Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Maybe Libertarian Paternalism Is an Oxymoron
At a Harvard public health conference I attended last month, people striving to find common ground would begin their remarks with statements like "every rational person agrees that cigarette taxes and motorcycle helmet laws are justified." There was much slippery use of the pronoun we, as in "how do we redesign the world so that people exercise more and make good food choices?" To give you a further sense of how isolated I was in worrying about the totalitarian implications of public health, the second most libertarian speaker (next to me) was University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, whose main function was to reassure the attendees that paternalism can be reconciled with libertarianism. Frankly, the conflict between the two was not a major concern at the conference, even though its ostensible focus was "responsibility for health." But Sunstein's examples of how default options can be set to steer people toward what they themselves will ultimately recognize as better choices fit well with the general assumption that social engineering is inevitable and should be aimed at making everyone healthier. I was therefore intrigued by this Wall Street Journal debate between University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler, Sunstein's collaborator on the "libertarian paternalism" concept, and New York University economist Mario Rizzo, who argues that the idea is either meaningless or incoherent. Since the whole thing (unlike most Journal content) is available online free, you can judge for yourself who wins the argument.
|5.30.07 @ 2:15PM|#
I'm kind of surprised that public-health types would even be aware that libertarianism exists. The whole field is based on the concept that experts should tell (and compel) the rest of us how to live.
|5.30.07 @ 2:21PM|#
The whole field is based on the concept that experts should
tell (and compel) the rest of us how to live.
Libertarianism or public health?
thoreau|5.30.07 @ 2:24PM|#
I looked at the thread title and said "Dan T. will post in
here."
I was right.
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Very sad, their default assumption that any "rational" person thinks it's justified to compel people to behave they way others think they should. If you don't have freedom to make bad choices, you don't have freedom at all.
|5.30.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Libertarianism or public health?
Dan T, libertarians support your right to paternalism. You are free
to hire a father figure to punish you for things you enjoy doing.
In fact, I would fight and die to support your right to do
so!
But in the Libertarian world, you can't force your father-figure
fetish on the rest of us who don't have your same hang-ups. Some of
us didn't get spanked for sneaking cookies out of the cookie jar
when we were kids, and so we haven't been conditioned to see
authoritarian denial as a form of love or affection.
For us, someone putting a gun to our head and saying "you can't eat
that", well it makes us feel a little uncomfortable.
Understand?
|5.30.07 @ 2:40PM|#
In other words, some of that stuff stuff folks try to shove under the "libertarian" tent - libertarian paternalism, liberaltarianism, Eric Dondero - just isn't libertarian.
|5.30.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Dan T, libertarians support your right to paternalism. You
are free to hire a father figure to punish you for things you enjoy
doing. In fact, I would fight and die to support your right to do
so!
Hell! I'd fight to be hired for that position.
I can't think too many things better than getting paid to punish
Dan T.
Danny! Assume the position.
|5.30.07 @ 2:45PM|#
In other words, some of that stuff stuff folks try to shove
under the "libertarian" tent - libertarian paternalism,
liberaltarianism, Eric Dondero - just isn't libertarian.
But the apparent fact that they see libertarianism as something
they want to be associated with may at least be a good sign.
|5.30.07 @ 2:49PM|#
But the apparent fact that they see libertarianism as
something they want to be associated with may at least be a good
sign.
No... Everyone says they are for "free speech", even the most
zealot pro-censorship person. Everyone says they are for
"Democracy", even when they support the most vicious
dictators.
Nowadays, everyone (including Noam Chomsky) is calling themselves a
Libertarian... but that doesn't mean that they are Libertarian in
the slightest.
|5.30.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Dan T, libertarians support your right to paternalism. You
are free to hire a father figure to punish you for things you enjoy
doing. In fact, I would fight and die to support your right to do
so!
But in the Libertarian world, you can't force your father-figure
fetish on the rest of us who don't have your same hang-ups. Some of
us didn't get spanked for sneaking cookies out of the cookie jar
when we were kids, and so we haven't been conditioned to see
authoritarian denial as a form of love or affection.
For us, someone putting a gun to our head and saying "you can't eat
that", well it makes us feel a little uncomfortable.
Understand?
What I am beginning to understand is just how bizarre the
libertarian viewpoint really is.
You guys would forgo a cheaper and improved health system (you
know, like the kind everybody else seems to have) based strictly on
the childish notion that the most important thing in life is not
having to follow any rules? Or is it this irrational fear that the
government is going to force-feed you carrot sticks at
gunpoint?
