Dubstepforum.com

DJoe wrote:dont know if this has been said. only skimmed through but

would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?

the companies using producing these products would have to increase the price through using expensive food components due to this taxation

that way people are free to make their own choices but nudged in the right direction

also money spent on this food is redirected to the public through taxation into the NHS for example

accordingly to some of these libertarian in this thread they would object; my life eat what i want, no one can stop me. Blah blah, getting sick of reading and writing that.

Which country in just put down a a certain junk food ban, big up.

but noone is stopping just making more expensive

DJoe wrote:but noone is stopping just making more expensive

That's still a breach of free liberty too. It's like why does 1 veg cost £1, but my my junk food cost £2.

DJoe wrote:but noone is stopping just making more expensive

Yeah this would make more sense, you can smoke and drink but its heavily taxed. Don't have to be some freedom fighter liberal to wanna be allowed the very basic choice of eating unhealthy food

When did it make you a hardcore liberal believing in having the choice of what you do to your own body?

nitz wrote:Which country in just put down a a certain junk food ban, big up.

In Sergio Ramos we trust.

It all comes down to helping people shop better. It would be better, instead of banning/overtaxing certain foods, to encourage them to plan their shopping, have the precise amounts and types of food they want to buy and not buy anything more. Whatever you put in your shopping cart is what you have at home, food doesn't appear out of thin air in your cupboard.

Obesity is largely related to passing by the fastfood aisle and taking whatever looks good because why not.

nitz wrote:

DJoe wrote:but noone is stopping just making more expensive

That's still a breach of free liberty too. It's like why does 1 veg cost £1, but my my junk food cost £2.

no its not

DJoe wrote:

nitz wrote:

DJoe wrote:but noone is stopping just making more expensive

That's still a breach of free liberty too. It's like why does 1 veg cost £1, but my my junk food cost £2.

no its not

I think many liberations should argue reducing their choice and increase the tax any food would constitute a breach.

DJoe wrote:would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?

Basically all food.

yeah not saying it would work or that its even implementable

nitz wrote: accordingly to some of these libertarian in this thread they would object; my life eat what i want, no one can stop me. Blah blah, getting sick of reading and writing that.

Which country in just put down a a certain junk food ban, big up.

There's little libertarianism in this thread. However during the discussion around smoking you decided to discount the revenue smoking generates and talk only of the cost. When this was pointed out a tangent around unrelated legislation started but you had a point, we should encourage people to give up smoking despite it being a revenue generator. It is preferable to have healthy people not requiring NHS assistance than it is have smokers need treatment for smoking related illnesses. They've still paid through punitive taxation though which I think is fair.

On foods we already tax many of the foods that would be considered unhealthy. From the HM revenue site.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/ ... rvices.htm

Food and drink for human consumption is, in general, zero-rated but many items are standard-rated, including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, supplies of food made in the course of catering including hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water.

fuck knows why mineral water is in there but whatever.

Rönin wrote:It all comes down to helping people shop better. It would be better, instead of banning/overtaxing certain foods, to encourage them to plan their shopping, have the precise amounts and types of food they want to buy and not buy anything more. Whatever you put in your shopping cart is what you have at home, food doesn't appear out of thin air in your cupboard.

Obesity is largely related to passing by the fastfood aisle and taking whatever looks good because why not.

exactly. education is more effective than banning.

scspkr99 wrote:

nitz wrote: accordingly to some of these libertarian in this thread they would object; my life eat what i want, no one can stop me. Blah blah, getting sick of reading and writing that.

Which country in just put down a a certain junk food ban, big up.

There's little libertarianism in this thread. However during the discussion around smoking you decided to discount the revenue smoking generates and talk only of the cost. When this was pointed out a tangent around unrelated legislation started but you had a point, we should encourage people to give up smoking despite it being a revenue generator. It is preferable to have healthy people not requiring NHS assistance than it is have smokers need treatment for smoking related illnesses. They've still paid through punitive taxation though which I think is fair.

On foods we already tax many of the foods that would be considered unhealthy. From the HM revenue site.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/ ... rvices.htm

Food and drink for human consumption is, in general, zero-rated but many items are standard-rated, including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, supplies of food made in the course of catering including hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water.

fuck knows why mineral water is in there but whatever.

