tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7731164439942329313..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Who’s responsible for the obesity epidemic?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53054651166480007012013-03-22T03:31:23.729-04:002013-03-22T03:31:23.729-04:00People are getting fat not just because of that su...People are getting fat not just because of that sugary drink. But also from lack of physical work. All the time they eat, drink and play video games on their computers. This is a very bad habit. It doesn't mean government should ban soft drinks consumption. Law should be made that everyone should go for a morning walk instead.<br /><br />Thanks for the article!<br />Finn Felton<br /><a href="http://cluwak.com/" rel="nofollow">Kopi Luwak</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453530325514643560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24261171790117575202013-03-11T19:18:02.378-04:002013-03-11T19:18:02.378-04:00It's the wrong law indeed. http://socraticgadf...It's the wrong law indeed. http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/03/bloomberg-anti-sugar-idiot.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36838668454154959802013-03-10T19:02:00.491-04:002013-03-10T19:02:00.491-04:00C. Van -
>Government efforts to get Americans ...C. Van -<br /><br />>Government efforts to get Americans to eat less fat and more carbohydrates succeeded<br /><br />I think that's over simplified. Amoung other things, the <a href="http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/E-Appendix-E-4-History.pdf" rel="nofollow">USDA recommendations</a> in 1977 sugest :<br /><br /><i>"Increase consumption of complex carbohydrates [e.g. whole grains and vegetables] and 'naturally occurring sugar' [e.g. fruit] and reduce consumption of refined and processed sugars"</i><br /><br />And the <a href="http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/6/2540.full" rel="nofollow">paper you link to</a>, like the USDA recomendations, sugests that to avoid obesity in children we should reduce over refined and processed sugars, and include 'ample' complex carbohydrates in their diets :<br /><br /><i>"It is proposed that high-glycemic-index diets lead to excessive weight gain as a consequence of postprandial hyperinsulinemia. Low glycemic-index diets lower postprandial insulin levels and insulin resistance. It seems likely that diets restricted in sweetened sodas and noncitrus juices and containing ample whole grains, vegetables, and fruit could have a major impact on the prevalence of pediatric obesity."</i>marc Levesquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06779771196251323474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81296956880216130612013-03-10T11:25:15.838-04:002013-03-10T11:25:15.838-04:00After reading Michael Moss’s article, my first rea...After reading Michael Moss’s article, my first reaction is to point out that it’s narratives like that why the general public dislikes scientists and science. Scientists come across as amoral manipulators for hire. Bare this in mind when speculating against the seemingly irrational backlash against the blend of science and cooperate power associated with agribusiness and GMO biotech.<br /><br />On topic. We don’t need to get too concerned whether the government is being paternalistic through regulation. The government is already involved.<br /><br />Part of why US food availability is the way it is, is due partly due to government sponsorship of crop subsidies and alliances with certain food industries. These programs and relationships are so entrenched, with very little political will to reverse such inertia, that you end up with local governments like New York City doing what can be done. You get Bloomberg’s beverage size limit, and even then food lobbyists and the general public cry foul when it’s really not a big deal at all.<br /><br />I dislike the term soda “ban,” because anyone can sell or buy all the soda they want to, there’s just a regulation on size per container in certain establishments, it’s a “large container ban” if anything. The measure addresses a specific behavioral issue without infringing all that much on anyone’s God given rights to drink soda or risk some of the drawbacks of a sin tax.<br /><br />To refer to the cigarette analogy, it is unlawful to sell cigarettes individually. They must be sold in a minimum pack of twenty in New York State. Also, there are limits on how much cold medicine can be sold to a customer at one time. That may be a better example, because the purchase limit deters a certain activity (making meth) without jacking up the price of cold medicine for everyone.<br /><br />There’s good, positive science to support limiting beverage sizes to help check a social behavioral issue, yet so many people are against it on some hallow principal of “freedom.”<br /><br />Michael Moss described how some foods illicit a response to the brain of not having been consumed, and liquid calories in soda fit this model. A reasonable way to cut off the mindless consumption is just to limit the container size. Psychologically, most people aren’t going to go bother with buying two sodas up front or getting another after they finished the first.<br /><br />No, the soda limit won’t solve obesity, but it’s these sorts of “invisible” nips and tucks that will be needed to actually reverse the obesity trend since it’s a social problem. Baby steps like beverage size limits makes sense, it’s not going happen all at once with the grand waving of a magic wand.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5875537345927116852013-03-10T11:15:08.744-04:002013-03-10T11:15:08.744-04:00Van Carter said,