Serously, the over-the-top cynicism towards America and her
institutions is a little much.
|5.30.07 @ 2:55PM|#
a cheaper and improved health system (you know, like the
kind everybody else seems to have)
name two
|5.30.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Very sad, their default assumption that any "rational"
person thinks it's justified to compel people to behave they way
others think they should.
So if I stole money from you, would you compel me to give it back?
Or does that somehow not count?
|5.30.07 @ 2:57PM|#
You guys would forgo a cheaper and improved health system
(you know, like the kind everybody else seems to have) based
strictly on the childish notion that the most important thing in
life is not having to follow any rules? Or is it this irrational
fear that the government is going to force-feed you carrot sticks
at gunpoint?
I can't speak for any other libertarian, but (if I correctly
understand what you're referring to) I would forgo such a
healthcare system b/c I don't believe that it will be cheaper or
improved.
|5.30.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Cheaper for who? Not me, I get free health care through my job, and a health system where even malingering idlers are entitled to health care is a system that I am funding through increased taxes.
|5.30.07 @ 3:00PM|#
You are free to hire a father figure to punish you for
things you enjoy doing.
Hell, I'm willing to punish Dan T. for free! In fact, I might even
be willing to pay for the privilege.
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 3:04PM|#
So if I stole money from you, would you compel me to give it
back? Or does that somehow not count?
Dan, when a troll has to resort to deliberate semantic
misunderstandings, that's a sign that his troll-fu is weakening.
Really, is pretending that "I should be allowed to take health
risks if I want" equals "I should be allowed to steal from whomever
I please" the best you can do?
|5.30.07 @ 3:05PM|#
So if I stole money from you, would you compel me to give it
back? Or does that somehow not count?
You got it.....that somehow doesn't count.
Well, actually, we all know why it isn't the same thing, but it is
so obvious it need not be discussed.
|5.30.07 @ 3:07PM|#
But the apparent fact that they see libertarianism as
something they want to be associated with may at least be a good
sign.
No... Everyone says they are for "free speech", even the most
zealot pro-censorship person. Everyone says they are for
"Democracy", even when they support the most vicious
dictators.
Nowadays, everyone (including Noam Chomsky) is calling themselves a
Libertarian... but that doesn't mean that they are Libertarian in
the slightest.
Oh, I have no illusions that any of these people actually will
embrace any libertarian ideals. My only point is that we may have
reached a point where they at least feel the need to give us
lip-service (as opposed to completely ignoring us as a bunch of
kooks).
|5.30.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Dan, when a troll has to resort to deliberate semantic
misunderstandings, that's a sign that his troll-fu is weakening.
Really, is pretending that "I should be allowed to take health
risks if I want" equals "I should be allowed to steal from whomever
I please" the best you can do?
Now who's engaging in deliberate misunderstandings?
I'm not saying that the two ideas are the same, I'm just pointing
out that you don't mind compelling people to behave a certain way
if you think it will lead to good results.
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I'm not saying that the two ideas are the same, I'm just
pointing out that you don't mind compelling people to behave a
certain way if you think it will lead to good results.
No, dollface, you're pretending not to see the difference between
people being forced to act a certain way for their own good versus
people being forbidden to cause harm to others.
thoreau|5.30.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Judging for the title of thread winner is proving to be rather
difficult. The top entries are:
R C Dean | May 30, 2007, 3:00pm | #
You are free to hire a father figure to punish you for things you enjoy doing.
Hell, I'm willing to punish Dan T. for free! In fact, I might even be willing to pay for the privilege.
and
Eric the .5b | May 30, 2007, 2:40pm | #
In other words, some of that stuff stuff folks try to shove under the "libertarian" tent - libertarian paternalism, liberaltarianism, Eric Dondero - just isn't libertarian.
RC's offer has more of the "spray coffee over the keyboard" factor,
but Eric the 0.5b's mention of Eric Dondero (no relation) has
greater "H&R inside joke" appeal.
Tough call.
|5.30.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Since it seems as clear as anything in this affair that Valerie
Plame was not a covert agent the day before Novak's column either,
I think we can chalk this up to Joe Wilson's habitual
disingenuousness. . .
Nobody ever said that she wasn't working for the CIA -- the
question is whether she was a covert spy or a paperpusher, and the
answer seems pretty clearly to be the latter.
|5.30.07 @ 3:21PM|#
But the apparent fact that they see libertarianism as
something they want to be associated with may at least be a good
sign.
The history of the term "liberal" is instructive. The socialists'
success in stealing that label from limited-govt types was hardly a
good sign for the future.
