Fat Americans Need To Be Poked and Prodded To Thinness

When researchers condescend to an entire population, reaching out to pat the collective chubsters on their sweaty heads and coo, "there, there, it's not your fault you're a bunch of fat bastards," you know you're in for a rough ride. It should come as no surprise that, even though, the "problem" they intend to cure is on the wane, the researchers/activists have in mind an ambitious "system" of "large-scale transformative approaches" that will have Americans' soon-to-be-aerobicized rear ends slim and trim, whether they like it or not.

It's not our doing, you see. According to the authors of Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation, published by the Institute of Medicine, we live in an "obesogenic" environment in which "Americans are now accustomed to the very societal influences that predispose the average person to gain excess weight." And since we're soaking in it — a sea of fat-inducing influences, that is — we can hardly be expected to make our own decisions about diet and exercise, or about the trade-offs between pleasure and health involved in driving (or running) past a doughnut shop.

Except that many of us already do. Anybody who has ever pulled out a bag of baby carrots for his kid to munch on at a public event where other tots are stuffing their pie holes with parent-supplied glow-in-the-dark treats knows that choices are possible, and can go one way or the other, as we prefer. Some folks just don't like the choices other people make. In fact, they protest that the argument for personal responsibility "has been used as the basis for resisting government efforts."

But, since a world of cheap and tasty food and easy transportation makes it too easy to choose the "wrong" way, we need an approach that "reestablishes the responsibility of the country—both the public and private sectors—to nurture and protect children, and to support the health priorities of the adults and families who influence them and make the decisions that determine the overall physical activity and food environments."

That is, "the context for the exercise of free choice must be improved."

Which is a nice lead-in for the grab-bag of social-engineering proposals the study offers in its stand-alone recommendations (PDF), including, piling child-care facilities with requirements for physical activity, taxes and outright bans on sugar-sweetened beverages, and screenings for soda-drinking during visits to the doctor's office.

In pages upon pages of recommendations that would, if fully implementd truly remake society, not all are, by any means, coercive. Some are a good idea, such as reconsidering farm subsidies — although the report cautions that "blunt approaches such as eliminating farm subsidies are unlikely to offer a quick fix to the obesity epidemic." Others are oddly vague, such as calling on employers to "create, or expand, healthy environments by establishing, implementing, and monitoring policy initiatives that support wellness." Ummm ... OK. Honestly, some employers do interesting things like offering on-site gyms. And a call for "improving the physical environment of communities ... in ways that encourage and support physical activity" might be just fine, so long as we acknowledge that building bike lanes doesn't mean that anybody is going to use them, and many of those gyms are magnets for the folks who would exercise at home, anyway.

Even some of the more instrusive approaches, such as medical screening for soda-drinkers, are unlikely to have much impact, since physicians routinely ignore the already long checklists of screening and interventions they're strongly urged to perform. If they didn't, over-nagged patients would flee in droves from hour-long appointments.

There's a wish list quality to much of this, interspersed with deep impatience with the lifestyle choices made by millions of Americans.

But why? Why do these researchers care about their neighbors' weight?

Well ...  "Many of these health-related obesity costs are absorbed by Medicare and Medicaid, important programs already under attack because of their national price tag" and "U.S. military leaders report that obesity has reduced their pool of potential recruits to the armed forces."

Oh, and you thought they cared about you. Nope, having socialized costs, now we need to socialize choices that might raise those costs. And we might need to stick a uniform on your back and a rifle in your hand, so do some sit-ups, fatty.

Even if that sounds persuasive to you, it's hard to see why this is all so pressing. Just yesterday, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published a forecast (PDF) that, while obesity among Americans is now expected to increase to 42% of the population by 2030, this represents a lower figure than earlier prediction of 51%. That is, people are still getting fatter, but the trend is leveling off (see Jacob Sullum on exactly that point).

Apparently though, we're just not making the right choices fast enough, and need some prodding in our doughy midsections.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • fresno dan||

    "...where other tots are stuffing their pie holes with parent-supplied glow-in-the-dark treats..."

    Shouldn't that be, "where other tots are stuffing their glow-in-the-dark-treat holes with parent-supplied glow-in-the-dark treats..."

  • deified||

    I'm not in favor of more sin taxes on fatty foods. They're overbearing, intrusive, and unfair.

    Why not a free-market solution. One that works with liberty, not one that tries to stifle free choices.

    Let's just repeal the law against assault, battery, manslaughter, and homicide against fat people. If someone has a BMI over, say, 25, it should just be legal to punch, kick, smack, body-slam, headlock, shoot or dirty-sanchez them.

    This will be good for everyone involved. People will reform their personal habits. And life will be more exciting. Imagine a fat person leaving the house, surreptitiously, trying not to attract the attention of thin folk who might hunt him down for sport. Imagine thin people chasing after fatties and harpooning them to commandeer a slice of bacon for themselves. Or maybe the thin person just wants to prove how quickly he could subdue the fatso like, y'know, a rodeo or something.

    Feel free to promote this idea, with or without attribution.

    A thinner America is possible.

  • kinnath||

    It may seems shocking to you, but being fat does not preclude one from pulling a trigger.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    That just makes America a more exciting place.

  • Tybus||

    Only if they can fit their finger in the trigger guard.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Only if they can fit their finger in the trigger guard.

