Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(22-05-2013 08:46 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 08:43 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  How "corporations" influence what you consume:






How the state "influences" what you consume:








Who had the guns?

I thought you already agreed with me that the government does what corporations want?


That's such a broad and vague statement that I can't agree with it. Yes, there are people in government who enact legislation that favors some industry leading companies. But that legislation also burdens other companies. If it didn't, there would be no reason for it.

Corporation is a concept... a legal fiction used by business owners to shield themselves from liability. I've owned several corporations throughout my life and in fact, I own three limited liability corps and one limited liability partnership now. They are corporations but I have never, and will never lobby for preferential legislation or any other sort of favoritism from the state. Yet your reckless use of the English language puts me in the same class as those whom you vilify.

On a point by point basis, I probably agree with you more than anyone else on this board but the trouble is that the conclusions you reach are exclusively negative, hateful and irrational.

So no, we don't agree.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
22-05-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
The government should not micro-manage our lives. The only time the government should get involved with what we do is when our actions harm others or other people's property.

If I want to drink soft drinks, it should be my choice. I shouldn't be punished by being taxed more, or told that I shouldn't be able to drink soda by some bureaucrat who probably stuffs their face with too much chocolate.

Someone said something about how we don't actually have a choice, because we're "pushed" into buying products such as soda.

There will always be people who don't have very much self-control. They will always be influenced by someone or something, and you can always argue that there's some form of "brain washing" or "drugging" at hand. There's a certain point in which we need to draw a line. I believe we should let people decide for themselves what they should do. If they want to do something because they've been told to do so through commercials, then we can only hold the person doing said thing accountable.

"I thought you already agreed with me that the government does what corporations want? "

The government does what a select number of corporations want. Why? Because what's illegal for corporations is either legal for the government, or can be made legal. The corporations that bribe politicians to create unfair, market destroying, laws are just as guilty as the government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 08:42 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(22-05-2013 08:29 PM)Nemo Wrote:  The corporations that bribe politicians to create unfair, market destroying, laws are just as guilty as the government.

How do you reason that?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
You guys stated that corporations make things that are demanded I showed that this is not humanly possible. I also showed that humans don't demand many of the things they consume, like most of the ingredients on most processed foods, not demanded by anyone, just like corn syrup was not demanded by anyone.

The issue of corn syrup is one of agricultural lobbyists lobbying (bribing) government offiicials to to pass bills to help agriculture companies. Then other corporations come along and buy corn syrup to use in their products. Yet for some reason the actions of corporations in this process is not criticized in any way, and not counted as a part of the obesity problem.

Do you guys believe corporations should be held accountable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(23-05-2013 09:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  You guys stated that corporations make things that are demanded I showed that this is not humanly possible.

No, you didn't.

Quote:I also showed that humans don't demand many of the things they consume, like most of the ingredients on most processed foods, not demanded by anyone, just like corn syrup was not demanded by anyone.

No, you didn't.

Quote:The issue of corn syrup is one of agricultural lobbyists lobbying (bribing) government offiicials to to pass bills to help agriculture companies. Then other corporations come along and buy corn syrup to use in their products.

That's correct.

Quote:Yet for some reason the actions of corporations in this process is not criticized in any way, and not counted as a part of the obesity problem.

That's not true.

Quote:Do you guys believe corporations should be held accountable?

Everyone should be held accountable.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
23-05-2013, 10:23 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(23-05-2013 10:04 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(23-05-2013 09:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  You guys stated that corporations make things that are demanded I showed that this is not humanly possible.

No, you didn't.

Quote:I also showed that humans don't demand many of the things they consume, like most of the ingredients on most processed foods, not demanded by anyone, just like corn syrup was not demanded by anyone.

No, you didn't.

Quote:The issue of corn syrup is one of agricultural lobbyists lobbying (bribing) government offiicials to to pass bills to help agriculture companies. Then other corporations come along and buy corn syrup to use in their products.

That's correct.

Quote:Yet for some reason the actions of corporations in this process is not criticized in any way, and not counted as a part of the obesity problem.

That's not true.

Quote:Do you guys believe corporations should be held accountable?

Everyone should be held accountable.

So did the people demand corn syrup? NO meaning, we got something we didn't even "demand". Next Drinking Beverage Corporations make shit they think people want to buy, then they market shit to convince people they "need" this product. Look how many people buy stupid shit like snuggies just because some guy convinced them to buy it on TV. People buy stupid shit all the time that they don't need, and no this is not "human nature" to want random shit that one doesn't need. You have to convince people to buy shit they don't need.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2013 12:40 PM by Nemo.)
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(22-05-2013 08:42 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 08:29 PM)Nemo Wrote:  The corporations that bribe politicians to create unfair, market destroying, laws are just as guilty as the government.

How do you reason that?

You linked a video to the Rawesome food raid, where the government barged into the shop because they were selling "illegal" goods. The government made their products "illegal", but why? I wouldn't be surprised if there was a union or other corporation that funded politicians to push such laws. I'm not sure on all the details, so I am being presumptuous, admittedly.

But I guess we must define what it means to "blame" someone. If blaming the corporations that lobby politicians is simply recognition as them being a cause, then I think it's fair to blame them. If blaming the corporations that lobby politicians is to hold them accountable for the laws passed, then I believe we must pass the accountability to the government since they're the ones who actually passed the market restricting laws.

"You guys stated that corporations make things that are demanded I showed that this is not humanly possible. I also showed that humans don't demand many of the things they consume, like most of the ingredients on most processed foods, not demanded by anyone, just like corn syrup was not demanded by anyone."

What you said is true only to the extent that most people don't care what's inside their foods. They just want the product. So even though they aren't demanding the use of things such as corn syrup, they aren't demanding otherwise either - which is reason enough for the government to not speak out for these people.

I don't care how much sugar is in soft drinks, it's pathetic for any politician to demand soft drinks use less sugars or sugar alternatives on my behalf. I don't demand the sugar, but I don't demand otherwise either.

But, if you are a person who demands healthier alternatives, then you can seek out those healthier alternatives! They're out there! The only reason you might have trouble finding something you personally demand is because hardly anyone else demands it and therefore there isn't a high enough of a demand for it.

"The issue of corn syrup is one of agricultural lobbyists lobbying (bribing) government offiicials to to pass bills to help agriculture companies. Then other corporations come along and buy corn syrup to use in their products. Yet for some reason the actions of corporations in this process is not criticized in any way, and not counted as a part of the obesity problem."

Yes, you can blame the corporations. However, it's the government that must also be recognized for the blame. So many people believe this lobbying is the result of the government not having enough power, when it's the very opposite of that.

"Do you guys believe corporations should be held accountable? "

We believe the government that passed the laws should be held accountable, because it's not illegal to lobby the government. In fact, I don't think it should be illegal to lobby politicians. If you want to send money to help promote something you would like to see become a law, you should have that right. HOWEVER, I also believe in a limited government. One in which can be bribed, but can not pass certain laws no matter how much money they're receiving. Essentially, I believe in a restricted government.

But, I digress, it's the government we must hold responsible. (also, I better understand bbljefe's response)

"Look how many people buy stupid shit like snuggies just because some guy convinced them to buy it on TV. People buy stupid shit all the time that they don't need, and no this is not "human nature" to want random shit that one doesn't need. You have to convince people to buy shit they don't need."

I'd rather live in a society of both needs and wants than a society of needs alone. I don't need a new video game, but I'll be damned if someone tells me I should pay more as punishment for buying one because I didn't need it. I should be trusted to make my own decisions.

If someone is convinced to buy something they don't need, then that's their own responsibility. Nobody should decide whether or not they buy something they don't need other than themselves. It's okay for you to convince them that they don't need said stuff, but to advocate someone FORCES them not to buy unneeded stuff or makes them pay a punishment tax to discourage them is wrong.

We live in a country that values free speech. This means we allow people to make their argument in support of whatever they want. This includes speech in which we try to convince people whether or not we should buy certain goods! To put a tax or prohibit the sale of things some rich white man believes we don't need is to automatically attack our freedom of speech.

You're demanding higher taxes and probation BECAUSE of the fact people are expressing their speech about their products. "If you want to use your speech to convince people to buy your product, you need to give up some of you money."

Your argument is that people are being "brainwashed" by the different expressions of speech we allow. You can't possibly support taxation on products based on the "brainwashing" of people WITHOUT denying our free speech.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(23-05-2013 12:29 PM)Nemo Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 08:42 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  How do you reason that?

