It is time for me to diet. But it is not my belt that is straining as my waistline expands (this time, anyway). It is my stretched rear pocket that is flapping as my wallet shrivels.
Yes, I stretched my pocket a bit. You see, a little over a decade ago I fell for the exponential growth fallacy. Back then I believed that all rates compounded year over year as the market journeyed the New Economy’s Whig trajectory that is always upward and to the right. Of course, belief is not reality. And my math was way off. So it is time to adjust my consumption – to diet, so to speak.
Now when I say diet, I differentiate dieting or fasting from starvation. From a distance, a lack of eating is a lack of eating. But there is a huge difference between a diet or fast and starvation. The formers are actions by choice, the latter the result of conditions beyond one’s control. This is an obvious distinction that has significant meaning.
I used to love a hot, pounding shower; one where the bathroom mirror fogs and then sweats in broad streams. Actually, I still love them. But they are no longer part of my diet.
A month ago, I switched our showerheads from fire-hose blast to drought-stream trickle. Showers are no longer fun, they are functional at best. Of course, no diet is ever pleasant. However, the choice to switch was mine. And I can switch back whenever I choose (at least for now, anyway).
I may not be happy with this turn of events, but I am not angry either. No one is starving me. There is no gun barring me from my preferred action. I am doing this to myself – and my family, of course. In this instance, I am free, acting in order to satisfy my own personal ends.
You see, I am simply looking to reduce my expenditures. And just like anyone on a diet, I am choosing where and how to reduce. If I want the slice of cake then I will skip the dinner roll. If I want to gorge for a day, I can do so by going the extra mile or two (literally) during the following morning’s jog. All options are mine, as long as I understand that I live within the bounds of scarcity, as those bounds apply to me.
In addition to a long-term diet, I may desire to fast for a bit, reducing expenditures for the short term in order to substitute one want for another. Diet or fast, in either case, the choice is mine.
But not every change I have made, or will make, is based on my preferences. Many changes do not satisfy my desire to use certain means to reach specific ends. They were forced on me in a manner similar to how a diet (er, starvation) is forced on a political prisoner.
I like bright lights; the hot-bulb incandescent light that bathes faces and books in a bright, yet soft, yellow hue. When I looked at areas to reduce, I never considered fluorescent bulbs. Some will quickly rise to argue, “Fluorescent bulbs will save you money in the long run. Isn’t that what you are ultimately trying to do?” It is true that I am looking to reduce costs, so I cannot dispute that claim. But that is not the point. I am looking to balance my personal reductions with my subjective preferences – I am looking for the freedom to act in my own best interest.
In the very near future, the societal apparatus of coercion and compulsion will force me to substitute fluorescent for incandescent – I will be starved of light, so to speak. Certainly, I will have more money in my pocket, but that extra money sits well below my ranking for bright light. So the extra money will not offset my reduced wealth – I will be poorer.
Many times, folks see the end and forget the means. They believe that reducing the cost of energy required for lighting is a good thing. And just like dieters who pay for a weight-loss service, they do not mind outside intervention – they actually seek it out. So these folks do not object to government action to replace light bulbs. It makes sense – a personal end satisfied by a push and a prod, but a push and a prod in the right direction, from their individual points of view.
And I could argue that government should force everyone to switch to reduced-flow showerheads. What do I care? Such a switch would have no effect on me – a least until I desire to switch back. So government intervention would not appear to be the product of force. Government would be simply following my lead.
But a push and a prod directed at someone else, or an intervention that follows a lead, are not examples of freedom. They are instances of an expanding leviathan and a reduction of liberty. And every time the leviathan expands, it steals liberty from someone. And someday, that someone will be you.
Diet if you want, gorge if you so choose. But never advocate for government to force your ends on others. In spite of the view from a distance, starvation is not a substitute for dieting and fasting.
{ 17 comments }
Always remember, it’s all about free choice. Every time I remind myself about that, losing the weight has always been easy and effortless. Do you want to look slim and be healthy, or do you want to be a fat slob?
Hi Jim, once those lightbulbs get taken away, we should consider heatballs. It’s complete opposite of those ineffcient bulbs, a true wonder I tell you. A heatball converts amazing 95% of the supplied electricity into desired heat, with only the small remaining fraction wasted as light. Now there’s an example of the capitalistic spirit, bringing us a truly perfect substitution of on good by another.
Ok, really – if we can’t get the rEVOLution in time, we should keep producing and selling the very same thing with a label honestly saying that it produces lots of heat plus maybe a bit of light, and let them try to prohibit electric heater devices.
The thing that always bothers me is how much I am forced to cut back because of the large amount of money that is confiscated from my paycheck each month. Everyone says to save money for investing, college funds, retirement, emergencies, etc. Fine – let me keep all of the withholdings each month, and I would do much more of that. This forced dieting has always burned me.
You want a high-flow shower head? Incandescent bulbs? Inefficient toilet?
Become a true rugged individualist and build your own! Don’t rely on society to provide for your every want.
