"With sugar, we’re in a situation where a dangerous substance is perfectly legal and available everywhere. It’s sold without restriction to everyone, and it’s marketed, with billions of dollars, to children before they can even speak, let alone reason… What choice do we have but to regulate it, just as we would — and do — regulate tobacco and alcohol and, for that matter, firearms?
This is so obvious that Florida state senators not known as forward-thinkers can see it, though the Department of Agriculture evidently can’t. But this is precisely what government is for: to protect us from the things from which we cannot protect ourselves. Sugar is not exactly an invading army, but it can be thought of as a hostile force, and the processed food industry has succeeded in getting us to eat way more of it than is good for us. Will power alone isn’t enough to stop that: we need national defense."
- Mark Bittman, New York Times.
There's no end to the things progressives think the government must control. Apparently, only when the government is in total control of every aspect of our lives can we ever hope to be fully protected against ourselves. The progressives won't be satisfied until every decision in our daily lives is made for us by the government. We need national defense to protect us against our own weakness in consuming sugar?? Hey, socialists, we like sugar, it tastes good, we know it's not great for us, but we're willing to take some risks in order to enjoy life a little more. It's called freedom, and it includes the freedom to make risky decisions if we think the benefit outweighs the risk. We don't need the government protecting us against sugar. Protect us against foreign armies and terrorists and leave the enemy sugar to us to deal with.
No comments:
Post a Comment