Post: #1

In my political "upbringing" it was heavily suggested that all good things go together. That freedom of speech would allow for more thoughts and ideas to be shared, which was a good thing. That freedom of choice and a free market system would allow bad companies to fail and good ones to succeed, that people would choose options that rationally were beneficial to them and avoid ones that were harmful.

It doesn't take long to see that this is not the case. In a system of free consumer choice in food, frankenfoods have been engineered to scientifically addict us that are awful for our health but wonderful for company's profits. The obesity epidemic and the jettisoning of real natural healthy food follows apace.

Free speech and the free exchange of ideas, we have seen, has led lots of people down self-damaging paths towards divorce, family breakdown, social isolation, etc. In a more traditional society where people were more effectively forced into the roles of beginning families and where the crazy ideas promoted today are not tolerated, I think objectively more people would be more happy.

Politically, how do you reconcile this, when "freedom" really just leads to an ever increasing problem?

I have begun to believe that draconian health policies are the only tool available to fix the obesity epidemic worldwide. It would take a government taxing sweets and junk food to death, or straight up banning them, as well as subsidizing natural fruits/veggies/meat. I wonder if any country will try such a thing.

Post: #2

With the foundation of America, came the establishment of the world's first malleable nation. The US has always been ever-changing, and probably the only country to advertise that fact so proudly.

Only in America can you find such fickle individuals, both inside and out of the government who runs it. The opinion of the US's government can be swayed by the public, however detrimental that proposition. Once absorbed with the combination of myriad other ideas, they lead to new ideas, and so on.

This is where "Free speech and the free exchange of ideas" can be dangerous, those ideas spread and eventually -do- become ingrained in society. How long before we're seeing school fully recognize transsexuals as their 'preferred pronoun' and granting them access to their 'desired spaces'. Surely that'll become a topic to be covered in school systems, which could increase the amount of youth wanting to have their own 'preferred pronoun' and 'gender'. I'm sure you could come up with another example, and that's just the issue. These cases serve as precedents to the next certain social and political issue. Question is: Where does it end?

With the rapid spread of information through the internet and propaganda spread in the film and music industries, which nearly everyone has some interest in, there doesn't seem to be a way to take that back. Youth will continue to be indoctrinated by the American School System to prevent original thought. Toxic ideology will forever have a presence, it's just up to the public to combat it.

Post: #3

Up to the public to combat it?
Then it has won. The public is not combating it.

Hence, do we need a stronger top-down response to enforce things which are good? Or should we let the public decide that things which harm them are their preference?

How is Minsk this time of year...

Post: #4

(08-25-2014 09:00 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Politically, how do you reconcile this, when "freedom" really just leads to an ever increasing problem?

I think that retaining the sense of moral hazard is key. In America, we've lost the right to fail, and it's destroying many things at many levels. You observe this with food. Michael Bloomberg famously tried your solution in NYC with the soft drink taxes, and he's been criticized heavily for it, particularly from the Right.

There's this phenomenon "the paradox of choice": having too many choices actually leads people to be unhappy. People with enormous numbers of choices become paralyzed because they get stressed out trying to make a choice and afterwards, they're always feel like they could have taken another choice and had some potentially unrealized happiness.

Constraints are not a bad thing. Constraints force creativity, compromise, and problem solving.

Post: #5

While the mere idea of various constraints is appealing, we have ALL benefited from having options in one form or another (Healthcare, Schooling, living conditions to name a few)

Just think if there was a mandate that forced every individual to start a family for instance. The fallout could be devastating, especially when you take into account the mentally unstable, genetically inherited frailties, and parental inadequacy that many individuals possess. Unfortunately, sometimes divorce is the ONLY way. Ask any battered spouse or betrayed husband.

What would be next - a standardized religion?

While I agree we are a nation of "bad habits", forcing people into narrow paths does has it's consequences.

Besides, who would get to play the Almighty All knowing?

Post: #6

(08-25-2014 09:00 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:   It would take a government taxing sweets and junk food to death, or straight up banning them, as well as subsidizing natural fruits/veggies/meat. I wonder if any country will try such a thing.

