Abolishing traditional police and military forces

[GGT]

Since when? Your fantasy view of the private sector is obscenely distorted. In fact, we have an entire constitutional amendment that is used for the express purpose of telling [allegedly] private corporations and business whom they may and may not hire, and under what specific circumstances. And more than a few monstrously large laws on the same topic, as well. Sheesh.

We've already gone through this, haven't we?

Certain private employers (providing employer subsidies for employee health insurance) decided it was in "their corporate best interest" to have uber-healthy workers that didn't add cost or liability (via higher premiums to insure risk behavior, as insurance actuarials dictate).

Where the hell have you been? Obviously not applying for employment at any large corporation that wants to reduce their "overhead employee costs". Translation: by signing this employment contract and participating in our employer-health insurance, you hereby agree to modify your lifestyle behavior, and risk assessment, as hereby defined by our insurance carrier: XYZ

There are also privately owned apartments/townhouses/condos that can "ban" smokers, pet owners, minor children, and even any kind of public flags. Doesn't matter if your original contract didn't specify these things; any new property owner can void the original contract and re-write a new one, because they are the real property owners.

[CitizenCain]

We've already gone through this, haven't we?

...

<snip>

Not even close. But thank you for re-affirming my cynical outlook, as I can see you haven't retained a shred of information from that discussion on how health insurance became an employer-provided "benefit" in this country. *<sigh>* You do make a very strong case for the validity of my theory that our only hope for salvation comes with a nuclear Armageddon, but that's getting off point too.

Feel free to guess again, and no, this is not a puzzle or a riddle, or even a difficult answer to guess. We don't have too many constitutional amendments, and we only have one that is used to dictate whom "private" organizations may or may not hire. If all else fails, there's even a wikipedia article listing all the amendments. Start looking near the middle. *<sigh>*

There are also privately owned apartments/townhouses/condos that can "ban" smokers, pet owners, minor children, and even any kind of public flags. Doesn't matter if your original contract didn't specify these things; any new property owner can void the original contract and re-write a new one, because they are the real property owners.

I have no idea how, or even if, this relates to the rest of what you said, but the good news is you're right... and the bad news is it's not for the reason you think, and you're also wrong.

Modifying a contract, particularly a contract covering someone's residence is not easy, nor unilateral. If an agreement cannot be reached (say, between a smoker with a lease and a new landowner who wants to be "smoke free"), neither side is permitted to dictate terms. The original contract, as signed, is the only one that's enforceable. So, what would happen in the case you postulate is that, barring a mutually satisfactory agreement, the smoker would be allowed to stay, and smoke until his original lease expires, at which time, he would find himself unable to sign a new lease, and would need to find a new place to live. For fucking out loud, this is grade-school level stuff here... elementary school, even.

You are, however, correct, that the real owner of a given property is revealed by who is able to modify and/or void the contractual terms of the property's use. However, it is neither the tenant, nor the landlord. It is a very special owner, with very special powers, such as the ability to arbitrarily impose terms on any and all property users, and the ability to dictate very special "contracts" which supersede all other contracts, and even void contradictory ones, with no onus to even attempt negotiation.

And, that's all the hints you're getting on that softball, suffice to say, it is the "real" owner of all land in our country, to use your term.

[GGT]

Oh, FFS, Cain. Did this really have to devolve into a property rights debate? I'm sorry if replying to Lewk set you off on some whirlwind of rants about FREEEDOM, or whatever the hell happened. You're not the best representative to discuss a "social contract", after all.

Look, if you wanna hate on certain aspects of our public police or military forces run amok, I'll join you. If you wanna say everything currently under the auspices of federal government are corrupt or over-reaching just because they are part of teh gummint, I won't agree. Leaving those things to "the states" doesn't fix the problems you seem to be complaining about.

Actually, I don't know what the hell you're complaining about. Society has rules and laws. They move and change over time. Deal with it. If you don't like it, get politically active and spread the word. Alternatively, check out and live in the Yukon frozen tundra, with your guns and self-determined Freeedoms.

We all know which you'd choose, so why don't you just go ahead and Do It? Remember, though---once you've decided to divorce yourself from any "code" of civilized society, with its written laws and unwritten "social contracts", you lose the power to tell others what those rules and laws should be.

[CitizenCain]

Oh, FFS, Cain. Did this really have to devolve into a property rights debate?

You're the one who brought it up in the first place. So... why the hell are you whining at me about it?

