LogFAQs > #903774869

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Thats what Im saying is the implication of your position in regards to government regulating our eating habits. Its obviously a ridiculous suggestion to strip people of voting rights because the majority may not be reasonably informed enough to vote. Government is there to aid its people in extentunating circumstances, not to make better life choices for them, even if a lot of people arent capable of making good choices consistently, we just have to live with that as part of being human.

Then we do what we can, like how the government tries to increase Fuel Efficiency Ratings of most Automobiles every so often to have a lesser impact on the environment.

We can replace parts of food to have a "Healthier" substitute to help with the Physical Health of the nation.

That's what I'm trying to do.

To be fair, a person who is irresponsible in being environmentally friendly affects other people because we all live in the same environment. A persons individual dietary habits, however, generally do not affect others as significantly and therefore has less of a reason to be within the governments jurisdiction to regulate. The idea that the government is supposed to act like some nanny and protect us from making bad choices is ludicrous to me, thats just not what the government is there for (unless you believe in an authoritative government), if anything its there for us to have the right to make the bad choices we do make.
---

I don't know my gimmick
"Does that sound reasonable to you?"