    Saw off the trigger guard.

  • Ted S.||

    Why not just show the fatties lots of advertising of those "unnaturally" thin models? After all, we've got a lot of nanny types claiming that the images of beauty in our media try to make people become too thin for their own good.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Which it is depends on whom the nannies are trying to demonize this week.

  • Richard_KY||

    Look at how fucking fat this country is compared to other countries in the world.

    I have a friend from Argentina and he said he had never seen so many fat people in his entire life until he came to Kentucky. It's absolutely disgusting.

  • ||

    Boring obvious sockpuppet is boring and obvious.

  • Richard_KY||

    Have fun with your diabesity.

  • ||

    Because wanting to let people make their own decisions mean we make those same choices!

    That's why I'm a coke-snorting, whoring, obese transgendered homosexual woman sending her kids to Catholic school.

  • Richard_KY||

    Advertising is manipulative. It's so good it even makes you think it was your idea all along as a Free Man(tm) to eat a box of twinkies.

  • ||

    Advertising is a way of bringing awareness to a product. People may have a desire they want fulfilled without knowing how to fulfill it, and maybe hearing about a sponge cake filled with cream is a good thing for people who want cream-filled sponge cakes.

    If people are making decisions that hurt their health, then let them suffer the consequences. Maybe then they can reconsider. Until then, fuck off, slaver.

  • Restoras||

    Yes, it really sucks to live in a free country where I am bombarded by free speech all freakin' day. If only we could overturn that pesky First Amendment, eh Dick?

  • Richard_KY||

    The intent of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, not commercial speech. The Courts have accepted this. Otherwise restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes and alcohol would be unconstitutional.

  • ||

    Oh, thank God my betters in government have told me what is acceptable speech! Fuck off, slaver.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    It says "no law," not "no law, except for commercial speech."

  • Doctor Whom||

    The Hidden Persuaders is not Divinely inspired and inerrant. Lots of heavily advertised products have flopped.

  • Richard_KY||

    Heavily advertised addictive substances, like tobacco and soda pop, don't flop.

  • Doctor Whom||

    So New Coke didn't flop? That's good to know.

  • wareagle||

    no matter how heavily advertised these legal products are, you still have the choice of not buying and consuming them. You do get, don't you?

  • Enough About Palin||

    People can use these products. And then they can die. I don't really see the problem.

  • Rick O'Shay||

    Those twinkies were on sale, and they were delicious.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I go through the day being bombarded by advertising, but yet I somehow resist the urge to buy anything. I also resist the urge to stuff my mouth full of food.

    Free will, how does it work again?

  • Paul.||

    Advertising is manipulative. It's so good it even makes you think it was your idea all along as a Free Man(tm) to eat a box of twinkies.

    Richard, tell us about how advertising affects you and your family.

  • Zeb||

    I have never had the slightest desire to eat even one Twinkie, thank you very much.

  • Brandon||

    Richard_AssLube is a fantastically effective troll. Thus, according to his own logic, he should be outlawed.

  • ||

    "Finally. A candidate every American can call their own. He's been a handicapped unionist minority farmer. He's been a right-wing, pro-choice, born-again Southern elderly protectionist pacifist. He's been a redneck Northern liberal ethnic pro-life Jewish fixed-income no-nukes gun nut. And he's been a woman named Frieda. Bill the Cat for President. He's been one of us."

  • T||

    Oop! Ack!

  • ||

    This time, why not the worst?

  • Hugh Akston||

    A Desperate Choice for Desperate Times.

  • tarran||

    I refuse to vote for Bill the Cat.

    It would be the end of Deathtöngue.

  • ||

    You're an idiot. The PMRC convinced Deathtongue to change its name to Billy and the Boingers, and "U Stink But I Luv U" peaked at the charts almost 30 years ago.

  • tarran||

    They may be Billy and the Boingers to you, you french surrender-monkey.

    They will always be Deathtöngue to me. Because I have standards.

  • Killazontherun||

    They were never all that great. Opus's tuba solos sucked major balls too. Ever catch them live? You don't want to be anywhere near the front because the stage smells like cat shit.

    Fucking Kiss wannabes, and that is about as bad as it gets for any sentient life form.

    But, you know who is even worse? The new troll. Just to acknowledge his existence like I do here is to admit you are a faggot.

  • Zeb||

    Faggot!

  • Jeff||

    Look at how obvious this troll is compared to other trolls in the world.

    I have a friend from Nigeria and he said he had never seen such an obvious troll in his entire life until he saw Richard_KY. He also wants your bank account number so he can give you many moneys.

  • Tim||

    Yeah, in Argentina the Junta would round them up and shoot them.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you think fat people are disgusting, stop having sex with them.

  • Restoras||

    Yeah, it sucks to live in a free country.

    I bet there are no fat people in Cuba.

  • Richard_KY||

    There are plenty of free countries where the average man isn't 5'9 210 pounds.

  • Restoras||

    Name them.

  • Richard_KY||

    France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Chile, should I go on?

  • Restoras||

    Yep. Also, source your stats.

  • Richard_KY||

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....,_2008.svg

    Notice that Saudi Arabia is also one of the fattest in the world. I guess they must be a Free Country.

  • Richard_KY||

  • Restoras||

    Wiki? Isn't that kinda lazy? Are you a fattie yourself?

