"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
How about letting individuals be less subjected to food advertisements
24/7?


How would you recommend that be accomplished?

I'm not sure. I have not personally examined the forces that pushed the
current system into place, so I'm not going to say how to push things in a
different direction.

.... Legislation?

Bad idea IMHO, for 2 fundamental reasons:
1- it's not likely to work all that well
2- that government is best which governs least.

Complete agreement with both points.

.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.

Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?

.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.

No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.

If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.

Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above. And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.

And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial? Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.



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.


If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.

And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.

Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives. If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism. Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial. Either the
government protects us from ourselves, or it does not. How it effects such
protection is irrelevant.

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


One fact that is already on the ground is that advertising works. Personal
responsibility also works, when it is present.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman, that sure looks like just two alternatives to me.

Max