[POLL] Do You Support Socialized Food?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

So I go back to my statement about junk food tax and vegetable incentives.

A "junk food tax" unfairly punishes those who can eat "junk food" with little to no ill health effects.

Of course, this is the flaw with socialism in general.

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Who decides what's healthy and what's not? And not all people react to foods the same. For example, it's been documented that some people can at greasy bacon every morning for their entire lives, rarely exercise but still stay thin, and live to be more than 100 (my grandfather smoked 2 packs a day, non-filters, and lived to be 94). While others eat nothing but "healthy" foods, exercise for constant fitness and die of a heart attack at 40.

Your constant attitude of letting government work around the laws through arbitrary taxation is really short-sighted.

You can't make a system that fits everyone, but if you don't do anything......well just look at the result. It's ofcourse a matter of political view if you want the government to try to make a system that decrease the problem or if people should just continue as they seem fit.

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

of course, the trick is to balance limits to find an optimal mix. if there are very few limits then everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes (if not worse).

The limit should then be: Do not step on other's toes.

The limits should not be: Size and style limitations on shoes. Waiting periods for shoes. Required safety classes and licensing for walking and a ban on all close dancing.

Not to belabour the point, but that only works in a perfect world where everyone respects each other's toes..

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Who decides what's healthy and what's not? And not all people react to foods the same. For example, it's been documented that some people can at greasy bacon every morning for their entire lives, rarely exercise but still stay thin, and live to be more than 100 (my grandfather smoked 2 packs a day, non-filters, and lived to be 94). While others eat nothing but "healthy" foods, exercise for constant fitness and die of a heart attack at 40.

Your constant attitude of letting government work around the laws through arbitrary taxation is really short-sighted.

You can't make a system that fits everyone, but if you don't do anything......well just look at the result. It's ofcourse a matter of political view if you want the government to try to make a system that decrease the problem or if people should just continue as they seem fit.

The problem lies with your thinking only the government can fix the problem, and that the governemnt is the only answer to any problem.

Our society recently changed. High quality (read high calorie) food has become so cheap, even the poorest among us can afford to be obese. We also have changed our lifestyles and live, on average, far more sedentary lives.

This has all happened within a single generation. Give society a chance to change rather than forcing them to do what you think is best.

Limiting freedom is NOT the answer. If it were, we'd all be living in rubber rooms.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: biostud
If food where free, then more might be able to afford to buy insurance for healthcare.

you don't think very hard do you?

I would rather say I don't know much about the healthcare system in US. Maybe you could enlighten me?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I had an idea years back where nobody would have kitchens anymore, and there were restaurants.

But I like to cook

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Helmet laws? A limit to freedom
Seatbelt laws? A limit to freedom
Business regulation? A limit to freedom.
Gun Control? A limit to freedom
Sin taxes on anything deemed unhealthy? A limit to freedom
Socialism? A limit to freedom

I could go on, but why?

of course, the trick is to balance limits to find an optimal mix. if there are very few limits then everyone is stepping on everyone else's toes (if not worse).

The limit should then be: Do not step on other's toes.

The limits should not be: Size and style limitations on shoes. Waiting periods for shoes. Required safety classes and licensing for walking and a ban on all close dancing.

Not to belabour the point, but that only works in a perfect world where everyone respects each other's toes..

But we DO respect other's toes, for the most part. Social norms and morals have worked for centuries where laws left off.

The point is, stepping on toes is illegal, therefore everyone will respect each other's toes. Just as murder is illegal, and, for the most part, everyone respects human life.

Passing MORE laws and limiting MORE freedoms in an attempt to keep people from breaking already existing laws results in nothing more than lost freedoms and more people in jail. Meanwhile, the same number of people are breaking the original law as before.

The War on Drugs and gun control are two perfect examples.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
The USA is the richest country in the world, nobody should go to bed at night hungry.

So go out and start feeing people. Organize citizen volunteers and help the hungry and the homeless. Move it! But don't just sit there on your self-righteous ass demanding that government do it for you by force of the law, because that just makes you look charitable when it fact you are just selfishly giving with other people's money.

You have no idea what I do or don't do to help combat hunger. I'm sorry but we spend billions of dollars of "our" money sending relief to countries who would be more than happy if the USA was blown right off the map.

Btw,I also pay taxes and as such have a voice in these issues.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
The USA is the richest country in the world, nobody should go to bed at night hungry.

So go out and start feeing people. Organize citizen volunteers and help the hungry and the homeless. Move it! But don't just sit there on your self-righteous ass demanding that government do it for you by force of the law, because that just makes you look charitable when it fact you are just selfishly giving with other people's money.

