Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Free to be Fatty

May 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Advocates of government control of our lives often find that they must first convince us that it is right and just that they should have such control. It is important to listen carefully to the arguments that they make, because they contain the deadly poison which kills liberty. On the matter of obesity, Tanya Wanchek wrote in the December 2007 issue of The Virginia News Letter:

Before addressing policy options it is worth considering whether government intervention is appropriate. The choice of what to eat and how much to exercise is usually considered a personal one. The personal choice view has influenced public policy. State government officials working with chronic disease have cited the difficulty in fighting perceptions that obesity is an individual choice as a major obstacle to the creation of effective policies. Advocates of personal choice and industry lobbyists have encouraged 24 states to pass laws limiting the ability of individuals to sue restaurants, manufacturers, and marketers for contributing to unhealthy eating.

So, individual choice and individual responsibility are hampering governmental efforts to slim down Virginia's fatties. The belief in personal choice is in the way.

Furthermore, personal choices are heavily influenced by cultural norms, lack of information, low education, or unhealthy physical and social environments. Focusing exclusively on personal choice also ignores some evidence that tastes evolved during prehistoric hunter-gatherer days may predispose us toward obesity in the modern era of relative caloric superabundance. These factors may bias people away from good choices.

Here we are offered a rationale for why people systematically make bad decisions about our eating. I agree that there are reasons individuals make poor choices. People might be healthier under a strict government regimen. But, what about liberty? The control of our own personal decisions about how to live is inestimable. And if the argument wins that we should cede all decisions we might make badly to the government planners, how much liberty disappears in one fell swoop?

A second line of attack for the fat police is claiming that individual decisions cause externalities upon the public. Wanchek writes:

The problem with viewing obesity purely as a personal choice rather than a public health issue is that obesity imposes large costs on society....In situations where individual choices have a cost to society, it is not uncommon
for governments to step in and influence those choices, as is the case with laws requiring motorcycle helmets, high “sin taxes” on cigarettes
and alcohol, and public health campaigns to discourage smoking.

To sum up the above; we are told that personal choices are opposed to good health, there is reason to believe that government can do better that individuals, and in fact that the personal choices are not personal after all, that they are akin to other matters we already regulate for the public good.

Try this line of reasoning instead:

1. Unhealthy living is only an externality in the context of a social welfare state, not if people are personally liable for their decisions (being a fatty is a personal happiness liability, as is paying for higher health premiums, etc.).
2. Personal choices are valuable even if we choose incorrectly.
3. There are plenty of methods for people to lose weight and be healthier if they so choose.

Hat Tip: Jim Turbett for the Virginia News Letter quote.

/KDR

Comments

The degree of personal choice in eating depends upon the food and who is serving it to whom.

Some foods are addictive, like sugared soda, so that feeding them to children may lead to a cycle of obesity. If the State is feeding the lunch, than whether these should be served is a valid question - as is the serving of sweets at schools, whether subsidized or not.

Also, who we let in the school door to sell their food is important.

The other arena is liability. If someone knowing sells me food that will damange my health in an addictive manner than I may have a cause of action against them, especially if they market it as "healthy". For example, diet salad dressing contains sugar, which often provokes an addictive response in obese people. If the food makers knew this and marketed their product as diet anyway than I should be able to take them to the cleaners.

You must either have a nanny state that regulates anything or the ability to sue in its absence. One of the arguments for less regulation is a reliance on the common law. You can't say less regulation and no to punitive suits when you do so. If someone is an irresponsible seller, they must be penalized. Responsibility goes both ways.

Posted by: Michael Bindner | March 24, 2008 05:09 PM

Michael,

You are correct to say that responsibility goes both ways.

People should be allowed to sue, but judges and juries should not be beholden to find companies liable.

"Diet" is a somewhat meaningless term and doesn't tell us much about what is in the food.

Now, if a company advertises a product has X grams of Y nutrient, but instead has a different amount or a different substance, than that should be basis for legal suits, or if appropriate regulatory oversight.

But, the essential decision on *what* to eat should remain the domain of individuals.

As for what is served in the schools, a look at what passes for food in a typical "school lunch" should caution us against ever trusting the government to decide our diets.

Posted by: Kevin D. Rollins | March 24, 2008 09:20 PM

It strikes me that obesity IS an "public health" issue. Whether government is the appropriate channel for that message is dubious. Rather than forcibly taxing away people's money, it seems more effective to let them keep what they've earned to arm them with funds to go into the marketplace with and make better choices.

Yes, though, if fraud is being commmitted by food purveyors, I'd prefer to police that privately and peacefully. I could buy government identifying this wrinkle and PERHAPS facilitating private solutions.

-RC

Posted by: Robert Capozzi | March 25, 2008 08:51 AM

Free to be Fatty

Comments

Post a comment