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.
If those poor Black maternity patients have HC access, the risks to themselves and child will be reduced. The maternal/infant mortality rate was much higher in the Wild West. Indians and Whites.
Usually what ends up happening is a pill is given to that person. The quick fix.
A friend smacking a smoker in the face, and saying smoking is going to kill you, is cheaper than going to the doctor.
It sure is. But I can tell you that the Chantix pill works better than anything else. Aside from having that heart attack, which is the best 'remedy' IME.
Exercise has almost nothing to do with how fat you are. The idea that exercise burns lots of calories is a myth. The only thing that really matters if how many calories you actually eat. I am thin and yet I barely exercise at all because I control my eating.
It is both. This is physics. If one can exercise significantly and daily, then diet can be liberalized. Few can accomplish that, although locally I have seen much improvement the last few years. That all being said, there is great variation patient to patient.
Why are you afraid of being free? Pack up and leave this society and stop being a ridiculous hypocrite. You like to pretend that you are a libertarian, yet you live in and benefit from a non-libertarian society. You are like a person claiming to be a vegetarian yet you eat a steak dinner every night. No one is stopping you from leaving.
I've gone over this ad nauseum, but I'll say it again...
1. It's not my responsibility to leave my entire life behind. It's others' responsibility to stop bossing everyone around and taking their stuff.
2. There is no modern free society right now, so where do you expect me to go? If you say "go live in the woods or some remote area", that's not the same thing at all. All I advocate is that we have a society where it isn't acceptable to force others to pay for the stuff you want, or use force against them when they've done nothing wrong.
I've gone over this ad nauseum, but I'll say it again...
1. It's not my responsibility to leave my entire life behind. It's others' responsibility to stop bossing everyone around and taking their stuff.
2. There is no modern free society right now, so where do you expect me to go? If you say "go live in the woods or some remote area", that's not the same thing at all. All I advocate is that we have a society where it isn't acceptable to force others to pay for the stuff you want, or use force against them when they've done nothing wrong.
It's other people's responsibility? Right there, you've shown everyone how insincere you are about your libertarianism. It's supposed to be about your own personal responsibility.
In your analogy, you are supposedly in a cage with others, bleating on about,"Why don't you people want to be free?" But no one is holding the door shut. You could walk out at any time, but you don't because you aren't serious about what you are saying. You just enjoy lecturing others. You can't seem to understand why no one takes you seriously.
It's other people's responsibility? Right there, you've shown everyone how insincere you are about your libertarianism. It's supposed to be about your own personal responsibility.
In your analogy, you are supposedly in a cage with others, bleating on about,"Why don't you people want to be free?" But no one is holding the door shut. You could walk out at any time, but you don't because you aren't serious about what you are saying. You just enjoy lecturing others. You can't seem to understand why no one takes you seriously.
You're twisting things. I'm just saying that it isn't on the "victim" to move if they're being harassed by an aggressor. It's the aggressor that needs to stop harassing innocent people.
If you want to be more accurate with the cage analogy, it would be multiple cages that you can choose from. You're free to leave one cage to go to another cage, so apparently that's equal to freedom.
You're twisting things. I'm just saying that it isn't on the "victim" to move if they're being harassed by an aggressor. It's the aggressor that needs to stop harassing innocent people.
If you want to be more accurate with the cage analogy, it would be multiple cages that you can choose from. You're free to leave one cage to go to another cage, so apparently that's equal to freedom.
Oh, so you're a victim now? You're not helping your case at all.
The first step to being a responsible and independent adult is to take charge of your own life. There's plenty of places where you could move to where you can be free from government interference. You just don't really want to go.
Everyone knows an insufferable vegan who lectures others about their eating choices. You are like that, but much worse, because you don't even live the lifestyle that you constantly promote.
Oh, so you're a victim now? You're not helping your case at all.
The first step to being a responsible and independent adult is to take charge of your own life. There's plenty of places where you could move to where you can be free from government interference. You just don't really want to go.
Everyone knows an insufferable vegan who lectures others about their eating choices. You are like that, but much worse, because you don't even live the lifestyle that you constantly promote.
I already explained why the bold is incorrect, so I won't repeat myself.
I don't think of myself as a victim, but everyone technically is a victim of the state. I put victim in quotes because I wasn't sure what other term to use.
How about this...
You give me $50 a month, or I'll send someone to your house with a gun if you don't pay up. You're also not allowed to own white socks, and it's mandatory that you take dance lessons...so if you're in violation of either of those things, he'll make sure that bad things happen to you.
But remember not to be an insufferable whiner about it. You're free to move if you don't like it.
OP makes a good point actually. In order for libertarianism to work (as in, result in the optimal prosperity and health of all citizens), individuals in society have to actually be capable of making intelligent, responsible decisions. But as we are learning, most individuals in society are incapable of acting like adults and instead need to be constrained in their decision making by the government. As an example, look at the trans fat issue. It's well known at this point that trans fat is absolutely terrible for nearly every system in the body, more than likely costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year in increased healthcare costs, but the food industry continues to pump its food full of it, and consumers continue to consume it en masse, so what we are seeing is increasing regulation surround trans fat. The way this issue will be fixed is if government steps in. First it was required that food labels include it, and it's starting to become outright banned in more and more places.
When I was younger, I was a staunch libertarian. As I've grown older, I've learned that large segments of society need some decisions made for them by government in terms of regulatory oversight of certain industries.
Another issue I've found where libertarianism falls flat is when it comes to new home construction. As someone who went through that whole process a couple years ago, I learned that most home builders will do the bare minimum in their construction to meet code. Since my state of Texas has gradually increased the requirements for things like energy efficiency, new homes have had to comply to these new standards, and thus new homes are much more energy efficient than they used to be. These builders also cut corners any way they can, but it's the city inspectors that keep them in line, requiring the construction to abide by a certain level of quality. Without any government oversight in new home construction, new homes would be absolute disasters.
Building on the new home construction example, you could argue (as I used to) that without any federal regulation, consumers in a free market would simply choose to do business with home builders that DO provide high quality construction and energy efficiency. But in the real world, this simply wouldn't work. You get huge companies like DR Horton and Pulte who consistently build homes to the minimum legal standards that are so large that smaller home builders simply can't compete at their price points. So for the majority of new home buyers that can't afford the higher quality builders, they will go with DR Horton or Pulte regardless of how poor the construction quality or energy efficiency is. It's the state regulations on building construction that save the day here, disallowing builders like DR Horton and Pulte to build homes of poor quality.
All this said, too much regulation is obviously harmful. I think Democrats go too far in the direction of regulation, but libertarians don't go far enough.
Last edited by BongoBungo; 11-21-2016 at 10:53 AM..
Then you are not necessarily healthy. You are just thin. Two different things.
It is correct that exercise is healthy, but it still doesn't burn that many calories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Exercise does burn calories. It isn't a myth.
I never said exercise doesn't burn ANY calories. It just doesn't burn enough to allow for a meaningful increase in food consumption. I work out 3 times a week, and I probably burn no more than perhaps 600-900 extra calories for those 3 combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
It is both. This is physics. If one can exercise significantly and daily, then diet can be liberalized.
No it can't. It's exactly this misunderstanding that keeps so many people fat. They go and exercise, and then afterward they think "well I am doing lots of exercise so I can afford to eat this burger" and then they just stay fat. Treadmills are honestly the biggest joke ever and I secretly laugh whenever I see fat people on them. They are wasting their time. The only thing that safes you from being fat is eating less. Doing an hour of cardio a day on a treadmill will do almost nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obesity the result of Libertarianism? Doesn't seem so. There's actually a very strong indicator that disproportionate obesity rates are a result of government social program freebie handouts. Take a look at the obesity rates of the poor on food stamps compared to the poor who aren't on food stamps, compared to the rest of the population:
Food stamps don't make people fat, overeating and eating bad food does. Stupid people aren't just more likely to be fat, they are also more likely to be poor, because just like they are bad with food they are also bad with money. I suppose you might have some point in that giving even more money to stupid people probably isn't a very good idea, but it still doesn't make sense to claim food stamps make people fat in that food stamps themselves don't force people to overeat/eat crap.
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.