Daniel|5.30.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Speaking as a lurker, I vote for Eric only because the Dondero
reference actually caused "spray coffee on the keyboard" syndrome
here. That in no way detracts from RC's entry.
Daniel
|5.30.07 @ 3:22PM|#
No, dollface, you're pretending not to see the difference
between people being forced to act a certain way for their own good
versus people being forbidden to cause harm to others.
No, actually I'm not. I'm cool with the idea that it's okay to
force people to do certain things. You're the one who denies
it.
|5.30.07 @ 3:37PM|#
If your country were in mortal danger and your choice of leaders came down to cigar chomping Winston Churchill or smoke free Richard Daynard, whom would you choose? Perhaps some of you would choose Daynard on the ground that he would be a better example to "the children." I for one take the simple man's approach, namely, that humans will always indulge in booze and tobacco and gambling and sex, it is a matter of moderating these appetites, not stomping them out, and it is sheer lunacy to make one's habits in this regard (assuming they are under relative self-control) a test of anything (other than perhaps a measure on the bore/insufferable scold index). I guess I will never get invited to the public health elect's smoke free whole grain fun fests!
Ross|5.30.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Luckily for all of us Americans, the federal government started mandating nutritional labeling in 1972, and now we're all incredibly healthy. Thank G*d for socialism.
squarooticus|5.30.07 @ 3:40PM|#
You guys would forgo a cheaper and improved health system
(you know, like the kind everybody else seems to have) based
strictly on the childish notion that the most important thing in
life is not having to follow any rules?
Putting aside the laughable notion that anything the government
does is cheap or of high quality (you should read Rothbard or Hoppe
if you are actually interested in educating yourself), the answer
is that I would demand the right to forego such a system,
both as a payer and as a recipient.
It isn't the notion of government providing health insurance (or
roads, or food quality inspectors, etc.) that offends me. What
offends me is that they will force me to pay for it essentially at
gunpoint, even if I examine the choices and decide to go with a
different service provider.
The threat of force implicit in everything government does by
virtue of the power to tax and the power to print legal tender is
the source of the vast majority of my discontent with
government.
Kyle
|5.30.07 @ 3:40PM|#
CIA,
Boggle.
Did you read the document released yesterday by Fitzgerald? (PDF at
bottom of linked MSNBC story )
|5.30.07 @ 3:43PM|#
It isn't the notion of government providing health insurance (or
roads, or food quality inspectors, etc.) that offends me. What
offends me is that they will force me to pay for it essentially at
gunpoint, even if I examine the choices and decide to go with a
different service provider.
The government doesn't force you to pay for anything, you do it
voluntarily as part of the social contract. Taxes are the price of
living here, but nobody is forcing you to live here.
Matt Tievsky|5.30.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Dan T.: "The government doesn't force you to pay for anything,
you do it voluntarily as part of the social contract. Taxes are the
price of living here, but nobody is forcing you to live
here."
Doesn't that legitimate any law, so long as there's a right of
exit?
|5.30.07 @ 3:48PM|#
No, actually I'm not. I'm cool with the idea that it's okay
to force people to do certain things. You're the one who denies
it.
Libertarians are against the INITIATION of force. Therefore,
telling someone they can't eat donuts is bad, because the it
represents the INITIATION of force.
Using force for self defense (such as to prevent someone from
robbing or stealing from me), is OK, because self defense is not
the initiation of force.
It is the difference between Switzerland maintaining a small
military for self defense, and the United States maintaining a
military to invade and occupy other countries.
You guys would forgo a cheaper and improved health system (you
know, like the kind everybody else seems to have) based strictly on
the childish notion that the most important thing in life is not
having to follow any rules?
Really? I live in a place with one of those "cheaper and improved"
health care systems, and it sucks. Basicly, I am young, and in good
health, and Canada is less of a police-state in other areas (i.e.
War on Terror, War on Drugs), that I am willing to make the trade
off, but if I ever got a serious illness like cancer or something,
I would go to the U.S. for treatment. The Canadian system is just
aweful.
Now, if you want to make the arguement that the U.S. has a
government funded, government micromanaged national health care
system, so that Canada vs. the U.S. is Socialism Type A vs.
Socialism Type B, then OK, you got me. The U.S. is not a
free-market, so I can't claim free-markets beat non-free-markets in
health care from this example. However, people like you very much
like to pretend that there is a free-market in health care.
Matt Tievsky|5.30.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I should've added: Furthermore, if we're going to take the "social contract" argument seriously, that means taking the Constitution seriously. And it doesn't seem to authorize the federal government to provide health insurance (states are another matter).
triticale|5.30.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Well, we are healthier than we were in 1972.