> The government promoted unhe...Van Carter said,<br />> The government promoted unhealthy dietary changes based on no real scientific evidence, something to keep in mind while urging more government interventions. <<br /><br />Massimo replied,<br />> One more time: science is fallible and its conclusions always tentative. Got a better method? <<br /><br />I wouldn’t cede so easily to this notion that nutritional science got it all wrong. This meme, that there is “no real scientific evidence” for nutritional recommendations is on par with the same accusations leveled at climate science. They are both complex sciences that garner controversy over specifics in public policy. There’s plenty of gaps in knowledge and questions concerning action, but yes, actual science with reasonable judgments have been undertaken to reach the mostly correct conclusions.<br /><br />It’s nutritional science that makes it measurably clear as to why Lunchables aren’t healthy. Government nutritional experts don’t endorse these sorts of foods (unless they are coerced or partnered with industry, which does happen.) It could be argued that government policy, what food is subsidized, doesn’t match nutritional policy, but that’s less of a fault with the sciences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79023119033190462862013-03-10T10:58:48.535-04:002013-03-10T10:58:48.535-04:00Filippo Neri said,
> Coca Cola in Italy uses be...Filippo Neri said,<br />> Coca Cola in Italy uses beet sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup: much better tasting and healthier too. Mexican Coca Cola that uses cane sugar is even better. <<br /><br />Massimo replied,<br />> Precisely. <<br /><br />Except that as far as Coca-Cola goes, that’s not accurate.<br /><br />UK = 139 cal per 355mL (0.39 cal per mL)<br />US = 140 cal per 355mL (0.39 cal per mL)<br />Mexico = 149 cal per 355mL (0.41 cal per mL)<br />Italy = 105 cal per 250mL* (0.42 calories per mL)<br /><br />*I couldn’t find stats for Italian Coke by can on Coca-Cola’s website, only by bottle, that’s the reason for the calorie per milliliter breakdown.<br /><br />There may be something to the idea that HFCS behaves differently in the body compared to other sugars (there’s some suggestive data), but most mainstream nutritionists contend that even if there is some metabolic difference it’s not significant enough to matter much. For the most part, sugar is sugar, and Coke is Coke and it’s inconsequential which regions Coke is “healthier.” If we’re really comparing which Coke is healthier, the conversation on obesity has already taken a bad turn.<br /><br />Here’s a fun taste test between US and Mexican Coke. <br />http://goo.gl/fRLqB<br /><br />> Half of the tasters seemed to have no real preference between American and Mexican Coke, while the other half of the tasters unanimously chose American Coke as their favorite for nearly every test, regardless of the vessel it was served in. <<br /><br />So, tastes “better” is subjective and irrelevant. <br /><br />Filippo Neri said,<br />> Americans get the junkiest of the junk food. <<br /><br />It’s probably less of a case of having the junkiest, but just variety and plentitude. The United States originated much of food processing and food marketing and other technologies and institutions; disassembly and assembly-line (food) production, television, TV dinners, microwaves, cars and fast-food (they go together), supermarkets, Twinkies, Tang, Coke, Pepsi, Kellogg’s, Kraft, Betty Crocker, General Mills, Campbell’s etc. Made in the USA. Europe came to the party later and all they gave us was Marmite and Nutella. Okay, Nestlé is a fairly big processed food player.<br /><br />Americans have had an abundance of processed food choices that we’ve long embraced and have been consuming for a while now. Europe’s culinary traditions are more ingrained.<br /><br />There are other social factors like the changing role of women that happened rapidly in the United States, a good thing, but not without some trade-offs society is still trying to figure out.<br /><br />Filippo Neri said,<br />> This is, in part, due to government regulations. The very unhealthy HFCS is a byproduct of gasohol production. The regulations imposing 10% alcohol in gasoline clog the injectors of my M3 and my arteries at the same time. <<br /><br />Saying that HFCS is a byproduct of gasohol makes it sound like they are scooping it as leftovers from the refinery. Really, a byproduct of ethanol goes back to feeding livestock.<br /><br />Production of HFCS predates the bulk of the United States’ ethanol production. America grew corn to fatten livestock since before there was a United States. May as well make sweetener out of it too instead of growing sugar beets that serve one purpose or being beholden to importing cane sugar. Corn grows well in the US, it’s native to the continent and has diversity of uses.<br /><br />I’m for eliminating farm subsidies (well, gradual reduction), their purpose is to prop up animal agriculture more than anything. When grain prices go up, as they did recently with the droughts, it’s meat, milk, and egg prices that go up, and the general public complains vocally about it like gas prices. So that’s our elected government official’s incentive to keep those prices stable through continued subsidies.<br /><br />With HFCS, it’s not so clear cut that it’s altogether dependent on subsidies or that removing them would necessarily make cane or beet sugar a cheaper alternative. It probably wouldn’t make much difference swapping out HFCS with cane sugar without addressing overall sweetener consumption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41733262991999515472013-03-08T18:58:26.039-05:002013-03-08T18:58:26.039-05:00How about we just stop allowing food companies to ...How about we just stop allowing food companies to advertise their processed crap?michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29132313978148453042013-03-08T08:20:51.201-05:002013-03-08T08:20:51.201-05:00brainoil,
