Holy freaking God. Here's a full article on childhood artery trouble, if you wanna see it, but the only part of the article that really caught my eye was the final sentence,“The time has come to seriously deal with the issue of childhood obesity and physical inactivity on a governmental and parental level.”
GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL? Since when has the idea that the government should have anything to do people's personal lives become acceptable?
And things get even worse from there. A corporation in Alabama is now essentially fining any employees that are overweight- is this a joke?
It's a very basic concept of freedom, people- the powers that be should only have enough power to defend the country and jail the criminals, and beyond that, the people being governed shouldn't give an inch. The government is not here to monitor our health, or tell us how to eat- we have the right to be fat. Saddest of all, only one commentator on the latter article linked to above saw anything wrong with the plan for the simple fact that it violates individual rights. How creepy is that? It seems that all the fight and common sense has drained out of all the people involved in the writing of said article. Durg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yeeehaaww! Good post on the purpose and limits of government.
Now, what was that you were saying about allowing bureaucrats to impose blanket medical decisions better left to an individual and a doctor?
Sorry this reply is so late-
Refresh my memory- what did I say about allowing blanket medical decisions?- Haven't been blogging in a while.
Back in September I commented "You seem to suggest that you support the position that it is a legitimate function of government to make sweeping medical decisions." While the point of your post was on a different track, an underlying assumption was that you were okay for bureaucrats to create public policy that dictates a single outcome for a variety of frequently complex medical situations.
Maybe I have been obtuse. It is not a purpose of government to legislate 'morality'. As an example, the USA learned this during prohibition. Zealots in power touted that drinking alcohol was destructive to society. Did that stop drinking? Illegal activities flourished. It is important to remember that making abortion illegal, even on a local level, does not eliminate abortions.
One is free not have an abortion if doing so offends her personal view. A government that imposes one decision on all women denies considering the individual's circumstances and beliefs in the decision. Now that's paternalism.
Post a Comment