You have no idea what I do or don't do to help combat hunger. I'm sorry but we spend billions of dollars of "our" money sending relief to countries who would be more than happy if the USA was blown right off the map.

Btw,I also pay taxes and as such have a voice in these issues.

But you know what? No one is starving in the streets of the US. No one was starving in the streets BEFORE welfare and food stamps were put into practice in the late 60s.

Welfare and food stamps were not passed to keep people from starving. The "Great Society" plan of LBJ's was billed as "an end to poverty." Had they tried to pass it off as relief for the poor, it would have been laughed off the table. Why? Because private charities offered plenty of relief for the poor and NO ONE was starving in the US.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Amused
[
The problem lies with your thinking only the government can fix the problem, and that the governemnt is the only answer to any problem.

Our society recently changed. High quality (read high calorie) food has become so cheap, even the poorest among us can afford to be obese. We also have changed our lifestyles and live, on average, fer more sedentary lives.

This has all happened within a single generation. Give society a chance to change rather than forcing them to do what you think is best.

Limiting freedom is NOT the answer. If it were, we'd all be living in rubber rooms.

I don't see changing taxation as limiting in freedom. The current way of collecting and spending tax could be considered just as limiting in freedom.

I would like to think that obesity in the western world would decrease, but I doubt it will in any near future and the consequences on human life and the cost in healthcare will continue to rise. I don't know how it is in US but in Denmark most of the obeisity is seen amongst the least educated, and these are least likely to be able to handle it themself. So I would like the governement to help these loose weight, you wouldn't.
So it's probably good we have our own countries and system to live in.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused
[
The problem lies with your thinking only the government can fix the problem, and that the governemnt is the only answer to any problem.

Our society recently changed. High quality (read high calorie) food has become so cheap, even the poorest among us can afford to be obese. We also have changed our lifestyles and live, on average, fer more sedentary lives.

This has all happened within a single generation. Give society a chance to change rather than forcing them to do what you think is best.

Limiting freedom is NOT the answer. If it were, we'd all be living in rubber rooms.

I don't see changing taxation as limiting in freedom. The current way of collecting and spending tax could be considered just as limiting in freedom.

I would like to think that obesity in the western world would decrease, but I doubt it will in any near future and the consequences on human life and the cost in healthcare will continue to rise. I don't know how it is in US but in Denmark most of the obeisity is seen amongst the least educated, and these are least likely to be able to handle it themself. So I would like the governement to help these loose weight, you wouldn't.
So it's probably good we have our own countries and system to live in.

Taxing food in an attempt to make it too expensive, and thus change behavior IS a limitation on freedom. Hell, any time my money is taken away from me at gunpoint is a limitation of my freedom.

Obesity is a personal responsibility issue. Only when you introduce socialism does it become the business of everyone else. Therefore socialism is anathema to freedom.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused
[
The problem lies with your thinking only the government can fix the problem, and that the governemnt is the only answer to any problem.

Our society recently changed. High quality (read high calorie) food has become so cheap, even the poorest among us can afford to be obese. We also have changed our lifestyles and live, on average, fer more sedentary lives.

This has all happened within a single generation. Give society a chance to change rather than forcing them to do what you think is best.

Limiting freedom is NOT the answer. If it were, we'd all be living in rubber rooms.

I don't see changing taxation as limiting in freedom. The current way of collecting and spending tax could be considered just as limiting in freedom.

I would like to think that obesity in the western world would decrease, but I doubt it will in any near future and the consequences on human life and the cost in healthcare will continue to rise. I don't know how it is in US but in Denmark most of the obeisity is seen amongst the least educated, and these are least likely to be able to handle it themself. So I would like the governement to help these loose weight, you wouldn't.
So it's probably good we have our own countries and system to live in.

Taxing food in an attempt to make it too expensive, and thus change behavior IS a limitation on freedom. Hell, any time my money is taken away from me at gunpoint is a limitation of my freedom.

Obesity is a personal responsibility issue. Only when you introduce socialism does it become the business of everyone else. Therefore socialism is anathema to freedom.

Except if the tax is used to give you freedom. AFAIK lots of your tax goes to the military and police that protects you and your freedom.

 

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused
[
The problem lies with your thinking only the government can fix the problem, and that the governemnt is the only answer to any problem.

Our society recently changed. High quality (read high calorie) food has become so cheap, even the poorest among us can afford to be obese. We also have changed our lifestyles and live, on average, fer more sedentary lives.

This has all happened within a single generation. Give society a chance to change rather than forcing them to do what you think is best.

