|
Post by polarisld33 on Jun 15, 2012 7:54:17 GMT -6
Do you believe it's constitutional (or even justified) for the government to dictate what we can and can't consume (i.e., the proposed soda ban in NY City)? Do you think such a ban could help people control their weight problems? How far is too far? Are there other/better things the government should be doing or should they back off and let people make their own choices?
|
|
|
Post by wooljesus on Jun 15, 2012 15:04:56 GMT -6
The soda ban (though I'm not terribly familiar with it) is just another case of a control-freak government trying to tell people what to do. I'm of the opinion that laws ought not be made about social issues, i.e. race, age, sex, and weight certainly falls under that umbrella. If a woman has the right to abort a fetus, then a fat guy should be able to get a god damn coke.
|
|
|
Post by jbturnstone on Jun 17, 2012 21:30:03 GMT -6
I really don't think these "nanny state" policies are an issue of control. I think it's more a matter of lobbying. The green/health food lobby is tremendously influential with liberals and "independents" like Bloomberg. I don't see any evidence that anyone in the government really cares whether we eat our vegetables before we have dessert. They're taking a stand against sugary beverages because it results in grassroots support from an active, heavily organized demographic of constituents. Big Brother has nothing to do with it because there's such a lucrative double-standard with regard to their association with the big agriculture companies who produce the corn syrup to make the soda. Back in 2009 Michelle Obama tried to start an organic victory garden. Cargill, Monsanto, and ADM accused her of demonizing pesticides, and within a week the First Lady was dusting her crops with bee-killing carcinogens.
|
|
|
Post by wooljesus on Jun 18, 2012 21:21:03 GMT -6
I disagree; I think most people in government would love to tell us precisely what to do and when to do it, and are simply driving the country in a direction that will eventually afford them said opportunity.
I think there's a constant battle to set precedent for the control of the people's decisions; control is the number one commodity in DC, and it's never shared freely, and constantly attacked.
Sure, politicians come up with all sorts of ridiculous maneuvers to appeal to their voters (the steroids in baseball travesty comes to mind), but in the end they are all seeking, in a broader sense, a way to stay in power and live forever. The cunts.
|
|
|
Post by polarisld33 on Jun 19, 2012 7:59:53 GMT -6
I think, in a sense, you're both right. I do honestly believe that the government wants to control more and more aspects of people's lives, but I also believe a lot of the "health" and "green" fads are primarily to influence liberals. In the end, I think it mostly comes down to money.
|
|
|
Post by jbturnstone on Jun 19, 2012 15:01:08 GMT -6
New York City has also banned smoking, which was done in the interest of public health. They say they're doing it because diabetes and lung cancer are a burden on our health care system. But wouldn't overweight diabetics with lung cancer indentured to a corrupt system of capitalist health care and private insurance agencies be easier to control than a bunch of fitness freaks without any medical debt or pre-existing conditions? I won't dispute that the government is obsessed with control. I just think there are easier, more efficient, and (most importantly) more subtle (meaning subliminal) ways for them to exert their dominance. The best way to control people is to let people think they're in control.
|
|
|
Post by wooljesus on Jun 20, 2012 21:15:31 GMT -6
Again, agree to an extent, but still feel differently. Bans on smoking are an attempt to control one's very atmosphere by anti-smoking individuals. When those in power smoked, smoking was ubiquitous. Now that it is unpopular, the laws have caught up.
Also, a ban on smoking sets a nice legal precedent for future power grabs of more extreme angles. Politicians tend to use whatever cause is popular to seize more and more control. They all tend to be rooted in fear.
|
|