What you mean we, Kemosabe?
I, for one, am 35 years older. Having made my living with my
muscles for some of that time, my knees and back are in worse
shape. Since moving to office work, I've put on weight. My eyesight
and teeth have deteriorated.
Next fatuous claim?
Gabriel|5.30.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Dan T.
Odd, I don't recall ever signing the "Social Contract", nor do I
recall ever having read one.
Can you provide a copy to me?
|5.30.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Hell! I'd fight to be hired for that position.
I can't think too many things better than getting paid to punish
Dan T.
Hell, I'm willing to punish Dan T. for free! In fact, I might
even be willing to pay for the privilege
Dan T, observe the amazing power of free markets. You only had to
mention that you were a glutton for punshiment and you already have
people offering your their services at cut throat rates.
squarooticus|5.30.07 @ 3:54PM|#
The government doesn't force you to pay for anything, you do
it voluntarily as part of the social contract. Taxes are the price
of living here, but nobody is forcing you to live here.
I don't see why my decision to continue working at my good-paying
job, to play amateur senior hockey, and to live within a 3 hour
drive of my aging parents has to come bundled with substandard
health care, poorly maintained roads, confiscatory taxes, corrupt
cops with a monopoly on security, and general fascism.
Maybe it's just me, but "take it or leave it" isn't exactly the
definition of freedom.
Kyle
|5.30.07 @ 3:56PM|#
The government doesn't force you to pay for anything, you do
it voluntarily as part of the social contract. Taxes are the price
of living here, but nobody is forcing you to live here.
The laughable thing, of course, is that you AREN'T REALLY ALLOWED
TO LEAVE!!! If you are born a U.S. citizen, you are required to pay
U.S. taxes, even if you are living outside the U.S.!!! You still
need to pay U.S. taxes, even if you renounce your citizenship - the
IRS does not recognize the lose of U.S. citizenship as making you
exempt from U.S. taxes.
|5.30.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Dan T.
Odd, I don't recall ever signing the "Social Contract", nor do I
recall ever having read one.
Can you provide a copy to me?
It's a metaphor, not a literal paper contract.
You consent to it by being here.
squarooticus|5.30.07 @ 4:02PM|#
You consent to it by being here.
I could write a lot about how foolish this notion is when the
clauses of the "social contract" aren't specified beforehand (or,
as in our case, actually are specified but simply aren't followed),
but I will simply say "Godwin's Law", and leave it at that.
Kyle
|5.30.07 @ 4:05PM|#
It's a metaphor, not a literal paper contract.
You consent to it by being here.
For a contract to be binding on the parties to it in any meaningful
sense, there needs to be mutual consent to its terms. If the
"terms" of the "social contract" aren't ascertainable, then mutual
consent cannot exist.
|5.30.07 @ 4:06PM|#
In the WSJ article, Thaler wrote, "Under that law, firms that
offer to at least partially match their employees' contributions,
enroll their employees automatically, and automatically escalate
their contribution rates are given a waiver from some burdensome
paperwork. No coercion is involved."
The statist mind at work: unless you do what the government
"suggests" you do, we're gonna stick you with a bunch of burdensome
paperwork -- aaand, this is not coercion.
Chucklehead|5.30.07 @ 4:10PM|#
If you are born a U.S. citizen, you are required to pay U.S.
taxes, even if you are living outside the U.S.!!! You still need to
pay U.S. taxes, even if you renounce your citizenship - the IRS
does not recognize the lose of U.S. citizenship as making you
exempt from U.S. taxes.
Is this true?
|5.30.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Rex Rhino says: "Dan T, libertarians support your right to
paternalism. You are free to hire a father figure to punish you for
things you enjoy doing. In fact, I would fight and die to support
your right to do so!"
I strongly support the right of Dan T. to fight and die to support
his right to allow others to coerce him. Not quite so eager to put
my own okole on the line for Dan T's right to oppress himself.
Gabriel|5.30.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Dan T.You consent to it by being here.
Last time I checked, a contract is only valid if both parties agree
to its contents.
That said, what about minors who are unable to give consent or to
choose where they live, yet are required to pay taxes on income
that they gain?
Honestly, I don't know if you are some gimmick, troll, or both
rolled into one astoundingly ignorant package, regardless inability
to grasp the irony of your responses is highly amusing.
|5.30.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Dan T.
Is this a 'Living Social Contract'?
Your version may be different from mine.
