Obesity may be an individual problem. It may be a problem that afflicts many individuals. Or maybe it is not a problem at all, since it is perfectly consistent with the idea of freedom that people are entitled to eat well, get fat, and die young. But one thing we can know for sure: obesity is not a social problem in the sense that this phrase is usually employed. [Full Article]
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/2874/food-the-coming-assault/
Food: The Coming Assault
Previous post: Wait a Sec: Why Are Misers Good?
Next post: Tyrannus in Titula
{ 10 comments }
Below is an excerpt from G. Egger and B. Swinburn, “An ‘Ecological’ Approach to the Obesity Pandemic,” British Medical Journal, vol. 355, 1997, pp. 477-80:
“[T]he driving force for the increasing prevalence of obesity in populations is the increasingly obesogenic environment rather than any ‘pathology’ in metabolic defects or genetic mutations within individuals. A paradigm shift to understand obesity as ‘normal physiology within a pathological environment’ signposts the directions for a wider public [translation: bigger government] health approach to the obesity problem.”
Silly me. Here I am thinking individual choice had something to do with it.
The logic seems to be that you must not harm yourself since you are government property.
“The logic seems to be that you must not harm yourself since you are government property.”
Well, the logic goes like this: since the government “foots the bill” for taking care of you, then you MUST be government’s property.
This is why I pay for MY health services, so I don’t have to be owned by government.
Since in the present arrangement, the author’s obesity is (could be) costing me (the government) money, I RESENT his obesity. Of course, he “can’t help it,” but it’s STILL costing me money. Is this how we construct an amicable society capable of uniting in the face of all the horrible threats “we” face?
In other societies at other times, starvation was a health problem widespread in the population. I wonder how much good might have come (or did come) of responding to THAT as a “social” problem?
Mr. Potts brings up a point that I hear often. Although ideally each person would be responsible for the cost of his own health care, and we can work toward that, in the world as it is you can socialize the costs of your health choices onto me, since a health care safety net funded by my taxes exists for you. Does that make your obesity, in the world as it is, my business? Though, by the way, starvation used to be common, but the government didn’t solve it.
“My obesity ought to be my problem, not that of my neighbors.”
This hints at, but fails to pinpoint, the key issue: government health care. Since government pays for a large percentage of medical care in this country, it is forever looking to reduce costs. Eliminate Medicare, eliminate government concern over what choices do or do not create higher medical bills.
The other question to be asked, though, is what if we took the quoted statement above to its literal conclusion? Say that we have three individuals, one well off, one in the middle, and one at the bottom of the wealth scale, all of whom happen to be obese. The wealthy one doesn’t have to worry; he can easily bear the medical costs of his obesity. The one in the middle has to worry some, since large medical bills will make a huge dent in his security (paying for things like shelter and clothing.) The one at the bottom, however, isn’t going to have to worry. No money = no health care, and they die.
Of course, charities exist around the world, and even in our nation, to take care of the disadvantaged, but such charities often exert a terrible price: they demand that those they help change. In the case of those with medical problems related to obesity, it is highly likely that a charity would seek not only to solve the current crisis, but also address the root problem.
Fundamentally, government, by ensuring that all have medical care, has ensured that no one needs to change. This is where personal responsibility truly comes into play. Governments know nothing but force, for it is the only tool they know. There’s a saying, “Give a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail.” Government has a hammer. And everything, including us, “big food”, “big oil” and “big tobacco” look like nails.
Dealing with this in purely financial terms (which is the basic justification for interference) the fact that fat people die earlier thus saving lots of pension money & years of medical care should be factored in in a scientifically neutral report.
Actually I think there is a pretty good case for society discouraging obesity in a gentle way on humanitarian ground – unneccessary death should be discouraged.
“With current trends of increasing overweight and obesity afflicting all age groups, urgent preventive measures are required…”
Get rid of MSG & Aspartame in the food supply, then watch the obesity rate drop by half.
How’s that for preventative?
Another phrase could be added to your points: eat poorly made food, get fat, and die young. This way the populations shrink, are unhealthy, and resistance to totalitarian authority weakened. Without the energy of youth, a great deal of effective opposition is eliminated.
I agree that the choice to do with ones tastes of food belongs to the individual, but how wise is this when the food is not up to par anyway? Since chemicals used to preserve foods in cans has come along, I get the sense that my ancestors on the farms were healthier than many who today dwell in cities even with Bolo-Flex® Even many immigrants coming to the USA may be healthier initially. Once they get all that fluoride, and other elements shunned in Europe and elsewhere, they too can join the party.
Being fat does equate with being unhealthy. But if one wants an excuse for another bureaucracy to deal with obesity; here it comes. From what I have read and heard, some of this is due to lack of real nutrients in what often passes for food in this country. It has bulk, but not substance; so one eats more to make for what is missing in the food anyway.
The slam against the cigarette industry was a good run on how to attach an industry in which people made a choice, for whatever reasons, to ingest what some worms eat, plus some. I think a similar logic is being tried on gun owner ship.
With regards to the economy in the USA, if our taxes went to the Treasury rather than that bank cartel called the Federal Reserve, then maybe something useful for the land could be done. It is rather hard to twist the arms of its investor here and in Europe who own that devilish establishment. So, it you are harking on government ineptitude without an understanding of the reserve which as some say, in neither federal nor a reserve, you miss a capital point about American finance and history.
From what I gather of your article, it looks like some scheme of collectivism is at work. A creeping Fabian Socialism against the individual, for his own good, of course.
I agree again that the battle of the bulge is yours to wage as seems meet for you, but the foe may not be that suit with a mouse and lobby in Washington only, but the food these lobbies put out for many of us to consume as well.
Thank you.
Terry Wilson
The coming (potential) assault of Dietary Nazism also reveals the government’s complete ineptness as a caretaker and enforcer of “health”. Once the government has established the need to regulate the diets of its citizens, it tries to define what good health is, what obesity is, and what a good diet is. It ends up trying to redefine the laws of the natural world in a futile manner, just as it tries rewriting the laws of economics every time it interferes in the marketplace.
Once good health has been defined by the government, there is little latitude for alternative ways of eating. Alternative, healthy diets like the low-carb one I’m on become an enemy of the government’s plan for me. Here in Canada, the government has written up an ideal diet with the help of those impartial folks in the wheat and dairy industries. Since low-carb meals have no place in this diet, they are moving to ban the inclusion of carbohydrate information on food labels and in food brand names. That’s right, Canadian food companies won’t be able to tell the *truth* about their own products any more.
But at least we can keep eating the brain-toxin aspartame.
The usual argument for the anti-fat crusade is the same as the one being used for the crusades against tobacco . Namely, that since the possible damage to your health caused by tobacco or fat food will burden the government health care system then the government have the right to restrict your access to these things.
There are of course two answers to this argument. Firstly, since the government forces you to be part of the health care system it can not presume the right on the basis of that to control you even further. Secondly, Tobacco and fat food is in fact not likely to burden the government. That is because the increased health care costs will be compensated by the lower costs for Social Security and Medicare that the lower life-expectancy will bring.
Comments on this entry are closed.