tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2552279879880539543.post1488548173070215097..comments2023-05-29T05:23:23.389-04:00Comments on Tim Stuhldreher: Libertarians and food politicsTim Stuhldreherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00405090830214017595noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2552279879880539543.post-36420065439126028562013-09-28T09:25:01.980-04:002013-09-28T09:25:01.980-04:00Sorry, second comment. Ms. Nestle may cite behavio...Sorry, second comment. Ms. Nestle may cite behavioral science in her defense of Bloomberg, but it is also true that two 16 oz sodas cost more than a single 32 oz soda. Have we computed where, on the profit scale, these two combined forces fall? And what of other possible applications of the principle? Shall we restrict restaurants to 8oz portions of red meat on their plates? Shall we tell sandwich makers that a certain amount of bread, or mayonnaise is all that's permitted? That only one paper napkin may be distributed, in order to control landfill and recycling center use? That all shoes sold shall have a certain thickness of sole and degree of arch support, and that they be properly fitted by licensed shoe clerks before being sold? Of course I could continue. <br /><br />Once upon a time we recognized that people might make foolish choices, but that ham handed attempts such as Bloomberg's to save such people from themselves had far, far larger implications than the particular societal problem supposedly being addressed. Anyone who complains against the NSA or the TSA should be able to understand the connection among all these intrusions by a well intended government. We seem no longer to be able to see the big picture when considering these programs. And that, too, is more a failure of our education system than anything else.<br /><br />If Mr. Bloomberg, or anyone, for that matter, wants to work to educate me as to my follies, I am open to the idea. But for him to want to employ the resources of the government to force me to change, on whatever topic it occurs to him to want me to change, is a bridge too far, in my opinion.Ed Ployhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07013120388383933298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2552279879880539543.post-71461193617501636192013-09-28T09:05:51.404-04:002013-09-28T09:05:51.404-04:00The anecdote speaks more to the poor state of math...The anecdote speaks more to the poor state of math education than it does to our ability to make decisions for ourselves, I'm afraid. <br /><br />An astute libertarian, provided opportunity for followup, might have asked Ms. Nestle why she would consider that government involvement was inevitable or desirable, especially as it is demonstrable that many of the unfortunate food choices that are made in today's world are the result of economic forces put in play decades ago by government farm policies. The bright line drawn most often to illustrate this instance of the law of unintended consequences is the one which ties corn and sugar subsidies to the artificially cheap sweeteners used in colas, particularly, but many other processed foods, thereby making those foods cheaper, and easier for the economically disadvantaged to reach for.<br /><br />Ms. Nestle, such a libertarian might argue, asks for a government remedy to a largely government created problem, citing government inevitability as a rationale. What if government were taken out of the equation altogether?<br /><br />(Aside. Ms. Nestle comes by her concern over corporate over promotion of marginally nutritious foods naturally, I have to believe, as it was the Nestle corporation which is accused of "hooking" moms in economically less developed areas of the world on baby formula, creating a nutritional crisis among children in those areas. I respect her efforts along these lines, and believe the effort performs a valuable public service.)Ed Ployhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07013120388383933298noreply@blogger.com