Eating Doritos While Drowning in Debt

Plus: A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Eating Doritos While Drowning in Debt

HD Video Download

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman lament the latest dire forecast from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last week forecasting a $2 trillion budget deficit in 2024.

02:31—$2 trillion federal budget deficit

21:17— Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump on immigration

37:02—Weekly Listener Question

46:23—Revisiting Anthony Fauci and COVID-19 origins

55:18—This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Federal Budget Deficit Forecast Jumps $400 Billion, Fueled by Student Debt Forgiveness," by Emma Camp

"The National Debt Is Now So High That Every American Essentially Owes $100,000," by John Stossel

"Why We Need To Shrink the National Debt, and Fast!" by Nick Gillespie and Mark McDaniel

"The Golden Age of Groupon Government," by Nick Gillespie

"Trump Suddenly Loves Immigration," by Liz Wolfe

"Protections for the Undocumented," by Liz Wolfe

"There Is No Party of Immigration in American Politics," by Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie

"Should the U.S. Shut Its Borders? A Free Press Debate," featuring Nick Gillespie

"The Five Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're Wrong," by Nick Gillespie and Todd Krainin

"The End of Obesity?" by Ronald Bailey

"Whole Foods' John Mackey: We Must Change How We Think About Capitalism," by Nick Gillespie

"Government Subsidies Keep Your Food Boring," by C. Jarrett Dieterle

"Mandatory GMO Disclosure Doesn't Sway Shopping Habits (But Will Drive Up Costs)," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"The War on Fat," by Jacob Sullum

"American Slender," by Nick Gillespie

"Maybe Brian Williams Just Needs to Write a Book Denouncing the Drug War?" by Matt Welch

"Anthony Fauci's Inner Circle Initially Thought COVID Came From a Lab," by Rand Paul

"In Congress, Debate Rages About How To Prevent the Next Lab Leak," by Christian Britschgi

"COVID-19 Misinformation: Brought to You by the U.S. Government," by Robby Soave

"'Vast Majority' of Pandemic Employee Retention Credit Claims Are Likely Scams, Says IRS," by J.D. Tuccille

"Make the CDC an Infectious Disease Epidemic Fighter Again," by Ronald Bailey

"Presidential Screen Test," by Nick Gillespie

"Based on a True Story: Bill Clinton and the New Court Culture," by Nick Gillespie

"Is Rob Lowe a Libertarian?: 'I want the government out of almost everything,'" by Nick Gillespie

Upcoming Events:

• FreedomFest, July 10–13. Use REASON50 to get $50 off registration.
• Open To Debate: Presidential Debate Watch Party, featuring Nick Gillespie.

Send your questions to [e-mail]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsor:

• Students for Liberty
• Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. On the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs, and it gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management. All you have to do is breathe into your Lumen first thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then, Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time, and Lumen will give you tips to keep you on top of your health game. Your metabolism is your body's engine—it's how your body turns the food you eat into fuel that keeps you going. Because your metabolism is at the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic health translates to a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, etc. Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health. It can also track your cycle as well as the onset of menopause, and adjust your recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy through hormonal shifts, so you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings. So, if you want to take the next step in improving your health, go to lumen.me and use ROUNDTABLE to get $100 off your Lumen.

Audio production by Ian Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

• Video Editor: Ian Keyser
• Producer: Hunt Beaty

What are we consuming this week?

Nick Gillespie

• Brats

Peter Suderman

• In the Line of Fire

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• John Mulaney: Baby J

Matt Welch

• Bill Russell: Legend

---

Comments

[Eeyore]

If taxing people's land by acre is OK - taxing people by pound is also OK.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Certainly airline tickets that charge by the pound--and by the inch.

[Dillinger]

>>A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.

the NAP?

[JFree]

Only if libertarians can figure out how the NAP is linked to the SNACK

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Maybe just let them die prematurely and leave the rest of us alone?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Maybe tell the listener that libertarians strive to mind their own business, and only fucktards from the left and right spend their time crafting solutions to things other people do to themselves.

[mad.casual]

[tilts hand]

Sometimes people from the right spend their time crafting solutions to deal with the consequences of what other people do to themselves as it affects them personally and fucktards from the left blame them for pouncing.