I'm sorry if replying to Lewk set you off on some whirlwind of rants about FREEEDOM, or whatever the hell happened. You're not the best representative to discuss a "social contract", after all.

And how's that? Did things change that much in my absence? We don't do that reasoned, articulate responses resembling "discourse" thing anymore?

Leaving those things to "the states" doesn't fix the problems you seem to be complaining about.

Yes it does. Go ahead, demonstrate otherwise. Please.

Actually, I don't know what the hell you're complaining about. Society has rules and laws. They move and change over time. Deal with it. If you don't like it, get politically active and spread the word. Alternatively, check out and live in the Yukon frozen tundra, with your guns and self-determined Freeedoms.

That's particularly rich, coming from you. Maybe that's how the rest of us should respond next time you go on a rant about the financial sector. "Deal with it, or fuck off to the 3rd world, where they don't have a financial sector." Seriously? You telling someone else to deal with it and shut up, or leave? Not that it would do me any good, as even in the Yukon, or Alaska, or the God-damned polar ice caps, I'd still be arbitrarily subjected to objectionable laws. You really think that if I move to the middle of fucking nowhere, Alaska and scrape a home out of the permafrost, the feds won't come in and arrest me for "illegally" possessing weapons they want a monopoly on, or for practicing horticulture on "evil" plants? Please, get real.

We all know which you'd choose, so why don't you just go ahead and Do It?

Because I haven't figured out how to kill 14,000 random citizens on my way out and escape alive. If you help me crack that problem, I'll be on my way that much sooner.

Remember, though---once you've decided to divorce yourself from any "code" of civilized society, with its written laws and unwritten "social contracts", you lose the power to tell others what those rules and laws should be.

This divorce from society you speak of... does it have to involve a physical relocation, or can it also occur as a delusional break from reality, perhaps?

[Loki]

You really should. It's got problems, of course, and I don't know about it ultimately being seminal, but IMO it should be the go-to book to introduce you to the topic. It's a wonderful book for teaching you HOW to think about the subject, presenting many facets you might otherwise fail to consider.

I'll have a look at it when I'm back in New York. Coincidentally, that's pretty much the definition of a seminal book. No one said a seminal book has to be right decades down the line. I mean, people still attack Waltz.

[GGT]

Yes it does. Go ahead, demonstrate otherwise. Please.

How would leaving things like food and drug safety, or airline inspections, work on a state level? It wouldn't, because of interstate commerce. That can of tuna or vial of Advil doesn't just come from within your state. Neither do 747s flying into your airport. Even your guns and ammo aren't strictly local goods.

Seriously, if your aim is for smaller government and less bureaucratic red tape, having 50 states and a couple of US territories all making their own standards, regulations, and inspections....would be a fricking nightmare.

[CitizenCain]

Well, thanks for answering that. Your characterization of "the problems [I] seem to be complaining about" is... at a tactical disadvantage.

You're way off-base, and I'm not interested.

[Aimless]

I don't know much about the US... would the government really be able to kill you over a hypothetical fat tax? Are they able to kill you over tobacco taxes?

[CitizenCain]

Yes. (Well, actually, not over tobacco taxes anymore, since I don't use cigs anymore, and there's no tax on my nicotine juice and/or supplies. Suck on that, biatches! )

It is, in fact, the nature of laws that they are ultimately enforced by all necessary force, including deadly force. Applies as much to "civilized" Europe as it does to us barbarians over here (and anywhere else), though in fairness, we barbarians do seem to force the issue with much greater frequency.

And yeah, it's one of the main reasons I find the FDA (for example) to be such a perverse and repugnant abuse of power. A regulatory agency, with the force of law, that can (and does) impose health standards on what I am permitted to ingest/inhale/inject, with all necessary force, including lethal force. "We're going to prevent you from taking 'unnecessary' risks with your health, even if we have to kill you to do it!"

/facepalm/epic fail.

And what I find stranger still, is just how few people find that strange.

[Loki]

I don't know much about the US... would the government really be able to kill you over a hypothetical fat tax? Are they able to kill you over tobacco taxes?

What's the penalty for tax evasion in Sweden? It's not hard to get a few years for evading them here.

[Lewkowski]

I'd like to see a copy of this contract I signed and/or agreed to, if you don't mind. Except that it doesn't exist and is really just one of those pleasant lies people like to tell themselves, because they're uncomfortable with the ugly truth that the government we are subservient to is forcibly imposed on us at birth, whether we agree or not.

