Do You Own Your Body?

Post Reply New Topic

You asserted that the economic grounds were weak. That is not a specific numerical assessment, but it was at the very least an informal qualitative estimate. Don't try to weasel out of that.


The first half of this sentence is an unsupported (and wrong) assertion, and worse it is not even relevant to the point you were trying to make- ie that it would be some sort of inexcusable violation of individual liberty if doughnuts cost a dime extra.

To your "freedom" argument- there are obviously bounds of reason here. No one is saying that the government should issue each person an approved diet and workout regiment and stringently enforce it. That would obviously be a huge violation of individual liberty. Passing a tax on Dorito's is clearly not in the same class. An inability to discern the difference between those two proposals just reflects an excessively rigid mindset.


Except that there is significant justification, and your characterization of it as a "powerplay" is overstated.


No, you were pedantically nit-picking the application of a term. And in rather a foolish way, since that nitpicking simply does not work in this context, and becomes entirely absurd if we bother to bring any empirical evidence into the discussion. An individual's poor health does impose an added cost on society at large. Not only through increased healthcare costs that are already well-documented, but also more directly to their immediate acquaintances as shown by Christakis.


Here, I'll frame this claim in a different way: you're trying to get people to look at things in a vague hand-waving sort of way, rather than digging down into the real facts and details and making an informed decision appropriate to the specific situation.

the issue still stands to actually define unhealthy food for good
what would you make it a function of?


before that is answered any attempt at regulation will end up hurting buisness and people it was never intended for much harder than the target group, this situation is a reality in denmark with many families having to restructure their entire budget because of it, normal healthy families.

Yes, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE ECONOMIC GROUNDS WERE. Everything I've been given is weak. Now, there could be a great argument, but you haven't given it.


If there is no reason for the policy, then YES. Policies without sufficient justification are inexcusable.


Orwell, the policy is unjustified


If there is significant justification in a framework of Pigovian taxes, then give it. If there isn't, then this is a "blatant powerplay" as this is not a respectable policy.


No, I f*****g wasn't. It's not NITPICKING to use economic words properly. You might as well say it is "NITPICKING" to demand that a person recognize that a correlation doesn't have the same meaning as a causation, or that it is NITPICKING to point out that the theory of relativity isn't an invocation of relativism. Economic words are technical words, Orwell, they have specific meanings, and if one uses them in a policy context, one ought to defend the use.

Even further, it is relevant to this context. It is not absurd. A failure to recognize the non-absurdity of this is sheer sign of outright idiocy.

Your statement is the only time where the name "Christakis" has shown up in this entire thread. Even further, Christakis is only showing that social norms are impacted by behavior, he's not showing that obesity is actually a contagious disease in the sense of infecting local individuals. As such, this has no bearing on whether obesity is an externality, because in a social relationship, you have choices on who you associate with. It really seems to me that this is a means of cultural control, which I am point blank against, I find the ideas you are putting forward outright ridiculous, regardless of how you quibble that I am just an "ideologue". Orwell, whether or not I am an ideologue has no bearing on the content of the discussion, and certainly the label also applies to you at various points in time, possibly including the current point in time.


No, I am not. I've dug down into the real economic analysis. There is no economic case for your claim. You might as well be saying "beer kills brain cells". My response is "No s**t Sherlocke, but these people have chosen to drink beer knowing the consequences, thus the costs have been internalized in this choice". Any further objection from your end is an objection to the choices people are making. That's about as far analytically that I really think I need to go, as you given LITTLE TO NO JUSTIFICATION beyond some desire to control people's behavior. I don't approve of that. That's silly and ridiculous. If your case was that market failure caused labor market problems impacting the poor, that's more reasonable. If your case was that information assymetries in a market prevented people from making rational choices, that's a more reasonable case. In this instance though, the markets are apparently working, people are making their choices, and you just don't like those choices. That's a piss-poor justification. I mean, hell, if cookies were really really addictive, and people lost their jobs in their quest for "the white stuff" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvDgnsFrjSc but at this rate, why not start going after the porn industry? You're clever enough to make up some fake justification, I am certain. I mean, the degradation to women is worth something right? Why not people studying art in college, surely they're making poor choices that need to be taxed, right?