[Diarrheality]

Why would a libertarian care if some fat-fuck eats himself to death? I’ve always believed people, subconsciously or otherwise, do exactly what they want, so if a blimp claims he wants to lose weight, but his body says what he really wants is to avoid exercise and to eat garbage, what kind of libertarian would I be not to point him in the direction of the nearest gym waffle-house?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Why would a libertarian care if some fat-fuck eats himself to death?

Gee I don't know, maybe because "libertarian" is not the same as "narcissistic asshole"?

That a great many of you think "libertarian" means "I don't give a fuck about anyone except me and mine" is what gives libertarians a bad name.

[Nobartium]

That a great many of you think “libertarian” means “I don’t give a fuck about anyone except me and mine”

What else would you expect of an ideology of individualism?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What makes you think "individualism" is the same as "narcissism"?

You do realize that it is entirely possible for a free individual to CHOOSE to help others in need, in an entirely voluntary manner, right?

[Diarrheality]

You do realize that it is entirely possible for a free individual to CHOOSE to help others in need...

Yes it is, provided they in fact want help. In my experience, help to those in need is often times having their cake and eating it too.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yes, it is possible to lurch to the other extreme and be a do-gooder asshole. I don't advocate for that either.

I favor an enlightened individualism - that is the radical individualism in my name - which, yes, prioritizes one's own needs and wants, but also goes beyond that and chooses to voluntarily help others in need when given the opportunity - but has respect for the dignity of every other individual to not overstep his/her bounds.

That is the type of libertarianism that I support.

[Diarrheality]

[E}nlightened individualism...is the type of libertarianism that I support.

That's beautiful. Maybe try practicing it once in a while and you'll be taken seriously.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Jeff just takes that personal because he is a fat fuck.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh I was just waiting for the fat joke. I just thought it would come from Jesse or ML first.

You do realize that if I am as fat as you all think I am, that in the above, I just advocated for taxing myself, right?

[Spiritus Mundi]

Obesity is no joke. You really should do something about it. You can always pay more taxes voluntarily if that suits you, don't make others pony up because you need motivation.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Read below.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And, just to be clear.

I can understand the concept that "individualism" necessarily means that the individual's wants and needs come first, ahead of others (if the individual chooses it thusly).

But what I cannot understand, is this very warped notion of "individualism" which evidently dictates that even after the individual's wants and needs are fully met, that the individual would still refuse to lift a finger to help others, because "fuck you all I don't give a shit".

[Chinny Chin Chin]

No.

Individualism means that the rights of the individual have primacy. It has nothing to do with acting individually, or being selfish. A truly libertarian society would necessarily be carried by acts of altruism.

As Mises said, "“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others."

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I think we are on the same wavelength. Yes, the rights of the individual comes first - if that is the individual's choice. An individual may choose to sacrifice some of his rights on behalf of other if he so wishes. But the power to decide and act lies with the individual. I agree with that.

A truly libertarian society would necessarily be carried by acts of altruism.

As Mises said, ““Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others.”

EXACTLY. I have been saying this for years now. A society composed of libertarians who are raging narcissistic assholes cannot possibly survive.

[Nobartium]

That's because you only view it politically.

Individualism more broadly permits that attitude.

As Breitbart himself said, politics is upstream of culture.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Individualism PERMITS someone to be a narcissistic asshole, yes. But it is not a defining characteristic of individualism. Individualism also permits someone to be a selfless altruist. That is my point.

[Nobartium]

Then what are you complaining about?

This is the expected outcome. Trying to change that is futile.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Why is it the "expected" outcome? I disagree. It is only one of many possible outcomes.

[Nobartium]

No, its the expected outcome because it is the path of least resistance.

Helping others is always materially painful to you, in the sense that your wealth/time/whatever decreases.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No, its the expected outcome because it is the path of least resistance.

Maybe, maybe not. Here is an example.

I have a spare hour on my hands, so I could choose to either (a) sit on the couch and watch TV, or (b) volunteer at a soup kitchen. Either one is a perfectly valid use of my time, and whether I choose (a) or (b) depends on my partially subjective evaluation of the costs and benefits to me on how best to spend that spare hour of my time.

I could choose option (a), because that is the option that requires the least amount of effort to be expended. Sure.

Or I could choose option (b), even if it takes more effort and energy because, in my subjective evaluation, I decide that the effort that I expend is worth it because of the feeling of joy and accomplishment that I receive as a result of volunteering.

Or, I could choose option (b), not because I feel joy while volunteering, but because I feel guilt when I don't volunteer. So choosing option (b) is the option that permits me to avoid the most pain.

