NationStates Jolt Archive

I move for rationing be compulsory either for all foodstuffs or just certain ones which aren't that good for you like alcohol, chocolate, coke etc.

Pro's: no obese people, no drunks, less money wasted by the NHS, cheaper food since people won't massively overeat certain foods, no underage drinkers etc. etc.

Cons's: We all (I suspect) live in consumerist states to a greater or lesser degree so the economy will take a hit.... and the corporations will go ballistic, thriving black market in foodstuffs unless its stamped out, less freedom of choice + parties are gonna be a bitch to manage unless everyone brings their own food/drink

Would people be willing to accept this though I wonder?

I move for rationing be compulsory either for all foodstuffs or just certain ones which aren't that good for you like alcohol, chocolate, coke etc.
Why do you advocate slavery and murder of the human spirit?

no obese people,
Why is that any of the government's business?

no drunks,
Why is that any of the government's business?

less money wasted by the NHS,
Which shouldn't exist in the first place.

cheaper food since people won't massively overeat certain foods,
Why is that any of the government's business?

no underage drinkers etc. etc.
Why is that any of the government's business?

Would people be willing to accept this though I wonder?

The fact is, regardless of the practical benefits, the fact is that what you are advocating is fundamentally immoral. It is a violation of sacred individual rights, which inherently trump all other concerns.

Good riddance, tyrant.

Why do you advocate slavery and murder of the human spirit?Because it's fun for the whole family.

Why is that any of the government's business?Because drunk drivers kill people. And they cause problems in other ways (like drunken hooligans tearing a shops and busses and trains apart)

Which shouldn't exist in the first place.Of course it should; it was voted for in a representative democracy; are you a dictator or something? Why do you love slavery and repression of the majority?

Why is that any of the government's business?Because people make it the government's business.

The fact is, regardless of the practical benefits, the fact is that what you are advocating is fundamentally immoral. It is a violation of sacred individual rights, which inherently trump all other concerns.The governments task is to do the will of the people; if the people will this, who are you to say it is trampling on their constituents rights?

Good riddance, tyrant.The one thing worse than a tyrant is a tyrant that claims to be protecting people's rights.

If its reasonable then im all for rationing, it means you can easily control the economy.

I say ignore blurth, he thinks that the NHS shouldn't exist, come on what if you can't afford medicine?

II say ignore blurth, he thinks that the NHS shouldn't exist, come on what if you can't afford medicine?
Get someone else to pay for it. It's not NHS or nothing you know. There are other ways to deal with the problem.

As for the OP. No, just no. The government is too stupid to tell me what I can eat.

Because drunk drivers kill people. And they cause problems in other ways (like drunken hooligans tearing a shops and busses and trains apart)
Then punish those people. Don't restrict the activities of those who can get drunk without violating the rights of others.

Of course it should; it was voted for in a representative democracy; are you a dictator or something? Why do you love slavery and repression of the majority?
Majority rule is not a legitimate form of government. The rights of the individual to his own property are not subordinate to the will of the collective. It is you who is advocating slavery.

Because people make it the government's business.
That doesn't actually make it legitimately so.

The proper role of government is a matter of objective moral principle, independent of popular will.

The governments task is to do the will of the people; if the people will this, who are you to say it is trampling on their constituents rights?
No, the government's task is to protect the rights of all people--even if the "will of the people" is to violate the rights of some minority. Unless "the people" = "unanimous vote", it most certainly is. If even a single person objects, then it is illegitimate.

The one thing worse than a tyrant is a tyrant that claims to be protecting people's rights.
And how am I advocating violating them? You're the one claiming that the collective has a right to enslave the individual.

Why do you advocate slavery and murder of the human spirit?

I don't know -- for the same reason you distort and misrepresent others' words?

Which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Says someone living in the US where it doesn't even remotely exist. You should probably stick to things you know something about, no matter how much that limits your ability to post.

Why is that any of the government's business?

When the constituencies of enough representatives hear the idea, guess what? That MAKES it government's business. That said, you do have a point if MPs are just pulling these ideas out of their asses.

The fact is, regardless of the practical benefits, the fact is that what you are advocating is fundamentally immoral. It is a violation of sacred individual rights, which inherently trump all other concerns.