If a country decided to do this I will gladly move there. I get so deflated every time I go somewhere and I'm surrounded by fat people with fat children. If you are older and comfortable and wanna pack on some pounds thats one thing, but to allow you small kid to be sickeningly fat right a long with you if fucking awful and should be criminal.

If this dream country also bans smart phones that would be the icing on the cake.

Post: #7

(08-26-2014 10:31 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  If a country decided to do this I will gladly move there. I get so deflated every time I go somewhere and I'm surrounded by fat people with fat children. If you are older and comfortable and wanna pack on some pounds thats one thing, but to allow you small kid to be sickeningly fat right a long with you if fucking awful and should be criminal.

If this dream country also bans smart phones that would be the icing on the cake.

It really shows you who calls the shots that there isn't some country like this.

Why can't Costa Rica, for instance, put in a sugar tax? It's a sin tax just like alcohol or tobacco. Costa Rica already "doesn't have a military" and has very good environmental policies, has made itself into a peaceful eco-tourism destination. May as well add good health into there, tax packaged foods, subsidize their natural bounty of food, help the campesinos...

That's it, I'm starting a pro-health dictatorship movement in Costa Rica. Best Central American dictatorship ever.

Pay people for participating in physical activity. Sports teams and exercise classes for free in public parks and beaches. Give people $1 for participating in a 1-hour class. It's not much but hey, it's something and you don't have to pay to begin with. With the new laws subsidizing locally grown natural foods, it'll help people buy that extra kilo of meat or bunch of fruit.

Tax soda and chips and sweets, but still have them available, just as special treats really. I think everyone here probably eats junk sometimes and can still manage to be healthy.

Post: #8

That's been the one consistent proven motivator across the board:

Monetary incentive

Post: #9

People have always been alarmed to being enslaved by other people while being blind to enslavement by destructive desires. That's why they crucified Jesus thinking he preaches the destruction of Roman empire, not retuning form sins.

Most people are natural slaves. They would rather slave to a master who provides them with bread and circus then be truly free. But at the same time those people are too proud to admit this. So they become useful idiots who can be directed to stomp everyone who gets labeled as an "oppressor".

To be worthy of real freedom an individual must first liberate himself from dark desires and sins like gluttony, alcoholism, drugs, sexual frustration, laziness, cowardice and other. Only then can a person have a shot to become really free from other people. Otherwise he is too corruptible and easily returns back to slavery like Esau trading his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew.

Post: #10

The only way would be to offer incentives for healthy behavior and punishment for unhealthy behavior.

In western countries, health care is viewed as a right. You really dont have to worry about being a diabetic fat ass on the verge of a stroke or kidney failure if you are insulated from the costs. Either you have private insurance, in which all people under that policy pay to cover the unhealthy or you live in a country with socialized medicine and everyone is taxed to pay for that unhealthy behavior. If you get too fat to walk, the government will give you a "free" rascal scooter to scoot your fat ass around town. You take a medication which you are also insulated from the costs because you have a $10 copay for a medication that costs $300.

Another thing is the food. In the US, we heavily subsidize corn. Corn and it's byproducts are found in nearly every food item in the grocery store aisles (not the perimeter i.e. fruits, veggies, meats, dairy - though meats & dairy products also benefit from subsidized corn). The prices of these foods are much cheaper than whole foods.

You would need to radically change what behaviors are subsidized and taxed in the west. You would have to subsidize fruits & veggies & gym memberships, etc. You would have to tax all unhealthy things to the point that people are discouraged from using them as much. You could even go as far as a fat tax where you tax people based on their BMI. That's pretty radical.

Freedom could work if you didnt remove all the responsibilities that come with it. We live in a society though where expecting people to take responsibility for their actions is some terrible offense.

Post: #11

America is a great country for people who take charge in their own lives.

The majority of Americans do not want to take charge and would rather have someone else do it.

We've created eden and we're going to ruin it pretty soon with our laziness.

There's a massive lack of cultural identity in America that started in the 60s with the "me" generation (boomers).

Post: #12

^^ Agreed with the last two comments

Bad decisions are subsidised their is no incentive to be healthy. If people have to pay for their own health care and governments don't subsidise things like wheat/corn, which are inflammatory when consumed in high quantities and over processed with junk. Things will even out when being fat costs a lot of money to the individual gaining weight.