Or, I could choose option (b), even if I recognize option (a) is the 'path of least resistance', because I choose not to follow the path of least resistance, I choose to do what I believe is 'the right thing'.

[Nobartium]

I could choose option (a), because that is the option that requires the least amount of effort to be expended. Sure.

Everything else is rationalizing.

Humans are fundamentally lazy, and will choose to do less effort if it can be avoided.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

As Breitbart himself said, politics is upstream of culture.

So what are you after? A culture of people who are narcissistic assholes?

[Nobartium]

For an ideology centered on the individual, I would expect nothing less.

There is a reason I call you an egalitarian first, everything else second.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I would expect an enlightened culture that is focused on the individual to, yes, put one's own needs and wants in priority, but to also have the humility and compassion and respect for others to choose to spend one's leisure time doing things for others in a purely voluntary way.

You seem to think that there is no enlightenment possible beyond "Me first, everyone else can fuck off". I find that disappointing.

[Nobartium]

Humans aren't morally good at their cores, which is the foundational assumption behind libertarianism.

It's why their ideology mostly appeals to young men, the demographic with the least ties to anyone else.

[Incunabulum]

I care about you chemjeff, that's why I'm coming over to your house to take to my full-time care facility where you will be forced to live as I think you should live.

No, you do not have a choice in the matter - I care about you.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I care about you chemjeff, that’s why I’m coming over to your house to take to my full-time care facility where you will be forced to live as I think you should live.

Well, no. That is an unlibertarian violation of the NAP.

Now, if you were to say "I care about you, so I will attempt to persuade to make choices that I think would lead to beneficial outcomes for you, and here's why", then there's nothing at all wrong or unlibertarian with that.

[Don't look at me!]

Persuade with a gun like the government does?

[Diarrheality]

So, you're not only fat, but humorless and obtuse. How fucking delicate are you to ignore deliberately the advocacy of self-determination? [N]arcissistic asshole indeed. Never make the mistake of regarding yourself as generous.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Self-determination is one thing. I completely support that.
What you are advocating for is closer to self-absorption.

It is the difference between "I am free to make my own choices", and "Because I am free to make my own choices, I choose to say 'fuck you' to the rest of the world."

[Don't look at me!]

That’s a choice. You want to restrict choices you don’t like.

[Diarrheality]

What you are advocating for is closer to self-absorption.

Bullshit. You've deliberately misread what I wrote because you took personally the way I chose to write it. Read it again, only this time imagine yourself as athletic and beautiful like me, and willing to generously and selflessly make yourself available to others without having to signal your virtue.

[DesigNate]

There’s nothing inherently narcissistic or assholish in not caring how an individual decides to live their life, as long as they aren’t harming another human.

That you think there is says more about you than it does anyone else.

[Ersatz]

^THIS^
His whole 'narcissicm' take irritated me thru the entire conversation.

a total non-sequitur

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Meh. He's a typical collectivist who wants to be able to live however he wants and put the responsibility for it on everyone else.

[MrMxyzptlk]

High carb, low nutrient food is subsidized by the government. Corn subsidies mean we have a shit ton of corn so corn starch, corn syrup and corn flour show up in everything because it's cheep. Stop the subsides and let food prices return to an unsubsidized levels. Then the kind of food that makes you fat won't be cheep anymore.

[CE]

Usually I would advise people to only go into debt to buy assets, not to pay expenses. But for Doritos, maybe I would make an exception.

[Eeyore]

If we eliminated the USDA and The Department of Agriculture it would eliminate the government intrusion that raises the prices on quality food. Obesity is tied to eating cheap food - the kind the government loves to subsidize. Less government = less obesity.

[JeremyR]

People don't want quality food. They want junk food with lots of salt.

A regular bag of Doritos is $4.50 at Walmart, "party" size is $6. That's not exactly cheap

[Incunabulum]

People eat cheap food not because its cheap – and thus because of the government – but because its easy to prepare and eat and its loaded with salt, sugar, carbs, and fat.

Fresh vegetables are not expensive. Fresh vegetables are easy to get. They take more time to prepare than a bag of Doritos or a tv dinner.

[Don't look at me!]

Doritos taste better than carrots.