"Fundamentally immoral"? On what grounds? "Sacred" individual rights? What the planet of Hell are you talking about? You do realize that the UK and the US are different places, right? Either that, or you have a fervent masturbatory fantasy about the rest of the world and how it MUST be like the US.

Good riddance, tyrant.

Pot? Meet kettle. Hey, you're both black!

One of the health insurance companies here, if I recall correctly, has started subsidizing certain healthy food-items for the people it insures (I think it was cholesterol-lowering butter). I suppose if they really wanted they could take this approach much broader to include larger parts of people's diet, and reward them for eating better.
It has the advantage over government controlled diets in that you can choose what insurance company you go to more easily than what government you fall under.

One of the health insurance companies here, if I recall correctly, has started subsidizing certain healthy food-items for the people it insures (I think it was cholesterol-lowering butter). I suppose if they really wanted they could take this approach much broader to include larger parts of people's diet, and reward them for eating better.
It has the advantage over government controlled diets in that you can choose what insurance company you go to more easily than what government you fall under.

Threadwinner!

Says someone living in the US where it doesn't even remotely exist. You should probably stick to things you know something about, no matter how much that limits your ability to post.
I'm quite familiar with British politics.

When the constituencies of enough representatives hear the idea, guess what? That MAKES it government's business.
No, it doesn't. The proper role of government is objective and absolute; popular will cannot change it.

"Fundamentally immoral"? On what grounds? "Sacred" individual rights? What the planet of Hell are you talking about? You do realize that the UK and the US are different places, right? Either that, or you have a fervent masturbatory fantasy about the rest of the world and how it MUST be like the US.

Not precisely, no. There is an objectively proper role of government, provable from the first principles of the Universe, that ANY government, regardless of location, must abide by to be legitimate. Whether the US is or is not in accord with that is irrelevant--it's still objectively proper.

Pot? Meet kettle. Hey, you're both black!

You call me a tyrant because I seek to protect the rights of the individual against ALL threats, including your oh-so-sacred "collective will"?

One of the health insurance companies here, if I recall correctly, has started subsidizing certain healthy food-items for the people it insures (I think it was cholesterol-lowering butter). I suppose if they really wanted they could take this approach much broader to include larger parts of people's diet, and reward them for eating better.
It has the advantage over government controlled diets in that you can choose what insurance company you go to more easily than what government you fall under.

I have no problem with this.

Well rationing will have to come into affect soon. With the government support the retarded idea of biofuel (which is pretty much just something to keep us quiet) and the fact we can barely feed ourselves as it is.

Why is [underage drinking] any of the government's business?

So all children should be able to work instead of going to school, right?

The fact is, regardless of the practical benefits, the fact is that what you are advocating is fundamentally immoral. It is a violation of sacred individual rights, which inherently trump all other concerns.

Point to these sacred individual rights. Where have they been written down? Are they in the bible?

Then punish those people.That will bring back the people the kill will it? They shouldn't get in the car drunk in the first place.

Majority rule is not a legitimate form of government. The rights of the individual to his own property are not subordinate to the will of the collective.It is if they made it so. The problem is of course the minority that doesn't want to life by majority rule (actually, most democracies are not strictly majority rule, minorities are almost always taken into account and given rights). I doubt many people would choose to defect from society, given the choice; but a few do, admittedly.
I very much doubt a law such as this would get through parliament, even if the majority of people were for it, they would take into consideration the majority that doesn't want it.

It is you who is advocating slavery.Nah, I'm advocating pluralist liberal democracy. Slaves don't get to vote or form associations of their own free will.

That doesn't actually make it legitimately so.Sure it does. By the people, for the people. They give the government the right to govern them. As said before, the only problem is between the government and those that deny the government the right to govern them.

The proper role of government is a matter of objective moral principle, independent of popular will.That's ridiculous; people make up the government. A country is just an association of people, it should do what the people want it to. Otherwise you deny them the right to do with their property what they want.

No, the government's task is to protect the rights of all peopleAnd what right might those be, if not the right the people have decided on themselves?
Nature has no such entity as 'rights'.

even if the "will of the people" is to violate the rights of some minority. Unless "the people" = "unanimous vote", it most certainly is. If even a single person objects, then it is illegitimate.Only if the objection is legitimate. I imagine many criminals would object to laws if that would get them out of jail.

