Posted on 12/20/2006 5:15:05 AM PST by Molly Pitcher
people like him like to say they're conservatives, but theyr'e what I like to call situational socialists or situational statists. They'll complain one day about some government interference in their favorite activity, but turn around and call for the government to ban or regulate whatever they don't like.
Yes, everything you need... but nothing you want.
WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
When one focuses, clear-eyed and in literal detail, on the centrality and depth of the behavioral changes necessary to improve health does the immensity of the task become apparent. We are not talking about peripheral or infrequent aspects of human behavior but about some the most basic and often experienced aspects of life: what one eats, how often and how much; how long, how regular, and how peacefully one sleeps, whether one smokes or drinks and how much; even the whole question of personality. Health, then... is a product of innumerable decisions made every day by millions of people. To over see these decisions would call for a larger bureaucracy than anyone has yet conceived and methods of surveillance bigger than big brother. The seat-belt buzzer that screeches at us if we do not modify one small bit of behavior would be but mild harbinger of the restraints necessary to change bad health habits.
George Orwell couldn't have said it better........
Soylent Green.......is people!!!!
Yes, the mean food companies made us stop exercising and forced that darn TV upon us...against our will!
Excellent post. Almost thought I was reading Ayn Rand for a moment. Your ideas of freedom are well founded. You don't have to be a Randian Objectivist to believe in freedom and sanctity of the individual.
Well everything that some government bureaucrat deems that you need. Your actual needs and wants are pretty much irrelevant to the government.
What I said.
Saturated fats and carbohydrates can also be unhealthy. Shouldn't they be banned too? As a matter of fact, most foods can be bad for you if they are overconsumed. If you overcook bacon, powerful carcinogens are formed. If you under-cook burgers you're at risk for e coli. Should the state force the food industry not to make crispy bacon if a customer wants it? Should we be forced to eat burgers that are only cooked well done? There is solid scientific evidence to back all of this up. We could save lives. Where does your doo gooding end?
When it comes to food, the state could regulate just about everything consumable for our own good. That might help impact the obesity epidemic. Or, they could leave us the hell alone instead of making decisions based on ignorance and highly questionable scientific evidence.
A book on basic nutrition could save you from making silly statements like this in the future.
If they're toxic/poisonous TFA's should have an LD50. They don't.
The health benefits from their elimination will be looked upon 20 years from now as a great step forward for the well-being of Americans.
We've been consuming increasing quantities of TFA's for about 20 years now. Where is this poison manifesting itself in our population? You should have said this will be a great leap forward since it's about collectivist control of society based on someone else's determination of what's in our best interest.
Thanks for the ping!
Nonsense. TFA's also add texture/flavor, offer a higher melting point, greater stability under high temperatures and are lower in cost. There are many benefits to using TFA's that restaurants enjoy. In a restaurant setting, banning TFA's will ensure that oil becomes rancid more rapidly. Rancid fats contain high levels of free radicals. Cis fats are more susceptible to oxidation and therefore rancidity, than trans fats. You can bet that consumers will be ingesting a lot more free radicals due to this stupid legislation. How is that good for the public health?
All that without even beginning a discussion about personal freedom...or lack thereof.
Excellent post.
Thanks.
Your ideas of freedom are well founded. You don't have to be a Randian Objectivist to believe in freedom and sanctity of the individual.
The thing about freedom is that it's limitless. For most people the only real boundary is an after thought: Don't initiate force against anyone. That many are sheeple is not of their own design. Yet it severely limits them. Sadly, Radian Objectivists erect unnecessary fences to in effect retain a cult-like membership -- a group-think mentality of their own design. Ayn Rand was distraught by it/them.
Summer of last year I finally got around to reading Atlas Shrugged after having it sit on my bookshelf for ten years. I'll probably read some of her other books. I've heard good things about The Fountainhead.
Their life sucks and they won't bwe happy until yours sucks, too.
"Once the government starts providing health care, it becomes a state interest how well you take care of yourself. Your behavior becomes a factor in government expenditure. If you smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, don't exercise, you are costing the government money, and therefore, subject to government sanction."
I've long held the belief that those wonderful little 'super saver' cards and key fobs we all use at our local grocery store provide a great infrastructure for the gov't to track and enforce our eating habits if gov't health care ever comes to pass.
If we're going to ban those things that are bad for us, I suggest banning liberalism immediately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.