It's hilarious he doesn't understand supply and demand. That was a good one. I nearly fell off my chair laughing.




Edit:

1. Obese people put increased strain on transportation due to the increased demand for food transported, but also the increased mechanical strain of transportation vehicles that lug their lard asses around, as the study indicates.

2. Moreover, they don't need the food they consume. They already consume far more than is even healthy, thus what they do consume, regardless of whether they burn it off, is wasted energy. It's not required for a healthy diet, so they are merely burning excess energy pointlessly, which means it's wasted! It's like having a light in your room that services all your needs effectively, but installing a dozen more for the hell of it, burning then, and claiming it's not wasteful. That's retarded.

It's not magic how they increase waste, pollution, and food costs. It's called economics and physics.

Of course the prices rise because they "choose" to raise them. By choosing to feed their fat ****ing faces, they increase demand for fuel and food usage. You're just tapdancing around it to say the same thing.

The first paragraph is excellent, very well put and i totally agree.

The second, i don't so much agree - depending on your definition of legislation. In Australia, i've just been reading, a poll conducted shows that:
Parents want junk food ads banned | The Australian

Worth reading the rest of the article.

Why can't something be done at a government level to help out that vast majority of parents? Is it in the UN Charter for Human Rights that says that junk food can't be more heavily taxed, or that ads for their produce can't be restricted or banned. In Australia, there is no print or TV advertising for cigarettes - is this any different? It's a health issue after all.

Some do not have much of a choice, such as someone with a thyroid problem.

Not a fan of government favoritism. Favoring some foods. The government should be fair. Even taxation on all food.

Fairness is overrated. It's not about whether something is or isn't fair. It's unimportant. The goal is to be "unfair" on purpose. Higher taxation has proven to decrease consumption. It has worked with smoking, it will also work with junk food. IN the end, it will cut the costs associated with health problems and encourage better diets.

It's worth being "unfair." Life isn't preschool.

Which is almost meaningless, since it's sufficiently rare.

I know what the goal is and I think the method is wrong. The government should not be favoring certain products and industries. I do not want the government encouraging any diet. The government should treat all equal.

It is not worth being unfair.

I guess you exempt them then. They do exist though.

Freedom was tried. Independence doesn't work for many people. They abuse it, and in the end, you, I, and everyone else pays for their behaviour indirectly, and it's unnecessary. I think it's a perfectly legitimate role of government to influence behaviour by being "unfair" and tricking, coercing, or otherwise encouraging them to eat better. We all save resources, I don't have to see as many fat people, and they feel better. Win/win.





Edit:

People keep saying the "role" of government is this and that or "it has no business" doing something, but there's no proof of this. It's just an opinion Libertarians philosophically treat as some axiomatic, self-evident truth. It's not. You merely presume that's not a legitimate role. The most important ethical concern is the consequences of the action. The consequences are clear. If we go with your opinion, costs pile up, pollution increases, resources are wasted, and more people suffer as fat, unhealthy people. If we go with my solution, you get some whining and a few people who pay more for food they shouldn't be eating in the first place. On the other hand, if smoking is anything to go by, we likely would decrease the amount of obese people, encourage better, healthful diets, and see cost reductions and resource savings. I don't need to appeal to self-evident opinion truths. Empirical testing would reveal whether my way works (and it has worked with smokers!) If so, deliberately choosing the inferior situation with greater weight of harms is both unethical and collectively irrational, especially when you're "sticking with the bad" because of tradition or principle. When your principles don't work and cause more harm than good, it's time to abandon the principle and look for better ones.