And how am I advocating violating them? You're denying people the right to govern themselves as they see fit. You're shackling them to some higher idea of morality you got from god knows where, trying to force it on a populace that doesn't want it.
Taken your moral high horse and ride in down a cliff, please.

You're the one claiming that the collective has a right to enslave the individual.Well, it's preferable to an individual enslaving the collective. But no, I'm not in fact advocating any such thing. Not for any sensible definition of slavery.
That a majority may make claims on individuals and minorities does not mean the latter have no rights and can't make claims on the majority (or each other). Society entails living together, which entails compromise. Ignoring what anyone wants, however, is simply defecting from society. And since rights are merely a societal construct, you lose your rights in doing so; except by the grace of human kindness if society has any.

Point to these sacred individual rights. Where have they been written down? Are they in the bible?

No; the Judeo-Christian Bible is a book of lies.

They follow logically from the first principles of the Universe.

There is an objectively proper role of government, provable from the first principles of the UniverseLet's see this supposed proof, then. Not that I have much hope it actually has any meaning; because proofs from 'first principles of the universe' rarely have.
The first principle of the universe is that it doesn't care.

It is if they made it so. The problem is of course the minority that doesn't want to life by majority rule (actually, most democracies are not strictly majority rule, minorities are almost always taken into account and given rights). I doubt many people would choose to defect from society, given the choice; but a few do, admittedly.
I very much doubt a law such as this would get through parliament, even if the majority of people were for it, they would take into consideration the majority that doesn't want it.
But it's still possible. That's the important bit.

Nah, I'm advocating pluralist liberal democracy. Slaves don't get to vote or form associations of their own free will.
A slave is one whose actions are under the control of another through no wrongdoing of his own.

Nature has no such entity as 'rights'.
Sure it does. A is A.

You're denying people the right to govern themselves as they see fit.
I'm denying people the right to govern other people. Each individual should govern himself, period, full stop.

And since rights are merely a societal construct,
No, they're not. They're an inherent part of one's existence as a human being.

Pro's:no drunks

I'd kill myself in a week

Would people be willing to accept this though I wonder?

I suppose they would however its always been much easier to just have the public understand why and let social stigma take over (ignorant sheep as we are)

Majority rule is not a legitimate form of government. The rights of the individual to his own property are not subordinate to the will of the collective. It is you who is advocating slavery.

yes they are because we don't live in an aristocratic hell hole

people > property

Sure it does. A is A.
Not that I'm too familiar with Ann Rand's ramblings, but how in any way does this show the physical presence of rights?

A slave is one whose actions are under the control of another through no wrongdoing of his own.

So a child is a slave. A poor person is a slave. The word is starting to lose its meaning a little now.

Sure it does. A is A.

Ah, there used to be a guy on here who thought that A is A was some kind of explanation. Are you the same guy?

I am the lord of all the frogs. A is A!!

yes they are because we don't live in an aristocratic hell hole

people > property

Actually, my property is just as sacred as my life because my property is literally equivalent to my life.

So a child is a slave. A poor person is a slave.

Wrong. No one is threatening to kill or harm either; therefore, they are under no one's control.

Actually, my property is just as sacred as my life because my property is literally equivalent to my life.

Look, that's only true if you've got a terrible life.

Wrong. No one is threatening to kill or harm either; therefore, they are under no one's control.

Interesting definition of control.

But not a correct one.

I am the lord of all the frogs. A is A!!
There is black, there is white; there is wrong, there is right; and there is nothing in-between (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7EKZ32ODQ).

I'm quite familiar with British politics.

Obviously not. The NHS is a success, regardless of your faux Objectivism.

No, it doesn't. The proper role of government is objective and absolute; popular will cannot change it.

Uh...popular will is the only thing that DOES change it -- what else is a revolution? What are you smoking?

Not precisely, no. There is an objectively proper role of government, provable from the first principles of the Universe, that ANY government, regardless of location, must abide by to be legitimate. Whether the US is or is not in accord with that is irrelevant--it's still objectively proper.

