “voluntary” at best.
Because without the ban there generally won’t BE any smoke free establishments. You can’t “vote with your wallet” when there is only one alternative offered. That’s one of the major flaws with this “let competition take care of it” idea that keeps popping up; it assumes that there IS competition. In reality, without a ban the best you’ll get is an ineffective no smoking section ( which gets flooded with smoke anyway ); they won’t care that nonsmokers are unhappy because after all, the alternative is to sit at home. And they won’t care at all that the nonsmokers are at risk of illness or death.
Competition had decades to work, and failed.
I think I will vote for my rights. I pay for my own health insurance, and I already had one set of parents. What I eat, drink, or smoke is no one’s business but my own. I like good whiskey on occasion. I like good steaks. I like good cigars occasionally. Etc, etc, etc. None of that is your business or anyone else’s. The big gubmint can stay out of my kitchen and my living room.
I’m having an old friend for dinner :eek:
I really like this idea. It would get away from the “Drugs are bad…mkay” attitude. It would show why certain drugs are worse than other drugs.