It's not a secret there's a war on fat now. Politicians egged on by experts are scrambling to table all sorts of legislation to combat obesity.
Like all moral panics, it's destined to explode in their faces and fail spectacularly.
Mostly because, as is always the cases where the state is concerned, it eventually descends into a full blown attack on people and their liberties.
What starts out on a 'sugar tax' (affecting the poor of course because progressives are presumptuous paternalistic twats) ends up being this:
"Overweight people should pay higher taxes in order to cover the extra costs they create for German's healthcare system, a conservative MP has said. "
Those Germans. Either doing bad things (Hitler) or stupid things (see Merkel).
I jest of course.
Yes, that's a conservative who proposed it in there but as noted many times here political conservatives, liberals and progressives all get in on the control the masses for the own and greater good act. But of the bunch the progressives are the ones, to me and my perception anyway, who bow before state authority to govern our personal choices more than any group.
This is why I loathe 'universal' institutions. Within the system there are all sorts of multi-tiered realities that mock the idea of 'one size fits all'. Fat people today, skinny people tomorrow. What will be the 'epidemic' disease of choice tomorrow because 'overloading' the system must be prevented?
People should think this has the potential to go beyond fat people. 'Hey man, you know, being too skinny is dangerous. Let's tax people for being skinny. We'll redefine what being skinny is to include many people to save them all.'
If you can't be imaginative, just privatize already you jackasses. Capitalism, in all its adaptable and innovative glory, would not panic but look to find solutions that benefit people.
As opposed to the government side where all it seems to propose is to ban, tax, and expropriate things.
Regardless, this is what happens when you 'consent' to allow the government to step in and act as a third party in our lives. You give them an inch but they want a foot.
When will we learn that outsourcing our habits and general personal welfare to the government is not only inefficient but, I argue, immoral? Immoral to the extent we want to fine or put people in prison (see the latest example courtesy of Pamela Lampitt (D) Camden, NJ) for being human.
Like all moral panics, it's destined to explode in their faces and fail spectacularly.
Mostly because, as is always the cases where the state is concerned, it eventually descends into a full blown attack on people and their liberties.
What starts out on a 'sugar tax' (affecting the poor of course because progressives are presumptuous paternalistic twats) ends up being this:
"Overweight people should pay higher taxes in order to cover the extra costs they create for German's healthcare system, a conservative MP has said. "
Those Germans. Either doing bad things (Hitler) or stupid things (see Merkel).
I jest of course.
Yes, that's a conservative who proposed it in there but as noted many times here political conservatives, liberals and progressives all get in on the control the masses for the own and greater good act. But of the bunch the progressives are the ones, to me and my perception anyway, who bow before state authority to govern our personal choices more than any group.
This is why I loathe 'universal' institutions. Within the system there are all sorts of multi-tiered realities that mock the idea of 'one size fits all'. Fat people today, skinny people tomorrow. What will be the 'epidemic' disease of choice tomorrow because 'overloading' the system must be prevented?
People should think this has the potential to go beyond fat people. 'Hey man, you know, being too skinny is dangerous. Let's tax people for being skinny. We'll redefine what being skinny is to include many people to save them all.'
If you can't be imaginative, just privatize already you jackasses. Capitalism, in all its adaptable and innovative glory, would not panic but look to find solutions that benefit people.
As opposed to the government side where all it seems to propose is to ban, tax, and expropriate things.
Regardless, this is what happens when you 'consent' to allow the government to step in and act as a third party in our lives. You give them an inch but they want a foot.
When will we learn that outsourcing our habits and general personal welfare to the government is not only inefficient but, I argue, immoral? Immoral to the extent we want to fine or put people in prison (see the latest example courtesy of Pamela Lampitt (D) Camden, NJ) for being human.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.