There is much libertarianism in this thread. One of their core key concepts is the freedom the live in the way they want with very little regulation, in the worlds the Nozick himself " A nighwatch state". Thus, by advocating my food choice and lifestyle choice is mine and mine alone hits a key connect of libertarianism. Do you do not want people telling them what to do how to to do it. Whereas, consequentialism consider the consequence of a said act. e.g you smoke, it cost, your family suffers when you die, you have 2 brothers and 2 parents, who have now lost you. End result was not worth it. Unless i got one of the spelling terms wrongs, this is pretty much core values; i did a disso in legal justice

.

Forgot to add whats up with the water

OGLemon wrote:

Rönin wrote:It all comes down to helping people shop better. It would be better, instead of banning/overtaxing certain foods, to encourage them to plan their shopping, have the precise amounts and types of food they want to buy and not buy anything more. Whatever you put in your shopping cart is what you have at home, food doesn't appear out of thin air in your cupboard.

Obesity is largely related to passing by the fastfood aisle and taking whatever looks good because why not.

exactly. education is more effective than banning.

thats a hard thing to do though, education is very easily manipulated.



I somehow feel this vid is relevant here... even if it isnt its fuckin hilarious so yeah


what with all the research into diet nowadays I genuinely dont know what to believe about eating habits to be honest, I just know I'm prone to diabetes so I try laying off the sugar, and limit the fast food to them nights at the kebab shop after a few

The federal government of the united states is the largest manufacturer, distributor and seller of illegal drugs in the world. To think that any of these governmental conversations are actually based in truth or human welfare is just silly. Stop your willful ignorance or suffer the consequences. M-kay?

JizzMan wrote:

OGLemon wrote:

Rönin wrote:It all comes down to helping people shop better. It would be better, instead of banning/overtaxing certain foods, to encourage them to plan their shopping, have the precise amounts and types of food they want to buy and not buy anything more. Whatever you put in your shopping cart is what you have at home, food doesn't appear out of thin air in your cupboard.

Obesity is largely related to passing by the fastfood aisle and taking whatever looks good because why not.

exactly. education is more effective than banning.

thats a hard thing to do though, education is very easily manipulated.



I somehow feel this vid is relevant here... even if it isnt its fuckin hilarious so yeah


what with all the research into diet nowadays I genuinely dont know what to believe about eating habits to be honest, I just know I'm prone to diabetes so I try laying off the sugar, and limit the fast food to them nights at the kebab shop after a few

hahaha that is hilarious. Why is this not answering the question? What is this? a debate or something?

Is presumption drug worth of for the public worst of the weed? Very, very good question.

It;s people like this in power that tick me off, what is she doing there? Whats 2+2 i don't know type of answer.

edit



which is more dangers cook and meth or weed? emmmmm...

the united states government are the largest manufacturer of illegal drugs?

what do you mean

nitz wrote:Whereas, consequentialism consider the consequence of a said act. e.g you smoke, it cost, your family suffers when you die, you have 2 brothers and 2 parents, who have now lost you. End result was not worth it. Unless i got one of the spelling terms wrongs, this is pretty much core values; i did a disso in legal justice .

You did a dissertation in legal justice and that turned you authoritarian?

"End result was not worth it" - in your opinion. That's not a fact, not everybody has 2 brothers and 2 living parents and not every smoker dies young and/or due to smoking. So you wanna restrict everyones freedom to choose because your opinion is if a particular scenario plays out the outcome of the upset family isn't worth it?

Seriously, I know the longer an argument goes on you can go a bit OTT and peoples original points get skewed an stuff but you're going on some full blown 1984 control freak shit and everybody who doesn't believe in treating people like caged animals is a libertarian hippy.

It isn't called libertarian to want the right to make your own choices (and mistakes) in life rather than handing all those rights, by force, over to someone else (you? the state?) its called common sense imo.

The name consequentialism seems to suggest serious consequences to society and/or other people due to your actions. You seriously can't believe your "consequence" is a good reason to ban or even tax cigarettes.. its a pathetic consequence. Its authoritarianism applying force for such minor and highly unlikely consequences not "consequentialism".