Post: #13

(08-25-2014 09:00 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Politically, how do you reconcile this, when "freedom" really just leads to an ever increasing problem?

Because the problems created by removing freedom are worse than those caused by individual poor choices made in a free system.

We don't have a class of wise, benevolent, angels standing ready to make our choices for us. We have politicians, the media, activists and academics. All of whom have their own agendas which aren't necessarily the same as yours.

So if government gets to decide what food goes on your plate, be prepared for meals based on whatever obsessions possess the ruling establishment of the day. Vegan feminists have the most pull? I hope you enjoy soy beans. Agribusiness is donating the most money to the party in power? Look forward to higher food prices.

Taken to its logical extreme, well, there aren't many fat people in North Korea.

Post: #14

(08-31-2014 02:13 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  Because the problems created by removing freedom are worse than those caused by individual poor choices made in a free system...

Taken to its logical extreme, well, there aren't many fat people in North Korea.

Let's just say at the next election you went to, there was a ballot question about implementing an additional 10% sales tax on sodas.

How would you vote?

It's amazing to me that people here complain about the problems associated with obesity at society-wide levels, yet seem really really hesitant about doing anything to actually solve the problem.

Post: #15

I forget exactly who said it, I think it was one of those old time Greek philosophers like Aristotle, but the jist was that one of the great problems of living in a democracy, is that every person gets a vote, and like a child who only wants to eat candy, the vast majority of people simply don't know what's best for themselves in the long run. So you get leaders pandering to lowest-common-denominator policies which are not sustainable long term, but get them elected.

Post: #16

(09-01-2014 07:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Let's just say at the next election you went to, there was a ballot question about implementing an additional 10% sales tax on sodas.

How would you vote?

It's amazing to me that people here complain about the problems associated with obesity at society-wide levels, yet seem really really hesitant about doing anything to actually solve the problem.

I'd vote no, because I don't think tax rises are ever a good idea: it takes money out of people's pockets and puts it into the hands of politicians, who then waste it.

Anyway, your suggested tax would only make a difference to obesity if:

A) Soft drinks are a major contributor to obesity; and

B) The demand curve for soft drinks is highly elastic

As far as I can tell, the answer to A is "maybe", and B is "not really". People just aren't that sensitive to paying a few pennies more for a cola, a 10% price hike wouldn't change their habits.

So you'd have to look at a 100% or 200% tax to - maybe - have any effect on behaviour. And then, when that fails to solve the problem of obesity (because soft drinks aren't the only thing fatties guzzle), they'll start taxing every other kind of foodstuff that might make people fat, because that is how these things work. Pizza, crisps, bread, cakes, chocolate, pasta, high fat foods, low fat foods... you name it, they'll slap an obesity tax on it, once the principle is established.

Once the tax eaters latch on to a fresh new revenue stream, they don't let go without a terrible struggle. Ever known the rate of tax to go down? On anything?

At the point where people start smuggling Reeses Pieces to avoid tax, and lots of people are still land whales, it may become apparent that making fat people's fatness a political problem to be solved through the tax code was a mistake. The government isn't there to keep people in shape.

Post: #17

(09-02-2014 07:20 PM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  So you'd have to look at a 100% or 200% tax to

The government isn't there to keep people in shape.

I would vote in favor of a 200% tax increase on Soda. I guess you wouldn't.

I would vote in favor of a ban on soda though.

OK you never support tax raises for any purpose, cool. Do you support at least cutting subsidies that make junk cheap? I hope yes.

Post: #18

At least In Canada, and I think in Australia too, it's like $12 a pack for smokes. This is a tax of several hundred %. The reasoning is that with socialized health care, if you smoke, you should pay more into the system because you're more likely to use it. I really don't see how it should be different for foods that make you fat. Same thing with booze, you can buy Canadian alcohol cheaper in the US than you can in Canada.

Problem is now is processed shitty food is cheaper than healthy food. However it's only actually cheaper at the point of consumption. This leads to fattys, which in turn everyone else ends up paying for through higher tax for health care, higher insurance premiums for health insurance, more electric fatty wagons needed at walmart.

There are only os many resources to go around. If a doctor is treating your self inflicted diabeetus, he isn't dealing with someone else who didn't bring the issue on themselves.