The externalities of obesity and homosexuality

Michael Bloomberg says that he has the right to fight obesity because if you are fat, we all have to pay for it in increased health care costs. In other words, your fat ass has externalities. See? If you eat too many donuts it negatively effects me, therefore, I can keep you from putting donuts in your mouth.

Of course if externalities allow me to keep you from putting donuts in your mouth, externalities would also allow me to keep you from putting other things in your mouth. This manifest truth makes liberals lose their minds.

The argument that externalities allow the government to regulate your behavior can be used to regulate every single aspect of your life. This includes the rights that leftists hold dear. Bloomberg is wielding a sword that cuts both ways.

Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The externalities of obesity and homosexuality

  1. notamobster says:

    Ann missed a huge opportunity in this debate. When the retard began talking about different types of nannies – and attacking those motivated by profit – she should have pointed out that only one of those examples abuses the force of law and the barrel of a gun to coerce decision-making.

    Corporations don’t have the legal authority to force you to acquiesce to their will. I hate liberals.

  2. Roy Ryder says:

    Few things are more dangerous than a person with power who believes that they are doing the right thing to “make people better.” The right to succeed includes the right to fail. Take away the right to fail and you lose the right to succeed, and eventually you lose the right to try.

  3. James says:

    Now Coulter is for “stop and frisk?”
    I don’t think Coulter understands principles.
    As the liberal said “I’m not a liberal, I look at case by case.”
    I guess Coulter thinks that way too.
    The liberal said that people should do whatever they want as long as they pick up the tab for their consequences.
    That should have been Coulter’s line.
    The conclusion of the debate should have been to stop socializing outcomes of people’s behavior. That includes socialized healthcare.

    • notamobster says:

      In high-crime areas, stop & frisk should be legal, for limited use and short duration. It should be managed at a absolute minimal level, but there simply must be exigent means for exigent circumstances. Open criminality must not be tolerated.

      The term stop & frisk doesn’t capture the actual process. In a high-crime area, an officer stops a person who looks suspicious or exhibits certain behaviors. Terry v Ohio says he has the right to pat down the outer clothing of the individual for his own safety while the person is detained for questioning (Where you headed? What are you up to? Do you have any drug, periphernalia, or weapons on you?).

      An individual has an absolute right to refuse to answer these questions and demand to go on their way, but most criminals are idiots and don’t know that.

      Suspects call this frisking, but it’s not. At least, it’s not frisking until the outline of a weapon or suspicious item is felt. Then a full frisk of the subjects person becomes necessary.