Limiting freedom is NOT the answer. If it were, we'd all be living in rubber rooms.

I don't see changing taxation as limiting in freedom. The current way of collecting and spending tax could be considered just as limiting in freedom.

I would like to think that obesity in the western world would decrease, but I doubt it will in any near future and the consequences on human life and the cost in healthcare will continue to rise. I don't know how it is in US but in Denmark most of the obeisity is seen amongst the least educated, and these are least likely to be able to handle it themself. So I would like the governement to help these loose weight, you wouldn't.
So it's probably good we have our own countries and system to live in.

Taxing food in an attempt to make it too expensive, and thus change behavior IS a limitation on freedom. Hell, any time my money is taken away from me at gunpoint is a limitation of my freedom.

Obesity is a personal responsibility issue. Only when you introduce socialism does it become the business of everyone else. Therefore socialism is anathema to freedom.

Except if the tax is used to give you freedom. AFAIK lots of your tax goes to the military and police that protects you and your freedom.

Yea that military, definatly necessary to keep me protected from all thoes evil foreign invaders!
Thoes freedom taxes really make me fuzzy inside. Thoes police, everytime I have to deal with them I definatly feel that freedom flowing, like a geiser of liberation!

 

[MySoS]

Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused
[
The problem lies with your thinking only the government can fix the problem, and that the governemnt is the only answer to any problem.

Our society recently changed. High quality (read high calorie) food has become so cheap, even the poorest among us can afford to be obese. We also have changed our lifestyles and live, on average, fer more sedentary lives.

This has all happened within a single generation. Give society a chance to change rather than forcing them to do what you think is best.

Limiting freedom is NOT the answer. If it were, we'd all be living in rubber rooms.

I don't see changing taxation as limiting in freedom. The current way of collecting and spending tax could be considered just as limiting in freedom.

I would like to think that obesity in the western world would decrease, but I doubt it will in any near future and the consequences on human life and the cost in healthcare will continue to rise. I don't know how it is in US but in Denmark most of the obeisity is seen amongst the least educated, and these are least likely to be able to handle it themself. So I would like the governement to help these loose weight, you wouldn't.
So it's probably good we have our own countries and system to live in.

Taxing food in an attempt to make it too expensive, and thus change behavior IS a limitation on freedom. Hell, any time my money is taken away from me at gunpoint is a limitation of my freedom.

Obesity is a personal responsibility issue. Only when you introduce socialism does it become the business of everyone else. Therefore socialism is anathema to freedom.

Except if the tax is used to give you freedom. AFAIK lots of your tax goes to the military and police that protects you and your freedom.

Providing a common defense is one of the few things our Constitution charters our government to do.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

Homeless people, a lot of homeless people are physically and/or mentally disabled. These people can't work, thus they can't buy food, thus they starve to death. Example a 22 year old woman has Juvenile Multiple sclerosis, she is too sick to work, thus she has no insurance to get treatment to make her feel better, making it impossible for her to get work. Thus with no work she starves to death before the disease kills her.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

Homeless people, a lot of homeless people are physically and/or mentally disabled. These people can't work, thus they can't buy food, thus they starve to death. Example a 22 year old woman has Juvenile Multiple sclerosis, she is too sick to work, thus she has no insurance to get treatment to make her feel better, making it impossible for her to get work. Thus with no work she starves to death before the disease kills her.

The problem is, charity, and now the governemnt has fed these people.

I asked for proof, and you provided me with a fable.

The fact is, no one is starving in the US. No one was starving in the US before Welfare, Food Stamps and the rest of the "Great Society" socialist nightmare was passed in the 60s.

 

[MySoS]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

Homeless people, a lot of homeless people are physically and/or mentally disabled. These people can't work, thus they can't buy food, thus they starve to death. Example a 22 year old woman has Juvenile Multiple sclerosis, she is too sick to work, thus she has no insurance to get treatment to make her feel better, making it impossible for her to get work. Thus with no work she starves to death before the disease kills her.

The problem is, charity, and now the governemnt has fed these people.

I asked for proof, and you provided me with a fable.

The fact is, no one is starving in the US. No one was starving in the US before Welfare, Food Stamps and the rest of the "Great Society" socialist nightmare was passed in the 60s.

Nope the goverment tells sick people like her to just die. The goverment doesn't feed sick people like her. charity doesn't feed everyone who needs it, it helps but it isn't enough.

 

[BigLouis]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

Homeless people, a lot of homeless people are physically and/or mentally disabled. These people can't work, thus they can't buy food, thus they starve to death. Example a 22 year old woman has Juvenile Multiple sclerosis, she is too sick to work, thus she has no insurance to get treatment to make her feel better, making it impossible for her to get work. Thus with no work she starves to death before the disease kills her.

