It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling.

Bloomberg is one of the biggest “Karens” of our time. His failed presidential run made it very clear how little appetite the average American has for his nanny state we know better than you policies.

I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.

> It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling.

> I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.

I would agree with these statements, if it weren't because not everyone is informed enough to actually eat and drink what they _want_, e.g. this makes a great case for using gutter oil in restaurant kitchens.

Well, then the government should focus on educating.

I’d rather die in my 60s enjoying a life of eating and drinking what I want instead of living to be 100 eating Soylent Green.

> Well, then the government should focus on educating.

That's not how any of this works. "Education" would not have saved you from asbestos in the roof or lead in the paint.

You are making the point that it is acceptable for people to die from preventable issues in ignorance, as long as you get your fix.

If so, well, maybe you are the one not fit to live in a society after all.

The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality.

In moderation sugary and fatty foods and drinks are completely safe. Also, the substitutes available either taste completely different or are of dubious safety themselves (aspartame, margarine, etc.).

One approach is to punish everybody because a few people over consume these foods and another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them. You may disagree, but I value freedom and find the latter preferable to the former.

> The difference is that asbestos or lead exposure are much more dangerous and they are easily replaced with other materials that provide near identical functionality.

But that's not the issue.

Asbestos insulation could be perfectly safe too, as it is lead in paint, mercury in thermometers, etc. But societies deemed the risks greater than the benefits.

You may not mind living in a house coated with lead. I'm glad the government has banned it.

> ... another approach is to provide robust and accurate nutrition labels and warnings, and ensure that adults are properly educated to understand how to read them

This is unrealistic and naive, starting with the fact that "robust and accurate" nutrition labels must be enforced by the government. If we were to get rid of such regulations, corporations have proved over and over again that they see no incentive in providing better products over higher profits.

Also, your argument presupposes that every single consumer has the tools and capabilities to receive and benefit from such "education", which is, obviously, not true for e.g. older adults, or people with certain disabilities.

I'd have much less issue with this attitude if Medicare/medicaid wasn't funded by the state and essentially subsidized by private insurance.

I agree that directly dictating the market this way is heavy-handed, and people resent it. But some commonsense regulation of advertising would go a long way, and may even be more effective as well as better received. The reality is that while we all think we're doing what we damn well please, a lot of what we do is driven by pervasive marketing. Freed from predatory marketing and left to our own devices, I think we would be much healthier.

This I can support!