  • ||

    My guess is Dick is a former fatty. Look at how many former smokers or drunks behave.

  • ||

    No, it is a sockpuppet, and a fucking completely obvious one. Ignore it. Responding to Mary just encourages her.

  • tarran||

    WHY ARE PEOPLE REPLYING TO IT?!?

    It's like catching a friend looking at tub-girl every time you walk into the room!

  • Brandon||

    Yeah. Except I'm not your friend, Buddy.

  • RBS||

    You just new going in that ole' Kentucky Dick would be trolling a thread about fatties.

  • Zeb||

    KY is for the jelly, not the state. At least that was my interpretation.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Those aren't free countries.

  • Richard_KY||

    I thought Hong Kong was the closest thing to a libertarian paraidise? They're slim.

  • ||

    They also smoke. Don't you want to stop that too?

  • Restoras||

    From your own source (wiki)

    Obesity in Germany has been increasingly cited as a major health issue in recent years. A 2007 study shows Germany has the highest number of overweight people in Europe.[1][2] However, the United Kingdom, Greece and certain countries in Eastern Europe have a higher rate of "truly obese" people.[3] In 2007, Forbes.com ranks Germany as the 43rd fattest country in the World with a rate at 60.1%. The German obesity rate is considered at the same level as with the American obesity rate.[4] Only 14% live a "completely healthy" life.[5]

  • sarcasmic||

    Name just one, other than the US.

    This country is so rich that poor people are fat!

  • Richard_KY||

    One can be malnourished and obese at the same time. Ask the Native Americans.

  • sarcasmic||

    The straws asked me to tell you that you're grasping too hard.

  • Restoras||

    I thought Tonto's problem was with firewater? And gambling?

  • ||

    That's true, you can. However, it's quite the leap to go from that premise to "we must restrict access to goods that people want". If the consequences of consuming those goods are negative, then people will stop consuming those goods in accordance with their valuation of their own health.

  • Richard_KY||

    People aren't rational. Everyone knows soda and twinkies cause obesity. Yet people continue to eat them.

    This is a combination of manipulative advertising of deadly substances and addiction.

  • Restoras||

    So now it's people that are the problem? Interesting. I guess if you could only get rid of the bad ones and re-educate the rest, amiright?

  • ||

    People are rational; this does not preclude the existence of short time horizons and the corresponding high-valuation of goods/services with immediate benefits and long term negative impact. Everyone knows that enough soda and twinkies can cause obesity, and they choose to eat them because they're not bearing the full cost for their decisions.

    Let them suffer long-term if they want. Feel free to help them yourself, I don't care. But don't pretend you're doing people favors by imposing your valuation of goods and states of being on them.

  • T||

    Addiction? Okay, wean yourself off food. Better yet, go cold turkey. Report back in a week on your results.

  • wareagle||

    People aren't rational.

    well, of course. And because they are irrational, the all-knowing benevolent govt must step in to save them from themselves. And twinkies and soda no more "cause" obesity than reading small print causes blindness.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "People aren't rational. Everyone knows soda and twinkies cause obesity."

    No. No they don't.

  • deified||

    Look, I'm not as hostile as the others in the peanut gallery.

    Still, people have some personal responsibility for being diseased fat-asses. (It also doesn't help that the gov't lies to them about what is and isn't good for them.)

    They know that twinkies and soda are toxic.

    These things can be easily replaced. For instance, I like bananas and diet iced tea.

    OTOH, I hate human beings. So when they die early from stroke, heart attack, cancer, AIDS, or car wrecks, it makes me happy.

    God I fucking hate human beings.

  • Killazontherun||

    God I fucking hate human beings.

    So do statist, but the purpose of their control has nothing to do with happiness except as it relates to their sadism.

    For the record, I don't hate anybody who is doing their own thing with their lives. Only when you try to assert your will to obtain power through no voluntary means do you deserve to be eaten by wild boars.

  • Paul.||

    People aren't rational. Everyone knows soda and twinkies cause obesity. Yet people continue to eat them.

    What rules would you propose that would keep these things out of your family's hands? Since you've just admitted you can't control yourself.

  • Brandon||

    Maybe they just don't think obesity is such a huge problem. And if your kind would leave health care decisions to the free market, it wouldn't be a problem for anyone.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Ok WI. Is the KY there in attempt to throw eveyone off?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Not sure if it's a reference to a state or a jelly.

  • SugarFree||

    Not sure if it's a reference to a state or a jelly.

    Either way, I'm offended.

  • Mensan||

    I assumed the jelly.

  • Tulpa the White||

    One can be malnourished and obese at the same time. Ask the Native Americans.

    Good, the fatties will die off faster and burden Medicaid and Medicare less.

  • Paul.||

    I bet there are no fat people in Cuba.

    Or North Korea!

  • ||

    A life lived in fear of fatties is a life half-lived. Take deep breaths and settle down, little boy.

  • Tonio||

    ^This. Can't believe that everyone else actually engaged it. Missing WI, peeps?

  • Brandon||

    A little bit. Does that make me a bad person?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Most people in the world would love to be fat, ass.

  • Trespassers W||

    I have a friend from Argentina and he said he had never seen so many fat people in his entire life until he came to Kentucky.

