Cavemen In A World Of Excess

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem is diet and activity level. But no matter how active you are, if you're putting crap in your body it's making you less healthy, period.

Not period....healthy is a relative term tossed about as a generality for a human population with large variations in genetics, lifestyle, and environment.

I have a very large glass container on my desk filled with common chocolate candy bars that is labeled "Fruit Alternative". The candy has always been there as an office ice-breaker and social treat, but the label was added when the "healthy food nazis" tried to force fruit and vegetables down our throats. The futile fruit and veggie campaign lasted for about three months. Let freedom ring from the candy, pop, and chips vending machines to my desktop.

[Michael Hardner]

I very strongly disagree with this statement. This is not the role of government. ... Beyond that, people should be allowed to make their own individual decisions.

"Not the role of government" - why not ?

If it makes a happier, more productive, healthier society then why can't the people decide that this is the role of government ?

[bush_cheney2004]

If it makes a happier, more productive, healthier society then why can't the people decide that this is the role of government ?

Because that would be tyranny, and people would find very "unhealthy" ways to fix that.

[Michael Hardner]

Because that would be tyranny, and people would find very "unhealthy" ways to fix that.

It's not tyranny if people want a common authority to help guide us towards healthy choices (or alternately, tell us how to live).

Is it ?

[bleeding heart]

I'm not convinced by the argument, but I am aware it sounds benign (and begs the question of contradiction) when compared to the National Security Surveillance State, which so many of those troubled by tyranny seem eager to defend.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not convinced by the argument, but I am aware it sounds benign (and begs the question of contradiction) when compared to the National Security Surveillance State, which so many of those troubled by tyranny seem eager to defend.

I'll turn it around - why be against the NSA and for the FDA ?

(or why care about either if you're Canadian, but anyway...)

I want government institutions to come in various forms, some with the power of force, some with the power of suggestion, and all subordinate to an agreed-upon goal, subordinate to increasing the welfare of the people...

So force seat belts on me, ban cocaine, put a tax on Palm Bay cocktails if you must - but only do so, ultimately, in my service... I choose not to choose...

[GostHacked]

It's less about the foods we eat, and more about not being active.

The food has as much to do with it as exercise, even more so.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not tyranny if people want a common authority to help guide us towards healthy choices (or alternately, tell us how to live).

Is it ?

Yes...that is the very definition of tyranny by the majority. No thanks....

[bush_cheney2004]

I'll turn it around - why be against the NSA and for the FDA ?

(or why care about either if you're Canadian, but anyway...)

...I've been asking that question around here for years. I guess the U.S. government agencies are just easier to google.

[Bonam]

It's not tyranny if people want a common authority to help guide us towards healthy choices (or alternately, tell us how to live).

Is it ?

Yes, it is.

[Bonam]

I'm not convinced by the argument, but I am aware it sounds benign (and begs the question of contradiction) when compared to the National Security Surveillance State, which so many of those troubled by tyranny seem eager to defend.

Actually I seem to be the only one in this thread actively opposing this suggestion from the "Libertarian" angle. And, I have also very clearly voiced my opposition, on numerous occasions, to the surveillance state, NSA powers, etc. So there is no inconsistency. So if you are referring to me, you are incorrect.

[Bonam]

I'll turn it around - why be against the NSA and for the FDA ?

(or why care about either if you're Canadian, but anyway...)

I want government institutions to come in various forms, some with the power of force, some with the power of suggestion, and all subordinate to an agreed-upon goal, subordinate to increasing the welfare of the people...

Except of course that they'd do it wrong. I brought up one issue with the OP's suggestion... that some people are highly physically active and benefit from foods with a higher amount of calories. His response? Sorry, you're the minority, too bad. And that would be exactly the mentality of whatever government agency would be tasked with this newfangled set of taxes and regulations.

It's effectively a tax on physical activity and athleticism... anyone that burns more than the standard number of calories per day will be hit hard with taxes/penalties/fees for buying high calorie foods to keep up their energy.

You might say that the bureaucracy could have exceptions, that it would account for such cases, but then the costs of said bureaucracy would start to spiral out of control. People would need to fill out paperwork attesting to the fact they are more active so that they can be allowed to purchase high calorie foods. It's a nightmare to even think about.

[Mighty AC]

You're right there shouldn't be an exception to a sugar tax. Sin taxes have played a positive role in reducing tobacco use and we don't exempt the elderly and terminally ill. As a nation we eat too many high glycemic foods and we're paying through the roof for it in healthcare costs. Prevention is preferred to treatment and education has not been effective thus far. What would you suggest we do?

