"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?

How would you recommend that be accomplished? Legislation? Certainly
the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily abstain from
advertising. Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such
harmful advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


It's also the result of the profit motive: large corporations are
making lots of money convincing Americans to eat more, thus becoming
larger corporally.

Corporations also encourage us to smoke, spend hours in front of video
games and TV, and take medications we likely don't require. There
appear to be only two solutions: personal responsibility, or the good
ol' nanny state. I prefer the former.


Now that brings us to the question... which works better? No opinions
now... just da facts.

My last sentence was an opinion, based on the observation that the nanny
state does little to encourage self-reliance and motivation. To the
contrary, in those countries, such as Norway, where people have
cradle-to-grave provision by the government, the creative juices just
don't seem to flow very copiously. When was the last time you saw
something notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway?
Gorgeous country, but stagnant.

Max

Unfortunately, opinions aren't facts. Is self-reliance and motivation better
than actual problem solving?

Their healthcare system is far better than ours for example. I also like
Doug's cheeze answer, but for different reasons.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com