Strange thinking...

Started Jan 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
vadimraskin
Senior MemberPosts: 3,585Gear list
Like?
Re: Hypocrisy is everywhere.
In reply to Morris Sullivan, Feb 2, 2013

Morris Sullivan wrote:

vadimraskin wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

vadimraskin wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

I snipped a bunch, because it looks like we've reached a mutual understanding, and more or less agreement.

NO, They shouldn't. They can promote education. Support healthy industries. But they shouldn't be telling us what we can and can't eat for lunch.

I wish it was that easy and by promoting education we could make people stop eating junk.

I believe if we got some real professional talent behind promoting and educating a healthier lifestyle - in other words put some money behind it - we could make some real progress towards getting people to eat healthier.

This is a kicker: money into the education and promotion of the healthy life style. Many oppose it because there is no immediate payback and a long term payback is questionable at best. Restricting distribution of the dangerous or unhealthy products is quicker and cheaper, meets the goal of protecting the population but infringes on certain freedoms. What would you advocate for?

In general, I would advocate protecting personal freedoms. It obviously can't be all black and white. If you've got a product that is incredibly dangerous and threatens to become an epidemic there is room for controls (ie. highely addictive drugs). But smoking, eating, drinking, dangerous activities, etc. these are choices that people should be free to make. They are of course responsible for the results of those actions.

Speaking of smoking, the government made great strides against smoking by educating people as to the dangers. Now if someone smokes they are aware of the potential results, but they are free to continue smoking if they choose. When they start banning smoking in nearly every location (which is becoming more common) in an attempt to eradicate it completely, they have crossed the line in my opinion.

i love it! I used to smoke but quit 12 years ago. My wife and I love to go out but since she is very seriously allergic to smoke we couldn't go to many places in NYC until Bloomberg banned smoking. We are going out a lot more now so do many more people. Bars used cry that smoking ban would put them out of business  - nothing happened! Aplenty of bars around and they are all doing OK. Limiting freedom of smokers to poison me is fine with me and apparently most of the public. No smoking in hotels - love it! I used to travel a lot and sleeping in the room that stinks of tobacco wasn't my idea of a good night rest.

BTW I don't smoke cigarettes and I love that restaurants are smoke free, but I disagree with it in principal (I wouldn't have voted for it), and I don't buy into the occasional second hand smoke paranoia.

But it's a bit like parenting, you try to give your kids the best start in life by educating and giving them the mental tools to make the right decisions. At some point you determine that it's no longer appropriate to try and control their behavior. They are adults. You can continue to give them advice, but you have to let them live their lives and make their mistakes.

It's not a direct analogy because the government shouldn't be parenting us, but the concept is that in areas which are not "criminal", the government should be in an advising position, not a controlling one.

Otherwise the citizen becomes equivalent to a 35 year old living in their parents basement with an allowance and a curfew.

This is a topic of many discussions in many circuits. What should be a main role of the Government: advisory or controlling. Unregulated banking led to the current mess with mortgages and unsustainable housing boom. unregulated food industry lead to profiliation of synthetic additives and raise in cancer and other diseases. Letting the Government take an "advisory" role diminishes its ability to work for the "welfare" of the population and defies the main role of the Government as defined in the Constitution.

The government can step in and regulate industry. They can require warnings to be posted on potentially dangerous foods as in the additives you mention. They can inspect facilities and make sure that people are being provided what they think they are getting. They can limit pollution from factories, stop price gouging, loan sharking etc. I'm more interested in personal freedoms. If someone wants to sell me a cancer causing additive and I want to buy it (think cigarettes), that's none of the governments business as long as I am informed of what I'm getting.

Yes, the freedom of choice is important but, as you said, it has to come with consequences. I would love to see smokers pay a hefty premium on their healthcare insurance to compensate for the added cost associated with their treatment but it wouldn't fly. Same for obese people. If you chose to eat like a pig and don't exercise - pay up! Wishful thinking!

 vadimraskin's gear list:vadimraskin's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow