Relatively ancient and inactive
Yes there is a problem. I think the government is still run by the people. The government will not close them because society wants quick meals so McDonald's will probably win in finding loopholes.
Ah. Well, I'm sorry, that's not my problem in this topic. Complete democracy doesn't work well. People are stupid. They can easily be influenced by the media. If you listen to the people, your hands will be tied and many problems won't be solved, as tough solutions, possibly the only ones, would be rejected. I'm here to argue why this should happen, not that it will.
That seems to be more reason why not to have a draft system but that is another topic.
I wouldn't like a draft system, simply because that's a much bigger waste of government money for no gain. Conscripts aren't particularly useful on anti-terrorism missions, as shown by Vietnam or the 1st Chechen war. Might as well make a mandatory boot camp for fatties, it'll definitely cost less.
And just to be clear, I don't agree with Cent's crazy idea not giving the obese health care or taxing fat people more. Just the sales tax on shit food.
I never said not to give obese people health care, and how can you be for food taxes but not taxing fat people? The latter course is definitely the more liberal of the two, because it localizes the punishment on those who are problematic for society, while the former course is more effective at creating a widespread culture of healthy eating. That said, actually, I think we should limit health care for fatties/unhealthy eaters/veryoldpeople, because the government really spends a lot of money just to extend lifetime by maybe a year. Maybe this is going too far, but I'm also looking at ways to cut our deficit. We're $12 trillion in debt, and rising.
I'm probably going to repeat a lot of stuff others have said.
The reason why a person becomes fat (serious medical conditions notwithstanding):
1. Higher calorific intake than calorific expenditure.
The obvious solution is for people to eat less and/or exercise more; the problem is how to achieve this, and I believe some of the issues are cultural and not easy to overcome. The first and most glaring reason is purchasing power. In Western countries the real price of food, when combined with the average person's earnings, is very low indeed. People have the power to purchase more food, and the majority of them would be more inclined to select the cheapest foods seeing as they ostensibly represent better value for money. Unfortunately, the cheapest foods tend to be the most unhealthy, combining high amounts of carbohydrate with fat and additives which may have implications for a person's health. This cheaper food is often also easier and quicker to prepare, increasing the chances of people consuming it for the following reason.
People tend to be in a rush to do things in modern society. The emphasis is on quick rewards and instant gratification. We can be entertained by just sitting in front of a computer or TV - all we have to do is press a few buttons. We have invented a host of devices to make our lives less complicated and difficult. You can see why a person living in a society which promotes these values, whether consciously or not, will choose to go to a McDonalds and have a burger or buy a ready meal, rather than think of a meal, go out and buy all the ingredients for it, put them together in the right quantities and for the right length of time, serve it and only then eat it.
The crux of the matter is really that people have become extremely lazy because sadly sloth is a vice which society promotes by virtue of high purchasing power, multitudinous means of sedentary, often solitary entertainment, and the mantra that easier is better. You can even see this in the evolution of video games - which I would argue are getting easier and are more inclined to lead the player by the hand these days.
I don't know if there is any way to prevent this slide into profligacy short of changing our culture, which will take time and will not be easy. Making food harder to buy (e.g. by taxing fat) doesn't get at the heart of the issue.
I disagree. I think making food harder to buy does strike at the heart of the issue, at least as far to the heart as can be expected. The people get used to buying more healthy food, and that
is changing the culture. If a small burger cost $3.00 instead of the current $1.00, the person won't be thinking 'Hey, I can get lunch for pennies!'. They might pay for a bit, but then they'll realize how much money they're wasting and look for alternatives. Coupled with a government-sponsored advertising campaign for healthy foods, slowly but surely, people will try to buy something healthier at a fast-food place, something that isn't taxed; and, home cooking or not, at that point, people are eating healthy foods. As for the culture of eating-quick, that can't be changed without losing American productivity. Personally, I'd follow the Swedish model (free education, social support, high taxes, happy people, etc), which would allow for adjusting the culture further in favor of home cooking, but this topic isn't about that.
None.