But seriously, If I lived here and decided as some do to rob,
cheat, murder, and generally make a social nuisance of myself, am I
still agreeing to the 'Social contact' ?
Do illegal aliens sign up upon crossing the border?
I really want to know! I must have slept through Civics Metaphors
class.
|5.30.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Dan T. says, "Well, we are healthier than we were in
1972."
Ummm, no, I'm thirty-five years older. The only thing healthier
about me now is that mentally, I've overcome my earlier statist
indoctrination, unlike Dan T.
Gabriel|5.30.07 @ 4:30PM|#
The bigger problem with the social contract is that it cannot be
used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because
government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to
enter into such a contract, thus negating the legitimate definition
of "contract".
Here is a social contract I can live with:
I swear-by my life and my love of it-that I will never live for the
sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
|5.30.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Did you read the document released yesterday by
Fitzgerald?
The one where he simply announced that Val was covert, with no
supporting facts or analysis? And in contradiction to his earlier
statement that his office really hadn't looked into the
question?
|5.30.07 @ 4:34PM|#
One more ludicrous Dan T. post: "The government doesn't force
you to pay for anything, you do it voluntarily as part of the
social contract. Taxes are the price of living here, but nobody is
forcing you to live here."
Really? I just forked over a bunch of money to apply for a
passport. What if the U.S. government denies it, based on my posts
at Reason? If I try to take a plane flight to a foreign country
without a passport, will I be allowed to enter the country of my
choice anyway? I've already been treated like a terrorist at the
airport, humiliated by being forced to go through the
bomb-detecting puff detection device and extra-thorough screening
processing because I had an expired driver's license.
|5.30.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Ahh, the social contract - that would be the one that one party
can amend at any time without the consent of the other?
Sweet deal, if you can get it.
|5.30.07 @ 4:39PM|#
So back in my mother's day formula for babies (without added
DHA) was "healthier"...
Some people still think margarine is better for you...and that "low
fat diets" should be the ideal.
Will public health "nudges" nudge us in the direction of whatever
idea is popular at the time?
This is frightening.
|5.30.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Okay, I get it. If I, a la Dan T., profess to see no difference between a horse and a bicycle, will some of you actually argue with me?
|5.30.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Let's cut the public health types some slack. Many of them want to use the coercive force of government to promote their nannyism, and when they combine that with a failure to see the difference between public health issues that involve externalities (like the early campaigns to clean up malarial pools or communicable disease that Sullum rightly praises in his latest article in Reason on the subject) and public health issues that are "nobodies bizness if you do" (like eating lard from a can) then we do get some low grade and offensive tyranny. But many public health folks are like the movie Supersize me, they want to nudge us in a direction opposite from what corporate advertising is nudging us. You know, using gov. or non-profit money to nudge folks to eat strawberries instead of Crisco, or using gov. power or consumer pressure to limit advertising of the latter type. I'm not sure I got a problem with that. You guys think its ok for corporations to spend bizallions of dollars to trick kids into eating Fruit Loops but its tyranny for the government to use a commercial inducing kids to not drown their food in unhealthy condiments? Puh-leeze.
|5.30.07 @ 5:39PM|#
I couldn't help but realize a beautiful irony: on recent threads
pro-immigration libbies have trotted out the old mare that argues
"past opponents of immigrants said the Germans and Italians would
ruin the nation, they were wrong, therefore current opponents who
say that Mexicans will ruin the nation must be wrong too." Well,
many early libertarians like Spencer and Sumner used to be opposed
to early public health efforts like sanitation reform, vaccination
compulsion, forced cleaning up of malarial pools, etc.,. Those
reforms worked out great (anybody got Rubella?), so I geuss current
libertarians who oppose public health measures must be as
demonstrably nutty as we are supposed to think the immigration
opponents are now.
Your welcome for the Logic 101 lesson. Papers are due next
Thursday.
|5.30.07 @ 5:41PM|#
I use these as examples in my high school economics classes and
I imagine will next semester in the junior college econ class. Both
involve the concept of externalities, and since both smokers and
motorcyclists impose costs onto non-smokers and non-riders (via
increased insurance rates) via their actions, some regulation is
permissable. In fact, it is perhaps required.
As a libertarian, I would favor complete non-discrimination and
total assumption of individual accountability and responsibility.
In other words, both should pay the true costs of their insurance
(as opposed to the subsidized-by-non-user rates they actually get)
and the true costs of their health care. But since a motorcyclist's
brains splattered on the side of the road have to be paid for by
more than just the biker, it is hardly an imposition to require
helmets.
