Should the government nationalize food and issue us with GOVERNMENT MEALS? (1 Viewer)

[Name_Taken]

Yeah people like to go on about "freedom." Enjoy the freedom to starve you market fundamentalist.

Laugh as much as you want, but he does have that freedom and who are you or anyone to take that away from him?

 

[Got2Kno91]

I've never heard an idea scream NANNY STATE louder in my life. What are we, babies being spoonfed by the government??? This is 100% communist thinking. A slightly adapted argument using the same logic could be made for almost every industry in this country. People make their own choices with diet, if you fail at making basic choices such as what you're going to eat, and hence become massively obese and have a heart attack at 35, then THATS YOUR PROBLEM. There is plenty of healthy food out there, if you choose maccas over sushi every time then face the concequences. Don't restrict my freedom to eat what ever I want just because you've become incapable of looking after yourself.

 

[Planck]

I've never heard an idea scream NANNY STATE louder in my life. What are we, babies being spoonfed by the government??? This is 100% communist thinking. A slightly adapted argument using the same logic could be made for almost every industry in this country. People make their own choices with diet, if you fail at making basic choices such as what you're going to eat, and hence become massively obese and have a heart attack at 35, then THATS YOUR PROBLEM. There is plenty of healthy food out there, if you choose maccas over sushi every time then face the concequences. Don't restrict my freedom to eat what ever I want just because you've become incapable of looking after yourself.

How dare you imply you in any way know what is better for yourself than government bureaucrats. You're as much of an idiot as any other member of the general public, and as such you need to be watched over and looked after by those who know better.

It is obvious by your use of pejorative terms such as the 'nanny state' that you've entirely ignored the point, which is about SAVING LIVES. Personal freedoms are entirely irrelevant when it comes to such an important topic.

It's illegal to commit suicide, why should it be legal to commit suicide in the long term by destroying your body? Your body is the property of the government you were born under as per the social contract. The government has every right to look after its property however it sees fit.

You want babies and women and men dying in the streets from their 'choices' because they're slaves to advertising and the whole 'capitalist' system gone mad?

When these recommendations are made by experts in the medical community, how dare you question their validity. You are not an expert, you are some idiot whinging about 'rights' and 'freedoms' whilst people destroy themselves.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

 

[Name_Taken]

How dare you imply you in any way know what is better for yourself than government bureaucrats. You're as much of an idiot as any other member of the general public, and as such you need to be watched over and looked after by those who know better.

It is obvious by your use of pejorative terms such as the 'nanny state' that you've entirely ignored the point, which is about SAVING LIVES. Personal freedoms are entirely irrelevant when it comes to such an important topic.

It's illegal to commit suicide, why should it be legal to commit suicide in the long term by destroying your body? Your body is the property of the government you were born under as per the social contract. The government has every right to look after its property however it sees fit.

You want babies and women and men dying in the streets from their 'choices' because they're slaves to advertising and the whole 'capitalist' system gone mad?

When these recommendations are made by experts in the medical community, how dare you question their validity. You are not an expert, you are some idiot whinging about 'rights' and 'freedoms' whilst people destroy themselves.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

Fail troll is fail.

 

[Planck]

Fail troll is fail.

You extremist 'libertarians' might consider it to be trolling, but when it comes to saving lives, I'm siding with the doctors and medical professionals every time.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Laugh as much as you want, but he does have that freedom and who are you or anyone to take that away from him?

I am a citizen in a democracy and I will vote to enforce policies that are for the greater good of society. I do not want to "take away" your freedom, I just want to limit it slightly for your own good, and for the good of society. Stop being an extremist lolbertarian about it.

Who are you to limit my freedom to have healthy food and to live in a safe and healthy country?

 

[Riet]

It is a slippery slope from democracy to anarchy. It is much better that we entrust our welfare to the proletariat.

 

[badquinton304]

I am a citizen in a democracy and I will vote to enforce policies that are for the greater good of society. I do not want to "take away" your freedom, I just want to limit it slightly for your own good, and for the good of society. Stop being an extremist lolbertarian about it.

Who are you to limit my freedom to have healthy food and to live in a safe and healthy country?

Where did safety come into the equasion? You already have total freedom and and the right if you wish, to have healthy food in the current system, you don't have a right to live in a healthy country because if people have the freedom to be healthy then this implies that they also have the freedom and the right to be unhealthy if they wish it.

 

[Riet]

But it is for the good of society that everyone is healthy.

We accept other curtailings of freedom for societies benefit, this is the logical next step.

 

[Lukybear]

But it is for the good of society that everyone is healthy.

We accept other curtailings of freedom for societies benefit, this is the logical next step.

But who actually benefits from making society good? The people are surely not. They are mere slaves to the communist regime, suffering a plain, healthy diet.

But the greater query is not this. It is rather why do we propose such propostrous argument, when no one is truly benefitted? Well, its becaue there exists a conscience, a system of moral laws, that is present even in you athiests innately, that aspire for righteousness. And really it all points to God. A just and righteous God.

Learn from this nationalisation of food. Repent and save your souls.

 

[John McCain]

Where did safety come into the equasion? You already have total freedom and and the right if you wish, to have healthy food in the current system, you don't have a right to live in a healthy country because if people have the freedom to be healthy then this implies that they also have the freedom and the right to be unhealthy if they wish it.

I find it fanciful this concept of people having rights 'if they wish'.

How is a child born into poverty supposed to enforce their right to healthy food under the current system?

Individual freedoms are mostly desirable among adults, but the state has a responsibility to at least intervene and mandate certain behaviors and the provision of needs to children who may be under the care of irresponsible adults.