    My Canadian girlfriend from summer camp said the same thing. I was so embarrassed that I've been voting in every election to try to get this changed.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Children are the children of adults. Adults are the children of government.

  • Paul.||

    What's the government a child of?

    And where does one go to improve his or her grammar?

  • Enough About Palin||

    I just love a happy ending:

    Home invader shot, killed

    http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb.....33481.html

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, those are always great.

  • Restoras||

    That is, people are still getting fatter, but the trend is leveling off (see Jacob Sullum on exactly that point).

    So, Sullum is fat but not getting fatter? Good on you, mate!

  • Richard_KY||

    The comparison to smoking is relevant.

    Does anyone here doubt that the campaign against smoking (largely carried out under the auspices of government at all levels, including using the power of taxation) has been anything but an unmitiaged good?

  • Jeff||

    Given how apparently pleased you are with it, I find myself doubting it very much.

  • Richard_KY||

    So you think we would be better off if over half of adults still smoked?

  • ||

    I think we'd be better off if over half of adults could mind their fucking business and let other people live how they want.

  • Restoras||

    People are better off as a whole when allowed to make choices on thier own, and enjoy the rewards/suffer the consequences that result.

  • sarcasmic||

    How do you know that half of adults would still smoke?

    Perhaps people quit as an individual choice, not because of the "campaign against smoking".

    I know I didn't quit because some government nanny told me to. I quit because I wanted to.

  • Restoras||

    Dude, that's some stinkin' thinkin' right there. Off to the FEMA camp with you!

  • Richard_KY||

    Smoking started to decline once we got Surgeon Generals Warnings on the cigarette boxes, and declined even further with heavy taxes and regulations on tobacco advertising and an aggressive campaign against smoking in public schools.

    Coincidence? I think not.

  • Richard_KY||

    Of course, all during the anti-smoking campaign, "libertarians" were telling us that cigarettes didn't cause cancer, that regulating tobacco was the moral equivalent of gulags, etc etc.

  • ||

    No it was because of death sticks in Star Wars. Duh.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I started smoking because I wanted to. Its pretty cool.

  • Banjos||

    I bet you look like a bad ass too.

  • ||

    Nobody cares what you think anymore, married woman. Your physiology loses all powers once it's known that you're not going to potentially have sex with all of us.

  • Banjos||

    My gangbanging days are over anyway, Jim. Sloopy has the sexual prowess of all of you combined. He is more than what I need and sometimes can handle.

    In fact, I'm thinking about referring to him as SLOOPY INCA on here from now on. Without the rape, of course.

  • Tim||

    Atta girl!

    You are a girl aren't you?

  • SugarFree||

    She pregnant, Tim. Even if she didn't start off as a girl, she hopefully is one by now.

  • ||

    I suppose getting married and being a generally nice person does convey some powers; I politely referred to "your physiology" instead of using a much more vulgar term like I would for some random chick I didn't know or care about.

  • ||

    And treasure these moments Banjos; the dude is like what, 50 years old? So you have like a half-decade of happiness in that area ahead of you, at most.

  • sloopyinca||

    Says the man trolling a fatty thread trying to pick up chicks....
    sick, Jim. Just sick.

  • SugarFree||

    sloop, I thought of another good "k" name: Krugerrand.

  • ||

    I quit smoking when a product came on the market that made it possible for me to quit. I'd be willing to bet that product would have been available many years before had it not been for government.

    Also, it's in the government's best interest to keep people smoking, and get more people to start smoking. The tax money is delicious and addictive. Like Twinkies.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, the coercive part of that campaign (I include sin taxes as a form of coercion) created a black market in cigarettes that supplies funds to terrorist organizations. So, yes.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Hey asshole, selling squares doesn't fund fucking terrorists.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Essentially the same argument is used to deny gay people equal protection of the laws. What's that saying ... oh, yeah ... me today, you tomorrow.

  • Rhywun||

    The comparison to smoking is relevant.

    And the example has been followed to the letter - we're already at the stage of hyperventilating propaganda and scare-tactics riddled with faked photos and outright lies. It took the anti-smoking campaign years to reach an equivalent level of chicanery.

  • Banjos||

    I thought anti-bullying was the statist cause du jour. When did it become pro bullying fatties?

  • Tim||

    Are you going to finish those fries?

  • ||

    It's not bullying when they do it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    God, you're such an original thinker, Epi. Where do you get your ideas?

  • ||

    Whose comment is first, Plagiarize Boy?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Maybe that's because one of us took the time to craft his comment into something worthwhile, you inveterate hack.

  • ||

    Being slow off the mark is nothing to be proud of, you commensurate tool.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Getting to work early doesn't count for much if you spend your whole day in the bathroom, you pusillanimous toad.

  • ||

    Look, the frequency of my self-abuse combined with my constipation is none of your business, you purulent scab.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It wouldn't be my business if you didn't make so much noise in there, you cantankerous carbuncle.

  • ||

    Look, I have to push really hard. It takes effort. Fuck you!

  • SugarFree||

    When John and MNG went at it like this, one of them ended up dead.

  • Hugh Akston||

    When John and MNG went at it like this, one of them ended up dead.

    And the other one ended up John. SugarFree's right, Epi, nobody wins when we fight like this. Truce?

  • ||

    Only if I can have a backrub. In the Lovenarium.