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 31 Jul 2011, 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oodain, that is a good policy question. I'd think there would be some policy commission regulating how many calories from fat and all of that other stuff for something to be a "junk food" and all of the mess associated with such a bureaucracy.

my point is it all comes down to ratios and that super "unhealthy" food item is only unhealthy if eaten in excess or without consideration.
there exist no such thing as healthy or unhealthy food, it also depends on your physical activities, if you are excercising and your genes, some people can literally eat like pigs and live quite well, others will feel sick if they take a whiff of something fatty, in conclusion i think our perception dictates how healthy we feel about what we eat and that shapes how we emotionally feel about ourselves, i actually think the excessive health hysteria does more damage than good in the mental department.

that being said of course there are plenty of people that live in a way with severe consequences for their lives, these people might need help(or motivation) but it wont come from an increase in taxes or a ban of certain food items.
of course some foods are simply saturated energy bombs and eating only that can lead to actual real health problems but they can come if you get below about (5-15% (energy from fat in diet)) again heavily dependant on the person.
some live halthy lives with as much as 50% fat intake and 30 is usually quoted as the average upper limit for a normal person, again with a lot of personal differences.

there are of course many other factors but in modern food, if you eat reasonably varied you will get as good as everything you need, then comes moderation to make sure overwheight isnt a problem.

it was meant as a challenge to actually find that ratio because from where i stand that would be as impossible as defining normal in a consistent way.

Note: To make everything clear, here's a few points:

1) My position is defensible from multiple ethical positions and metrics, including preference utilitarianism(preferences will be accommodated through exchanges), libertarianism, economic efficiency, general liberalism, etc, so it isn't clear that I am just being ideological and unempirical, as there is really no given moral case for this policy.

2) The analysis of economic impact being provided doesn't work. Why? Because costs health decline from choices is the same kind of counter-factual as the money lost from people taking vacations and/or the money lost from not taking a second job, the money lost from getting a liberal arts degree as opposed to a business or science degree in college, etc. In short, there are lots of choices we make that cost us money, but the fact that they cost us money isn't a good argument against them.

3) Although social engineering may be desirable in certain areas of social policy, most people don't want extensive social engineering. We might be fine with improving the justice system, or various elements of improving the government, but certain areas any social engineering will appear rather disturbing. For instance, a government language policy targeting the use of curse words, or a sex policy, or a policy on what religion you should choose, etc. Some areas are really more desirable to leave to unaltered choice, and often things will work out even if we do this, and many people believe this in slogans like "Keep government out of the bedroom", which even if there are better and worse bedroom things, is sensible for the government to hold to, except in perhaps the more extreme situations.

4) It is not clear that this kind of policy comes from a clear ethic for when to make government policies. After all, it's not even clear that this policy is justified on a hedonic utilitarian ground, and if it isn't even justified on that, then what really gives ground to do this? Pure paternalism? Since when is *that* a great way to make decisions?

5) Even the very implementation will be complicated, a point made by Oodain, as the action will involve many decisions that are complicated, and even if done, it isn't clear that there will be health benefits, as we have no idea what substitutions will be made.

In all seriousness, this is not a situation where second hand smoke bothers me as I walk down the street, or where a drunken driver can crash into my car, or even an incredibly addictive drug like cocaine, this is simply a matter of decisions people make(like porn, video games, etc), and they internalize a large proportion of the costs of it. I mean, the case against violent movies and games in many ways appears stronger, and even then it is still kind of ridiculous.

Healthcare costs (including those borne collectively and thus not internalized, whether they are provided through government-subsidized healthcare or private insurance) are significantly affected by this. Christakis's work also shows that an individual's health has an effect on others. There clearly is an economic justification, even simply in the sense of saving billions of dollars from the federal budget.