> If something is wrong for an indiv...brainoil,<br /><br />> If something is wrong for an individual to do, what makes you think that it is okay for the government to do it? <<br /><br />That sounds libertarian to me, not Machiavellian. At any rate, none of this is new at all. John Stuart Mill (one of the founders of utilitarianism!) was the first articulate libertarian (indeed, the term "libertarian" is related to Mill's famous "On Liberty"), though it put it much more coherently than most modern libertarians.<br /><br />There is a huge literature on this topic, and of course as a separate discussion it is well beyond the scope of this post. I have written before on RS on libertarianism, you'll find several posts if you use that keyword in the search box.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79264577849235087212013-03-08T04:55:45.860-05:002013-03-08T04:55:45.860-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22775137146804991702013-03-08T02:37:27.499-05:002013-03-08T02:37:27.499-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10277590217001857962013-03-07T10:22:20.301-05:002013-03-07T10:22:20.301-05:00Oh, I'm sorry, it's not libertarian. It...Oh, I'm sorry, it's not libertarian. It's Machiavellian. The point is still the same.<br /><br />Huemer is a careful thinker, and his book isn't a fundamentalist, and obviously flawed book like Atlas Shrugged. This isn't a book about natural rights. The question he asks is very simple. If something is wrong for an individual to do, what makes you think that it is okay for the government to do it? What makes you think the government knows what's best for you when you don't think your next door neighbour knows what's best for you? He doesn't ask this as a rhetorical question. He's not saying that it is never okay for the government to coerce people under any circumstance. He's just showing that such circumstances are very rare.<br /><br />Suppose that you're on a boat, and the only way to save the passengers is to point a gun at them and get them to bail water. Unlike some libertarians, Huemer accepts that coercion in this case is moral. Then he questions how often this is the case in real world scenarios. He writes,<br /><br /><i>"Your entitlement to coerce is highly specific and content-dependent: it depends upon your having a correct (or at least well-justified) plan for saving the boat, and you may coerce others only to induce cooperation with that plan. More precisely, you must at least be justified in believing that the expected benefits of coercively imposing your plan on the others are very large and much larger than the expected harms."</i><br /><br />When I think about this obesity problem, I cannot see the expected benefits of regulating food being large and much larger than the expected harms. You are giving the government the authority to decide what people eat. That doesn't look good to me. It's not as if governments have a good track record of knowing what's best for their people except in few rare cases like the civil rights act.<br /><br />And since we are not that good at calculating expected benefits and harms we need principles. It might seem like a good utilitarian idea to push the fat guy in front of the trolley. But no utilitarian actually does that. There are certain boundaries they don't cross precisely because they are human, not utilitarian AIs.<br /><br />Now all that is written in a much better way in that Machiavellian book I mentioned.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39995546604833458252013-03-07T07:39:57.281-05:002013-03-07T07:39:57.281-05:00You lost me at "it'a a libertarian book.&...You lost me at "it'a a libertarian book." Sorry.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13789915561723334632013-03-07T05:31:44.953-05:002013-03-07T05:31:44.953-05:00Probably the best book I've read on the role o...Probably the best book I've read on the role of government is Michael Huemer's <i>The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. </i> It's a libertarian book.<br /><br />The main point there is, okay, you think the government has a right to regulate your food. So why not your next-door neighbour (who is a Nobel Prize winning biologist who had done some pioneering work on food and nutrition)?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21567211106422214902013-03-06T22:18:52.339-05:002013-03-06T22:18:52.339-05:00 There is no valid reason for HFCS to be any diffe... There is no valid reason for HFCS to be any different than sucrose in the way that it affects your body.They are both nearly identical in their composition, containing roughly half fructose and half glucose. They are both nearly identical in the way they are metabolized by your body.Peter Kraushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15655745369397080153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38072762581406463282013-03-06T18:24:01.275-05:002013-03-06T18:24:01.275-05:00Filippo,
you are correct about the HFCS stuff, bu...Filippo,<br /><br />you are correct about the HFCS stuff, but that comment from me was in response to Van Carter, not you...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82777575668959772182013-03-06T18:04:04.768-05:002013-03-06T18:04:04.768-05:00Massimo,