Its an implied contract. And the vast majority would not prefer anarchy. If a few folks are unhappy about it and would prefer to be able to just go around killing people, well sucks to be them.

[CitizenCain]

Its an implied contract.

Sure, exactly. Like how it's "implied consent" when you fuck a chick after putting a gun to her head..., wait, exactly like that.

And the vast majority would not prefer anarchy.

A) Because the vast majority have no idea what "anarchy" actually is (which is somewhat academic, given that actual anarchy isn't even sustainable in the short term)
B) Proving the point that the tyranny of the majority is OK, and that what most people want, they should be able to impose on everyone else. The Founding Fathers must be beaming with pride.

If a few folks are unhappy about it and would prefer to be able to just go around killing people, well sucks to be them.

Is it hard work? It looks like hard work. Hell, I doubt I could do it if my life depended on it. Seriously, conforming so flawlessly to that stereotype and to this caricature you have of yourself must be utterly exhausting... how do you do it and still find time for the wife and the kids and the job?

[EyeKhan]

There is no reason to outlaw Happy Meals.

I agree. But based on the issues we have today, that sort of food needs to somehow be discouraged and healthier food encouraged. It can't be left to the private sector and individual freedom; that is how we got to where we are today and it has been an abject failure.

[RandBlade]

I agree. But based on the issues we have today, that sort of food needs to somehow be discouraged and healthier food encouraged. It can't be left to the private sector and individual freedom; that is how we got to where we are today and it has been an abject failure.

Yes it can and must. Food is only part of the equation, a Happy Meal as part of a balanced diet with exercise is perfectly acceptable.

A kid who never sees the sunshine and plays the Xbox all day will be unhealthy even if he only ate fruit. Especially if he only ate fruit. Will you ban fruit next?

There is no abject failure. I'll probably get shouted at for this like saying most people who want jobs have jobs, but most people who want Happy Meals are not morbidly obese either.

[Ominous Gamer]

a Happy Meal as part of a balanced diet with exercise is perfectly acceptable.

Research is starting to suggest this isn't true. Some foods, perservatives, compounds, etc build up easier in your body no matter how well the rest of your diet or exercise is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/he...rody.html?_r=1
http://www2.tbo.com/news/nation-worl...ght-ar-239289/

[RandBlade]

Research is starting to suggest this isn't true. Some foods, perservatives, compounds, etc build up easier in your body no matter how well the rest of your diet or exercise is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/he...rody.html?_r=1
http://www2.tbo.com/news/nation-worl...ght-ar-239289/

Just eating French Fries is not a "balanced diet".#

Besides, in the UK at least Happy Meals can come with Carrot Sticks, Salad or Fruit Bags instead of the Fries. It surprises me compared to 10 years ago, but locally at least McDonald's has some not just convenient but incredibly healthy options here.

[EyeKhan]

What about option B,

On the one hand I would be tempted to say, have at it, but you ought to be charged according to whatever stress your obesity and alcoholism ultimately costs the health care system. And if you opt out, then civilization as we know it has to be hard and cruel enough to let you die without treatment. But that's not a better world. And if too many people opt out, the insurance system fails. Healthy people have to pay into the system in order for the system to serve the sick and injured, so opt outs can't be allowed. And everyone covered by the system should be expected to take some level of responsibility for their own health, or pay extra into the system for the privledge of being unhealthy, as in a fat tax and the like. You may not like being forced to pay for insurance despite being healthy, or paying extra for Big Macs, beer and sugary pop, but you are a part of this civilization and as long as civilization's going to be using an insurance system to provide health services, you're sort of stuck with it. I guess if you wanted to get away from paying taxes for health care you could move to.....huh. Where? Somalia? Afghanistan maybe?

...before this devolves into "you can ban my happy meals after I can ban your political literature," let me ask you the question you have to have avoided answering to come your political opinions (well, this one, at least):

What is "the law?" More specifically, what does something having "the force of law" entail?

I do not support banning happy meals, btw. I would tax them and their like, but not ban them.

What is the law? Why, it's the body of rules of conduct or procedures recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority. The law is the cultural superstructure upon which modern civilization is built. The conduct the law shapes determines the kind of civilization in which a community of people lives. In the case of a happy meal tax, the law would be attempting to control the burden of health care on the community by recognizing the responsibility we each have to maintain our personal health and assigning a greater burden to those who choose to conduct themselves outside the bounds of that responsibility. And at the same time the right to choose to live outside those bounds is maintained. It's a decent compromise between the needs of the many and the wants of the few.

[Ominous Gamer]

Just eating French Fries is not a "balanced diet".#

which no one has yet suggested doing

Besides, in the UK at least Happy Meals can come with Carrot Sticks, Salad or Fruit Bags instead of the Fries. It surprises me compared to 10 years ago, but locally at least McDonald's has some not just convenient but incredibly healthy options here.

Those options are here as well, but proportions between the fresh and healthy options and the standard options are way out of whack. Which is the problem, and somethere we have had several discussions on already. Unhealthy food is far to cheap and healthy food is far to expensive (in relation). Step back and look at the larger picture and its a nasty cycle that America is stuck in. The hardest off eat the worst, which can lead to some of the worst health problems, which lead to some of the highest medical bills, which they can't pay.

[RandBlade]

You mean McDonald's charges you extra if you go for the carrot sticks instead of fries?

I actually agree with littlelolligagged on this matter. It is not cheaper to eat unhealthy, just easier. How much do you reckon it costs to cook a healthy, fresh meal for 5 (2 adults, 3 children) vs buying everyone McDonald's?

[EyeKhan]

Yes it can and must. Food is only part of the equation, a Happy Meal as part of a balanced diet with exercise is perfectly acceptable.

A kid who never sees the sunshine and plays the Xbox all day will be unhealthy even if he only ate fruit. Especially if he only ate fruit. Will you ban fruit next?

There is no abject failure. I'll probably get shouted at for this like saying most people who want jobs have jobs, but most people who want Happy Meals are not morbidly obese either.

I totally agree food is only part of the equation. Regular exercise is a must for human beings and our understanding of health is only just now fully recognizing how far reaching that necessity is. As far as balanced diets go, please don't advocate the whole food groups thing and what not - that's more about marketing and subsidies than about human health (not sure if you Brits have something like that over there or not....). What humans really need is lots of veggies, fruits and nuts and moderate to small amounts of meat and fat. More or less. Nobody needs grains, nobody needs dairy products, and nobody needs refined sugars and carbohydrates of any kind.

[Ominous Gamer]

You mean McDonald's charges you extra if you go for the carrot sticks instead of fries?

No, I mean that the healthy options are smaller; likely because they cost more, but McD's isn't a place that tries to nickle and dime every order.

I actually agree with littlelolligagged on this matter. It is not cheaper to eat unhealthy, just easier. How much do you reckon it costs to cook a healthy, fresh meal for 5 (2 adults, 3 children) vs buying everyone McDonald's?

This is a really awfully comparison. If you're going to compare eating out, compare it against eating out. If you're going to compare eating in, compare it against eating in.
There are healthy and unhealthy options for each.

I can get a box of Mac N Chesse for the family for 42 cents at WalMart (600 mg of sodium). Ramen (900 mg sodium) costs what, 11-13 cents a bag? Where is the healthy option that compares to that?

Store brand mountain dew costs 78 cents for 2 liters. Someone show me a juice drink that costs that much little.

[EyeKhan]

I actually agree with littlelolligagged on this matter. It is not cheaper to eat unhealthy, just easier. How much do you reckon it costs to cook a healthy, fresh meal for 5 (2 adults, 3 children) vs buying everyone McDonald's?

I've heard over and over again that the cost for fresh fruit and vegetables, lean meats, and so on is much higher on a cost/ calorie basis than refined/ poopy foods. I have not conducted an analysis myself but I'm sure there's probably a lot of research out there. Also, don't discount our built-in cravings for fat, carb and sugar. That's also a big part of the problem - french fries with salt taste better to most people than a bag of carrots no matter what. That's a product of two and half million years of evolution and we can't do anything about it.

[littlelolligagged]

Where is the healthy option that compares to that?

Large bag of brown rice for $2. So figure that would be 4 boxes of mac and cheese, but you'd be able to serve it more than 4 times. Some fiber, low sodium. And it's a starchy side item, same as mac and cheese.

[Ominous Gamer]

side item? If you honestly believe that is how its used, lets throw in an 8 pack of processed mystery meat hot dogs for 88 cents to cover the meat and turn it into the only dish.

Or hell, just jump straight to a big ol' can of pork and beans for under a buck.

[RandBlade]

This is a really awfully comparison. If you're going to compare eating out, compare it against eating out. If you're going to compare eating in, compare it against eating in.
There are healthy and unhealthy options for each.

Not really, this came up in reference to banning Happy Meals. Why are people talking about banning Happy Meals? Because they allegedly cause obesity (especially for the poor). Anyone who chooses that 95%* of the time could have cooked at home instead.

* Figure pulled from arse.

I can get a box of Mac N Chesse for the family for 42 cents at WalMart (600 mg of sodium). Ramen costs what, 11-13 cents a bag? Where is the healthy option that compares to that?

I can get an ASDA (Wal-Mart) "Be Good For You" frozen ready meal for 80pence. That's with meat and everything else which your Mac N Cheese isn't. That's without even attempting to work out doing it yourself which is often cheaper still.

Store brand mountain dew costs 78 cents for 2 liters. Someone show me a juice drink that costs that much.

Store brand sugar free probably costs the same too and is obviously healthier than the sugared version. Want to go even healthier to what is recommended as the single most important and healthiest drink of all?

Spoiler:

Tap water costs me 14p per cubic metre. That works out at 0.028 pence for 2 litres. Nearly 1/3000th of your cost (treating pennies for cents). Show me one unhealthy drink that comes anywhere near the cost of that?

I've heard over and over again that the cost for fresh fruit and vegetables, lean meats, and so on is much higher on a cost/ calorie basis than refined/ poopy foods. I have not conducted an analysis myself but I'm sure there's probably a lot of research out there. Also, don't discount our built-in cravings for fat, carb and sugar. That's also a big part of the problem - french fries with salt taste better to most people than a bag of carrots no matter what. That's a product of two and half million years of evolution and we can't do anything about it.

People choosing to eat the unhealthier option is nothing to do with price though and is moving to reality.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that anyone who can afford McDonald's, Coca-Cola etc can't afford healthier options. Or take the healthier ones there even nowadays.

[Ominous Gamer]

Anyone who chooses that 95%* of the time could have cooked at home instead.

* Figure pulled from arse.

You ended that one pretty well.

I can get an ASDA (Wal-Mart) "Be Good For You" frozen ready meal for 80pence.

I can't find any information on these, but they sound like America's Banquet meals. Which are about as unhealthy as you can get when it comes to TV dinners. linkage to prove me wrong please. Not to mention they are single serving 7-8 oz of food, which is a far cry from feeding a family.

Store brand sugar free probably costs the same too and is obviously healthier than the sugared version. Want to go even healthier to what is recommended as the single most important and healthiest drink of all?

unaware of store brand suger free options, especially at walmart, but I'll risk it for Publix too. I know they have caffeine free varieties, but thats only because the name brand was designed in such a manner.

Tap water costs me 14p per cubic metre. That works out at 0.028 pence for 2 litres. Nearly 1/3000th of your cost (treating pennies for cents). Show me one unhealthy drink that comes anywhere near the cost of that?

You're stretching at this point, but water isn't the always the answer. Doctor at one point had us cut back on Scarlett's water intake and replace it with juice, and not the low suger juice either since they are mainly the same juice diluted with water.

anyone who can afford McDonald's, Coca-Cola etc can't afford healthier options.

Coca-cola is actually expensive, but that doesn't mean that similar and store brand drinks are not.


Continuing the comparisons. You can buy 5lb cans of peaches (in syrup of course), cheaper than it would cost to buy fresh peaches, even when they were going for 88 cents a lb.

[RandBlade]

I can't find any information on these, but they sound like America's Banquet meals. Which are about as unhealthy as you can get when it comes to TV dinners. linkage to prove me wrong please. Not to mention they are single serving 7-8 oz of food, which is a far cry from feeding a family.

Here's one random example: http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estor...3&startValue=1

Agreed single (adult) serving, so is your Mac N Cheese though isn't it? And the Mac didn't come with chicken.

unaware of store brand suger free options, especially at walmart, but I'll risk it for Publix too. I know they have caffeine free varieties, but thats only because the name brand was designed in such a manner.

We get sugar-free versions of all drinks here: http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estor...64&startValue=

You're stretching at this point, but water isn't the always the answer. Doctor at one point had us cut back on Scarlett's water intake and replace it with juice, and not the low suger juice either since they are mainly the same juice diluted with water.

