Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is another mental masturbation thread because nearly all, if not all, the respondents believe in some form of involuntary government.
You can't have capitalism with an involuntary state.
The mainstream libs here would love to find a boogeyman in the name of soda sizes or food portions then tax/regulate the hell out of it.
The mainstream cons here would love to eliminate certain aspects of regulation but are...and pardon my language...p*$$*** when faced with the decision to completely eliminate the state therefore their solution is to just tweak the crony capitalist (aka state capitalist) system.
I'm torn most of the time on who to hate more: statist libs or statist cons.
But I think I have perhaps ventured a bit past my original topic question: Are most people just too stupid and/or weak-minded to live a smart, responsible and a healthy life? Note that I am not counting people who KNOW they are living very poorly but understand the end-result and are fine with it as stupid. But rather, all of the dumbasses who think they can get away with anything and then are shocked when that turns out to not be true and instantly start to blame someone or something else.
Western culture, and American culture in particular, values self-sufficiency. But nobody is really fully self-sufficient. And it isn't even necessarily desireable to be so. Trying to place undue responsibility upon the individual is part of the issue, and part of the reason you have had trouble understanding the "liberal" perspective. But I believe a window is potentially being opened here, you are starting to grasp that life is more complicated than simplistic dichotomies.
Western culture, and American culture in particular, values self-sufficiency. But nobody is really fully self-sufficient. And it isn't even necessarily desireable to be so.
This just isn't true.
Western culture values dependency. It's one thing to play the game or at least parts of it in order to self-preserve. I could accept that. It's natural to want to live at all costs. But our culture actually thinks our social constructs are on equal footing with natural constructs.
We have people all over this forum as proof. They believe in the social contract and don't mind that the means of production/resources are horded under the threat of death. They think voting is real. A free market requires regulation. Government gets power from the people yet can do things people can't do.
They like the system. It's not a matter of self-sufficiency. It's a matter of free will/self-determination. The vast majority of people think working within the system makes them self-sufficient. All it does is make you a game player.
Are most people just too stupid and/or weak-minded to live a smart, responsible and a healthy life?
Your post is an interesting blend of nanny state liberalism and conservative misanthropy. To answer your question, no I don't think most people are too stupid and/or weak-minded to live smart, responsible and healthy lives. I think most (most being 40 percent or more) are perfectly capable of making good, life-sustaining decisions for themselves. A libertarian state might work out great if your society was composed of just this slice of humanity. Unfortunately, it's not and never will be.
Let's talk about the stupid -- this is the bottom 10 percent or so. I think 90 percent of the laws are made for this 10 percent. The stupid are sometimes well-intentioned and good-hearted, and sometimes they're malevolent, but regardless, they are too dumb to grasp what's good for them and good for the societies they are a part of. This is why it's probably a good idea to set limits on things like fast food. These clods can't put two and two together. They'll eat themselves sick, become unhealthy and unproductive and eventually become a drain on society.
Now, you can go the conservative route and say screw them. They get what they get. If some crafty business man wants to make a fortune selling the stupid poison that tastes good, good for that business man. In fact, where can I buy stock in his company?
Or you can go the route I've chosen to go -- that's the humanitarian one. I think the stupid should be protected from the crafty and to an extent protected from themselves. Hence, I'm a liberal -- or to put it more accurately, a democratic socialist. (There's damn little Bernie and I disagree on.)
It took me a long time to realize that simple starches, cane sugar and diet cola are every bit as addictive as fat, salt, nicotine, caffeine and the opiates. The metabolic pleasure derived from a greasy fast food beef burger, fries and a sugar saturated shake or soda is quite memorable and very addictive. The brain remembers this and tells the body it wants to do that again. Unfortunately the body does not respond as strongly to the second and subsequent meals. It still wants the pleasure but will never experience again.
Addiction and addictability is not lost on business. They know the best way to sell a product is to make it an addiction even more then a necessity. Food is a necessity but a fast food lunch is not. When fast food becomes an addiction it is very profitable. Just look at the caffeine pushers. Starbucks and DD are doing their best to keep America hooked on stimulants. Did you ever consider Caffeine or Nicotine to be a entry drug for meth or other stimulants?
I do not blame the addicted for their addictions when they have been heavily advertised that the product will be good for them. Addictions are a medical problem. All of them are a medical problem. We do nothing but guarantee criminal profits by treating some addictive substances as criminal instead of medical. Now that the local opioid addict may just as well be a white soccer mom in an affluent suburb as a destitute hooker in the inner city we are beginning to treat addiction rationally instead of being a punishment for the destitute.
]I missed the point about obesity making it OK for the government to control our lives[/b]. People make mistakes not just about diet or exercise or spouses or career paths or drugs or alcohol. Mistakes are going to happen and that does not mean we need a nanny government to tell us what to do -- even if our mistakes hurt us in the long run.
No, but if you are being given money from the government because of your obesity (or drug history, or career path) then the government (or me, since it's really my money) does get to make decisions about how that money is being spent.
Get rid of welfare and govt insurance schemes and people can go back to doing whatever they want to themselves, minus the moral hazard of making their neighbor pay for it.
Let's talk about the stupid -- this is the bottom 10 percent or so. I think 90 percent of the laws are made for this 10 percent. The stupid are sometimes well-intentioned and good-hearted, and sometimes they're malevolent, but regardless, they are too dumb to grasp what's good for them and good for the societies they are a part of. This is why it's probably a good idea to set limits on things like fast food. These clods can't put two and two together. They'll eat themselves sick, become unhealthy and unproductive and eventually become a drain on society.
That's more than just the bottom 10%. How do we know that?
3) 70% of those who are born into poverty never rise out of poverty. So the poverty cycle repeats itself, with that segment of the population growing larger and larger. Only 30% of those born poor ever make it out of poverty
And here's the problem with giving poor people food stamps... It enables exceptionally high levels of obesity.
Income-eligible adults who get food stamps: 44% obese
Income-eligible adults who don't get food stamps: 33% obese Non-poor adults who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese
Exacerbated by this fact... 59% of families on food stamps simultaneously get benefitsfrom 2 or more major free food programs for the exact same daily meals. For example, they stack food stamp and free school breakfast and lunch (and sometimes even dinner, too, if the kids are in an after school program) benefits (free school meals are provided year round, not just during the school year). That fact published by the USDA OIG.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
