3 ms·

Regulate the cheapest food. Violent crime and food quality rules can be grasped by the gov.

• junofan 4y ago
  Haven’t we clamped down on the little people enough?
  • hackerlight 4y ago
    Is stopping Purdue Pharma from selling life-destroying opiates "clamping down on little people"? I'd say no. Is alcohol and marijuana prohibition "clamping down on little people"? I'd say yes. Clearly there are shades of grey here that need to be worked out and there's no substitute for a first principles analysis of each case on its own merits. If you are worried about the unintended consequences of prohibition, then there are many other avenues without that downside, such as taxing fast food and using that revenue to subsidize healthy food, or mandatory packaging labels, or public health education efforts.
  • barrysteve 4y ago
    I would hope removing food that is causing violent crime, is a net positive enough that the little people would prefer it. Of course there is no incentive to hurt the poor, the debate is over what is the correct way of helping them. Saving a few bucks on a big mac meal, in exchange for their health and crime, may not be the best way forward. From a non-us perspective it's a bit odd that a CEO has to point out that violent crime is happening too much, that it's bad and that something should be done about it. That's the gov's job?
    • odessacubbage 4y ago
      when you are very poor, meals are uncertain and every dollar counts, saving a few bucks on a big mac is actually a pretty big deal. not to mention mcdonalds are open much later than homeless shelters or soup kitchens, safer too. being able to get warm and be fed for low cost is something easy to take for granted but when you have nothing it really means a lot.