Shame it’s illegal to build and install your own.
While I generally agree with the websites libertarian principals, I think environmental issues are a poor way to illustrate it, as the environment indeed affects everyone and consequences of it’s abuse are not limited to the individuals who did the abusing. For example:
“And I could argue that government should force everyone to switch to reduced-flow showerheads. What do I care? Such a switch would have no effect on me…”
Actually it does. If everyone uses up too much fresh water, that drives up base prices for everyone, whether you were one of the people abusing it or not.
And I’ll not even get into the fact that a huge number of people in America simply don’t have the ability to diet at all, or to force themselves into any kind of voluntary reduction. When they reduce, it’s only because they have to. In areas that don’t affect anyone other than the individual, I say, let it flow: they will learn their lesson the hard way. But in cases such as the environment, I don’t feel I should be made to suffer because a large number of others refuse to contribute to the common good.
Those same people have to pay more for water, too. And if they’re willing to spend more on water, that’s their business. We don’t have intrinsic rights to obtain things. Using a lot of water and driving up the price is just fine. Why not do the same thing for hot Christmas time toys and the inevitable stampede to buy the next new iPhone? Why not force people to do without all that stuff as well becuase it’s unfair that someone else has a hard time finding whatever this year’s Tickle Me Elmo may be or paying a premium on eBay for a new cellphone?
I don’t feel I should be made to suffer because a large number of others refuse to contribute to the common good..
Hm. Okay. Suffer from higher prices because some good is in demand? And what you’re gonna do about it? Make the others suffer first, by forcing arbitrary limits on their consuption, regradless of the fact that they have the means to pay for it, and there are suppliers willing to sell to them it. Preemptive first strike par excellence. Or did I misread that.
Just don’t be surprised if the affected people answer to it. You know, fighting back against unprovoked aggression – that’ll be adequate defense.
Jim:
You said:
“If everyone uses up too much fresh water, that drives up base prices for everyone, whether you were one of the people abusing it or not.”
Setting aside the value judgment as to whether one is using or abusing, the situation you describe is not limited to products that have a so-called environmental impact (BTW, don’t all products have an environmental impact – is there a way to produce anything without using the “environment” or scarce resources?). If the demand for a product goes up, other things being equal, so while its price (at least in the first instance). This is an example of a pecuniary externality, i.e., an external effects that show up in the price system, and thus does not distort resource allocation.
The fact that action of individuals has an effect on other individuals does not make tose actions in any way illegitimate. We have no right to expect others to act in a way that leaves unaffected. It’s called “life”.
I don’t feel I should be made to suffer because a large number of others refuse to contribute to the common good.
By the way, what is it, this common good we’re supposed to contribute to? Where does it come from?
What we can talk about are scarce resources, and allocation thereof among the needful. The best known method to carry out just allocation is private ownership of said resources as well as means of their production; free market to allow trade; law enforcement to punish those who violate life, property, liberty, commit fraud, etc.
Hearing about common goods, I can’t help but think again about the 1010 video. Who knows maybe they’re right. Right?
Hoard incandescent bulbs.
Dear Sirs, where can one inquire about the comments that disappear after posting? One moment it was shown, with “click here to edit”, now it’s gone. The other one disappeared right after submit, no message no nothing. Mystery.
Diets should be more about making better food choices than starving yourself. I think that if you want to go to the fast food store then you will get those results. I think we are all adults and don’t need anyone to tell us where or what to eat. It’s all about individual freedoms that we have but are on the verge of losing some of them. The nanny state is wanting to make better decisions for us, because they feel they are better equipped to run our lives than we are. If people want to keep or lose belly fat that should be up them.
The freedom we have separates us from most of the rest of the world. When it comes to diet we have the freedom to choose what we eat. However, there are limitations based on location and the ability to acquire the food. Also, we tend to overlook the fact that we are creatures of habit. This is particularly true when it comes to our choice of food. As our body tries to adjust to our eating habits it will develop hunger pangs for any food group we abruptly remove from our diet. Fasting and starvation diets are not the long term answer. A significant behavioral change is necessary regarding dieting and your health if we are serious about long term weight loss.
Reading this post on freedom and weight loss reminds me of one big word. Responsibility, and how we can all make the right choices to get the body we want.
Nice post. Thanks for sharing your experience to us. I have enjoyed reading your article. It has always been your choice lose weight and be healthy or worrying about your stretched rear pocket.
you have the freedom to choose. Thanks again for sharing. Janet
“In addition to a long-term diet, I may desire to fast for a bit, reducing expenditures for the short term in order to substitute one want for another. Diet or fast, in either case, the choice is mine.”
It is interesting how you use the act of dieting and fasting as an analogy for changing to the use of flourescent lighting rather than incandescent light, and also the use of more efficient shower heads.
I like how you draw the analogy between the two but it doesn’t really strike me to be as much of a physical challenge as dieting or fasting from certain foods that one may crave. I do agree, however, that acting from one’s own free will is important for adapting to change in one’s life.
Comments on this entry are closed.