I would argue that upwards class mobility is often a myth, many of the homeless and destitute have no hope under the current system of claiming their supposed 'right' to healthy food, and if you acknowledge a right to healthy food, then this must be mandated for people of all ages if there is to be any hope of all people being provided with this right.

 

[badquinton304]

I find it fanciful this concept of people having rights 'if they wish'.

How is a child born into poverty supposed to enforce their right to healthy food under the current system?

Individual freedoms are mostly desirable among adults, but the state has a responsibility to at least intervene and mandate certain behaviors and the provision of needs to children who may be under the care of irresponsible adults.

I would argue that upwards class mobility is often a myth, many of the homeless and destitute have no hope under the current system of claiming their supposed 'right' to healthy food, and if you acknowledge a right to healthy food, then this must be mandated for people of all ages if there is to be any hope of all people being provided with this right.

I already said that I support a system where the poor are fed, and of course the meal should be of decent nutritional value.

Also serius idea is good, it's like a soup kitchen, so it ensures everyone is fed, but does not cripple any industry, it lets consumers have choice and does not have many practical problems.

I am opposed to the idea that we should all have to eat government meals and that we should ban imported food and make unhealthy food illegal. Which is proposed here:

Most people recognise the need for government intervention in important areas like healthcare and education. This is a good start, but what could be more important than food?

I propose that the government nationalize all food production. It can then guarantee nutritious, good quality food to every Australian.

This would save us billions on our health care bill. The government could simply issue us with vouchers for healthy meals formulated by our best scientists. We could also ban imported food, which would of course help create Aussie jobs. We could even ban the production and sale of unhealthy foods. Remember, when people eat unhealthy food, they are not just hurting themselves, they are hurting everyone because of the strain they put on the public health system.

Most importantly, access to decent food is a basic right. Sorry to all you whack job libertarians who insist that the so called "free market" is perfect, but it is too dangerous to leave something as important as food to the evil forces of greed and lust for profits that dominate your precious "free market."

 

[SylviaB]

man i hate these goddamn idiots getting in the way of progress

 

[Serius]

I already said that I support a system where the poor are fed, and of course the meal should be of decent nutritional value.

I am opposed to the idea that we should all have to eat government meals and that we should ban imported food and make unhealthy food illegal. Which is proposed here:

My idea wasnt anything like that. It was simply that basic general foodstuffs like generic bread, pasta, rice etc should be free for the poor and could be regulated with a card or some sort of system like that. Middle class and up wouldnt have to bother with it, they c an continue to buy their usual stuff and if the program is a succes, maybe expand it so that middle class etc can buy this kind of stuff if they want.

Future expansions could include adding more stuff to the "free list" like generic eggs, fresh produce etc. It wouldnt really cost any money because the government can make this kind of stuff much much cheaper by buying in bulk, removing certain taxes etc, and then considering the poor no longer have to buy bread and such, their centrelinks can get reduced by an equivelent amount.

Net cost for this program would be zero at worst, if anything the government is likely to SAVE a considerable amount of money whilst providing a guaranteed and unalienable supply of basic food for the poor and needy. At the very least a program of this type should be trialled with a small sample of centrelink users, considering it would cost the government very little to do.

 

[badquinton304]

My idea wasnt anything like that. It was simply that basic general foodstuffs like generic bread, pasta, rice etc should be free for the poor and could be regulated with a card or some sort of system like that. Middle class and up wouldnt have to bother with it, they c an continue to buy their usual stuff and if the program is a succes, maybe expand it so that middle class etc can buy this kind of stuff if they want.

Future expansions could include adding more stuff to the "free list" like generic eggs, fresh produce etc. It wouldnt really cost any money because the government can make this kind of stuff much much cheaper by buying in bulk, removing certain taxes etc, and then considering the poor no longer have to buy bread and such, their centrelinks can get reduced by an equivelent amount.

Net cost for this program would be zero at worst, if anything the government is likely to SAVE a considerable amount of money whilst providing a guaranteed and unalienable supply of basic food for the poor and needy. At the very least a program of this type should be trialled with a small sample of centrelink users, considering it would cost the government very little to do.

Bottom line poor people have food. I wasn't saying that you want shit banned, jenny said that.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Net cost for this program would be zero at worst, if anything the government is likely to SAVE a considerable amount of money

No way lol. Why do you think that?

 

[staticsiscool]

Unhealthy foods should be banned for the same reasons certain
drugs are

harmful
and
addictive


Prove me wrong

 

[ilikebeeef]

Unhealthy foods should be banned for the same reasons certain
drugs are

harmful
and
addictive


Prove me wrong

Junk food is harmful only in large quantities and when the consumer does no exercise. Illegal drugs, on the other hand, are harmful in small quantities or large quantities no matter what.

EDIT: And illegal drugs can lead to crime.

 

[staticsiscool]

Still harmful, quantities are relative

LSD is not harmful
MDMA is less harmful than most prescription drugs

edit: lol yes, because they are illegal...

 

[spartan31234]

Most people recognise the need for government intervention in important areas like healthcare and education. This is a good start, but what could be more important than food?

I propose that the government nationalize all food production. It can then guarantee nutritious, good quality food to every Australian.

This would save us billions on our health care bill. The government could simply issue us with vouchers for healthy meals formulated by our best scientists. We could also ban imported food, which would of course help create Aussie jobs. We could even ban the production and sale of unhealthy foods. Remember, when people eat unhealthy food, they are not just hurting themselves, they are hurting everyone because of the strain they put on the public health system.

Most importantly, access to decent food is a basic right. Sorry to all you whack job libertarians who insist that the so called "free market" is perfect, but it is too dangerous to leave something as important as food to the evil forces of greed and lust for profits that dominate your precious "free market."

don't be a commie.