[Ersatz]

When it comes to fresh vegetables vs junk food i agree with you.
When it comes to beef or restaurants I would disagree. There I'd say people eat cheap because its cheap and they dont have enough of a wealth effect mentality after taxes and inflation to counteract the lack of that sense of security you need (savings) to enjoy something extravagantly priced.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.

Well, if rising obesity rates leads to a genuine negative externality, in an economics sense, then the proper economic solution is to tax it, in order to remove the negative externality. But in the absence of public funding of health care, it's not clear what that negative externality might be.

But if the question is more like how can the government accomplish some "big task", but in a libertarian manner, then one possible solution is along the lines of an "X Prize". A private foundation, perhaps in cooperation with the government (although that's not a necessary prerequisite), could sponsor a big prize for the first team to successfully complete a task given a stringent set of victory conditions. And that kind of thinking could also apply to big social challenges like obesity, as well as technological challenges which is now how X Prizes tend to be used.

[Spiritus Mundi]

How much should we tax bears in trunks so everyone is safe?

[Rick James]

Well, if rising obesity rates leads to a genuine negative externality, in an economics sense, then the proper economic solution is to tax it, in order to remove the negative externality.

A valid point, my friend. When libertarians shrug off governmental intrusions into the private-sphere which then subsidize them with tax dollars, then the public has an interest in curbing certain behaviors.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Why, yes. Which is why the general solution is to get rid of the governmental intrusions. If, even after the governmental intrusions are gone, there still remains a negative externality, then one possible economic solution is to tax the externality.

[Incunabulum]

What happens when it leads to a *positive externality* - ie, it reduces the costs *I* have to pay for *your* total lifetime medical care?

[Ersatz]

Then you do what Canada has chosen to do - promote it like crazy and make sure the govt subsidizes your choice. Thats the MAID service way in the great white north. Dying of liver disease - here, take this pamphlet telling you how the govt can off you. Have trouble paying your bills on your pension - here take the same pamphlet? Persistent tooth ache, or, mayber just depressed - the cdn govt is here to help. We'll kill you on the cheap but "with feeling".

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, I got my first campaign flyer today. It was from a state Republican candidate to get tough on illegal immigration. He mentions illegal immigration only in connection with welfare and drug cartels. He totally stands with Trump, of course.

So I guess we have our electoral season talking points from Team Red when it comes to illegal immigration.

Illegal immigrants are:
- Violent thugs
- Lazy welfare moochers
- Selling drugs to kids

And if that is the message that one is getting day in and day out, of course you are going to vote for the guy vowing to stop illegal immigration. Not because you love Trump, but because you are afraid. That's the game plan - a campaign of fear.

[Don't look at me!]

We shouldn’t be afraid of crime

/jeff

[Incunabulum]

>Plus: A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.

Yes - don't force other people to pay for your medical care expenses.

Let businesses discriminate. The market will either sort out obesity or the market will show that enough people want to be crazy fat that its the norm.

[TJJ2000]

“This stuff is just not affordable”
Welcome to the failure of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
Not like history didn’t know exactly what the consequence would be.

'Guns' don't make sh*t.

[Brandybuck]

> A listener asks if there are any libertarian solutions to rising obesity rates.

Have not listened to the episode, but I wonder how much scorn the panelists directed towards the question.

The obese have higher health care costs, to be sure, but the only reason that is a concern to the state is because the state pays for all health care. Which they are starting to do in the US. And certainly what all the karens are demanding.

Okay, first off, remember that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

That said, what is the libertarian "solution"? Insurance companies (private) will raise their rates on the obese, to balance out the costs. They used to do that for smokers. There is this thing called "actuarial science" and it has this issue well in hand, if only the state didn't keep interfering. Without insurance you pay your own way. Hippocratic Oath still says the hospital will voluntarily take care of you if you get an obesity related heart attack, but be prepared for a bill and the inevitable bankruptcy.

But I think the "solution" goes deeper than that. Poor people are not much into the whole jogging and gym culture, but rich people are. Affluence promotes better lifestyles. And a libertarian society with lower taxes and lower state spending and lower state itnerference into the economy means a much higher economic growth leading to much higher affluence. Just as first world nations have lower birthrates than third world nations, affluent nations will have healthier populations than destitute nations. And of course, the affluent are deeply concerned about appearances, so will avoid obesity.

So... better health care provision, greater affluence, social appearance, and keeping the government properly restrained is a path towards an emergent "solution" to that question.

[Ersatz]

That was not a terrible answer.