My friend Bob pointed out something so obvious that I am ashamed (only slightly) to admit it.
It has to do with Los Angeles banning the installation of new fast-food restaurants in its impoverished southern area.
He points out that the people of southern L.A. don't buy fast-food because they are too poor for other types of food, rather they do so because they are impatient. It's essentially the same reason why we middle-class suburbanites eat so much fast-food: we're hungry; we want food now; and we don't want to wait for it.
The main argument against the legislation still stands--that the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot consume for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
Do the meddling legislators even realize that fast-food restaurants are only built in an area where people want to buy fast-food? In essence, the government is using its coercive powers to prevent people from getting what they want. While this argument might hold for most if, say, the people of southern Los Angeles were trying to procure nuclear weapons, the truth is that the government its using its coercive powers to stop people from getting cheeseburgers, tacos, and fried chicken.
In closing, Bob added that there could easily be a string of healthy fast-food restaurants "where you could get carrot sticks for $1." However, as he correctly pointed out, these restaurants would speed towards bankruptcy because they wouldn't be offering what people want.
This is an excellent point. The government is looking to squash businesses that profit by giving people what they want, while at the same time the government is promoting businesses that are destined for insolvency because they don't give people what they want.
And we let the government make our laws?
The question of who's stupider, the people or the state elected by the people, is so much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.