Using Federal Taxes to Manipulate Behavior

[Minor Axis]

Why on earth not?

No. The role of the gov't in the USA is not to provide services. The role of the gov't in the USA is to protect our freedoms so that we can succeed or fail on our own merits. This is something the Republocrats have completely abandoned, both your Asses and the Elephants.

Correct.

The federal government has no role whatsoever in individual citizens' day-to-day lives, including deciding what we are allowed to put in our own bodies. With damn few exceptions, Washington's constitutional role stops at the state line, despite what nationalist officials have deemed otherwise.

Since I don't see a solution listed here, I assume your attitude in the name of liberty, is that there is no solution, just let us fall on our swords? My counter is that if there was a situation where we needed big brother, it would be to alter self destructive behavior especially when it has a detrimental effect on society as a whole. This is the perfect role for government and possibly the only entity with the ability to make it happen on a large scale.

 

[Accountable]

"IF there was a situation where we needed big brother" ...
There's not. There never was. There never will be. That doesn't mean that there aren't people that want one anyway, or people that are eager to take on the role anyway.

 

[Alien Allen]

Minor I brought up your socialist ideals because they are what drive your viewpoints.

Is there anything you are unwilling to have the govt control?

You want to control what money people keep
You want to control whether one can smoke
You want to control what people eat

Just to name three things

Where does it cross the line in??

 

[Minor Axis]

Minor I brought up your socialist ideals because they are what drive your viewpoints.

Is there anything you are unwilling to have the govt control?

You want to control what money people keep
You want to control whether one can smoke
You want to control what people eat

Just to name three things

Where does it cross the line in??

So you like Accountable don't want government involved in curbing self destructive behavior... I guess I'm not surprised.:smiley24:

 

[Accountable]

So you like Accountable don't want government involved in curbing self destructive behavior... I guess I'm not surprised.:smiley24:

So make your case. What, in your opinion, gives a politician the wisdom required to take over millions of people's right to decide for themselves? What's the magic that makes them superhuman?

 

[Zorak]

So because you have nothing meaningful that you can counter my view of tax breaks for the wealthy/trickle down, you shift the discussion to my socialist idealism.

. BTW, poor people have no business smoking.

 

[Alien Allen]

So you like Accountable don't want government involved in curbing self destructive behavior... I guess I'm not surprised.:smiley24:

and you accuse me of having no answers

sigh

 

[Accountable]

Since I don't see a solution listed here, I assume your attitude in the name of liberty, is that there is no solution, just let us fall on our swords?

Yet another example of the belief that if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. That spirit of helplessness is exactly what the corporate elite and the politicians (including the dems) want to cultivate in you sheep, so that they can continue doing whatever the hell they want and you just bleat to be fed.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yet another example of the belief that if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. That spirit of helplessness is exactly what the corporate elite and the politicians (including the dems) want to cultivate in you sheep, so that they can continue doing whatever the hell they want and you just bleat to be fed.

You have a distinct prejudice against anything in the name of government when for MANY situations, government is in the best position to manage a situation. You don't want these kinds of things managed on a national level even when it's the best shot for something to be accomplished. You'd rather turn to some other imaginary organization that does not exist because really you'd like to see these kinds of issues resolve themselves or just lay there without imposing on your libertarian sensibilities. In actuality, if the Federal government was not there to be your bogey man, I suspect you'd suddenly discover that the State government is your new culprit of authority.

 

[Accountable]

You have a distinct prejudice against anything in the name of government when for MANY situations, government is in the best position to manage a situation. You don't want these kinds of things managed on a national level even when it's the best shot for something to be accomplished. You'd rather turn to some other imaginary organization that does not exist (as opposed to the other kind ) because really you'd like to see these kinds of issues resolve themselves or just lay there without imposing on your libertarian sensibilities. In actuality, if the Federal government was not there to be your bogey man, I suspect you'd suddenly discover that the State government is your new culprit of authority.

Read your Constitution. Really read it. The State gov't is supposed to be our "culprit of authority". The federal gov't is supposed to be theirs.

At the very least, let's regain control of Washington from the corporate elite before funneling more power to them.

 

[Kyle B]

Hey Minor, you'd love living in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg, such a wise man he is, is legislating what people can and cannot eat.

 

[Minor Axis]

Hey Minor, you'd love living in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg, such a wise man he is, is legislating what people can and cannot eat.

