Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?
For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?
|
In part I believe banning tobacco completely would be similar to what happened in Prohibition.
So a modicum of practicality was to force the labeling of packages
and the extra efforts to diverting young people from starting.
The drug wars are what we got with an outright bans.
I've said before I frown on the sale of raw dairy products because
the layman cannot know the quality or safety of each purchase.
I guess I'm missing the "obvious... and larger and more destructive examples".
Tobacco and obesity were not my original topic... but vaccination was mine.
Is that what you mean about cherry picking ?
For the above "deal with the problem" issues, I'm not certain of your meaning.
In my post, I had in mind that if customers (such as fast food places)
have no information they have no choice or alternatives.
But if the McD's of the world are required to publish such data,
maybe people will use it. I don't know if they will or won't.
Maybe it's too early for more restrictive government intervention, maybe not.
Likewise if school lunches are unhealthy, the timing may be urgent, or not. I don't know.
Is that what you were getting at ?