You are shifting the goalpost. You repeat your false assertion about whether the policy is justified. And again you make a claim irrelevant to your original point here. Even if the policy were "unjustified," it would not follow that it some kind of civil liberties abuse. There are any number of pointless laws that do not constitute a violation of individual liberty and autonomy, so if you want to argue from that angle you're going to have to come up with something a hell of a lot better.


Asserting the same thing over and over again does not make it any more true.


It's already been given. An individual's poor health puts additional strain on our healthcare system, therefore there is an externality involved, and it is appropriate to speak of Pigovian taxes. Whether such a policy is a good idea is largely a separate debate from this fact, but your criticism of MP's use of that term was just stupid and wrong.


OK, but MP was using the term correctly. You are attempting to deny that it could be applicable in an attempt to de-legitimize any discussion of such a policy.


That's because you're an anarchist. All law is rooted in a desire to control people's behavior and an effort to discourage choices that some people would make. And yet again with your false assertion.

can you come with an actual definition of unhealthy food?

can that definition be used to create legislation?

People, before you get into economic arguments, please check a few of the underlying assumptions you appear to be making.

One is that larger body size automatically equals poor health outcome.

Another is that larger body size equals larger consumption of unhealthy food.

These are both assumptions, not necessarily facts. Check the facts. Then proceed.

Private insurance problems can easily be internalized through allowing insurance companies flexibility in handling high BMI people. Collective health care costs can also be internalized by reducing coverage for those overweight until they lose that weight. After all, any treatment plan will require doctor's visits, which can be used to monitor this behavior, and monitoring weight is more direct than any cheeseburger tax.

You've actually never cited Christakis's work, I had to look that up. You somehow IMAGINED you cited Christakis's work somehow, but without citing it, I am not in any sense beholden to even know what you are talking about, and I only know what you are talking about because I did the footwork(the footwork that YOU should have been doing) to research it. Christakis's work actually doesn't provide an economic justification because it relies on social networks, not on mere presence, which Christakis himself points out, MEANING the costs of having a fat friend are internalized within that relationship. So, if you really don't want to worry about gaining weight, don't have fat friends. Finally, given that any plausible mechanism for the spread of obesity is going to be a spread of behaviors(as the biggest issue is calories consumed vs calories used), that's not actually an economic justification, even ignoring the other factor that this is a network effect. Orwell, do you really need a class in introductory economics? This issue is just remarkably simple microeconomics, and yet the mistake is obvious.


I am not shifting any goal post at all. Let's see, if we take the normative rule that every policy that limits human freedom needs justification, and if we take the definition that reductions of liberty or efforts to control non-aggressive/non-socially destructive behavior are reductions in civil liberty, then in this case we have a reduction in civil liberty that is not normatively justified. A reduction in civil liberty that is not normatively justified can be labeled a "civil liberties abuse". I don't see the definitions as implausible, and I do not see the conclusion as implausible, and it applies.

Even further, I am not kind to unnecessary rules, and I don't think anybody else should be. They are violations of human freedom, maybe mild ones, but violations all the same, and if possible should be purged.


You're right, instead the fact that it is true is what makes it true.


No, it really hasn't been given. You'll have to quantify strain in order for the argument to make sense, as after all, in all markets, additional consumption adds difficulty but not a significant externality.

It's only appropriate to speak of Pigovian taxes if we have some real significance on the damage being externalized, and even then that being the first option isn't a great idea if we can easily internalize damages. We can easily internalize much of this, so.... the argument becomes flimsy.


If he can't point to a real externality(and he really didn't have much ability to do so given that he had to use a bandwagon fallacy to make his point and got caught up in costs of the flu due to obesity as even a possibility), then yes, his use is certainly improper.

I haven't denied anything of the nature. I actually have a good grasp of economics.


Orwell, labeling me to dismiss my argument is known as an ad hominem fallacy. I don't like appealing to these definitions, but if you are so dishonest that you don't realize that your arguments AND tactics are bad, then I have to do that. Particularly given that my argumentation style really hasn't been particularly anarchist on this at all, which I've actually pointed out.

Even further, your interpretation is ridiculously dishonest. I mean, seriously, you're behaving in a manner befitting the less honest posters on this forum, and YOU KNOW who I am talking about. Here's what I stated:
"LITTLE TO NO JUSTIFICATION beyond some desire to control people's behavior"
Note, the word "beyond" has a meaning here. If I pass a law against murder, I am not desiring to control behavior, I am controlling behavior to prevent innocent people from being murdered by other people. If I pass a law taxing environmental damage, I am not desiring to control behavior, I am controlling behavior to protect the environment, which is a public good. If I pass a law saying that you can't play video games.... um.... there's no victim for you playing a video game, so there is no justification BEYOND some desire to control people's behavior. Any honest reader can recognize that distinction and that I am trying to use that distinction. You, somehow through some idiocy or dishonesty, do not see the obvious.

Orwell, I want to make this inconceivably clear: you're doing a bad job. Many of your arguments and approaches are bad to the point of seeming ignorant or dishonest. I know a few weaknesses to my argument, Orwell, and you really aren't even getting close. I mean, I've made it clear that your argument is significantly less valid than a very large set of other arguments, so this isn't just "AG is just such a freaking anarchist", it's really that this isn't a very good argument.

More grist for the mill:

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/01/s ... good-food/

Here's the links from the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... id=wp_ipad
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2011/07/1 ... -in-soups/
http://www.cspinet.org/new/201107132.html
http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/05/could ... lt-be-dead

I think those are fairly strong correlations, but certainly there are a bunch of false assumptions. The big issue I have with the argument for personal choice is the assumption that consumers are even able to make educated choices. Most consumers have no idea what they are actually ingesting. I don't think the fat and the calories, by themselves, are the underlying reason why our waistlines are growing. We've made a lot of "advancements" to control fat and calories and these "advancements" often lead to weight gain, not weight loss.

Somewhere around late 70's, early 80's, we started introducing low-fat, low calorie products. The addition of these products have had the exact opposite of the desired effect. For instance, diet soda has a strong correlation with weight gain, not weight loss. I think that these chemical additives are the real culprit here. Our grandparents cooked with lard and drank whole milk. They put pounds of butter on everything and still past generations did not have the weight problem we do. I'm not saying those practices were healthy either - they clearly were not. But neither is BHT.

Most people can't read the labels and understand them. We don't teach kids about nutrition nearly enough. And then, sometimes the labeling itself is misleading. What exactly is natural flavoring anyway? What about the additives that are in our foods but exempt from labeling requirements, like the ammonia in our beef?

The great misconception is that junk food is stuff like chips and cookies and that only food from fast food outlets is unhealthy. The reality is that much of the food at nicer restaurants and what we cook at home is junk food too. We need to take a good look at the big picture and do the math. A nice meal at the Olive Garden can be even more unhealthy then somethings out of a drive-thru window. The term food should be reserved for actual food. I like the saying that if your grandmother wouldn't recognize the ingredient, then you probably shouldn't eat it.

I don't think these sin taxes would really make any meaningful difference. I'm not opposed to them from the liberty angle, I'm opposed to them because it avoids dealing with the real problem of the state of our entire food industry. I think public awareness and education is key here. Choice is a good thing, but people deserve to know the facts first.

In the U.S.A. one cannot sell his own living body nor can he buy anyone's living body. So in a way, living bodies are not property and therefore cannot be owned. On the other hand one can rent, buy are trade the time and activity of living bodies. One can dispose of his own time and energy. So these have some of the characteristics of property.

ruveyn

I don't see how the fat or calories couldn't be the reason why waist-lines are growing.

