🚀 go-pugleaf

"axlq" <axlq@spamcop.net> wrote in message 
news:ddr89n$b0a$3@blue.rahul.net...
> Uncle Jimbo <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote:
>>"Jon Nadelberg" <news@nadelberg.com> wrote...
>>>> But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.),
>>>> to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort.
>>>
>>> In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is
>>> "promote the general welfare" of the people.  So this is part of it.
>>
>>But what about the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" in the
>>Declaration of Independence.
>
> The Declaration has no force of law behind it.  It mystifies me why
> anybody continues to bring that up as a basis of what the government
> can and cannot do.
>

Lincoln started that.

It's not what we can and can not do.  It is what we should or should not do.

Not that this idea is followed either, except where convienent.

.
>
>>Liberty means the right to choose what
>>you eat, and you can't be happy if the government forces you to eat
>>tofu and bean sprouts instead of the bacon cheeseburgers you love.
>
> Rights that aren't enumerated or implied in the Constitution do not
> exist in our system of government.
>

Well, not really.  The tenth amendment says:



>>The problem with this idea (of taxing unhealthy food) is that it is
>>a totalitarian idea, thoroughly British in the way it reduces people
>>to livestock and forces them to behave in a way the nanny state
>>believes is best for them.
>
> Encouragement does not equal force.  Taxation doesn't "force" you
> to change your behavior.  Look at all the extra taxes levied on
> cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline.  Those taxes aren't "forcing"
> anyone to change their buying habits.  We still have plenty of
> smokers, drunks, and SUVs.
>
> -A