Practically motivated, I would say rather. Can you choose to smoke? Cigarettes, well, yes -- and in areas where the answer is no it's because smoking isn't good for those around you. So that's an oversimplification. Pot -- not yet, but cultural progression is actually on the side of Linus there. Choose a large soda? In most places still, yes. And there is of course the (practical) argument that making our population healthier will be much cheaper in the long run. Choose to own a gun? Yeah, you can. You just have to do some paperwork and not be insane (theoretically) -- imagine that. Choose energy-inefficient solutions? In the long run, I think they're cheaper, and I know they're better for the environment. So to an extent you still have the right to be dumb and selfish, but you'll be taxed for it. (I'm a bit behind on this one, though, so don't take me as seriously.) The debate there isn't too culturally motivated, in any case. Choose to honor God? Yeah. First amendment. What country is the author of this comic in, exactly? Choosing to not honor God isn't as easy at the moment, but we're getting there. You can also choose an abortion. Or adoption. Or contraception. Or none of the above. So I'm done over-analyzing this political cartoon which is designed to provoke such a response -- but I do think the author should visit Saudi Arabia and see if he finds it more or less to his liking. EDIT: hubski is charmingly liberal.
There are a number of fun debates in here, but I'll just pick a subset: The justification for this is that it's a public health issue, but making soda illegal is logically inconsistent. There are a million paths to becoming fat, and unless you ban high-cholestrol, high-sugar, low-ruffage, low-exercise lifestyles outright, you're just plugging holes in a crumbling dam. Soda might be an easy target, but laws against it are a stupid and ineffective way to combat obesity. There are many other methods, such as public outreach and health campaigns that are significantly more effective, but unfortunately they don't let politicians say "PROBLEM SOLVED" quite as easily. It's a little more complex than that. Can you own any gun? Or ones that the government has approved of for citizen use? A peashooter? Something that can take down a footballer? Can you carry it outside your house? Must that be an open carry or can you conceal it? Can you carry it on your college's campus? In your friend's apartment complex? If the government is keeping a gun registry, what's their past history of confiscation? Again, why should it be up to the government to legislate these choices? If it really is the most efficient choice, why are customers not allowed to make their own decision? You don't even need an outreach campaign here because most hardware stores (The ones I've been in, at least) advertise their more efficient lightbulbs, complete with simple math of the yearly cost-savings. Now, LED lights already contain a fair bit of wiring magic to stay functional in various types of buildings. But consider that my home's electrical system is incompatible with them them. Should I not be allowed to buy a incandescent light bulb if it is my next best option?Choose a large soda? In most places still, yes. And there is of course the (practical) argument that making our population healthier will be much cheaper in the long run.
Choose to own a gun? Yeah, you can. You just have to do some paperwork and not be insane (theoretically) -- imagine that.
Choose energy-inefficient solutions? In the long run, I think they're cheaper, and I know they're better for the environment. So to an extent you still have the right to be dumb and selfish, but you'll be taxed for it. (I'm a bit behind on this one, though, so don't take me as seriously.) The debate there isn't too culturally motivated, in any case.
I agree, a lot of these are my favorite topics. Taking the points one by one: Soda: I agree. I think a tax (I would say a hefty one, but that's just me) is the logical step, but a ban is too strong. Though, Are you sure? That doesn't seem quantifiable, but I think the best blueprint to follow is cigarettes (banning advertisements, taxing heavily, but not making illegal). Guns: yeah, but I'm so rabidly pro-gun control that I simplified for the sake of everyone's sanity. A list of guns approved for citizens would be great - maybe a bit like drugs: schedule one, only military/security personnel, schedule 2 hunting etc, schedule 3 legal for anyone. Just some scattered thoughts. In any case what we have now, where politicians reactively try to ban random models and makes of AKs after incidents -- unsustainable. Energy efficiency: can the answer be as simple as -- the public isn't smart enough to make informed decisions? If we've used the same lightbulbs for 50 years and then suddenly new ones come out that are more expensive on paper but in reality last longer, is anyone going to buy them? Maybe not without prodding. Making the older bulbs illegal is, again, less effective in my opinion than taxing the ones that hurt the environment. If you approach this issue with the ideal of "the less gov't legislation, the better," then you won't take my side, but why is that something people take for granted as their base position now? It shouldn't be a reason to fight every change. Sometimes legislating things isn't automatically bad. Look at the comic again. Common sense is with the government on most all of these issues. It's only if you forget that that you start to malign over-invasive government.There are many other methods, such as public outreach and health campaigns that are way more effective,
Again, ask yourself if you would substitute these exact same rules for any and every other unhealthy food on the market. If the tax on "soda", I have the loophole of selling carbonated water and flavored syrup. I should mention that my favorite place to target are the cafeteria and kids television (This goes for sugary cereals and other kid snacks as well). I'm not sure how to combat obesity in grown adults, but I'm fairly certain it's not as easy as another law. Not too inclined to go down the rabbit hole that is gun debate in this thread, but remember that there are plenty of ways to kill someone, and even crowds of someones, without a gun. They just happen to be the most preferable defensive option for those untrained in the martial arts. I am absolutely in disagreement with that statement! It's oversimplifying complex issues and denying people to ability to make the decisions they find to be optimal. This attitude says that politicians, who rarely have any training in the fields they are legislating on, have the right to say what is the best choice for individuals to make. Keep in mind that "common sense" led to prohibition and the drug war. "Common sense" in someone's mind gave us the patriot act. Only the most corrupt write legislation they think is genuinely wrong. But when you cast a magnifying glass on each of these issues, very infrequently is one law the real fix.Are you sure? That doesn't seem quantifiable, but I think the best blueprint to follow is cigarettes (banning advertisements, taxing heavily, but not making illegal).
A list of guns approved for citizens would be great - maybe a bit like drugs: schedule one, only military/security personnel, schedule 2 hunting etc, schedule 3 legal for anyone
Common sense is with the government on most all of these issues.
Inre: soda -- you do what you can. You tax soda if you want to try to fight obesity. Maybe you hit the corporations that were featured in that Lunchables article on hubski a couple weeks back, the ones that actively make children's foods less healthy. I'm not saying taxing soda is the most effective solution, but it will do something to combat obesity/ill-health. I've never bought this argument. It's not logical. There are other ways to kill someone, so let's make sure people can take the easy way out with guns. Nah. We've come (inevitably) to Mill's harm principle. It certainly is common sense to deny people cigarettes in public places, for example. I reject any argument that says it is not. What, precisely, are they here to do if not make decisions on behalf of the populace? (All of these issues come down to the "extent of gov't" and we aren't going to agree, I don't think.) Incidentally, I don't buy the politicians-aren't-experts argument either; except in rare cases, politicians staff experts for exactly that reason. Common sense led to prohibition, yes. It later led to the appeal of prohibition -- trial and error isn't necessarily a bad thing. Popular demand indirectly led to the drug war, which has to be the most forgotten fact of the 21st century so far. (Bringing it back to common sense -- it makes sense to retaliate against terror attacks, although not with decade-long invasions.) I think your examples are as much oversimplifications as my points are :pNot too inclined to go down the rabbit hole that is gun debate in this thread, but remember that there are plenty of ways to kill someone, and even crowds of someones, without a gun. They just happen to be the most preferable defensive option for those untrained in the martial arts.
It's oversimplifying complex issues and denying people to ability to make the decisions they find to be optimal.
This attitude says that politicians, who rarely have any training in the fields they are legislating on, have the right to say what is the best choice for individuals to make.
I was perhaps a little harsh in implying that they should not make any decisions at all. I try to discuss the individual bills/laws, rather than argue a blanket ideology. You'll note that I'm not arguing for smoking in public areas because that has the detail that second hand smoke has a well studied negative health effect on others in public space. Exhibit A. Be they honestly dumb, or paid dumb, many are still demonstrably dumb. I personally just hate the "common sense" argument for the reasons mentioned in grandparent's comment. Also, hope I'm not coming across as too hostile with my comments. Despite considering myself to be "liberal", I find myself running contrary to others of similar political identity on these topics, and Hubski is one of my few outlet's to practice my arguments about them.What, precisely, are they here to do if not make decisions on behalf of the populace? (All of these issues come down to the "extent of gov't" and we aren't going to agree, I don't think.)
Incidentally, I don't buy the politicians-aren't-experts argument either; except in rare cases, politicians staff experts for exactly that reason.
It's interesting that we come to SOPA. Lamar Smith was my representative for many years, god help him, and I can't talk about SOPA without getting a bit worked up. So. Politicians get things wrong, despite having expert opinions available. I can't argue against that. But politicians also get the overwhelming majority of things right -- or as right as our extremely flawed system will let them -- and those things do not get noticed. Here's the thing. You mentioned the war on drugs, and that common sense was what led to it. But I don't think that's quite right. Popular opinion of drugs led to the war on drugs. Politicians can't help that ignorant people don't know a thing about marijuana, don't know that mushrooms and acid are safe if used by knowledgeable people. Look what happened with that goddamn "bath salts" fiasco. No one in America knows a fucking thing about mind-altering drugs. They assume users are nonfunctional addicts. They assume dealers are trying to corrupt children, not feed their own families. And now, look what's happened. Popular opinion is shifting, most dramatically in the last election. And the war on drugs is starting to slowly go away. A smart politician follows the trend of popular opinion as best he can. It mirrors or will mirror, indirectly, prohibition being unveiled ... and prohibition being repealed.Also, hope I'm not coming across as too hostile with my comments. Despite considering myself to be "liberal", I find myself running contrary to others of similar political identity on these topics, and Hubski is one of my few outlet's to practice my arguments about them.
I live in Oklahoma. If I open my mouth I'm either gay, atheistic, or a socialist. All three if I'm talking to someone over the age of 40.
Next, Guns. And gasoline, and bombs, and cars. and axes, and swords, and yeah, admitted, guns. Keep in mind that my argument wasn't that guns were not the best way to kill people. They've aided plenty of rampagers. My argument is that, when your life is being threatened, your self-preserving instinct will want a gun to fend off the attacker. Not a knife. Not your fists. Maybe you can run, if you're lucky and have no friends or family nearby to abandon. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to never have your life threatened. We all hope for that, but not everybody is dealt the best hand by life. There are plenty of guns out there already, and I'm pretty sure the serial killers aren't too keen on gun buyback programs. Maybe you don't believe a gun is the best option for self protection. Maybe you don't want to invest time and money now to help your one future timeline when you're not lucky. Maybe you feel safer not having to option to escalate a mugging into a murder. But keep in mind that not everyone agrees. And gun ownership is currently a right guaranteed by the constitution.I've never bought this argument. It's not logical. There are other ways to kill someone, so let's make sure people can take the easy way out with guns. Nah.
I would posit that a comparable number of crimes are committed with legal guns as with illegal ones. That alone is a reason to outlaw guns. I think the best option for self protection is a preemptively safe society, as safe as we can make it. In my opinion, this includes not having one-click murder weapons in almost every house. I just don't trust most Americans to use one responsibly, and I think I'm borne out in that mistrust constantly. That gun ownership is in the Bill of Rights, listed second after freedom of speech, is the most ridiculous thing about the Constitution by far. Don't get me started.
I'd love one, too. I just don't think it's very realistic to expect a society where no one can threaten your life, be it with a weapon or fists. As we are a bit off of the original discussion, I propose tabling this string of the thread for a more relevant article.I think the best option for self protection is a preemptively safe society, as safe as we can make it.
Appologies for the late response, took a trip to the mountains and have been lazy about writing a reply since coming back. Gonna split this up into three comments since the scope of the discussion is growing a bit beyond what I expected. Now, Soda. Note that your argument has now shifted, and I think I will shift mine in turn, too. An outright ban prevents choice and impacts many who live otherwise healthy diets. A tax on soda is just a sin tax, I leave you to read more about the poorly documented pros and cons. But now we have an economic problem. I'm a low-income person. I can't afford $10 for a can of soda (Exaggeration for the sake of rhetoric). But sugar is still not too expensive. I buy a different sugary substance (Be it in liquid to solid form) to satisfy my sweet tooth. The seller, too, recognizes the market for gluttony and switches what products they make and push. Your tax was a minor set back, but at the end of the day, had barely a minor effect on the public's health. If you follow the same pattern, next year you'll be taxing tootsie rolls, then taxing donuts. You could cut straight to the point, and just write the sin tax for what it is, hitting any food of sufficiently high caloric content with sufficiently low nutritional content, but that is pandora's box and you'll never get your fellow politicians to agree. I read it, too. I liked it. But I didn't derive the conclusion that we should tax Lunchables. Enforcing good nutrition is a difficult task. While it'd be nice if Kraft Foods was willing to play ball with the folks in public health, it seemed clear from the article that they had priorities elsewhere. You could argue that the next step is to meddle with their bottom line, but I see the side of demand a far better target.You tax soda if you want to try to fight obesity.
Maybe you hit the corporations that were featured in that Lunchables article on hubski a couple weeks back, the ones that actively make children's foods less healthy.
So what about health campaigns? What is is that we've done in this country to dramatically decrease the commonality of smoking? Smoking was a lifestyle 60 years ago and now it's a "habit" -- with all the negative connotations you can pile into those five letters. Will soda be a habit in half a century? Should it be? You're right that until we directly tax sugar or "unhealthy foods," we're just in a reducto ad absurdum loop. And you're right that no one will ever go for that. I'm sort of lost on this issue, to be honest. My instinct tells me that taxing soda is hopeless, but reality shows that America's obesity problem is becoming an epidemic, and reality also shows me that there are laws in place which have decreased the consumption of other unhealthy substances, like tobacco. I guess it boils down to "why not give taxing soda a shot" vs. "stop infringing needlessly on our lives."You could argue that the next step is to meddle with their bottom line, but I see the side of demand a far better target.
Well, it seems to me you spent most of the rest of your post listing the reasons why attacking the demand side is futile.
Not quite, I was discussing taxes and bans. I see nutritional and cooking education, limiting advertising to children, and access to healthy foods as the most promising solutions. The last of those would be categorized as a supply-side problem, but of the good stuff, not the bad. Along with location bans: sin taxes (I don't know of any evidence towards or against their effectiveness, but see grandparent comment of why I don't like a sin tax on sugar), scientific documentation of their health effects, school campaigns to preemptively make children aware of the health effects, limiting the use of smoking in movies, and possibly other measures that I don't know of / can't remember right now. I wouldn't make the claim without pretty graphs showing an increasing trend. But remember to keep it in the larger context of a high sugar diets and the problems those cause. Suppose the (unlikely) scenario that a population can maintain a high intake of soda without a significantly increased risk of obesity or diabeetus. Then, from the public health point of view of the government, for the time being, there are more important problems to spend resources on. I was recently informed, by a friend, that it's showing a trend of plateauing. Mind you, it's one study, and only up to 2008, but make sure to ground your argument on this matter in what studies you can find. The details of the debate are somewhat nuanced and surprising to some (Conservative think tank). Because this form of infringing isn't likely to be effective. I'm still proposing infringing in other ways, they just happen to be in the classroom and on the television.Well, it seems to me you spent most of the rest of your post listing the reasons why attacking the demand side is futile.
What is is that we've done in this country to dramatically decrease the commonality of smoking?
Will soda be a habit in half a century? Should it be?
reality shows that America's obesity problem is becoming an epidemic
I guess it boils down to "why not give taxing soda a shot" vs. "stop infringing needlessly on our lives."
The problem is that none of these are very relevant to soda/sugar/obesity ... but we've got to do something. A sin tax or size limit or whatever just seems like the most obvious course to try. Obesity: Here's the bottom line, for me: we've tried the "in the classroom" approach. Health class is mandatory. High schoolers have to take a sport or several semesters of "physical education." I've been through both. They are jokes, and I went to one of the best schools in the state of Texas -- a state with a massive obesity problem. It's true that not all of the in the classroom approach is direct; and eating healthy is "trendy" now. But only among certain classes. Certainly not among children, and obviously not among the poor and innercity populations. We need more, in my opinion.Not quite, I was discussing taxes and bans. I see nutritional and cooking education, limiting advertising to children, and access to healthy foods as the most promising solutions. The last of those would be categorized as a supply-side problem, but of the good stuff, not the bad.
Subsidizing organic markets et al. seems to be where we are heading with that. Slowly.Along with location bans: sin taxes (I don't know of any evidence towards or against their effectiveness, but see grandparent comment of why I don't like a sin tax on sugar), scientific documentation of their health effects, school campaigns to preemptively make children aware of the health effects, limiting the use of smoking in movies, and possibly other measures that I don't know of / can't remember right now.
Population obesity seems to have plateaued. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) shows no trend in US child and adolescent BMI since 1999. US men and women have had constant obesity rates and mean BMI since 2003. NHANES BMI measurements date suggest that the growth in U.S. overweight occurred between 1976-80 and 1988-94.
Yeah ... and in 1987 they were probably saying "gee, obesity seems to have plateaued! Let's forget about it. See my point? Additionally, at the moment it's "plateaued" at a higher number than it was in '08. When you filter for blacks or children the number is even more disturbing.Of all countries, the United States has the highest rate of obesity. From 13% obesity in 1962, estimates have steadily increased, reaching 19.4% in 1997, 24.5% in 2004[4] 26.6% in 2007,[5] and 33.8% (adults) and 17% (children) in 2008.[6][7] In 2010, the CDC reported higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children.[8]
-Wiki
Before I forget, this has been the solution in other public health programs. See Oportunidades. I doubt it would be nearly as cost-effective in fighting obesity, but who knows, we already subsidize food in the form of tax stamps and corn.Subsidizing organic markets et al. seems to be where we are heading with that. Slowly.