It is no different in many ways than pollution.
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 5:42PM|#
You guys think its ok for corporations to spend bizallions
of dollars to trick kids into eating Fruit Loops but its tyranny
for the government to use a commercial inducing kids to not drown
their food in unhealthy condiments?
One, I'm not forced to pay for Froot Loops commercials, but I am
forced to pay for those public-service ads. Two, kids don't need to
be "tricked" into wanting to eat sweet things, and there has never
been a single case of somebody being tricked into eating a Froot
Loop when she thought it was actually a mandarin-orange slice.
Third, if the parents are incapable of saying "no" to every single
sweet-food request the kid makes, the kid has poor prospects for
the future regardless of how many "Broccoli is Cool!" commercials
he sees or does not.
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Both involve the concept of externalities, and since both
smokers and motorcyclists impose costs onto non-smokers and
non-riders (via increased insurance rates) via their actions, some
regulation is permissable. In fact, it is perhaps
required.
You can say the same thing about pregnancy. All other things being
equal, a pregnant woman will need a hell of a lot more healthcare
than a non-pregnant woman.
D.A. Ridgely|5.30.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Okay, I get it. If I, a la Dan T., profess to see no
difference between a horse and a bicycle, will some of you actually
argue with me?
No, but some of us will profess to.
|5.30.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Jennifer-You're right that corporate interests pay for the Fruit Loops commercial and that in some instances the government pays for the health promotion commercial. But that's an example of market failure, there is little money in health promotion (or at least in the kind that works, promoting exercise and discipline) but there is a ton in selling kids sweets (as you note, they are inclined towards it). But kids are unhealthy if they eat too much sweets and they are healthy when they engage in exercise or eat wholesome foods, and since most people hate to see kids sick, this is a public concern. So what should the public do about it, pray tell? It cannot even try to counteract the corporate nudging with its own nudging? Should we all just sit admist sick kids and say "Well, if ONLY their parents were more responsible!" I guess we'd be a lot more self-righteous, but we'd also have a lot of sick kids. Libertarians act like advertising has no effect (and no irrational effects). I guess that's why companies and pols spend bizallions of dollars on this no-effect having thing that just bounces off of us rugged individualists.
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Libertarians act like advertising has no effect (and no
irrational effects).
And you act like it has an irrational effect which parents are
helpless to resist. No parent with an ounce of sense has any
inkling that vegetables might be healthier for their kids than
Froot-Loops, right? And the market will fail here because we all
know nobody's ever made a dime selling books and videos promoting
things like exercise. (Which is why Jane Fonda lives in poverty to
this day, but that's another issue.)
But kids are unhealthy if they eat too much sweets and they are
healthy when they engage in exercise or eat wholesome foods, and
since most people hate to see kids sick, this is a public concern.
So what should the public do about it, pray tell? It cannot even
try to counteract the corporate nudging with its own
nudging?
Those members of the public who happen to have children can nudge
the hell out of their own kids via tactics like refusing to buy
their kids too many sweets, and making the kids eat healthy and get
some exercise. Unless you can show hard proof that junk food
commercials turn parents into helpless sugar zombies I'm not going
to start shouting "A Froot Loops commercial! For God's sake,
somebody do something!"
Jennifer|5.30.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Oh God ... oh Christ ... what can I do? It keeps telling me to
follow my nose, man. My nose. It always knows.
The flavor of fruit and everything else, too. It knows
everything.
I didn't know. All the time I said commercials were no big deal I
didn't fucking know. And now it's too late. For me and for
us all.
triticale|5.30.07 @ 6:37PM|#
But since a motorcyclist's brains splattered on the side of
the road have to be paid for by more than just the biker, it is
hardly an imposition to require helmets.
The rain will wash that splatter away soon enough. As for those
whose brains are merely scrambled and not splattered, why should
any of us pay anything for that? His choice; his problem.
|5.30.07 @ 6:42PM|#
Ken says: "Jennifer-You're right that corporate interests pay
for the Fruit Loops commercial and that in some instances the
government pays for the health promotion commercial ..."
You had me at "Jennifer, you're right" -- if only you had put a
period there and ended the post we could have accepted your mea
culpa maxima (which I believe is Latin for "sorry I wrecked your
Nissan")
|5.30.07 @ 7:08PM|#
I use these as examples in my high school economics classes and I imagine will next semester in the junior college econ class. Both involve the concept of externalities, and since both smokers and motorcyclists impose costs onto non-smokers and non-riders (via increased insurance rates) via their actions, some regulation is permissable. In fact, it is perhaps required.