Masturbating to Ayn Rand doesn't make her principles universal. You forget that any so-called "first principles" of the Universe are created by those who fit neatly into those principles by circumstance as much as effort. It's very convenient to trumpet individuality when one is born into the ability to assert it.

You call me a tyrant because I seek to protect the rights of the individual against ALL threats, including your oh-so-sacred "collective will"?

First of all, I never claimed that "collective will" is sacred. YOU keep using that word -- and in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don'a think it means what you think it means". So long as we're going to borrow from irrelevant sources like The Fountainhead, I'll quote from The Princess Bride, an altogether more interesting book about human nature.

No; the Judeo-Christian Bible is a book of lies.

Not quite. It's a book of manipulation and a prisoner of the times in which it was written. Literalism with regard to the Bible in the 20th century and beyond is the great lie.

They follow logically from the first principles of the Universe.

Which you keep saying (see the Inigo quote, earlier), but never actually spelling out. You gonna make us guess, or are you just afraid to type these princilpes out for fear of refutation?

Actually, my property is just as sacred as my life because my property is literally equivalent to my life.

Really? Literally?!? So if I shatter one of your garden gnomes, YOU fall to pieces, too? Neat. :rolleyes:

You, sir, have got serious personal growth to attend to, and I suggest it start with reading something other than Objectivist tomes. Try some Tom Robbins -- there's an individualist who understands reality.

And people like me will proceed to create such a colossal black market for those goods and services that your rationing scheme will be utterly impossible. Of course, with all the money we make, you might be able to pick up some nice bribes, but otherwise it's just going to go in to our pockets completely outside of government supervision. Remember, if it's all cash-based there's no way to prove it happened...and if anybody can launder money properly, an accountant can launder money properly.

Perhaps I'll even take a page from the drug markets and start developing more potent foods to maximize profits. Something like a 5,000 calorie desert the size of a Twinkie...

I'm quite familiar with British politics.


You know what the news tells you, but i think the NHS isnt as bad as everyone says, if i need treatment i just go and get it, i may have to wait a week if its not important, but if its just a checkup theres never usually a wait, and the service is good too.

And people like me will proceed to create such a colossal black market for those goods and services that your rationing scheme will be utterly impossible. Of course, with all the money we make, you might be able to pick up some nice bribes, but otherwise it's just going to go in to our pockets completely outside of government supervision. Remember, if it's all cash-based there's no way to prove it happened...and if anybody can launder money properly, an accountant can launder money properly.

Perhaps I'll even take a page from the drug markets and start developing more potent foods to maximize profits. Something like a 5,000 calorie desert the size of a Twinkie...

You mean like a confectioner's truffle? Gram for gram, those suckers are calorically intense.

I move for rationing be compulsory either for all foodstuffs or just certain ones which aren't that good for you like alcohol, chocolate, coke etc.
I don't. I love the tax revenues, and I also love going for a drink with friends. Often. See also smoking.
Pro's: no obese people
Uhu... you really think so?
no drunks
Hurrah for the black market.
less money wasted by the NHS
Probably more prozac on show, mind.
cheaper food since people won't massively overeat certain foods
Also really fucked off farmers.
no underage drinkers etc. etc.
... why would this stop underage drinking? They already supposedly can't get hold of alcohol...
Cons's: We all (I suspect) live in consumerist states to a greater or lesser degree so the economy will take a hit.... and the corporations will go ballistic, thriving black market in foodstuffs unless its stamped out, less freedom of choice + parties are gonna be a bitch to manage unless everyone brings their own food/drink
Aye, the increased crime rites, black market, destruction of the economy, backlash from the farmers, a lack of consumer freedom and a massive drop in morale are kinda sad.
Would people be willing to accept this though I wonder?
Aye, because we've had 50 years of economic progress to throw it all away and go back to living like plebs again, aye?

Why do you advocate slavery and murder of the human spirit?


Why is that any of the government's business?


Why is that any of the government's business?


Which shouldn't exist in the first place.


Why is that any of the government's business?


Why is that any of the government's business?



The fact is, regardless of the practical benefits, the fact is that what you are advocating is fundamentally immoral. It is a violation of sacred individual rights, which inherently trump all other concerns.