  • ||

    You fucking queers sound like the Ninja Turtles in the first movie when they trade uninspired and unfunny insults for no reason.

    Fags.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'll bring the industrial lubricant.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Either that or get a room

  • SugarFree||

    The Lovenarium is a room, stupid.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not all of us are up to speed on all your Brokeback Mountain references. Not to mention I had not refeshed so I posted that before seeing that comment.

  • SugarFree||

    You're just full of excuses lately.

  • AlmightyJB||

    excuses and beer

  • ||

    You're all free to join us, you know. No one needs to feel left out. There are plenty of orifices to go around. Especially on NutraSweet.

  • SugarFree||

    Not my mouth, though. I'm saving that for the gay marriage I'll be forced into if brave President Romeny doesn't win THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME!

  • ||

    Don't you diabetics have that hole in your throat that you breath/have kinky sex through?

  • ||

    OHOHOH new thought: instead of fucking that hole in the throat, maybe somebody could shit in it. Now we're getting kinky!

  • SugarFree||

    You just had to smear poop all over everything, didn't you? Damn Jimbo, is there something you want to get off your chest? Something from Cleveland, perhaps?

  • ||

    You're killing the mood.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not all of us have access to Tetracycline by the case.

  • ||

    You know, Hugh and I were having a great time hatefucking each other, and you guys had to come along and ruin it. I rescind my invitation. Come on, Hugh, let's retreat to somewhere with velour sheets.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Thank God. It's about time. Whatever you do Hugh, don't trust him with the handcuffs.

  • Tim||

    So, that's a "no" on the fries then?

  • Banjos||

    And...scene!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Have the Boy lay out my formal shorts.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's not bullying when the state does it. When they beat you up, take your lunch money, and shove you in a locker, they're doing it for the greater good.

  • ||

    Hey Hugh, maybe you could get your own material and stop ripping me off?

  • Paul.||

    Regardless of which of you two ladies made the comment first (I'm kind of anti-time stamp) it's a good point.

    I'm going to use it early and often in my dealings with the locals.

    I'll credit it to Hugh Epsiarch.

  • ||

    "We're going to make bullies kill themselves"

  • Loki||

    And then wind up jackin' it in San Diego.

  • Doctor Whom||

    That is, "the context for the exercise of free choice must be improved."

    The context for the exercise of free choice must be improved through government coercion. Freedom is slavery, dontcha know.

  • fried wylie||

    Anybody who has ever pulled out a bag of baby carrots for his kid to munch on at a public event

    Assholes. I went over this before: special events are where you're supposed to let your kids eat junk food. Make them snack on carrots the other 330-340 days of the year, when it actually matters most. Then it's hotdogs and ice cream and pretzels at the ballpark.

  • Richard_KY||

    So, embrace your FREEDOM to cram twinkies and fries down your fat throats, and then the FREEDOM to weigh 300 pounds and the FREEDOM to get type II diabetes at age 35 and heart disease so you can be FREE to drive around in an electric scooter until you, as a FREE man get your chest ripped open for triple bypass surgery because of your clogged arteries someday.

    LIBERTY!

  • Restoras||

    I think we are getting through to him. Good thing to, Dick was getting tiresome.

  • Jeff||

    It's much less disgusting than you embracing your freedom to be a raging toolbag.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    So, you do understand freedom. Good for you.

    Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.
    Mahatma Gandhi, 1931

  • ||

    As long as they paid for their scooter and surgery, I'm completely fine with someone doing this. It's their life, and it's theirs to ruin.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Yes, I do embrace that freedom, but you know what? Freedom to do something isn't the same thing as a mandate to do it. While I am free to cram Twinkies and fries down my fat throat, I am also free not to do so, and my 28" waist is grateful for that freedom.

  • NoVAHockey||

    meh. beats being 85+ and not remembering where I left my twinkie. or if i even had a twinkie.

  • Banjos||

    Oh honey, you are talking to a group of people who think that individuals have a right to kill themselves with heroin. Do you honestly think that you are going to convince us that we should have government intervention in stopping people from slowly killing themselves with sugar?

  • kinnath||

    I actually started a discussion on the drug war once by asking someone if they thought it was wrong when the government rescinded the laws that made it a crime to commit suicide.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I know you're a tard and all, but just because you're free to do something doesn't mean you have to. I think it's great that people are free to be gay, but that doesn't mean I feel obligated to put my dick in a guy to celebrate it.

  • Surly Chef||

    So, embrace your FREEDOM have your earnings garnished by a nanny with a monopoly on force and then the FREEDOM to be imprisoned for not funding the state to further restrict your life. The FREEDOM to be demonized and assaulted for choices that deprive no other of their, life, liberty or property. The FREEDOM to have your home invaded and your dog shot, so that somewhere, some day, someone might eat a little less cake.

    LIBERTY!

    See anyone can play slavery = freedom.

  • ||

    Actually yes, that is the freedom we desire, for all mankind.

    I know you're a tard Richard, but don't worry, you can still live a full and enriching life. My ex-wife was a tard, and now she's a pilot.

  • ||

    Errr....might I ask for which airline she flies? No reason.

  • ||

    Don't worry, it's a movie reference.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • Paul.||

    My ex-wife was a tard, and now she's a pilot.