So, because an insurance company can't seem to interject a clause
that cancels out payment to a motorcyclist involved in an accident
sans helmet, government regulation is not only permissible it is
required?? Insurance companies seem to do a pretty good job of
employing actuaries to determine who is and is not at risk for XYZ
(whether it be auto accidents or lung cancer) and adjusting the
rates accordingly.
I agree with you that the insurance rates should reflect the actual
costs of the actions and not the taxpayer subsidized, for example
long term healthcare, ones that are currently in effect.
Now I see why HS students seem to have no real concept of "cause
and effect" and personal responsibility. Remember, so long as you
let the government tell you what to do, they will take care of
you.
D.A. Ridgely|5.30.07 @ 7:25PM|#
But since a motorcyclist's brains splattered on the side of
the road have to be paid for by more than just the biker, it is
hardly an imposition to require helmets.
Surely, the clean up costs can't be that much.
Robert|5.30.07 @ 8:14PM|#
The history of the term "liberal" is instructive. The
socialists' success in stealing that label from limited-govt types
was hardly a good sign for the future.
You write about it as if it were conscious deception. The switch
could not have come about unless a large proportion of liberals
changed their mind about what was good. They knew they were
liberals and that their ideas were good, so if their ideas changed,
that changed what "liberal" meant. Similarly, those opposed to
liberalism knew whose ideas were bad, so if the liberals adopted
new ideas, those new ideas would then constitute liberalism and be
opposed by those who opposed the old ideas.
Don Meaker|5.30.07 @ 9:38PM|#
Sounds like Dan T is ok with me using force to take his
property.
So it isn't theft, right?
|5.31.07 @ 8:35AM|#
Gosh Jennifer, what a rugged individualist you are! Diania
Shrugged indeed.
But you never answered anything.
1. What will we do about all those sick kids once those
irresponsible parents do what they have been doing, and that is
shoveling Fruit Loops in their kids until they are sick? Screw 'em?
You just keep repeating "but they should be more responsible."
Indeed they should. But once we know they are not, now what?
2. I don't have to think that commercials make us mindless zombies,
but they certainly make many more people buy a product than would
otherwise. That's a fact, Jack (or Jill in this case), which of
course is why companies and politicians spend billions of dollars
on commercials. You think they have NO effect, or in the great
libertarian tradition they are just information sharing exercises?
That's pathetically bad reasoning, have you SEEN a commercial
lately? Very little information conveyed (like with Fruit Loops,
according to the last one I saw the only 'information' from it was
that a large talking bird and his children followers were lost in
the Amazon forest, but he sniffed his way out to a bowl of Fruit
Loops. Boy, that provides a lot for the rational cost benefit
analysis every consumer engages in, right?).
Chucklehead|5.31.07 @ 8:48AM|#
So, because an insurance company can't seem to interject a
clause that cancels out payment to a motorcyclist involved in an
accident sans helmet...
I'd be willing to bet that government regulations prohibit such
clauses in the first place.
Jennifer|5.31.07 @ 10:05AM|#
You think they have NO effect, or in the great libertarian
tradition they are just information sharing exercises? That's
pathetically bad reasoning, have you SEEN a commercial lately? Very
little information conveyed (like with Fruit Loops, according to
the last one I saw the only 'information' from it was that a large
talking bird and his children followers were lost in the Amazon
forest, but he sniffed his way out to a bowl of Fruit Loops. Boy,
that provides a lot for the rational cost benefit analysis every
consumer engages in, right?).
That is indeed pathetically bad reasoning. It's also a pathetic
attempt at a strawman false dichotomy. The commercial contains the
following information: "Froot Loops taste good." That's all it
needs. Exactly what sort of rational cost/benefit analysis do you
think commercials should use to appeal to five-year-olds?
While we're at it, maybe Mattel should be required to put the
following disclaimers on Barbie and Hot Wheels commercials: "Hey,
kids! Instead of buying our toys, why don't you invest your
allowance in a money-market account? The cost/benefit ratio would
be far better that way."
What will we do about all those sick kids once those
irresponsible parents do what they have been doing, and that is
shoveling Fruit Loops in their kids until they are sick? Screw
'em?
If a kid suffers illness because he's never, ever allowed to eat
anything except Froot Loops, that's a form of neglect and we've
already got laws against that. However, I suspect your
"cost/benefit analysis" in that regard works something like this:
"I am currently in less-than-optimal health. I have in the past
consumed Froot Loops. Clearly, the latter led to the former. The
government should Do Something about that."
