6 ms·

I actually see both of your examples as instances of the same technique, and I wouldn't call either nanny state, but sensible policy. I'm more concerned with c

I actually see both of your examples as instances of the same technique, and I wouldn't call either nanny state, but sensible policy. I'm more concerned with corporate control, especially re health care. I know people who have to walk in circles during meetings because their step count is too low for their weight, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

umvi 8y ago
It's only "sensible" because you happened to agree with the policies I chose. Nanny state (again, in my opinion) is infringing on the individual's right to choose. Why should I, a skinny fit person with self control, not be allowed to buy a supersized meal after running a half marathon? I'm being punished because of the choices of the obese. You might not like nanny state regulations as much if it impacted something important to you - like limiting internet usage for example. "People have no self control when it comes to internet and especially social media usage, new ISP regulations will disconnect your internet temporarily if it detects you have been using social media for too many consecutive hours"
- majormajor 8y ago
  You can't avoid the choices of others. Pay now, pay later (for instance, in higher health insurance or tax payments), but it's naive to complain about having being impacted at all.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  Government exists to infringe on individual rights. You're basically arguing for abolishing the whole thing. Consequently, "They're infringing on my rights" is a circular, pointless argument, unless you really want to just talk about how all government is bad.
- angry_octet 8y ago
  You can buy two meals if you like. The policy applies a cost disincentive to unhealthy eating, an approach which has proven success as a disincentive for nicotine addiction and alcohol consumption. Since society pays a steep price for the pandemic level of obesity it is justified to apply a modest price signal. And while the effect on each individual is small, the benefit for some individuals is enormous -- they will avoid the effects of obesity, like type II diabetes, and live longer lives. Your tiny soda sacrifice will save lives. In contrast, obesity penalties at the level of some insurance companies is really extreme, to the extent of controlling their daily actions, and leading them to seriously consider use of dangerous weight loss drugs (amphetamines basically) and major gastric surgery. There is no need to construct an enormous and improbable straw man if you want 'nanny state' regulations, there are plenty of examples. For example, alcohol sales policy. Why can you buy lite beer in many places in the US, but not full strength beer or wine or spirits? It isn't because of cheap drunks -- they are cheap and buying in bulk, a $40 bottle of wine isn't going to interest them. It is a hodge podge of local and state govt regulation with little tangible benefit. The difference between good and bad regulations is often whether they are based on evidence and statistical re-evaluation, or knee-jerk politics. Well considered policy will identify groups that suffer detriment. I can't identify a group that will be harmed by discouraging discounted soda.

umvi 8y ago

It's only "sensible" because you happened to agree with the policies I chose. Nanny state (again, in my opinion) is infringing on the individual's right to choose. Why should I, a skinny fit person with self control, not be allowed to buy a supersized meal after running a half marathon? I'm being punished because of the choices of the obese. You might not like nanny state regulations as much if it impacted something important to you - like limiting internet usage for example. "People have no self control when it comes to internet and especially social media usage, new ISP regulations will disconnect your internet temporarily if it detects you have been using social media for too many consecutive hours"

majormajor 8y ago
You can't avoid the choices of others. Pay now, pay later (for instance, in higher health insurance or tax payments), but it's naive to complain about having being impacted at all.
jplayer01 8y ago
Government exists to infringe on individual rights. You're basically arguing for abolishing the whole thing. Consequently, "They're infringing on my rights" is a circular, pointless argument, unless you really want to just talk about how all government is bad.
angry_octet 8y ago
You can buy two meals if you like. The policy applies a cost disincentive to unhealthy eating, an approach which has proven success as a disincentive for nicotine addiction and alcohol consumption. Since society pays a steep price for the pandemic level of obesity it is justified to apply a modest price signal. And while the effect on each individual is small, the benefit for some individuals is enormous -- they will avoid the effects of obesity, like type II diabetes, and live longer lives. Your tiny soda sacrifice will save lives. In contrast, obesity penalties at the level of some insurance companies is really extreme, to the extent of controlling their daily actions, and leading them to seriously consider use of dangerous weight loss drugs (amphetamines basically) and major gastric surgery. There is no need to construct an enormous and improbable straw man if you want 'nanny state' regulations, there are plenty of examples. For example, alcohol sales policy. Why can you buy lite beer in many places in the US, but not full strength beer or wine or spirits? It isn't because of cheap drunks -- they are cheap and buying in bulk, a $40 bottle of wine isn't going to interest them. It is a hodge podge of local and state govt regulation with little tangible benefit. The difference between good and bad regulations is often whether they are based on evidence and statistical re-evaluation, or knee-jerk politics. Well considered policy will identify groups that suffer detriment. I can't identify a group that will be harmed by discouraging discounted soda.