    Interesting. My dad used to write something very similar on the board during flight school in WWII.

    Little rivalry between the navigators and the pilots. My dad was a navigator and... told the pilots where to point the plane, so...

  • o3||

    anybody who pays health insurance premiums is [SUBSIDIZING] the fatties poor choices.

  • Restoras||

    Agreed. The fatties should pay a market-rate for their health insurance, based on the current state of their health and the likely consequences of obesity.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's interesting that they don't push for that more. Makes me wonder if they prefer people having strokes right when they reach that age where health cost start going up for most people? Or perhaps the fact that middle aged men playing sports as well as body builders are at a higher risk of injuries requiring hospitalization or surgury? I don't know if that's the reason, just speculating.

  • wareagle||

    nah. A push for higher premiums for lard asses would lead to charges of discrimination. See, it's okay to do that for smokers; they are the opposite of a protected class. But fat folks? Victims, I tell you.

  • ||

    Shorter Richard: Everyone should be punished because some people make decisions I disagree with.

  • Richard_KY||

    The government has a responsibility to promote public health. Obese people have an effect on everything from increased fuel consumption, to exacerbating climate change, to skyrocketing healthcare costs (this would be true EVEN IN A 100% PRIVATE HEALTHCARE MARKET) not to mention the heartache and distress their disease causes their loved ones.

  • ||

    You're going to have to do better than that, Mary.

  • sarcasmic||

    How much do you charge to cross the bridge?

  • Restoras||

    Just answer questions three...

  • ant1sthenes||

    The government has a responsibility to promote public health.

    Well, they ought to protect their property.

  • T||

    The government has a responsibility to promote public health.

    Citation needed. I know it's dark under the bridge, but come on.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "The government has a responsibility to promote public health."

    No. No it doesn't.

  • wareagle||

    to exacerbating climate change

    probably because they fart more and bigger, right?

  • Paul.||

    The government has a responsibility to promote public health.

    No it doesn't.

  • ||

    Also, I'm terrified of fatties.

  • ||

    It's a fucking sockpuppet, and probably Mary, because she just cannot quit us. Ignore it.

  • ||

    Damn, you think she's gay for us?

  • ||

    I think her supersized clitoris gets rock hard just thinking about us, and especially you. You must be so proud.

  • ||

    Well, maybe a little...

  • Restoras||

    Also, but I secretly love them becasue they give me purpose in life - fattie camps! We'll "melt" the fat right off 'em!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Better yet, have mandatory liposuction, paid for by Obamneycare. The fat can then be used to produce biodiesel, creating 9.2 million green jobs for Americans!

  • Loki||

    The fat can then be used to produce biodiesel

    And soap. Not to mention lots of explosives.

  • Restoras||

    Hey! No talking about Fight Club!

  • ||

    obesogenic

    Neat word. And I have a hard time disagreeing with the concept. Certainly the present environment is one where living an overweight lifestyle is quite an easy choice (or almost a non-choice...I think it really is the default).

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "Look at how fucking fat this country is compared to other countries in the world."

    A Chinaman who lives in America now told me that one time when he revisited China after not being there for many years, he was surprised that Chinakids seemed to be heavier these days.

  • Richard_KY||

    Yes, though not as heavy as us. Though it is mostly because we're exporting our toxic diet to the rest of the world.

  • Doctor Whom||

    It has to be the result of all that freedom in China.

  • Richard_KY||

    Yes, though not as heavy as us. Though it is mostly because we're exporting our toxic diet to the rest of the world.

  • Paul.||

    Yes, though not as heavy as us.

    You keep saying "us", Rich. "Us" isn't fat. I'm beginning to think that you're morbidly obese. YOu keep throwing around the word "we" and "us" and keep telling us that we can't resist advertising.

    I think this fat thing is more about you... how much you weigh Richard?

  • sarcasmic||

    That means China has grown more wealthy in his absence.

  • Richard_KY||

    Not true. Mexico is an obese country and very poor. Japan is the second wealthiest country in the world and very slim. Again, possible to be malnourished and obese.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're right. There are no cultural differences between Mexico and Japan to explain that.

    No differences at all.

  • Banjos||

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Japan have a ridiculous high rate of heart attacks? Thin does not always equate to healthy.

  • Richard_KY||

    No.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    Health Rates

    Nope, theirs is 30 per 100k vs. 106.5 per 100k for the U.S.

  • Banjos||

    Ah, thanks. I am surprised that we are 13th. Not as bad as I thought.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    What is interesting is looking at 'fat people.' We are number 1 at 30.6% with a BMI greater than 30. Japan is at 3.2%. You would think if fat = heart disease, we would be number 1.

  • Tim||

    EAT MORE DOLPHIN!

  • ant1sthenes||

    What is the ideal body weight for a nation, anyway? Has anyone done any research on this?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'd say this looks pretty good.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s_7P.....+THING.png

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    I don't know, she seems to carrying some extra weight. I would have to see more to be absolutely sure she is healthy.

  • AlmightyJB||

    As long as she doesn't have a penis, I'd order that from the catalog as is.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Japan has fatties. They even make entertainment out of it. Also their executives have a tendency to be fat slobs. Also, Japan smokes and drinks a fuckton.