Good riddance, tyrant.

I agree

EXCEPT

The NHS is actually a good thing.

wow like.... 3 pages and about 5 constructive replies rather than people ranting on about how governments should act....

The point is I was wondering how you people would take it if your government started started forcing things on you to make things better for yourself......

And for those against this concept (not a suggestion btw a *concept*) bear in mind that the governments in most places has already acted in this kinda of manner: suicide and assisting suicide is illegal in many countries....

If thats not the government forcing people (or at least trying to) make people not damage themselves then I don't know what is.....

And people like me will proceed to create such a colossal black market for those goods and services that your rationing scheme will be utterly impossible.

Read my first statement - The thing is if this black market is too widespread then a few informers or even just a few pro-government action people could just shut it down - making it atomized down to either individual people or small groups, non of which pose huge issues since if they get large then they can again be stamped out (offenders jailed - deported, fined, whatever)

why would this stop underage drinking? They already supposedly can't get hold of alcohol...

Point being this makes it impossible or if not that then much harder - this would force people who order food and drink online to present their tokens or whatever when its delivered - and if the parents don't support their kids drinking then they wont fork over their alcohol tokens, and if the kid's themselves try and display the tokens then you just say you need a passport to accept those tokens from someone.

The fact is, regardless of the practical benefits, the fact is that what you are advocating is fundamentally immoral. It is a violation of sacred individual rights, which inherently trump all other concerns.

You don't even have the right to kill yourself.... how do you call yourself "free"?

Read my first statement - The thing is if this black market is too widespread then a few informers or even just a few pro-government action people could just shut it down - making it atomized down to either individual people or small groups, non of which pose huge issues since if they get large then they can again be stamped out (offenders jailed - deported, fined, whatever)
So what, exactly, do you think the situation is with the black market in recreational drugs? It is extremely pervasive - someone can get just about anything with little effort. It is extremely widespread as there are more open air drug markets than pharmacies it the District of Columbia; if the US cannot get that under control in its capitol, despite having spent 2 trillion dollars in the 'war on drugs', just how exactly do you think forcing other items into the same black market will change the situation?

Point being this makes it impossible or if not that then much harder - this would force people who order food and drink online to present their tokens or whatever when its delivered - and if the parents don't support their kids drinking then they wont fork over their alcohol tokens, and if the kid's themselves try and display the tokens then you just say you need a passport to accept those tokens from someone.
You want to take ubiquitous products that moves around everywhere in bulk on a daily basis and think you could strictly control every bit of it? You grossly underestimate people, or grossly overestimate the ability of government.

You don't even have the right to kill yourself.... how do you call yourself "free"?Suicide is illegal because that gives the state the ability to intervene in cases of mental illness without the consent of the disturbed patient. If you are sane and want to commit suicide, it is not exactly hard.

Rationing food!!?!?!?!?! :eek:


OVER MY DEATH BODY!

Thats the kind of stuff that can make even someone as apatic as me to found his own guerrilla.... :mp5:

Rationing food? Bah. None of the government's buisness. Do you really want to start a black market and continue government control of the private sector?

Dragging this back on topic, I support rationing for certain things when it is in the national interest, i.e. in cases of shortage or when there are serious national consequences resulting from excessive consumption of certain things. I don't however consider foodstuffs to be at that point at the moment, but should our national food situation begin to show signs of stress then I would support it.

I do think we should restrict the use of fuel, seeing as our own oil reserves are now inadequate to ensure self sufficiency. This could be done either through literal rationing or through taxes on fuel for personal use. I prefer the latter as it kills two birds with one stone by raising revenue to pay for other projects, as well as discouraging personal waste, whilst also not directly interfering in personal decisions to excess. Should these measures not be effective then "literal" rationing could be introduced at a later date.

I also think we should take serious measures to discourage consumption of alcohol through very heavy taxation and legally restricting points of sale and consumption, "soft rationing". London is introducing a ban open bottles/cans of alcoholic drinks on public transport on June 1st. Should be interesting... I support it. This substance causes serious problems, far worse than tobacco as it causes crime and social issues as well as public health problems. Since binge drinking not entirely, but mostly, is a preserve of the poor, taxation should be an effective method of "soft rationing".