Where are the Limits of Government Dictates on Your Life?

Even if he banned the drinks, what's to stop people from buying two regular sized drinks?

Great question, but that horse has left the barn. Ron Paul's Revolution does a good job of explaining it. I think that's the name of it.

I think part of this nanny state movement is that our leaders don't always trust citizens to make the best choices.

And in part, I can see their point. At times, people make horrible choices.

But it is still their choice what to ingest. In Seattle, most of the fast food places are required to post the calorie content on the menu next to the price.

I have changed my choices after seeing the actual amount of calories. But is it a good thing to totally restrict choice? ie. outlaw triple cheeseburgers?

I see this as an important part of the health care reform debate. Government officials are looking at their health care budget numbers and trying to find ways to lower the cost. This type of law, which has no business being enacted; is a result of the poor state of our health care system and a more important system, our health care education system.

Has government controlled healthcare led to the banning of specific items to improve general health in other countries?

I feel that this is over stepping the government's business. Now bloomberg can perhaps ban what is served in the government office buildings, if they have cafeterias but he can't/shouldn't go any further.

IMHO it serves more as a reminder, a sort of 'default setting' as to where the reasonable lines ought to be. Clearly, no one can regulate these things, however, it a least brought it into discussion. Obesity is a real issue in our world today.

The issue is one of 'Who is Responsible?' The child, the parents, the school, the restaurant, or the government?

You are right. And it's not just who is responsible for whether or not Richard commits food suicide. He is part victim, and part perpetrator. Part victim because of the unrestrained influence of corporate capitalism on the Government and the media. He is part perpetrator because he is an intelligent, educated adult acting on his own free will (in theory).

The issue of responsibility is upside down in our culture because of who actually benefits from Richard drinking the biggie drink and who has been made to be responsible for the consequences.

Follow where Richard's money goes to see who really benefits; notice where the money will come from to pay for the negative effects to see who pays for the consequences. While Richard may be responsible enough to pay for his own demise, the only reason we are talking about this is that many in our society have become hypnotized addicts totally lacking in responsibility except in obedience to their media masters who manipulate them for their own gain.

Who benefits, the junkies (Richards of the world) who get the quick fix or the drug lords (corporate moguls) who sit on a mountain of cash. Do these moguls take responsibility for the negative consequences: have they taken responsibility for our health care crisis? No. They plan to profit even more from it.

I better stop there.

Dennis,

I see a 'book' in you on this subject:-)

I couldn't agree with you more on your points of view.

The ills you refer to are neither a new phenomenon, nor will they get fixed by some mysterious, external force. I do believe that in the end each individual must take responsibility for her/his own non-action.

What keeps the system from completely breaking down? Individuals like yourself, who at the very core of it all, do their best to do every bit of good that they can for the Richards of the world that are within their reach.

Nadir - Any book that's in me will be found in my 7 years worth of Blog Posts on the subject that I know a little about (health and fitness).

Thanks for the kind words, but the system is completely breaking down. We have been talking about Biggie drinks: think climate change.

Richard - Russian roulette has only the potential for negative consequences, but we don't usually recommend it. Bloomberg wants to use to the Government to block access to Biggie drinks. He hasn't thought it through on several levels. Or he has. Either way I think it's misguided unless he looking to be a martyr.

That's a lot of blog posts, and good ones too. In all seriousness, there is a book there.

Biggie drinks and climate chnage and other such issues are related. It comes down to the mindset, doesn't it? If one isn't going to care for one's own vessel that chances of caring for one's environment aren't that great, are they?

Richard,

Great post.

This clearly demonstrates that when government attempts to enforce an ideology into reality, tyranny is the only result.

Ideally, everyone in America should be healthy. How do we accomplish this?

Government officials tells their constituency that it is possible. (This is their error)

In order to MAKE this happen, the government must impose tyrannical laws on private business and deny our freedom of choice.

As said in other posts here, people will just buy two drinks and this move is more about the money and the power it brings.

Bloomberg couldn't care less about public health. If he did, he would put a stop to the "food" served in our public schools. That's where habits begin.

This interference of government is reminiscent of how dictatorships began. It just takes more time for the government to own our lives today as it did in the days of early communism.

Richard, thank you for brining this to our attention in this election year.

At times we humans need 2+2=5 just to be different and exercise our independence.

Well said Richard... I agree.

The reality is that even the most imbecilic among us knows that eating too much will make you fat. In this day and age when information of every sort is at everyone's fingertips, there is really no excuse for a lack of nutritional knowlege.

The weak minded would rather the government just step in and make theior lives "easier" via dictate and fiat (not the new 500), nevermind the effect it has on their, and everyone else's liberty.

That will be a consequense of a government controlled healthcare system. Virtually any behavior or product can in some way be tied to health. The government can then step in and regulate in the name of controlling health care costs, and saving taxpayer money.

Near absolute power, that, and you know what happens with absolute power..........