Guvment Diet

[laklak]

On a serious note (and I can be serious as all fuck), if you have single payer or otherwise tax supported healthcare, then regulating diet does fall under the gummint's remit. It's like smoking, the rest of us should not have to pay extra for your decision to eat sugar lard every day.

This is why I oppose gummint sponsored health care, ain't nobody gonna tell me to step away from my sugar lard.

[Brian Peacock]

I feel a short pamphlet coming on: Praise The Lard.

[NineBerry]

On a serious note (and I can be serious as all fuck), if you have single payer or otherwise tax supported healthcare, then regulating diet does fall under the gummint's remit. It's like smoking, the rest of us should not have to pay extra for your decision to eat sugar lard every day.

This is why I oppose gummint sponsored health care, ain't nobody gonna tell me to step away from my sugar lard.

The same applies to public roads. Heavy people are a bigger strain on roads. So when the taxpayer pays for road repairs, regulating diet does fall under the gummint's remit.

[laklak]

Good point. Fat people also use more oxygen, and hence produce more CO2. They should pay a higher carbon tax.

[pErvinalia]

[Woodbutcher]

Fat people produce more methane when they decompose, therefore accelerating climate change. They should have to pay a carbon equivalent tax to offset their contribution.

[Scot Dutchy]

Health insurance should be based partially on weight.

[NineBerry]

No, it shouldn't

[pErvinalia]

It should be based on Dutchness.

[Brian Peacock]

No, it shouldn't

Why not fatso?

[Forty Two]

Should the government attempt to regulate our diets to make us healthier, and more responsible consumers?

I gotta vote no on that one.

For the government to do so assumes the government has some competence in the area of dietary requirements that we, as individuals, do not have.

Also, the government tends to act in generalities and to impose sweeping requirements which may, or may not, fit individual cases.

Further, the concept of individual rights would seem to me to include individual mastery over one's own body. Beer is not good for us, but should a government tell us we cannot drink beer?

lastly, is it the job of the government to regulate what we do in order to not risk our health? If so, would it not be more efficient use of government resources to take action to regulate risky behaviors? I would start with hang-gliding, parachuting, mountain climbing, private piloting of airplanes, climbing ladders, standing up in bathtubs and showers, being mostly naked on the beach, swimming without flotation devices, riding bicycles, riding motorcycles....

[Forty Two]

On a serious note (and I can be serious as all fuck), if you have single payer or otherwise tax supported healthcare, then regulating diet does fall under the gummint's remit. It's like smoking, the rest of us should not have to pay extra for your decision to eat sugar lard every day.

This is why I oppose gummint sponsored health care, ain't nobody gonna tell me to step away from my sugar lard.

Well, you know, your doctor tells you all the time what you should weigh, what you should eat, and how you should behave to keep yourself healthy. If private doctors do this, then the people are at the mercy of their capitalist doctors, and those that do not have "access" to the same quality doctors as you might are going to get worse dietary and weight advice. It's just not fair. We must have the government telling everybody what to do all the time, to avoid unfairness.

[Forty Two]

I suppose one might consider diet a public health issue, in some senses at least. Yeah, people should eat what they like - we each have personal dominion over our bodies and carry ultimate responsibility for what we put in it. But for some that free choice, and thus the extent of that responsibility, is limited or skewed because, say, there isn't much to choose from or we can only eat what we can afford, etc. Also, a significant proportion of the population have next to no choice about what they eat and mostly just eat what they're told to - that group being children.

If you think children just "eat what they're told to..." you have never had children...

Telling your children to, "Shut up and eat your lard," is not being responsible, particularly if lard is a major component of every meal time

For whom is "lard" a major component of every meal? Butter, maybe, oil, maybe, but "lard?" What is this? 1930?

On to the children issue, one never has to force kids to eat unhealthy foods. They do that no problem. The foods they won't eat are the ones that are good for them.

. With all the information around about the probable health consequences associated with an over-consumption of dietary fats then continuing to pump your kids full of foodstuffs weeping with saturated and trans fats does start to look a bit like abuse - even if lardy cakes taste absolutely delicious.

If a child is fat to the point of obesity, then there is a point to be made. However, that's not where it stops. It ends up being schools taking action against parents for sending their kids to school with ham & cheese sandwiches and a snack.

Having lardy cakes every day as an adult may be a free choice, to some extent, but if lardy cakes start to become a problem for you--you just don't want to put those things in your mouth any more but can't seem to help yourself--then help should be available.

What choice did these 'little' tikes have?

One part of the analysis might be what "choice" do people have. Another part of the analysis would be whether the State has any sort of competence to remedy the situation. While I would agree with you that the grossly fat kids represent a sad and regrettable consequence of, very likely, bad parenting, I do not share in the assumption that the State offers a good way to remedy the problem.

Look at what happens when we have parents who want their kids to walk a 440 yards by themselves these days. The State comes to the rescue and traumatizes the kids, threatens the parents with "child protective services", etc. What's going to happen when parents are identified as overfeeding their kids with fast food? Are we going to have child protective services impose a diet, with the parents reporting back in like they're on parole? If they fail to comply, do the kids go to a foster home?

If you see something, say something! I'm going to call the cops on that lady who brought her kids to McDonalds, and I saw that other lady let her child have two pieces of cake, not just one! We must investigate! We have seen where this can lead - http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/19/dad-a ... ane-becaus or http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/living/fe ... ion-again/

[Sean Hayden]

Should the government attempt to regulate our diets to make us healthier, and more responsible consumers?

No people should eat whatever they like, and die young if that is what they want.

Nanny-Statist!

But obesity is theft!

[Forty Two]

Well, you should be able to eat whatever you like, shouldn't you?

I think the government would definitely make a good dietician. After all, there is little reasonable difference of opinion as to what constitutes a healthy diet, and I'm sure the vegans, pescetarians, vegetarians, omnivores, carnivores, fruitatarians, juicers, and other folks will be all be in line with what the Ministry of Food has to suggest is appropriate diet. I'm sure the coffee drinkers, omelette makers, beer aficionados, whisky drinkers, and wine connoisseurs will all be on the same page, too. When it comes to proper caloric intake, the proper amount of exercise, and judgments as to what balance among quality of life, versus health, versus pleasures of living people wish to settle upon for themselves, well, there's hardly any differences of opinion about that. Should we refrain from drinking and smoking in order to be healthier, or do we engage in such things to add spice to life? I'm sure the government bureaucracy will, no doubt, make sure we aren't having too much fun for our own sake.

There is nothing better than a government controlling what we should do out of benevolent concern for our personal well-being. We may not know what is best for ourselves, and when we don't, the the civil servants at the Bureau of Dietary Management will be there with all their expertise to help guide us.