posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:40 AM
Why are we even discussing the potential health benefits of soda? That in itself is an indication that government is indeed in full Totalitarianism
mode and has the right to decide for each individual what they will and will not consume.
I remember one week back years ago... at the beginning of the week, whole milk was considered a 'healthy' thing... then there was a news story
stating it could be a carcinogen... then there was another report stating that whole milk had health benefits. Can anyone imagine the speed with which
laws would need to be passed to keep up with reports like that?
But I digress...
The underlying issue seems to be this socialistic belief that an action by one person has a direct impact on other people. Unfortunately it does, but
only because of laws. Insurance, which spreads risk out among a group of people to reduce individual cost, works by analyzing that risk based on the
relevant factors involved and assigning a price that allows the insurer to pay out claims and still make a profit. When laws get passed that prohibit
utilization of these relevant factors in the name of 'fairness', this throws the entire economic equation out of balance and forces those who do not
have the relevant factors to pay for those who do.
In other words, if one wishes to have ObamaCare (or any nationalized health care system), one is also accepting a decree to pay for the actions of
others. If one wishes to have ObamaCare and not be required to pay for the actions of others, one agrees that the government has the right and ability
to control the actions of all. Notice I said "of all", not "of others". Simple logic decrees that unless a caste society is imposed, no one is
immune from such governmental influence. If the present discussion does not apply to you now, it is likely a future discussion will.
The legal term that troubles me whenever I hear these discussions is "precedent". If a particular thought process is used for one decision, then it
becomes acceptable to use that same thought process for other future decisions. In simpler terms, if it is OK to outlaw cigarettes because they are
detrimental to health according to present understanding, it is OK to outlaw trans-fats because they are detrimental to health based on present
understanding. It is then OK to outlaw soda because it is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then OK to outlaw coffee because
it is detrimental to health based on present understanding. It is then OK to outlaw red meat because it is detrimental to health based on current
understanding. It is then OK to outlaw asparagus if it is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then OK to outlaw bologna if it
is detrimental to health based on current understanding. It is then...
I could go on and on.
If a caste society is established, it is rare when those who support it become members of the ruling caste. Thus, a desire for such a system more
often than not is in actuality a desire for a lack of freedom.
The real argument is between those who value freedom and those who do not. I personally value freedom, to the point that I find it difficult to
comprehend that those who do not even exist. Yet, I see they do... otherwise this argument would not be ongoing.
As someone who has managed to not wake up dead for a goodly number of years, I have seen first-hand the vagrancies that accompany scientific research.
I alluded to this earlier, speaking of the week of revolving whole milk. Science has the ability to make bad experiments and present faulty
information. This is theoretically countered by the peer-review system, in which results must be reviewed, repeated, and reconsidered by others before
a consensus is reached as to what the truth of the matter truly is. Unfortunately, peer review is rarely exercised fully today; more commonly, one
experiment that happens to agree with the uninformed views of a portion of the public is accepted as fact until such time as multiple peer reviews and
differing scientific opinions are forced into view. The Main Stream Media, the primary source of information for most and which often touts
'official' government positions, tends to make unpopular scientific results either unavailable to the public or denigrates those with dissenting
information to the point they either drop the subject or are met with lack of funding. Thus, my continued insistence of the term "based on current
understanding" rather than "based in scientific fact".
There is not much left to add. My position is clearly stated above.