On the one hand, everybody would end up healthier, smarter, more productive, more attractive, richer (less healthcare spending), more psychologically healthy (the gut is the 2nd brain, bad diet means bad emotional health), will live longer, have their friends and family live longer.
On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of view, and harmful even at low doses).
Nothing comes "free". If there is an alcoholic in the family, that lowers the whole family's nurturance level, degrades the marriage, increases the probability of divorce, and undeniably hurts the kids. Sugar addiction is no different from alcohol addiction. The addict isn't the only one who suffers. Similarly, if your social circle is fat, you're more likely to be, and stay, fat. Getting rid of junk food has no downsides, unlike getting rid of alcohol. Junk food is harmful even in low doses, whereas alcohol isn't in moderation.
1) Banning certain restaurants would have a positive net effect on society.
2) Any government with the authority to ban restaurants would choose which restaurants to ban incorrectly, due to honest mistakes, influence from lobbying, or other reasons, and the end net effect on society would be negative.
All rules should be quantitative. Not qualitative.
Qualitative: We are banning "junk food". (What constitutes junk food?)
Quantitative: We are banning any foods where the sugar content exceeds 1% (Where this number can become increasingly stricter) of the food's mass. eg. Coke is 9% sugar[0]; 39 / (355 + 39 + 39 + .045) = 0.09.
Of course, that's a somewhat better idea, but I was specifically responding to a claim that banning McDonald's would have a positive effect on society.
Your idea is inevitably going to have problems as well. What about selling table sugar itself? What about fruit, which can also be around 10% sugar? What about desserts and confectionery? Are we really wanting the government to ban those completely?
I don't get it. Would you rather the government have the authority to ban restaurants, or not? "The government only banning the restaurants that ought to be banned" isn't an option, unless you have good ideas on how to structure government.
The opinion we're discussing is whether governments ought to be able to ban restaurants, so what governments do is absolutely relevant.
I'm saying the government should ban it. You're arguing the government should, but shouldn't be able to. That only makes sense if you adhere to a set of arbitrary political "principles", which I view as nonsense. Government needs to solve problems, not obey imaginary rules.
On the other hand, people will be unable to satisfy their sugar addiction (sugar is completely unnecessary from a nutritional point of view, and harmful even at low doses).
Nothing comes "free". If there is an alcoholic in the family, that lowers the whole family's nurturance level, degrades the marriage, increases the probability of divorce, and undeniably hurts the kids. Sugar addiction is no different from alcohol addiction. The addict isn't the only one who suffers. Similarly, if your social circle is fat, you're more likely to be, and stay, fat. Getting rid of junk food has no downsides, unlike getting rid of alcohol. Junk food is harmful even in low doses, whereas alcohol isn't in moderation.