The problem is, charity, and now the governemnt has fed these people.

I asked for proof, and you provided me with a fable.

The fact is, no one is starving in the US. No one was starving in the US before Welfare, Food Stamps and the rest of the "Great Society" socialist nightmare was passed in the 60s.

So you're going to assert that absolutely not one person was starving in the USA and even to this day there is not one.

Ok.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

Homeless people, a lot of homeless people are physically and/or mentally disabled. These people can't work, thus they can't buy food, thus they starve to death. Example a 22 year old woman has Juvenile Multiple sclerosis, she is too sick to work, thus she has no insurance to get treatment to make her feel better, making it impossible for her to get work. Thus with no work she starves to death before the disease kills her.

The problem is, charity, and now the governemnt has fed these people.

I asked for proof, and you provided me with a fable.

The fact is, no one is starving in the US. No one was starving in the US before Welfare, Food Stamps and the rest of the "Great Society" socialist nightmare was passed in the 60s.

Nope the goverment tells sick people like her to just die. The goverment doesn't feed sick people like her. charity doesn't feed everyone who needs it, it helps but it isn't enough.

Again, you have come to me with a fable.

If she is disabled, charity and now the government will provide Medicare and/or Medicaid. Charity, and now the government will also provide food and even housing.

When you have any "real stories" come back.

Take a clue: If people were really starving on the streets, the media would be all over it. The fact is, you cannot find stories of it because it just isn't happening (with the exception of the VERY rare case of a mentally ill person locking themselves in a house and starving themselves or their kids to death).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
The USA is the richest country in the world, nobody should go to bed at night hungry.

So go out and start feeing people. Organize citizen volunteers and help the hungry and the homeless. Move it! But don't just sit there on your self-righteous ass demanding that government do it for you by force of the law, because that just makes you look charitable when it fact you are just selfishly giving with other people's money.

You have no idea what I do or don't do to help combat hunger. I'm sorry but we spend billions of dollars of "our" money sending relief to countries who would be more than happy if the USA was blown right off the map.

Btw,I also pay taxes and as such have a voice in these issues.

Pardon me if I offended, or when I say that just how much you give is irrelevant. My point was that charity ceases to be charity when it becomes involuntarily. And by involuntary, I don't mean at the social level, but at the individual level. No amount of good ends can ever justify harmful means.

I agree about all of our foreign aid, but that's the same subject, now isn't it? Once again, people are forced to give against their will simply because someone has their charity agenda. In fact, you kind of established my point. If you are upset that we are giving internationally without our say when we should be giving domestically, then you could see how some people could be upset that we have to give against our will at all, can't you?
Perhaps they don't like the method and the means by which our "government" gives? Perhaps they feel (rightly IMO) that private groups could be more effective in helping those who actually need help, and in not helping those who are simply abusing the system?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigLouis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MySoS
Yes I do countless people are starving to death in the U.S through no fault of their own.

Really? Proof?

Homeless people, a lot of homeless people are physically and/or mentally disabled. These people can't work, thus they can't buy food, thus they starve to death. Example a 22 year old woman has Juvenile Multiple sclerosis, she is too sick to work, thus she has no insurance to get treatment to make her feel better, making it impossible for her to get work. Thus with no work she starves to death before the disease kills her.

The problem is, charity, and now the governemnt has fed these people.

I asked for proof, and you provided me with a fable.

The fact is, no one is starving in the US. No one was starving in the US before Welfare, Food Stamps and the rest of the "Great Society" socialist nightmare was passed in the 60s.

So you're going to assert that absolutely not one person was starving in the USA and even to this day there is not one.

Ok.

With the exception of the Great Depression (when even the government couldn't feed everyone) show me one single case of a mentally competent person starving to death in the US.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Amused
[
Providing a common defense is one of the few things our Constitution charters our government to do.

So some taxes are needed to provide saftey and freedom. We just differ on how much and what we should spend it on. And no matter where you put this limit some will say it's wrong, IMHO there's no universal point of right and wrong. It's probably best if it moves back and forwards from time to time, so more get happy at some time.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Amused
[
Providing a common defense is one of the few things our Constitution charters our government to do.

So some taxes are needed to provide saftey and freedom. We just differ on how much and what we should spend it on. And no matter where you put this limit some will say it's wrong, IMHO there's no universal point of right and wrong. It's probably best if it moves back and forwards from time to time, so more get happy at some time.

No. The difference is all equally benefit from a common defense. All do NOT equally benefit from sin taxes, welfare and socialized medicine.