  • Richard_KY||

    So, "libertarians", should cigarettes be taxed at 0%? Should they be allowed to advertise with cartoon characters on kids shows? Should hard liquor also be allowed to?

    Should we have cigarette vending machines in high schools? Should there be no restrictions on people who can purchase cigarettes?

  • Richard_KY||

    For that matter should we do away with the warning labels on tobacco products?

  • Tulpa the White||

    "We" shouldn't be making that decision, the manufacturer should.

  • Banjos||

    Yes, yes, yes, if the school wants to, no.

  • Richard_KY||

    You want age restrictions on cigarettes. Are you saying someone should be restricted from selling a carton of Marlboro Reds to a 10 year old AT THE POINT OF A GUN????? BUT ZOMG TEEEEEH FORCE!

  • Banjos||

    Oops, I read you last question wrong. I meant "yes". My bad, Dick.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Minors aren't considered capable of entering into contracts or making life-altering decisions.

    We would also, at gunpoint, restrict fathers from having "consensual" sex with their 10-year-old daughters.

  • Richard_KY||

    So you would be fine with age restrictions on products containing fructrose and HFCS, substances which can be life altering when abused? And are addictive as well.

  • ||

    I'd rather live in a society where 10 year olds can buy cigarettes than one where 17 year olds can't buy chocolate.

  • ||

    Age restrictions are primarily utilitarian. The utility of HFCS bans, food management, and such would need to be justified. The cost/benefit of such bans represents a high bar to climb. And such bans would need to be implemented in cost conscious manner such that they did not interfere with the rights of adults.

    The expense of enacting/enforcing age restrictions, combined with their tendency to lead to restrictions on results, make their utility limited to much more selective groups of products.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I say if the 10 year old makes enough money to buy food with fructose -- like, say, an orange -- or HFCS, let him buy it. Oh, wait, parents are overwhelming the ones who make the food purchases for the children.

  • ||

    1) If that is the tax rate in the rest of the economy, then yes.

    2) If the kids' shows approve the ads for use, then yes.

    3) See above

    4) If the high schools want them there, sure

    5) Legal adulthood is generally required such things

    6) Yep.

    Any other questions, asshole?

  • Tulpa the White||

    yes
    yes (but sounds like a waste of money)
    allowed to what?
    that's up to the owner of the private high school
    libertarians believe in restrictions on minors, so yes

  • Richard_KY||

    New York City is already up with an aggressive anti-soda public health ad campaign:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F4t8zL6F0c

    Why can't the federal government follow suit?

  • Rhywun||

    Yes, and we ignore it just like we ignored the photoshopped dude in a wheelchair who didn't "lose a leg to smoking" after all. Once the lies in your propaganda are laid bare for all to see, nobody believes anything you have to say any more.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Follow suit in giving fucked-up nutritional advice? Drinking low-fat milk is one of the fastest ways to put on lots of fat.

  • ||

    Richard_KY is Mary, you morons. Stop playing with her.

  • Richard_KY||

  • ||

    Yup. Next question?

  • Banjos||

    Show me on the doll where the fat person touched you.

  • T||

    Look, nobody else posts self-portraits here. Don't you start or else everybody will think it's okay. I prefer to think of my fellow commenters as pristine and unsullied beings of pure thought. Seeing actual pictures of them would ruin my illusions.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I liked lookin' at Smacky. Just sayin'.

  • T||

    I'm willing to make exceptions for hot chicks, but given that the majority of us appear to be fat middle-aged dudes, I'm gonna stick with a blanket prohibition just to be safe.

  • SugarFree||

    Warty looks like a beautiful jewel glittering in an endless expanse of darkness.

  • Tim||

    Like a dilithium crystal shoved up a Wookie's ass.

  • Lord Humungus||

    on the other side of the coin, Mary, you would advocate for work camps or enforced labor - all for the "common good". Which is slavery?

    A slave to your own desires or from the boot of the state?

  • Enough About Palin||

    This reminds me of those TV ads.

    Announcer: Attention Medicare and Insurance beneficiaries. Do health issues limit your mobility?

    Me: No.

    Announcer: Do you have trouble getting to and from the bathroom on your own?

    Me: No.

    Announcer: Do you feel like a burden to others because of your lack of mobility?

    Me: No.

    Announcer: Have you fallen in the last twelve months?

    Me: HELL YES!

    Announcer: If you answered yes to any of these questions...

  • ||

    Richard_KY is Tony Perkis

  • ||

    Why doesn't Richard_KY come with a warning label about how obnoxious assholes may increase your blood pressure?

  • ||

    It does, it reads "Mary Stack".

  • o3||

    we're all mary now

  • Tim||

    Wait, Richard is Mary, Mary is White Indian, White Indian is Rector, Peter Parker is Spider Man and I can't believe it's not butter.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's for your own good!!!! /snark

  • tarran||

    How can it increase your blood pressure?!?

    It's the War on Some Fat People's variant of Juanita.

  • NotSure||

    Why are people bothering about arguing with Richard_KY about freedom, his first comment was about how embarrassed he was when his Argentinian friend mentioned all those fat Americans.

    He is a utilitarian that is obvious, clearly for him it is important that society looks good, I suppose he supports government providing plastic surgery for ugly people, after all ugly people are disgusting.