I really like that New York or is it NYC requires the posting of calories at fast food restaurants. It has a real impact on my choices. I am absolutely sure that restaurant management hates it.

Obesity is such a ripe subject for a philosophical discussion on what government should control or influence. If a large number of citizens started using Meth or any destructive drug, should the government get involved? Don't just say yes because those are illegal drugs. Avoid the legality of the substance abuse and focus on the destructiveness for this discussion. Now lets say a substantial number of our citizens are becoming a bunch of blimps for what ever the reason with a serious impact on productivity and sky rocketing prices for health care that is adversely effecting society. Why should the government not get involved with this? Does liberty mean allowing the ship go down because of addiction problems? Do these people not have problems? I am not advocating a police state, but am advocating taking steps to help what is clearly unhealthy, self destructive tendencies. Is so-be-it an adequate answer to this problem? If so, then by all means, let us legalize all drugs, which btw I advocate and treat drug addition as a medical problem not a legal jeopardy problem that results in incarceration.

As far as banning what foods can be sold, I feel the cat is all ready out of the bag. I do know that fast food, instead of being banned can be made more healthy. What exactly is Mayor Bloomberg dictating?

 

[Kyle B]

I really like that New York or is it NYC requires the posting of calories at fast food restaurants. It has a real impact on my choices. I am absolutely sure that restaurant management hates it.

Obesity is such a ripe subject for a philosophical discussion on what government should control or influence. If a large number of citizens started using Meth or any destructive drug, should the government get involved? Don't just say yes because those are illegal drugs. Avoid the legality of the substance abuse and focus on the destructiveness for this discussion. Now lets say a substantial number of our citizens are becoming a bunch of blimps for what ever the reason with a serious impact on productivity and sky rocketing prices for health care that is adversely effecting society. Why should the government not get involved with this? Does liberty mean allowing the ship go down because of addiction problems? Do these people not have problems? I am not advocating a police state, but am advocating taking steps to help what is clearly unhealthy, self destructive tendencies. Is so-be-it an adequate answer to this problem? If so, then by all means, let us legalize all drugs, which btw I advocate and treat drug addition as a medical problem not a legal jeopardy problem that results in incarceration.

As far as banning what foods can be sold, I feel the cat is all ready out of the bag. I do know that fast food, instead of being banned can be made more healthy. What exactly is Mayor Bloomberg dictating?

I'm indifferent to the posting of calories. I mean sure, why not? But if you can't tell that a Big Mac is going to be unhealthy for you than you're an idiot.

 

[Accountable]

Minor chooses to claim he can't control himself, preferring instead for a politician to set limits for him.

 

[Alien Allen]

Minor chooses to claim he can't control himself, preferring instead for a politician to set limits for him.

I don't believe he ever has listed anything that should be beyond the scope of govt control

 

[Accountable]

I don't believe he ever has listed anything that should be beyond the scope of govt control

No he hasn't. Quite the opposite:

[...] poor people have no business smoking. Does government have a role to play altering the bad habits of addicted people or not?


[...] I identify smoking, and obesity as two primary issues where we clearly do not know what is good for us.

[...] My counter is that if there was a situation where we needed big brother, it would be to alter self destructive behavior especially when it has a detrimental effect on society as a whole. This is the perfect role for government and possibly the only entity with the ability to make it happen on a large scale.

 

[Minor Axis]

Just how involved should the government be? The 60 minute report: The Bitter Truth about Sugar is eye opening. Should government be involved? My tendency is to say yes it should. Based on the evidence, we don't seem to be smart enough to stay healthy on our own. Based on the evidence there is more reason to ban sugar than there is to ban cannabis.

 

[Alien Allen]

I hear you have smelly feet Minor which is awful when one is stuck with you in a confined space.

How about we mandate people wash their feet twice a day

You could be passing along all kinds of fungus too after all

We must be saved from ourselves. There is just is no hope for us unless the govt approves everything that we do.

 

[Accountable]

Just how involved should the government be? The 60 minute report: The Bitter Truth about Sugar is eye opening. Should government be involved? My tendency is to say yes it should. Based on the evidence, we don't seem to be smart enough to stay healthy on our own. Based on the evidence there is more reason to ban sugar than there is to ban cannabis.

NO, ghe gov't shouldn't be involved! Gov't involvement incentivizing and promoting the corn industry and high fructose corn syrup helped create the artificial (in more ways than one) in the first place.