> Who said anything about morality? &...Massimo,<br /><br />> Who said anything about morality? <<br /><br />You are right, you did not. I assume that people that talk about healthy food have a sanctimonious attitude. I apologize.<br /><br />> One more time: science is fallible and its conclusions always tentative. Got a better method? <<br /><br />Right again, but the example I mentioned (the indirect subsidy of HFCS by mandating alcohol in gasoline) has no scientific, economical or any other justification, except for the lobbying of agribusiness groups. HFCS should be banned. (I also hate E10 gasoline because it damages the engines of European sportscars!)<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15785543575902087262013-03-06T17:28:09.726-05:002013-03-06T17:28:09.726-05:00chbieck,
> food hasn't been abundant for w...chbieck,<br /><br />> food hasn't been abundant for wide parts of the population very long, certainly not more than 50 years, and some time lag is to be expected, so I'd say both are pretty recent. <<br /><br />I disagree, and there is the evidence from people from a different culture, not exposed to junk food, who move to the US and quickly develop weight problems. In that respect the human body is extremely plastic, it doesn’t take long at all.<br /><br />> The much stronger factor, as I mentioned above, is the attitude toward food - which, as a cultural factor, regulation will have a hard time changing. <<br /><br />I really don’t see those as mutually exclusive, just like in the case of cigarettes. But as in that case, the regulation came first, the cultural attitude change only later.<br /><br />Filippo,<br /><br />> Averaging over a lot of crap is what making rational decisions in real life is all about. <<br /><br />Maybe so, but when we are talking published scientific papers it works differently.<br /><br />> Coca Cola in Italy uses beet sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup: much better tasting and healthier too. Mexican Coca Cola that uses cane sugar is even better. Americans get the junkiest of the junk food. This is, in part, due to government regulations. <<br /><br />Precisely.<br /><br />> There is nothing “morally wrong” in using medication, instead of trying the drastic (and generally futile) diets that would be necessary to reduce your blood pressure to safe levels, if you are genetically predisposed to hypertension. <<br /><br />Who said anything about morality? And who was objecting to medications being taken by people genetically predisposed to hypertension? But normal healthy individuals can maintain good health without medications, which do often have side effects, and even when they don’t send a lot of money into the pockets of Big Pharma. Why not send it to your local grocery store instead?<br /><br />Van Carter,<br /><br />> The government promoted unhealthy dietary changes based on no real scientific evidence, something to keep in mind while urging more government interventions. <<br /><br />One more time: science is fallible and its conclusions always tentative. Got a better method?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14114777419632764272013-03-06T13:49:10.232-05:002013-03-06T13:49:10.232-05:00The government promoted unhealthy dietary changes ...The government promoted unhealthy dietary changes based on no real scientific evidence, something to keep in mind while urging more government interventions.C. Van Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09918883799053031223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26486884954676704532013-03-06T13:20:00.456-05:002013-03-06T13:20:00.456-05:00Massimo,
> and remember that meta-analyses are...Massimo,<br /><br />> and remember that meta-analyses are likely to underestimate them, since they average over a lot of crap <<br /><br />Averaging over a lot of crap is what making rational decisions in real life is all about.<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78385329707119408122013-03-06T13:00:08.311-05:002013-03-06T13:00:08.311-05:00Generally, packaged food is healthier in Europe th...Generally, packaged food is healthier in Europe that it is in America. Here packaged food has a much higher content of both sugar and salt. Even junk food is healthier in Europe. For instance, Coca Cola in Italy uses beet sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS): much better tasting and healthier too (HFCS has more calories for the same added sweetness.) Mexican Coca Cola that uses cane sugar is even better. Americans get the junkiest of the junk food.<br /><br />This is, in part, due to government regulations. The very unhealthy HFCS is a byproduct of gasohol production. The regulations imposing 10% alcohol in gasoline clog the injectors of my M3 and my arteries at the same time.<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51413310273450684042013-03-06T11:59:54.869-05:002013-03-06T11:59:54.869-05:00Massimo,
> As for medications, why would you w...Massimo,<br /><br />> As for medications, why would you want to control a problem via medications (they are expensive, and typically have side effects), rather than through healthier eating? <<br /><br />You have to consider medications in any plan to live the longest possible good life. It is not “natural” to live well when you are over 60 (depending on your genetics.) One of the reasons why life expectancy is increasing in advanced countries is the availability of effective medication for hypertension. The new kind have no serious side effects. There is nothing “morally wrong” in using medication, instead of trying the drastic (and generally futile) diets that would be necessary to reduce your blood pressure to safe levels, if you are genetically predisposed to hypertension.<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78928587351146370122013-03-06T10:20:31.076-05:002013-03-06T10:20:31.076-05:00Massimo,