Cool idea, but. Health care costs money; going to school costs money. It could be that the incentives they get aren't worth the opportunity cost of not having their high school age children working, for example. I recently heard about an incentive program the US runs in Afghanistan to make sure our aid money goes to the right places. There's rampant corruption, so the gov't officials on the ground set up a results-based reward system instead of just blanket handing out money. Basically, if you (the corrupt governor of a province in Afghanistan) choose to pocket all the money and buy Mercedes, which is technically legal, you will come in last in the game because your province won't have better roads, good medicine, etc to show the judges. The bottom few governors don't get money the next year. And so on. Seems like it works reasonably well; better than anything else we've tried out there.
Not the cheapest option on the planet, but I don't know enough about the cases / effects to comment. Why did you consider them a joke? Because you already knew the suggested guidelines for nutrition and exercise? Because you already knew how to cook healthy food for yourself using cheap ingredients? It might have fallen deaf on yours and your classmates' ears, but that doesn't mean no one benefits from them. I didn't pay attention the third time I had to learn about the birds and the bees, but that doesn't mean that education of the proper use of birth control isn't essential in targeted areas (I can dig up references on this if you like). Tax lethargy? Ban television?Subsidizing organic markets et al. seems to be where we are heading with that. Slowly.
Here's the bottom line, for me: we've tried the "in the classroom" approach. Health class is mandatory. High schoolers have to take a sport or several semesters of "physical education." I've been through both. They are jokes, and I went to one of the best schools in the state of Texas -- a state with a massive obesity problem. It's true that not all of the in the classroom approach is direct; and eating healthy is "trendy" now. But only among certain classes. Certainly not among children, and obviously not among the poor and innercity populations.
We need more, in my opinion.
Throw the human nature in jail!Why did you consider them a joke? Because you already knew the suggested guidelines for nutrition and exercise? Because you already knew how to cook healthy food for yourself using cheap ingredients?
Because I didn't learn any of those things! Our "home ec" class was the closest thing, but it was poorly advertised and considered an easy A and a time-waster by everyone. My PE class consisted of whichever coach drew the short straw trying to convince us through the drug haze to do some laps and then play kickball. Never learned a thing about cooking; wish I had. Easy to self-teach, I later discovered, but pushing yourself to do something like that doesn't come easily to everyone. (We weren't really educated on birth control either, before you ask.)Tax lethargy? Ban television?
Seeing as those are privately owned places (assuming you meant a private school here not a public school but the point stands for the apartment complex at least), shouldn't it be up to them to decide if you can carry a gun or not? Isn't that the whole point of your argument?Can you carry it on your college's campus? In your friend's apartment complex?
Has Nancy Pelosi even said she supports the Soda Ban?
If it makes you feel better Planned Parenthood has announced they are no longer going to use the language of "pro-choice" in describing theirs stance on abortion. News article
I think everyone is forgetting that the whole reason for the term "pro-choice" is because anti-abortion activists didn't like that (accurate) label, and changed it to the more PC term "pro-life" (because who would be anti-life?) It's a PC reaction to a PC reaction.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Both the term pro-choice and pro-life are attempts to frame the argument so that your side seems clearly correct. Pro-choice is used because it frames the argument so that the other side must be "anti-choice" while pro-life is used so that the other side appears to be "anti-life". Saying that they are "pc reactions" is sort of ignoring the bigger question of how groups frame their issues.
I'm just trying to point out that this "framing of the argument" by using politically weighted terms is a distraction. If you don't want abortions to be performed, you should be able to say "I am anti-abortion". If you want them to remain legal, you should be able to say "I am pro abortion". This comic seems to me to be a rather lame attempt to discredit the pro-abortion argument, by ridiculing its politically-correct "choice" terminology.
It seems that with any use of "freedom" and "choice", the limits are exactly as far as a person's particular political beliefs go.
Despite the many tempting rabbit trails, the only coherent message of this fun comic is this: political slogans equivocate. Choice is something no one wants to do without, yet no one can deny that unrestricted liberty on the part of others might lead to catastrophe, and social collapse. This should surprise no one. These terms gain prominence precisely because of their grandiose and non-specific framing. It's all very convenient and self-flattering, on the one side and on the other.