Do You Own Your Body?

Post Reply New Topic

Quit being so atomistic. We are all interconnected. All actions undertaken by an individual have an effect on society at large; there is no such thing as a decision with no externalities.

The Flu costs America $90B a year.

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7604/1134.1.extract

Know, I'll admit how I don't know how much healthy eating would reduce that cost, but it would reduce it (a lot of "data" in economics is very imprecise).

Nobody's arguing that we "personally dislike" fast food in the same way one would personally dislike tacky Christmas decorations. Obesity does have an effect on healthcare premimums and while I'm sure some libertarian ideologues would regard them as "voluntary" contracts, it's pretty hard to access the information of millions of other insurers. Furthermore, I'm not the first person to regard junk food taxes as a pigovian tax.



http://www.economist.com/node/14120903

The article ends with criticism (they give the "studies show bear and cigarettes are hard to get off of", which really are more addictive than most junk foods, the claim that it'll encourage people to stay home more preparing food - thus offsetting potential benefits due to reduced excercise - which is a stretch, but I'd certainly like to see some studies done to see how large an offsetting effec that has - and the claim that it's regressive [which could be mitigated by how revenues are used]).

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 31 Jul 2011, 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Okay, is trying to "maintain" cultural values when it comes to a fringe segment of society that doesn't accept them social engineering? Is using unique methods, inspired by sociological principles, to get cultural fringes to accept the property rights norms of "mainstream society" maintence or manipulation? I don't see this magical line in the sand.

Not enough that the argument from influenza is (on its own) extremely compelling here.


Indeed, I have no personal vendetta against junk food. I eat cheeseburgers on a regular basis.


Right, the issue here is price elasticity of demand. Elasticity is extremely low for cigarettes, somewhat higher for booze, and probably higher still for junk food. Especially since there are readily available substitutes for junk food (that is, good food).


This is true. The wealthy are usually already eating well, so a tax on junk food is going to disproportionately hit the poor. And of course any form of sales tax (aside from luxury taxes on fancy jewelry) is always going to be regressive anyways.

Orwell, the behavioral norms against hiring blacks carried costs, and for that reason did weaken in areas where competition was higher.

That being said, the problem you offer is more complicated:
1) It isn't clear that discrimination is economically irrational in this case. It can be if the government did it because the actors wouldn't care, but in this case the actors DO care, potentially making it efficient at that point in time. (Note: It still likely will not be efficient, but..... it *could* be, and that makes a lot of difference, even for a lot of ethical systems like preference utilitarianism)
2) It is actually a choice in this case, and the discrimination isn't against behaviors, but rather against outcomes, meaning that people are not being discriminated for anything but an actual negative.
3) It would be more intractable to change this situation. Surely if discrimination against obesity were so popular that businesses will gladly engage in it, then the population is in favor of this behavior, meaning that a democratic government would not likely be kinder. Thus, there is no real alternative, even if one hated the idea.

I have difficulty conceiving the society, in many metrics. My basic feeling is that I would oppose this change, BUT.... I get a very strong feeling that I am not actually taking into account all of the cultural changes that would have to take place in conjunction with this for this change to happen. If this was just a hatred towards fat people then I would oppose it culturally, while not perceiving government intervention the best strategy.(As I'd identify the problem as the attitudes of the individuals who discriminate, not the behaviors of a single-policy making body, and I model those differently both in my moral thinking but also in my social thinking) If this was a pro-health ideology in the population, then my convictions are less clear on the matter, as there is some ethical principle guiding the behavior, and it is in effect with a very highly democratic consent given no business defections, and rather than a social engineering, it would actually be the cultural norm.

In any case, what variable in my thought patterns are you trying to detect? I can try to isolate from the noise based upon that.


And how often does that happen? I mean, an idealized example may be perfect for a philosophical framing, but it's worthless when thinking about policy. Competition has better feedback policies, and any situation where all competitors agree, is a situation where a democracy would come to the exact same conclusion, simply because the requirements are going to be stricter for non-defection to occur.


The idea is alien enough to my conceptions that it is hard to make the matter clear. If this is a straight-forward example, then I oppose this move, just like I oppose any pernicious culture. I'd only think this acceptable if this is just a reaction to costs imposed onto the business by obese employees. However.... any system that different from ours isn't going to be that straight-forward and involve massive changes in the variables, and most of these are heavily related to even our moral decisions on behavior as context does matter.

I am not being overly "atomistic" in any sense. I am trying to make sure that this isn't a blatant grab for power. If we want to say "Pigou" we could say it on every damn thing a single person ever does. I mean, hell, why not assign a Pigovian tax on invocations of the idea of a Pigovian tax????(this one actually could be justified!) If we want to have anything CLOSE to a rational policy discussion though, then the grounds for policy-making have to be clear. This includes a more rigid notion of atomistic choices, simply because it's a pain to have to consider the negative impacts of beards on the public aesthetic and all of these other sillier variables.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 31 Jul 2011, 2:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

I'm going to make an assumption here, I know it's not verified, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

If people had a more healthy diet, that cost would go down from $90B to $85B. I don't think it's too unreasonable a suggestion. If that's the case, than the cost of unhealthy diets for each America is about $16. I might be failing numerically big time, it's late right now, and I know that it's hard to determine whose to blame for such costs exactly and how to effectively distribute a disincentive, but I still think the flu provides some rationale.

Except possibly not by a lot. Also as Orwell pointed out 90 billion is not a lot of money at least from the standpoint of a large society. Finally, a lot of the damages are internalized into pre-existing contractual arrangements.


The problem is that health care insurers could easily access this kind of data. I mean using BMI to adjust cost estimates is not some incredibly difficult thing to think about, nor is it invalid to use medical records for setting healthcare costs. This isn't a matter of too much ideology either, as if the contracts are voluntary, then the costs are internalized. Pigovian taxes are for things where property rights do not account for the costs, so the tax internalizes, but it's not the only way to internalize a cost. It's also recognized that a developed set of property rights can have the same impact so long as transaction costs are low enough. Insurance companies and their clients don't have incredibly high transaction costs here.

That last bit is just a bandwagon appeal. A lot of people use terms invalidly to promote ideas without good reasons. If it is a Pigovian tax, the case should be a lot clearer, certainly if this isn't just a blatant power grab. After all, I don't think ANYBODY should accept a legislation without clearly legitimate reasons. My preferences are not something to legitimately legislate against though in many cases, and as an institutional body, one of the goals of a liberal government is neutrality towards personal preferences, be they religious, sexual, entertainment, etc, which is why we have all of the freedoms we do have. Attacking this neutrality is potentially(if not actually) attacking the foundation of our freedom.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 31 Jul 2011, 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

The rationale is still rather small given all of the policy work that would have to be done. The government isn't a fine tool, but rather it is a blunt tool as every politician will take every political act as a way to reward or punish people for non-socially beneficial reasons, and will distort policy actions to perhaps even nullify their intent if it is beneficial. A flu justification can't justify a blunt tool to be used. Frankly, given the effects, (and the fact that most of these costs are internalized) the case for policy is effectively dead on that issue, because it will fail to be a solid Pigovian tax if less than a billion dollars of the cost actually impact external parties or something else like that. After all, the major difference won't be people infected by fat people, but rather the fat people getting sick and staying sick for longer and dying.

Well, the basic issue is just that the case presented isn't very powerful on it's economic or liberty-respecting grounds. If we regard liberty as important, and economic grounds as rather weak, then we can't really support this change. Note: by "liberty", I don't mean some gun toting libertarian idea, I simply mean the basic conception that I believe most ideologies in the West would hold to. Individualism and autonomy are central political ideas in western philosophy, whether on the left, right, middle, libertarian, etc, and this seems to conflict with this basic notion underlying all of our rights.


Right, and this would then itself require some form of offset, because it would be harming the poor, which is not a good idea from an egalitarian standpoint.

Economic rationality is irrelevant to the point I am looking for here. Your pronouns are too ambiguous for me to parse this part of your post.


What's your point?


I'm still not sure what you're getting at here.


You aren't actually the one I wanted to answer this question, since I know you're extreme on the libertarian side. I doubt there ends up being an internal contradiction in your thought processes on this matter, but your ideas are fringe. If a somewhat more mainstream person addressed the issue, my point would become clearer.


Yeah... you're missing the point. I want to compare the idea of a society where there simply a broad (but non-governmental) consensus to discriminate against people for certain behaviors, vs the alleged "social engineering" of the government attempting to discourage such behaviors through altered tax incentives. We aren't taking a society that would engage in such discrimination and asking whether or not they should bother codifying it into law.

That $90 billion is the total economic cost, including flu-related government expenditures and economic costs to private individuals and corporations. Would a government policy aimed at discouraging poor health choices have a big enough effect to offset its own costs simply in flu-related government spending? Probably not. So then if you want to argue solely based on influenza, it becomes a question of how far the government's obligation to help the overall economy goes. If you are only concerned about the government's own budget, then you can look at more general healthcare expenditures and quite easily justify such measures.

we have a fat based food tax in denmark and it is working to push prices on many everyday items, the problem with taxing fast food is how to determine that it is fast food.

should the healthy sandwich bar be taxed the same as the burger joint down the street?
how do you effectively differentiate?
is there an actual difference in food?(i know there is but by how much)

the real issue with "healthy" and "unhealthy" food has nothing to do with the food but the actual habbits of the people eating it,
if the sandwich joint was now cheaper then they would eat there, it wont change the fact that many overwheight people simply eat too much.

if what you want is to actually ensure the health of your citizens you would have to dictate directly what ratios of food are "allowed" (ridicoulous)

found an english article from before the law was implemented here

Last edited by Oodain on 31 Jul 2011, 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

You are severely underestimating the economic grounds, and I think you know it.


Straw man, and again I think you know it. No one in this thread has promoted an outright ban on junk food. An extra 5% or 10% cost on unhealthy foods is hardly a massive violation of basic civil rights or individual autonomy. Certainly you are being unrealistic in your depiction of the prevailing Western ethos here, as undoubtedly much of the Western world believes in more significant curtailments of individual autonomy, eg free speech limitations in Canada and Europe.


We already subsidize food for the poor through a variety of mechanisms. I see no reason why a minor adjustment to those programs would not mitigate any problems caused by junk food taxes.

I am not sure what your point really is....

Even further, I am not sure how having an extreme position disqualifies me at this point. In fact, I don't know of a single major participant in this debate who either isn't fringe, or who hasn't dabbled in the fringe, so.... I am not actually different than most people here.


I know the current society isn't the latter. However, there is a difference between the two societies, as a broad public consensus would be a matter of intra-cultural dialogue but a regulation would have some element of being imposed via fiat. The former is flexible, while the latter is less so. The former is adopted by the people themselves, and the former is imposed to a higher extent. These distinctions seem to have some import. After all, I would think there is some meaningful distinction between a highly moralistic community and a fascist society that would be clear to the average person, because most people are fine with extreme moralistic arrangements but hate fascism passionately.

Given that I haven't been provided an estimate, and it isn't my job to create that estimate, and that I haven't actually tried to go much into an estimate, I don't see how you can assign me fault that quickly. Even further, I'm really talking about the non-internalized economic costs, not all costs that can be given a dollar value. I mean, BDSM has a dollar cost, but I sure as hell am not going to see it as something to be regarded too heavily.


But a 5%-10% tax increase isn't on good grounds, thus making this not a strawman. It's a blatant powerplay without significant justification. Now you can go around saying "Well, you know better!! !", but honestly Orwell, if you actually had a legitimate case you wouldn't be appealing to what I supposedly know. You also wouldn't be saying "Oh, you're being too atomistic" when all I am doing is applying straight-forward economic analysis. Your case is apparently quite weak, or you don't know your case that well, and in either way, I am not being unfair about the matter.

Now.... that last part about the ethos might be true. It's actually hard to say. What we often see is that people are idealistic when they look at issues from far away, but on specifics they regulate like madmen without even a real regard for basic thinking on the matter. Obviously by playing up "FREEDOM" I am trying to stir up the idealistic(and arguably more consistent) attitude on the matter.


You're probably right on that, but policy is still more of a matter of making sausages than I think you're trying to model it as.