Incidentally, how much junk food do you think kids should be
allowed to eat, and how much government regulation do you think
necessary to make sure they never exceed the limits you've set?
Vermont Gun Owner|5.31.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Dan T. | May 30, 2007, 3:40pm | #
Well, we are healthier than we were in 1972.
Damn! He's got us there! I AM healthier now than I was when a
decade before I was born.
|5.31.07 @ 6:20PM|#
Jennifer
It takes a while to construct arguments from the fragments you
give, but here goes:
"Exactly what sort of rational cost/benefit analysis do you think
commercials should use to appeal to five-year-olds?" I'm not sure
they should be appealing to five year olds, since those impulsive
little devils cant and shouldn't make decisions on whats best for
them to eat (I'm guessing even Libertarians agree with the basic
premises of contract law that five year olds lack capacity). Let me
anticipate your next comment: but it is the mom and dad who
actually buy. I guess you've never been on the recieving end of a
"Dad can we have it" marathon a la Bart and Lisa Simpson. And, of
course, kids DO make such decisions in places like schools, where
corporate interests essentially bribe administrators to carry their
unhealthy products with little alternative (and the kid won't
complain after his informative Fruit Loops commercial). This was
covered in Supersize Me for example.
"If a kid suffers illness because he's never, ever allowed to eat
anything except Froot Loops, that's a form of neglect and we've
already got laws against that."
Wow, that's terrible. Of course a kid can be sick from eating quite
a variety of junk food, Fruit Loops being just one. But you're on
the right track with the wrong intention here: public health types
would argue that if the government can intervene in a family to
actually jail the parents and take the kid when their is neglect
that leads to unhealthiness, then why can't the government use
commercials to nudge the parents and the kids into more healthy
practices? I mean, you're the libertarian, isn't that much less
coercive? Ditto for restricting the commercial speech which pushes
such junk.
"Incidentally, how much junk food do you think kids should be
allowed to eat, and how much government regulation do you think
necessary to make sure they never exceed the limits you've set?"
This is, dare I say it, delicious! I should think that kids should
eat an amount of junk food less than the amount than would make
them sick. And I've already told you what I think the government
should do to get there, inform and educate parents and kids and
maybe restrict commercial advertising.
But I'll keep lobbing softballs as long as you keep running from
the batters box screaming in fear and tear-y eyed: there are a ton
of unhealthy kids in this nation who eat way too much junk food.
What, other than saying "these parents should be more responsible"
(which we already do, and of course should do) should be done about
it?
|6.1.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Yeah, I know. I'm late to the party. Anyway...
What, other than saying "these parents should be more
responsible" (which we already do, and of course should do) should
be done about it?
Here's what should be done:
I talk to friends and neighbors and harness the power of the
Internet to form voluntary groups of people who are concerned about
junk food and childhood obesity, or, alternately, I donate my own
money to existing groups of this sort. This money (or volunteered
time and effort) is used to educate and persuade people to make
better, healthier choices.
Here's what should not be done:
Too lazy to get off my ass and do anything about it myself, I
demand that Congress pass laws to take money from my fellow
citizens to horrifically overpay for programs that, at best, have
no appreciable impact on the problem at hand.
Does that answer the question?
|6.1.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Jake
That's a reasonable response. I might add though, what would we do
if, given our voluntary non-profit effort, we are still overwhelmed
by corporate ads (after all, we may care, but their livelihood is
at stake, so they are not going to let up)? In Supersize Me they
note that fruit and vegetable advertising in the US is 1/100th that
of Pepsi alone! That's a lot of organizing!
|6.1.07 @ 4:35PM|#
In Supersize Me they note that fruit and vegetable
advertising in the US is 1/100th that of Pepsi alone!
So? I don't think Pepsi is generally considered a substitute for
lettuce. In Pepsi's case, there's not much market growth available
(without expanding to overseas markets) for expanding the size of
the soft drink pie - that gazillion dollars they spend on
advertising is overwhelmingly aimed at getting more of that pie
from Coca-Cola. There's no need for radish growers to spend nearly
as much on advertising as Pepsi does, because there's no big
Coca-Radish company that you need to fight to maintain market
share.
Since fruits and vegetables are closer to a commodity market than a
product market, there's not much point trying to differentiate
one's own stock from the next guy's (though the "organic!" labels
are making steps down that road).
Comparing the advertising budgets of fruit farmers to those of cola
producers is... well, it's less similar than comparing apples and
oranges. I've not seen Spurlock's film, but unless there's a hell
of a chain of logic leading up to that bit of information, it's
likely a non sequitur.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245