Reply #81: You misinterpret me, I think. [View All]

[Dr Morbius]

I asked what government should do. You answered with what "we" should do. How do you propose government get church groups to teach people about proper nutrition? They first must teach the church groups themselves, and now you're directing public funds to religious organizations.

I do NOT propose an expansion of "government power", and incidentally, since it is OUR government, it is our tool to use. Government already taxes some substances, like alcohol. Alcohol when consumed in moderation is relatively healthy, and extremely dangerous when consumed to excess. Government has a right to discourage excessive use because there's an incurred cost to society by our collective decision to consume alcohol. This minor tax probably doesn't serve to discourage consumption much, but it is as far as government has a right to go. Then there's tobacco; government taxes tobacco rather heavily although tobacco has none of the dangerous side-effects of alcohol to society. But smoking causes medical problems and the occasional deadly fire, so again, when people CHOOSE to use these products, they are doing harm to society and government - the tool of the people, mind you - isn't terribly out of line applying the tax.

"The" government is our government. It's a device we've invented to regulate commerce, establish and maintain laws, and protect the people. It isn't a monster. Stop being afraid of it. If you're unhappy with our government feel free to change it; it was designed to be flexible. There is no reason to be scared. I am a statist, not a "nanny-stater".

It is not an expansion of government to tax high-salt or high-fat foods when government already taxes tobacco and alcohol. I do not want government to micromanage the food industry; I'd prefer this industry to be a lot more local and have fewer giants, but that's a different discussion. I see no problem, and a bit of wisdom, in taxing indulgent and unhealthy food.