  • o3||

    ugly isnt subsidized by other peoples' insurance premiums...unless its ugly by fire or something

  • ||

    Insurance is a method of pooling risk. If you don't want to share the costs of risk, don't buy health insurance.

    Oh wait...

  • o3||

    and yet teen drivers have higher premiums

  • wareagle||

    yes, because teen drivers have a higher accident rate than more experienced ones. So do smokers. Why not fat people?

  • KDN||

    and yet teen drivers have higher premiums

    WHOOOOOOOOOOSH

  • NotSure||

    Not a problem if you allow insurance to discrimate and exclude high risk people, or charge them higher premiums, the way insurance is supposed to work. Since you don't want that, you created the problem not me.

  • o3||

    im not ugly or fat

  • NotSure||

    I don't care what you are, I am not your responsibility, you could be a god like being for all we know, it still does not justify why I need to pay for you or fat people.

    It is you who is forcing me to pay for fat people, you created the problem.

  • o3||

    didnt know i owned an insurance company. >jeesch i picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue

  • Trespassers W||

    ugly isnt subsidized by other peoples' insurance premiums...unless its ugly by fire or something

    Don't the obese, like smokers, actually have lower lifetime health costs (by dying younger), and hence warrant lower premiums? If so, they're the ones subsidizing the rest of us.

    Higher life insurance premiums, sure. Higher health insurance premiums, not so obvious.

    Watch that "but they're imposing costs on me!" argument, because it can cut both ways. I suspect that you'd toss it out if it doesn't give you the answer you like.

  • Brandon||

    Utilitarian, or just stupid? 'cause I think you're giving him too much credit.

  • Loki||

    ...to nurture and protect children...

    But, but, but... think of the children! Why do you hate children so much?

  • T||

    Why do I hate children? Have you dealt with any children lately? Insolent little monsters, all of them. Why do you not hate them?

  • Loki||

    I never said I didn't.

  • NotSure||

    The biggest joke is how Richard_KY uses an Argentian as someone who is judging fat Americans. Argentina is the prime example of how a previously rich country managed to get poorer and poorer, caused by endless government experiments and intervention in peoples lives - or did Argentina get so poor because they had so many fat people Richard ?

  • Tim||

    I'm gonna have to point out that North Korea is number one when it comes to fighting obesity, The UN said so.

  • ||

    My mother works for a mid-size company with offices in the US and Switzerland. The company routinely sends folks on long assignments from one country to the other, generally about 2 years.

    Within a few weeks, almost every Swissman in American begins complaining about feeling sluggish and putting on weight, despite protesting that they're not doing anything differently. By contrast, within a few weeks, the Americans in Switzerland almost always report that they're losing weight, despite not being on a diet or really trying to do anything in particular.

    Does hopping an ocean magically change your willpower? Probably not. The difference is that American society is set up to incentivize obesity, whereas Switzerland is not. Corn and soy are heavily subsidized. Interstate highways separate work and home. Zoning separates work, home, play, shopping, and school: often it's impossible or at least ridiculously dangerous to get around on foot.

    None of these are "freedom" outcomes. They're the result of policy choices made by federal, state, and local governments, backed by mounds of corporate cash. Rather than poke or prod fat people, or wallow in some sort of "Freedooooom!" nonsense, we should actually look at the policies that encourage less movement and more junk food. They are legion, and they are not libertarian.

  • o3||

    interesting observations from ur mom. then you jump the shark w those examples (corn, zoning, freeways) which existed since the 50's when most folks werent fat. >free clue - michael phelps consumed 12,000 calories a day in the olympics.

  • ||

    There's been a steady increase in the amount of corn syrup and soy protein in the American diet over the last couple of decades. At the same time, commutes have been lengthening, as has the amount of driving we have to do to live. Rome wasn't built in a day; America wasn't fattened in one. It's a trend.

    Free clue for you: Strunk & White.

  • CatoTheElder||

    He won't get the reference.

  • ||

    Policies are driven by preferences. There is a preference in the US for single family residences. A preference admittedly in its own feedback loop due to policies.

    Thus, the ultimate argument would be that a severe restriction on governmental actions would lead to a truer reflection of collective preferences?

  • ||

    Government actions expand and restrict the scope of activities that would otherwise prevail in the free market. It also incentivizes and disincentivizes activities within those scopes.

    Although we are free to choose, the scope of choices and the incentives we respond to are often heavily influenced by government action. The detached one-family suburban home with 50' setback near the interstate commute to downtown may be preferred by some folks, but that preference is really only possible because of zoning and expressways.

    Obesity in America is heavily, if indirectly, incentivized. Screaming "Freedom!" is ludicrous.

  • juris imprudent||

    I can't decide if this is one stupid school of fish or if the Kentucky Dick is that good an angler.

  • ||

    Neither, he just has monomania:

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/04.....tcontainer

  • ||

    So Richard is the Fat Guy Strangler?

  • Scarcity||

    Twinkies have 150 calories, 18g of sugar, 9g of complex carbs, 4.5g fat. Only 1g of protein, though. So add a half-cup of greek yogurt and you've got a damn-near ideal post-workout snack.

    Just because you have no self-control doesn't make it moral to restrict my choices.

    (Not that it's relevant, but I have no idea what people see in Twinkies. For the dense - it's not relevant because my personal tastes have no bearing on what other people should be allowed to do.)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement