- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The cigarette example is distinct, and I'm surprised that you don't realise how.
A ban on cigarettes affects individual freedom by demarcating activities that individuals cannot participate in. The regulations concerning salt do no such thing and they are a far cry from 'banning junk food.' Essentially, all it would mean is that your Big Mac would now be required to contain a lower level of salt.
Does individual choice suffer? No. The same range of food will be available, but it will just contain less salt overall. Furthermore, I assume people are still perfectly capable of adding more salt to their foods by themselves if they really want to.
Ergo, no loss of freedom, only salt.
I guess this is the difference between someone who is a citizen vs someone who is a subject.
whenever THIS government acts beyond the scope of its legitimate powers it diminishes the freedom of all americans. its a difficult concept for most foreigners and many americans to comprehend but when OUR government acts beyond the scope of its proper powers, it insults the constitution and the foundation of freedom upon which it is based.
That statement is false as I have already shown. It does not follow that (assuming this to be true) by acting beyond the scope of a legal document that enshrines individual freedom (to a large extent) the government is therefore limiting individual freedom.
This is proved by the fact that there clearly exists a third way, i.e. that government can regulate and still leave personal freedom undiminished, which is patently what will occur in the present case.
Justify your position in response to this or I am done.
Americans are more likely to die from complications high blood pressure, as a cause of high sodium intake, than terrorism.
Food corporations know what they are putting in their product, and they know the health risks involved. Is it the role of the Government to disallow such foods to hit the market? Or is it just ethic-neglect?
Any idiot should know what they're putting into their body
YOu were right when you conceded you really don't understand the constitution of the USA
best to stay with that position. It is far easier to defend
Any idiot should know what they're putting into their body
A public awareness campaign would be worthless. If you don't know by now that excess sodium is bad for you, you're not going to learn no matter how big the campaign is.
I believe in Darwin:mrgreen:
The older I get, the more I'm getting there. My conservative dad warned me this would happen. :lol:
But you generally dont.Most of us can decide what is good for us
One of the schemes of the left is to take away the responsibility of individuals to take care of themselves. Of course along with enabling people to outsource personal responsibility, the same government takes away rights
Those who hate being personally responsible for their own choices and their own mistakes love the nanny government that is trillions of dollars in debt
me, I'd rather pay far less taxes and be forced to take care of my self (and get to see the nanny state cravers croaking left and right from eating 400 twinkies a day because big brother wasn't able to tell them not to:mrgreen
I agree, but the best way to make health care cheaper is for people to be more healthy. This is why I voted "public awareness campaigns"... I wouldn't force companies to put warning labels on their foods.
It's cheaper than covering your health care when you get diseases from too much salt.
If the salt content is lowered, you have the choice to add salt of your own.This is a more acceptable option than what they're doing imo. I could even live with warning labels. At least the choice would still be mine to make, as it should be.
If the salt content is lowered, you have the choice to add salt of your own.
The government is not my parent and has no place dictating how much salt I can have "for my own good".
This has been covered. What's the point of lowering it in the first place then?
Yeah and I agree.
Should all speed limits be 25mph or all alcohol banned?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?