> The obesity problem in most Western ...Massimo,<br />> The obesity problem in most Western societies is far from the level of the US. And moreover, all of this is pretty recent — even in the US — certainly post-dating the availability of abundant food. <br /><br />food hasn't been abundant for wide parts of the population very long, certainly not more than 50 years, and some time lag is to be expected, so I'd say both are pretty recent.<br /><br />> On the other hand, both in the US and in other countries, obesity levels track very nicely the availability of cheap processed food. Still seems to me to be the biggest (no pun intended) culprit.<br /><br />Would be interesting to see some statistics that back that up. My (purely subjective) experience, going through American (44.2% male obesity), German (22.9%) and French (9.0%) supermarkets is that the absolute volume of highly processed food is very much the same in all three, with the main difference between US and Germany being that the US has sodas, Germany beers, and the French hypermarche is bigger overall so that processed foods are a smaller percentage of overall shelf space.<br /><br />The much stronger factor, as I mentioned above, is the attitude toward food - which, as a cultural factor, regulation will have a hard time changing.chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52107121569363962842013-03-06T08:16:07.122-05:002013-03-06T08:16:07.122-05:00Van Carter,
> It's unfortunate because eat...Van Carter,<br /><br />> It's unfortunate because eating less fat and more carbohydrates led to greater obesity. The government promoted the wrong diet. <<br /><br />Ah yes, as opposed to the infallible markets, right? The government will promote the best diet compatible with the available evidence. Since scientific conclusions will always be tentative, we’ll just have to deal with the uncertainty, and the occasional mistake, won’t we?<br /><br />Filippo,<br /><br />> The new standards neglect the fact that being overweight is protective from death in some situations (like infectious diseases,) while the health problems caused by being overweight can be easily controlled by medications. <<br /><br />I think the conclusions you refer to need to be taken with a somewhat large grain of salt. Yes, certainly the standards have changed, and it appears the case that slightly overweight people are actually better off (which, incidentally, shouldn’t really be that surprising). But there is a lot of research on the negative health effects of actual obesity, and remember that meta-analyses are likely to underestimate them, since they average over a lot of crap. A small number of well conducted studies trumps a typical meta-analysis any time. As for medications, why would you want to control a problem via medications (they are expensive, and typically have side effects), rather than through healthier eating?<br /><br />Chris,<br /><br />> Even in Japan, there are many overweight people (defined as BMI > 25), and both overweight and obesity have markedly increased over the past decades. <<br /><br />The obesity problem in most Western societies is far from the level of the US. And moreover, all of this is pretty recent — even in the US — certainly post-dating the availability of abundant food. On the other hand, both in the US and in other countries, obesity levels track very nicely the availability of cheap processed food. Still seems to me to be the biggest (no pun intended) culprit.<br /><br />troika,<br /><br />> After having read Gary Taubes 'Why We Get Fat' he has pretty much convinced me the problem is carbohydrate (CH) overconsumption, and fat underconsumption. There is no-one 'responsible' for obesity, not really. <<br /><br />I’ve read that book as well, and it has not convinced me at all. There are some devastating reviews of it in the literature, including, if I remember correctly, a detailed one by Harriet Hall (the “SkepDoc”).<br /><br />Philip,<br /><br />> The pure libertarian would probably say, "Don't bite the invisible hand that feeds you." <<br /><br />Yes, and I hope you know what I think of pure libertarians... ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13372810496917879882013-03-06T06:16:57.528-05:002013-03-06T06:16:57.528-05:00The pure libertarian would probably say, "Don...The pure libertarian would probably say, "Don't bite the invisible hand that feeds you."<br /><br />But of course we don't really want just the "invisible hand" of megacorporations and advertisers feeding (and maybe killing) us. We want some regulations (some via taxes), I think.Philip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20831363948337492002013-03-05T23:57:04.646-05:002013-03-05T23:57:04.646-05:00 Speaking of responsibility,
Did you know the main... Speaking of responsibility,<br />Did you know the main regulator controlling the flow (manufacture, distribution, and sales) of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, substances that kill and injure millions of Americans every year is the US Department of ATF., which is a subsidiary department of the IRS.<br />Its all about money!<br /><br />=<br /><br />== MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.com