3 ms·
> 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture This is a crazy way of looking at it. You might as well have said 100 years ago that
by Brakenshire 11y ago
> 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture
This is a crazy way of looking at it. You might as well have said 100 years ago that education beyond 14 was an imposition on the poor. In a lot of cities in the UK there is an 18 year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor areas. Almost 20% of children and 30% of adults in the UK are clinically obese. At some point you have to stop with ideological back and forth and start actually doing something practical.
- stegosaurus 11y agoI think you're misinterpreting my comment. Too often terms get overloaded - taxation is definitionally an imposition; consumption taxes impose on the poor more than on the rich. Compulsory education is also an imposition. Whether it's worth doing it anyway is of seperate concern. I don't know a better way. My personal view is that socialized healthcare is excellent - but the limits it eventually imposes on personal freedom (taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugar, etc etc) are something we should be very careful with. The main issue as I see it is that I feel that the role of the private sector is to act in a 'one dollar = one vote' manner, whilst the public sector should act in a 'one person = one vote' manner. Consumption taxes break this because they work on the former basis. I think that if we want to discourage bad habits, we should apply the same 'discouragement' to both the wealthy and the poor. (Interestingly enough, if we take the standpoint that sugary drinks are a net negative to health, then it makes sense from an economic point of view to expend more effort on wealthy consumers of sugary drinks, because they presumably are able to convert health into taxes at a higher rate...)