Even further, what makes you think that maybe the real mechanism isn't the chemicals but rather that these people are overindulging elsewhere after they have a diet soda? I mean, you're assuming "Diet soda = calories go down", but this assumption may not be true. In fact, some research suggests that when people shift their diet, they'll often compensate for any diet improvements with things to make it worse.

As well, in terms of what our "grandparents ate and drank", the problem is are you taking into account portion size? Portions in the US are relatively large compared to other nations and places, so if the portions are larger, then the content probably doesn't matter as much. Are you even taking into consideration the shift from blue color work to white color work, as sedentary lifestyles have also increased, and these decrease needed calories consumed by a significant amount. I mean, it's nice to say that this is all "new ingredients", but really, new ingredients are probably not likely to change the amount of calories needed to sustain a human being. I mean, why should an odd ingredient cause metabolic efficiency? (Note: fat gain IS metabolic efficiency if you think about it)

Labels aren't very hard to understand. It doesn't take even a middle school background to read a nutritional label. Especially since the biggest variable is likely calories. The ingredients aren't important for calorie consumption, or the consumption of other nutrients. So, I don't need to know what "natural flavoring" is in order to know that the food item has 500 calories and 14 grams of fat.

I don't see any reason to claim that odd ingredients are the cause of obesity, Number5. You can lose weight on a diet of cheetoes. You can lose weight eating at McDonalds every day. People have done both through calorie counting. However, the problem is simply NOT doing this. Our cultural attitudes about food are not oriented towards proper dieting. Most people's behavior about food doesn't include a lot of discipline, so if they eat a cake they'll say "I'll work it off" and never do so.

Dox, your additional issue is interesting. I know one issue though is that I am not very likely to add additional seasoning to a food item I bought though. I expect that the prepared food I buy to be good out of the can. I also don't have a very good hand for how much to season, so nothing I've seasoned has come out well. I don't buy a lot of soup, but I don't think that requiring less salt is a good idea. The health option is really all that is needed. I mean, sodium counting isn't so costly that a consumer can't do it, or at least that a doctor can't advise a patient on what "not to eat". If we're going to talk about consumers being that stupid, then why not have neo-prohibition, as the people this stupid certainly can't handle alcohol properly either.

I may have been unclear. Of course added fat and calories contribute to the problem, particularly due to portion sizes which are indeed way too large, but I don't think those are the main culprits all by themselves. With diet foods, it's not that the chemicals alone lead to weight gain (it's possible) but more likely they lead to more eating later. Most experts believe that it's not a mental move like "I saved 200 calories on my drink so I'll have some cake," but rather that the artificial sweeteners trigger the brain to want more, similar to an addiction situation.

With the labeling, I think you give people too much credit on their level of understanding and you give companies too much credit for their disclosure. We are often not given the full list of ingredients and when we are, the percentages are left out (aside from the few nutrients highlighted in the charts). Take an example like Nutri-Grain bars. Many people think these are healthy, fruit-filled choices, when in actuality they are a small step above a candy bar. The fruit is all the way at the bottom of a big long list of crap http://www.nutrigrain.com/ProductDetail ... roduct=340.

I probably wouldn't have even been aware of most of this myself if it wasn't for getting pregnant. On one of my first doctor trips, I was given an extensive list of foods to avoid because they may be unsafe for the baby (common practice for most OB/GYN's). Not allergen stuff, all chemical-related potential hazards. Which leads one to wonder, if the foods we ingest are known to be unhealthy for developing babies, then why do we assume they are OK for us?

I think it's hard to ignore the correlation between the introduction of diet and processed foods and the increase in our waistlines. It's also hard to ignore the fact that poor people are disproportionately overweight. Maybe it's the additives, maybe it's the misleading advertising, or maybe it is just increased portion sizes and lazy people. Is it possible that those who can afford organic diets are skinnier because they avoid most additives altogether? Or maybe it does come down to education level, especially concerning nutrition. One thing I am pretty confident about, is that many people, mostly the overweight ones, lack good judgement when it comes to what they eat. I don't think a tax alone would change that.