Bulgaroctonus

The programs I am espousing are not direct discrimination against obese people. While I have a disgust for misuse of the human body, I recognize that it is against explicit U.S. law to discriminate against a group of people.

That being said, I shall clarify my position. Agencies like the FDA have the power to control the supply of dangerous and unhealthy substances. That power is inherent in the framework of the FDA as outlined in 1906 by the Wiley Act. This power has historically been used to refuse consumers certain products, such as chemical-ridden meat and other unsavory items. The FDA has also curtailed tobacco advertising and has generally been hostile to the that industry.

This authority, which was granted by Congress, is directly applicable to the obesity problem. This problem can be solved without discrimination. The FDA can enact stringent measures on the companies that produce junk food, which has been proven to be injurious to humans. These measures will include absolute disclosure of the health threats posed by these items, the removal of very dangerous foods, and education about the dangers of junk food.

I recognize your Constitutional qualms about this issue. However, it is in our nation's best interest to assure good health and productivity for its citizens. The suggested campaign against obesity would be similar to the campaign against drugs and cigarettes. Obesity can be as harmful, if not more so, than drugs and cigarettes.

Fortunately, your libertarian opinion was not one held by the majority when our government was being formed. Such a blithe dismissal of government power leads to weakness of our nation. A fault of many minds is to seek political extremes. That is, some people want absolutely no government control (pure capitalism), while others desire an autocratic government. This is a false dilemma. The best path lies in the middle, where both free-market dynamics can prosper, and the government can ensure the success of America. This is similar to the status quo, a fine balance between liberty and regulation.

In all things, moderation.

I also wish to draw your attention to the motivations of the founding fathers. They wrote the Constitution in the context of the failed Articles of Confederation. These Articles were a libertarian triumph, but were also a failure for the nation, predictably so.

Therefore, the writers of the Constitution did not desire a powerless government, as you might be inclined to think. They had seen the effects of that disastrous experiment. Article I was not meant to be weak and ineffectual.

No.

Obviously, I need to draft up my whole tax plan. However, before I do that, I want to reinforce that the measures I have planned are most likely of the non-coercive sorts. That is, fat people will not be penalized for being fat (other than the inherent health penalties). Instead they will be offered money in the form of tax relief if they clean up their act. This is in the nation's best interest to offer these incentives, because they encourage obese people to live longer and increase their productivity.

I hate that Benjamin Franklin quote for several reasons. First, I had to hear it all the time during my CVC debates in school. Secondly, it is often misused (like in this case). Thirdly, people assume that good Mr. Franklin is always right. Well, let me show that the honorable Franklin need not be here.

Your use of the quote is not proper here. This is largely because no one is giving up any essential liberties. My entire plan is within the context of nutritional legislation and regulation (as per the FDA) and non-coercive tax measures. You can continue to believe that these constitute a grave infringement on our liberties, but I deem that unreasonable. You will have to explain to me where and how our rights will be taken away.

The second part of the quote is also inappropriate in this case. We are not talking about security, but basic bodily health and economic productivity.

Mr. Brandeis makes a good point. However, I want to reinforce that the anti-obesity measures I am considering are not abrogations of Constitutional rights. Look at cigarettes and drugs. One could easily say that the government's measures against those items constituted discrimination against drug and cigarette users. However, banning those substances has proven to be a good thing. Few, if any, rights were infringed upon, and life has gone on.

Confed, I recognize your fears. Valuable as they are in some contexts, I think your fears are unnecessary concerning this topic. Perhaps your efforts are better spent against the PATRIOT Act, or something else that actually poses a threat to our liberties.

I know what Unconstitutional means. Is there actually a term 'Non Constitutional?'

Good to see we can agree, albeit on small points.

It is infantile to continue with the Pol Pot reference. You equate gentle measures against obesity (a health issue) to some kind of tyrannical experiment in the jungles of Cambodia.

This is called the 'red herring' approach to debating. Not only is it an invalid logical method, but it also annoys me. I have to comment every time against this thing. It is a waste of time, and a perversion of logical argument.

I guess if you just spoke explicitly and with meaning, I wouldn't have to waste time on that nonsense.

Your Pol Pot analogy is nonsense and hogwash, rubbish, trash, and all assortment of scum and villainy.