No I'm not stretching. Adults are supposed to drink about 2L of water a day. Drinking 2L of tap water per day would cost me 10.22 pence a year. Drinking 2 litres of your drink a day would cost you $284.70 - somehow I think even with exchange rates (yours may pre-tax too I guess etc but lets waive that) $284.70 < £0.10

The difference between the two is about $16 per week for a family of 3 (which I think from memory yours is), I suspect for $16 a week you can afford some juice.

Coca-cola is actually expensive, but that doesn't mean that similar and store brand drinks are not.

Its not even remotely close to tap water. We're not talking tens or hundreds times more expensive, its a couple of thousand times more expensive! For store own-brand drinks. Go to the major brands and you'd be talking tens of thousands of times more.

Continuing the comparisons. You can buy 5lb cans of peaches (in syrup of course), cheaper than it would cost to buy fresh peaches, even when they were going for 88 cents a lb.

True. Tinned fruit stays fresh longer than untinned fruit. It's also pretty healthy. You don't need to go for syrup fruit either, plenty of fruit is typically available tinned in its own juices and its perfectly healthy.

[Ominous Gamer]

Here's one random example: http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estor...3&startValue=1

Agreed single (adult) serving, so is your Mac N Cheese though isn't it? And the Mac didn't come with chicken.

all your links are broken and redirect to the same ASDA page, but I did find what you are referring to. Not exactly what I would consider healthy food stats from what little I could find. Still crazy high sodium intake.
and no, the mac n cheese boxes are not single serving. The cheap boxes are 3 servings.

No I'm not stretching. Adults are supposed to drink about 2L of water a day. Drinks 2L of tap water per day would cost me 10.22 pence a year. Drinking 2 litres of your drink a day would cost you $284.70 - somehow I think even with exchange rates, yours is pre-tax too I guess etc but lets waive that $284.70 < £0.10

The difference between the two is about $16 per week for a family of 3 (which I guess yours is), I suspect for $16 a week you can afford some juice.
Its not even remotely close to tap water. We're not talking tens or hundreds times more expensive, its a couple of thousand times more expensive! For store own-brand drinks. Go to the major brands and you'd be talking tens of thousands of times more.

No one is arguing that water is bad, but its not exactly something you can survive solely on, and juices are extremely important when the nutrients they provide are hard to acquire through solid food (ie, small children).
Does anyone honestly drink only water, and only tap water? You're talking about a huge culture shift here. I'm talking about prices.

True. Tinned fruit stays fresh longer than untinned fruit. It's also pretty healthy. You don't need to go for syrup fruit either, plenty of fruit is typically available tinned in its own juices and its perfectly healthy.

and you are back to ignoring the price increases, even between canned fruit.

[RandBlade]

No one is arguing that water is bad, but its not exactly something you can survive solely on, and juices are extremely important when the nutrients they provide are hard to acquire through solid food (ie, small children).

And Soda is something you can survive solely on? Soda provides nutrients that are hard to acquire?

It is cheaper to drink water+juice than soda+juice or just soda.

Does anyone honestly drink only water, and only tap water? You're talking about a huge culture shift here. I'm talking about prices.

Yes, and the price of water is cheaper than the price of soda. What nutritional benefits does soda give to water.

As for culture you've again proven my point. The healthiest option is also the cheapest. People are choosing to inflate their costs thousands-fold by going for an option they want, rather than an option they can afford. Nobody buys soda as they can't afford water.

There are plenty of people around who don't drink soda.

and you are back to ignoring the price increases, even between canned fruit.

Tinned fruit in juice is no more expensive here than tinned fruit in syrup, so what's the problem?

[Ominous Gamer]

And Soda is something you can survive solely on? Soda provides nutrients that are hard to acquire?

It is cheaper to drink water+juice than soda+juice or just soda.

what are you smoking?
No one is comparing soda to water but you. I'm comparing soda to juice because thats what they are marketed against. How many false juice drinks are out there?

You've got this hardon for water, and its completely ignoring the problem here. Yes water is cheaper than soda, and juice. It doesn't mean people are purposely harming themselves by buying juice over water.
and the culture shift is the concept behind what tap water means. Its got nothing to do with soda or juice. Its the idea of bottle water, which is an entirely different problem.

What nutritional benefits does soda give to water.

this doesn't even make sense, even with your water tangent.

People are choosing to inflate their costs thousands-fold by going for an option they want, rather than an option they can afford.

and you are basing this conclusion solely on the concept of pottable water?

There are plenty of people around who don't drink soda.

very keen observation, and irrelevant