3 ms·

> as opposed to being told what the people want If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it

> as opposed to being told what the people want If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? > Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns... Bad example, as it turns out that eating a regular amout of fat is fine. The gov't was wrong. Here's a better example: food corporations actively market sugar-filled cereals, "juices", "fruit snacks", etc to both parents and kids, actively misleading them on what a healthy human diet is. This had contributed to a surge in obesity and all the related health problems. This puts strain on the medical system, raises insurance premiums, and generally makes society worse. So do I support making it harder for corporations to market their HFC garbage to kids and parents? Hell yes. Do I support making it illegal for tobacco corps to market to kids? Yes again. And I say this as someone who enjoys sugar and smoking, to a reasonable degree.

coldtea 3y ago
>If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? Yes.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  > third parties like states deciding what is or isn't "for the benefit" of the people (as opposed to being told what the people want) I'm gonna keep picking on this point. The majority of people want regulation on a variety of things. It's infantalizing for you to claim that they aren't consciously choosing that.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Regulation is not the same as nudges towards personal health and discouragment-taxation towards "what's good for you". >It's infantalizing for you to claim that they aren't consciously choosing that. The "majority of people" aren't even asked about things like this, and they're constantly lied to and betrayed on the subject of electoral promises of all kinds, even on way more major issues. Not to mention being treated like cattle that needs to be "told what to want" and to be whipped into shape by technocrats and policy advisors. So, invoking what the government does as a proxy of "what people wants" is very shaky grounds...

coldtea 3y ago

>If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? Yes.

kdmccormick 3y ago
> third parties like states deciding what is or isn't "for the benefit" of the people (as opposed to being told what the people want) I'm gonna keep picking on this point. The majority of people want regulation on a variety of things. It's infantalizing for you to claim that they aren't consciously choosing that.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Regulation is not the same as nudges towards personal health and discouragment-taxation towards "what's good for you". >It's infantalizing for you to claim that they aren't consciously choosing that. The "majority of people" aren't even asked about things like this, and they're constantly lied to and betrayed on the subject of electoral promises of all kinds, even on way more major issues. Not to mention being treated like cattle that needs to be "told what to want" and to be whipped into shape by technocrats and policy advisors. So, invoking what the government does as a proxy of "what people wants" is very shaky grounds...