So yeah this is no longer a discussion about "libertarianism vs consequentialism" its a discussion on "common sense vs Kim Jong-Un" tbh tbf imo

Muncey wrote:

nitz wrote:Whereas, consequentialism consider the consequence of a said act. e.g you smoke, it cost, your family suffers when you die, you have 2 brothers and 2 parents, who have now lost you. End result was not worth it. Unless i got one of the spelling terms wrongs, this is pretty much core values; i did a disso in legal justice .

You did a dissertation in legal justice and that turned you authoritarian?

"End result was not worth it" - in your opinion. That's not a fact, not everybody has 2 brothers and 2 living parents and not every smoker dies young and/or due to smoking. So you wanna restrict everyones freedom to choose because your opinion is if a particular scenario plays out the outcome of the upset family isn't worth it?

Seriously, I know the longer an argument goes on you can go a bit OTT and peoples original points get skewed an stuff but you're going on some full blown 1984 control freak shit and everybody who doesn't believe in treating people like caged animals is a libertarian hippy.

It isn't called libertarian to want the right to make your own choices (and mistakes) in life rather than handing all those rights, by force, over to someone else (you? the state?) its called common sense imo.

The name consequentialism seems to suggest serious consequences to society and/or other people due to your actions. You seriously can't believe your "consequence" is a good reason to ban or even tax cigarettes.. its a pathetic consequence. Its authoritarianism applying force for such minor and highly unlikely consequences not "consequentialism".

So yeah this is no long a discussion about "libertarianism vs consequentialism" its a discussion on "common sense vs Kim Jong-Un" tbh tbf imo

I'm not even going to reply to that. You're reading a different thread. Allow it. I merely trimmed it down the terms, you have no idea how complex it is. Fact and option LOL almost fell of my chair when i read that. I have no interest in countiuieng this conv. I didn't say i was a master at the topic, i wrote i did a disso in legal justice, and thus this basic terms i wrote give or take is a reflection what legal theist.

nitz wrote:There is much libertarianism in this thread. One of their core key concepts is the freedom the live in the way they want with very little regulation, in the worlds the Nozick himself " A nighwatch state". Thus, by advocating my food choice and lifestyle choice is mine and mine alone hits a key connect of libertarianism. Do you do not want people telling them what to do how to to do it. Whereas, consequentialism consider the consequence of a said act. e.g you smoke, it cost, your family suffers when you die, you have 2 brothers and 2 parents, who have now lost you. End result was not worth it. Unless i got one of the spelling terms wrongs, this is pretty much core values; i did a disso in legal justice .

Not in the sense that you are using libertarianism. The fact you've quoted Nozick confirms this. I am a consequentialist who agrees with classic defences of liberty.

You've created a false dichotomy between consequentialism and libertarianism. Consider that J.S. Mill wrote both Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Utilitarianism is the de facto consequentialist ethical framework and On Liberty starts the conversation of what authority the state is able to exercise over it's people.

These are not mutually exclusive frameworks, we can consider a persons agency over herself apriori until the exercise of such liberty infringes on others where it becomes necessary to suppress a greater harm to society. I start from a defence of personal liberty and end with an evaluation of the cost, so consequences, to society.

I can defend smoking, drinking and eating badly on consequentialist and libertarian grounds. I can contend, and would, that the suppression of such freedoms as allowing people to choose what to eat, or smoke or drink have worse consequences than allowing people the freedom to choose and some of them choosing badly.

I'm also okay with punitively taxing those activities, we do with smoking and drinking, and I'm pretty sure this isn't consistent with modern libertarianism.

nitz wrote:I'm not even going to reply to that. You're reading a different thread. Allow it. I merely trimmed it down the terms, you have no idea how complex it is. Fact and option LOL almost fell of my chair when i read that. I have no interest in countiuieng this conv. I didn't say i was a master at the topic, i wrote i did a disso in legal justice, and thus this basic terms i wrote give or take is a reflection what legal theist.

So what was your dumb "consequence" example about and where is all this libertarianism? You said the core concept is that they want the right to live the way they want with no regulation. Key part of that, no regulation. At what point has anybody said they should have the freedom to choose whether they want to smoke/eat loads with no regulation whatsoever? Nobody has claimed they should be allowed to have the choice to smoke, to smoke in public places, at the age of 5 and/or any other ridiculous non-restriction you can think of.