You linked a video to the Rawesome food raid, where the government barged into the shop because they were selling "illegal" goods. The government made their products "illegal", but why? I wouldn't be surprised if there was a union or other corporation that funded politicians to push such laws. I'm not sure on all the details, so I am being presumptuous, admittedly.

But I guess we must define what it means to "blame" someone. If blaming the corporations that lobby politicians is simply recognition as them being a cause, then I think it's fair to blame them. If blaming the corporations that lobby politicians is to hold them accountable for the laws passed, then I believe we must pass the accountability to the government since they're the ones who actually passed the market restricting laws.

"You guys stated that corporations make things that are demanded I showed that this is not humanly possible. I also showed that humans don't demand many of the things they consume, like most of the ingredients on most processed foods, not demanded by anyone, just like corn syrup was not demanded by anyone."

What you said is true only to the extent that most people don't care what's inside their foods. They just want the product. So even though they aren't demanding the use of things such as corn syrup, they aren't demanding otherwise either - which is reason enough for the government to not speak out for these people.

I don't care how much sugar is in soft drinks, it's pathetic for any politician to demand soft drinks use less sugars or sugar alternatives on my behalf. I don't demand the sugar, but I don't demand otherwise either.

But, if you are a person who demands healthier alternatives, then you can seek out those healthier alternatives! They're out there! The only reason you might have trouble finding something you personally demand is because hardly anyone else demands it and therefore there isn't a high enough of a demand for it.

"The issue of corn syrup is one of agricultural lobbyists lobbying (bribing) government offiicials to to pass bills to help agriculture companies. Then other corporations come along and buy corn syrup to use in their products. Yet for some reason the actions of corporations in this process is not criticized in any way, and not counted as a part of the obesity problem."

Yes, you can blame the corporations. However, it's the government that must also be recognized for the blame. So many people believe this lobbying is the result of the government not having enough power, when it's the very opposite of that.

"Do you guys believe corporations should be held accountable? "

We believe the government that passed the laws should be held accountable, because it's not illegal to lobby the government. In fact, I don't think it should be illegal to lobby politicians. If you want to send money to help promote something you would like to see become a law, you should have that right. HOWEVER, I also believe in a limited government. One in which can be bribed, but can not pass certain laws no matter how much money they're receiving. Essentially, I believe in a restricted government.

But, I digress, it's the government we must hold responsible. (also, I better understand bbljefe's response)

I'm not sure you explained your reasoning. Or maybe I missed it. In any event, I'll explain what I mean when I say businesses shouldn't share equal blame with the state...

Everyone has heard (and probably used) the saying "you do what you gotta do to survive".

Well, businesses in the US have to leverage the advantages offered them by the state. If they don't, some other business will and the results will be destructive to them. They have to do what they have to do to remain competitive in the market and whether it's right or wrong, politicians are for sale to the highest bidder and in the corporate world, buying a politician and getting some favorable legislation passed can produce ROI's in the thousands of percent. There is no business on the planet that can generate that kind of profit through honest competition and innovation.

While I do see what these companies are doing as unethical, I also see that the existence of the state and in particular, the easily corrupted arrangement of the US state, leaves them with no other choice than to "kill or be killed" as it were.

Thus, by its very existence, the state creates this phenomenon. Were it not for the state, every business would be forced to compete with anyone and everyone who chose to enter into competition with them.... on a level playing field.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 10:47 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(23-05-2013 10:23 AM)I and I Wrote:  You have to convince people to buy shit they don't need.

Do you think yourself the only person resistant to advertising? Have you considered that maybe people can convince themselves to buy shit they don't need?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
24-05-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(23-05-2013 09:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  I also showed that humans don't demand many of the things they consume, like most of the ingredients on most processed foods, not demanded by anyone, just like corn syrup was not demanded by anyone.

You seem to be confusing the issue by suggesting the public would "demand" HFCS. Of course they wouldn't, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for companies that sell sweet foods and drinks. The reason HFCS makes it into those is because (1)it can already be observed that sweets sell and (2)it usually ends up being cheaper for the manufacturer to make such things using HFCS instead of other sugars/sweeteners.

I agree with Nemo that some people may be easily persuaded or have little self control. I don't think the solution is to ban other people from consuming these products, though.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: