Printable View
I honestly don't know, Alan. But pretty soon we're going to have to figure it out--it's a pretty tangled web we've woven and there's no simple right answer. If Bloomberg taxed the Big Gulps I'd be fine with that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C.S. Lewis
We can rest easy, then, because we are living under the tyranny of robber barons in the form of corporate Goliaths with enough cunning, money, and power to stack the deck in their favor and make it look like we are choosing freely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Bloomberg, the wall street tycoon, banning smoking, transfat, sodas, and occupy wall street.
I'm not terribly sympathetic to such things. On the one hand I hate smoking with a passion as it has killed too many people I know, too soon, and yet the morons never do learn, they keep puffing away, not the sharpest tools in the shed. Smoking really is MUCH WORSE than all the junk food consumption, it's just ugly in it's toll. However, transfats serve no useful function (they don't EVEN TASTE GOOD compared to say butter!). And I admit I get annoyed by sometimes not being able to find healthy food in this country!!! I mean ok sure if you go to the farmers market or Whole Foods, or if you are careful the Trader Joe's, even the ordinary supermarket and shop the produce and so on, you'll be ok. But I happen to work in some place with only chain restaurants and convenience stores around, so .... no healthy food in sight, come prepared or else ...
On the other hand I don't even believe that government is even SINCERE in wanting our health to improve. We can't even seem to get GMOs labeled (and at the federal level - more and more GMOs get approved - and this is scary on so many levels - for whole ecosystems), yet big gulps may be banned. Nothing is done to aid people who really really want to eat healthy (want to know if their food contains GMOs say), but some wayward person sipping a soda with no illusions that soda is health food, must be punished for his crime! Tabacco is subsidized, corn is subsidized. Mandating restaurants not serve transfats isn't necessarily going to make them any more healthy. Why? Because healthy food COSTS MONEY. You can replace transfats with high omega 6 oils (even GMO ones), but that's almost certainly not improving anyone's health! Those are very bad for people. And that is the route most restaurants will take, because butter costs money, because really good olive oil (my favorite fat) costs even more money, etc.. So noone is necessarily any healthier at all from this.
And yea there is an irony in imaging Bloomberg banning your soda between cracking occupy wall street heads, tsk, tsk, don't sip a soda, but don't dare protest the system behind it all (from Wall Street to Monsanto) - don't draw any connections. Nope, I can't say legistlation targetting individual lifestyle choices is particularly sympathetic, since I always assume people do what they think they must, what they regard as their best interest at the time (even if that's sipping another soda for the caffination - since it provides a very temporary illusionary energy), and especially in light of the government itself being corrupt to the core.
(though I do wish the stupid smokers would just quit! :)).
Yea but if anyone Bloomberg IS that corporate Goliath, a man of Wall Street. He's not the revolutionary you are looking for :) That said even I would give him credit if he did good, but like I said much of this stuff is very dubious.Quote:
We can rest easy, then, because we are living under the tyranny of robber barons in the form of corporate Goliaths with enough cunning, money, and power to stack the deck in their favor and make it look like we are choosing freely.
I also like the "Continuing Crisis' column in the American Spectator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
Agreed. It is all very dubious. I don't really like taking a "moral busybody" stance, but having been in marketing for twenty years, well, I've been behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain and it's jaded me, that's all. If I had worked in the White House for twenty years, I'm sure that would have jaded me, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Agreed, Catherine, if the proceeds went to defray the eventual impact of those Big Gulps on my pocketbook. I also don't mind tobacco taxes for the same reason. Because, as my father used to say, stupid oughtta hurt - and there ought to be some reasonable way to allow the Gulpers to do their thing without a trickle down cost to me. I personally don't give a tinker's damn if someone wants to kill themselves that way, but don't make me pay for it in the end. That belief also colors my opinion of what a national health care policy ought to look like, but I fear mine would never see the light of day.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Of all the things I pay for that I don't want via government .... Of all the externalities that aren't taxed that cost in terms of things worth FAR more than money... Why this?
I think for that we might be glad, even corrupt oligiopoly profit maximizing insurance companies, and doctors whose perks are pharmaceutical company funded, might still beat mandatory yoga.Quote:
That belief also colors my opinion of what a national health care policy ought to look like, but I fear mine would never see the light of day.
When you look at countries that actually do eat somewhat healthier, is it all about the ruthless punishment of food sins? Or is it more about more regulations on what gets into the food in the first place (pink slime anyone?), less disasterous food subsidies, and a way more healthy food culture?
Then again my fundemental flaw may be I think most people are basically good (people not corporations or governments or any of those large inhuman entities) and if they eat big gulps it's because they are ignorant or because they are hurting.
The odd thing is Catherine actually makes a much stronger case for banning or taxing advertising than banning or taxing big gulps (it's effects are far more wide-ranging and far worse in general, talk about something with insiduous effects, way worse than the corn syrup). It would never actually fly though, of course.
My own experiences simply will not allow me to believe that the government deciding what is best for me rather than me exercising personal choice will ultimately create a society in which I would like to live. It is certainly true that there are no easy answers, but IMO this is an easy answer to run away from. I'm really just perplexed that more people are not expressing some level of outrage while they still can. I guess I'm just a bad lemming that will stock up on 64 oz. cups (there's a spot for them in the bunker between the books and the 100w bulbs) while I still can. Our favorite old English dude would probably have something relevant to say about this.