4 ms·

Chile applied a similar policy in 2016. Clear warnings are displayed in high fructose / high fat processed food. According to at least a study, consumption of

Chile applied a similar policy in 2016. Clear warnings are displayed in high fructose / high fat processed food. According to at least a study, consumption of soft drinks high in sugar decreased by 25% in about 2 years. The sellers tried to avoid having the warnings so they decreased their sugar levels in their foods as well, or had them replaced them by sweeteners instead.

conanbatt 7y ago
Don't you find any moral issue in the state using its power to modify behavior? Is the citizen subdued to the state, or does the state work for the citizen?
- helloguillecl 7y ago
  Actually I think is either the state, or the corporations via advertising. At the end they are not more than a warning, it's not like they are forbidden.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    You are paying taxes so the state tells you you shouldn't do what you want. There is a case against advertising and consent, but the label is absolutely against consent. You would never pay someone to tell you not to do something you want to do.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      >You would never pay someone to tell you not to do something you want to do. It's probably not the best idea to tell people what they will and will not do. A more accurate phrasing would have been: > I would never pay someone to tell me not to do something I want to do. That aside, I definitely would tell the state to warn me about things I want to do, if there's a good basis behind that warning. I would also pay the state to tell others who may have not had made the time/effort to research it. This isn't limited to the state. People often pay professionals who in turn advise them not to do what they want to do - lawyers, nutritionists, doctors, therapists, tax professionals, real estate professionals, etc.
- mbil 7y ago
  I don't see a moral issue with this. The state is using its power to help ensure individuals have pertinent information with which to make health-impacting decisions. Individuals are using their power to decide whether, given that information, they wish to modify their own behavior.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >Don't you find any moral issue in the state using its power to modify behavior? As long as they don't prevent that behavior: No. In this particular case, they're not even adding a tax. There's a long history of the state doing it in more draconian ways (fines for seatbelts, non-functioning lights etc). Fines in some cities for not maintaining the lawn. Most people are in favor of some of these, and not for others.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    The state can use its propaganda machine for the things that run the state care about. For example, be good and pay your taxes, don't complain, zoning is not an issue, etc. How do you eliminate the conflict of interest between the people that run the state and the behavior they want to imprint in society?
- soheil 7y ago
  Are you saying any type of regulation by the state therefore is a moral issue?
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    If its intended to change behavior: yes.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > Don't you find any moral issue in the state using its power to modify behavior? Um, no? That's kind of the purpose of having a state.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Only to those who think of themselves as servants.
- imsofuture 7y ago
  Same question for you, except private corporations. Inundation with advertising is exactly private corporations using their power to modify behavior. The only difference I see is that the government has your best interest in mind (ostensibly, of course, don't mistake me for thinking it really does). Advertisers do not.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    I'm free to choose whether or not I do business with a corporation selling sugary drinks which I already know to be bad for me, whose power to modify my behavior rests on its ability to convince they can improve my enjoyment of life. I'm much less free to choose whether I comply with the government, whose power to modify behavior is ultimately derived from the threat of men with guns coming to lock me in a concrete cell. Advertising is memetic pollution but I'll still take it any day, every time over government compulsion; the equivocation of the two is ludicrous.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    There should definitely be limits to what advertising is allowed to do and what spaces its allowed to use. Advertising, however, survives only because it finds the people interested in the products. When the government does it, it survives on people that pay for it at the risk of going to jail. The standard of what government can do is infinitely higher, because it can do something against everyone and do it forever.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

conanbatt 7y ago

Don't you find any moral issue in the state using its power to modify behavior? Is the citizen subdued to the state, or does the state work for the citizen?

helloguillecl 7y ago
Actually I think is either the state, or the corporations via advertising. At the end they are not more than a warning, it's not like they are forbidden.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  You are paying taxes so the state tells you you shouldn't do what you want. There is a case against advertising and consent, but the label is absolutely against consent. You would never pay someone to tell you not to do something you want to do.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >You would never pay someone to tell you not to do something you want to do. It's probably not the best idea to tell people what they will and will not do. A more accurate phrasing would have been: > I would never pay someone to tell me not to do something I want to do. That aside, I definitely would tell the state to warn me about things I want to do, if there's a good basis behind that warning. I would also pay the state to tell others who may have not had made the time/effort to research it. This isn't limited to the state. People often pay professionals who in turn advise them not to do what they want to do - lawyers, nutritionists, doctors, therapists, tax professionals, real estate professionals, etc.
mbil 7y ago
I don't see a moral issue with this. The state is using its power to help ensure individuals have pertinent information with which to make health-impacting decisions. Individuals are using their power to decide whether, given that information, they wish to modify their own behavior.
BeetleB 7y ago
>Don't you find any moral issue in the state using its power to modify behavior? As long as they don't prevent that behavior: No. In this particular case, they're not even adding a tax. There's a long history of the state doing it in more draconian ways (fines for seatbelts, non-functioning lights etc). Fines in some cities for not maintaining the lawn. Most people are in favor of some of these, and not for others.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  The state can use its propaganda machine for the things that run the state care about. For example, be good and pay your taxes, don't complain, zoning is not an issue, etc. How do you eliminate the conflict of interest between the people that run the state and the behavior they want to imprint in society?
soheil 7y ago
Are you saying any type of regulation by the state therefore is a moral issue?
- conanbatt 7y ago
  If its intended to change behavior: yes.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> Don't you find any moral issue in the state using its power to modify behavior? Um, no? That's kind of the purpose of having a state.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Only to those who think of themselves as servants.
imsofuture 7y ago
Same question for you, except private corporations. Inundation with advertising is exactly private corporations using their power to modify behavior. The only difference I see is that the government has your best interest in mind (ostensibly, of course, don't mistake me for thinking it really does). Advertisers do not.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  I'm free to choose whether or not I do business with a corporation selling sugary drinks which I already know to be bad for me, whose power to modify my behavior rests on its ability to convince they can improve my enjoyment of life. I'm much less free to choose whether I comply with the government, whose power to modify behavior is ultimately derived from the threat of men with guns coming to lock me in a concrete cell. Advertising is memetic pollution but I'll still take it any day, every time over government compulsion; the equivocation of the two is ludicrous.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  There should definitely be limits to what advertising is allowed to do and what spaces its allowed to use. Advertising, however, survives only because it finds the people interested in the products. When the government does it, it survives on people that pay for it at the risk of going to jail. The standard of what government can do is infinitely higher, because it can do something against everyone and do it forever.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]