[Bonam]

You're right there shouldn't be an exception to a sugar tax. Sin taxes have played a positive role in reducing tobacco use and we don't exempt the elderly and terminally ill. As a nation we eat too many high glycemic foods and we're paying through the roof for it in healthcare costs. Prevention is preferred to treatment and education has not been effective thus far. What would you suggest we do?

Sugar is not a "sin" and should not be subject to a sin tax. Humans need calories to live. They do not need tobacco. Furthermore, the byproducts of tobacco smoking are directly physically harmful to other individuals. Not so with the consumption of sugar. The two are not analogous and your attempt to equate them is fundamentally flawed. What should we do? Don't eat more food than your body needs. Duh.

Anyway, if what you are worried about is healthcare costs, you should realize that every person that dies relatively quickly of heart disease is likely one less person that costs society millions as they get treated for cancer or another long-term illness over the span of many years or decades. Those kinds of cold-hearted calculations I'm sure appeal to someone who wants government to dictate everything from above, relegating individuals to mindless automatons, doing only what the government tells them to do, eating only what the government tells them to eat, thinking only what the government tells them to think. After all, it's for their own good.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes...that is the very definition of tyranny by the majority. No thanks....

It's an all or nothing argument though. If you apply this principle across the board then you can't ban any harmful activities.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a nightmare to even think about.

Imagine the overhead if we had to regulate pharmaceutical or recreational drugs.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's an all or nothing argument though. If you apply this principle across the board then you can't ban any harmful activities.

No, that is a logical fallacy. Many governments have as their foundations the principles of individual liberty and constitutional rights. Many "harmful activities" are permitted outright, or through some form of regulation. Some activities are banned because such activities would violate the rights of others, subvert the regulatory process and/or taxation, or have been otherwise upheld as banned constitutionally. This means it does not apply "across the board".

[Michael Hardner]

No, that is a logical fallacy. Many governments have as their foundations the principles of individual liberty and constitutional rights. Many "harmful activities" are permitted outright, or through some form of regulation.

Some activities are banned because such activities would violate the rights of others, subvert the regulatory process and/or taxation, or have been otherwise upheld as banned constitutionally. This means it does not apply "across the board".

You turned my statement around. If you applied the idea that telling individuals how to live is tyranny, then there are some activities you could not ban for violating the rights of others, or 'subverting the regulatory process'

Isn't this last reason recursive ? Activities are banned because ... they would subvert the regulatory process ? Some activities are illegal because they're illegal ?

[TimG]

What people seem to miss is the cumulative effect of regulations.

i.e. 10 regulations may be justifiable on their own but dealing with all 10 is onerous burden.

For this reason it is not enough to simply say we should regulate X because it is like Y.

It is necessary to demonstrate that the harm caused by X is enough to justify the additional burden on top of all of the existing regulations. Alternatively, one could argue that we should stop regulating Y in order to regulate X because X is more harmful than Y.

Edited November 9, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

You turned my statement around. If you applied the idea that telling individuals how to live is tyranny, then there are some activities you could not ban for violating the rights of others, or 'subverting the regulatory process'

Violating the rights of others is logically banned in the case of murder, assault, robbery, etc. Regulated activities are not "banned" per se.. This is not a binary argument, despite the usual attempts to make it so.

[Michael Hardner]

Violating the rights of others is logically banned in the case of murder, assault, robbery, etc. Regulated activities are not "banned" per se.. This is not a binary argument, despite the usual attempts to make it so.

Sorry, the binary argument came in when somebody said that telling somebody how to live is tyranny.

If we can climb down off of the libertarian cross there, then I would be more than willing to move forward in the discussion. Government exists to tell people how to live, you see, and that's what they love to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, the binary argument came in when somebody said that telling somebody how to live is tyranny.

If we can climb down off of the libertarian cross there, then I would be more than willing to move forward in the discussion. Government exists to tell people how to live, you see, and that's what they love to do.

Ooops....sorry...I assumed you understood the historical meaning of "tyranny by the (voting) majority", constitutional concepts, individual rights, case law, etc. My bad....

Edited November 9, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Ooops....sorry...I assumed you understood the historical meaning of "tyranny by the (voting) majority", constitutional concepts, individual rights, case law, etc. My bad....

My question:

It's not tyranny if people want a common authority to help guide us towards healthy choices (or alternately ...

You answered 'yes'. Would you care to re-answer now ?

[Michael Hardner]

Did George washington want to ban Big Gulp sodas ? Answer the question Chairman Bush-Cheney, don't wait for the translation !

[bush_cheney2004]

My question:

You answered 'yes'. Would you care to re-answer now ?

No....my answer stands as is. "Tryanny by the majority" is a well known concept in the U.S., and I apologize for assuming this understanding by other nationals.