In Memory of Super-size Cups
First off, before any of you highly emotional females come over here and jump all over me, I am not trying to pick on Claudia. I know it seems like it since she is not even a political blogger and this is a political website that has already linked to her twice in the last week. But I just have to post on something she said in this post. I can’t help myself. I am a government hating, live and let live, small L libertarian who really just…. well… hates government.
In a nice post about MacDonald’s coming out with some new coffees, she said this.
I mean, personally, I never touch fast food chains. It’s just not my thing. Too many calories for such poor quality food. I watched ‘Supersize Me‘ twice and if you haven’t you should. Like today. With your kids. America is fat. Have you noticed? Not good on a lot of levels.
Nothing wrong with that really. Of course she did already admit to being a modern liberal, which should scare any business chain that she deems to beimmoral. Also, the movie “Supersize Me” was complete garbage. It was terribly misleading and anti-business. By the way, I hate MacDonald’s myself. I just respect their business model and also their right to exist.
As a response to her post, I said,
Regardless of how unhealthy MacDonald’s is, or how many times people eat there, it is still their choice. I will never watch that movie again, because it is based on the idea that MacDonalds should be punished. MacDonald’s sells a product. Some people use it irresponsibly. Most don’t. It is their choice though.
Then she said,
and the tobacco industry has been punished. and rightly so. they are liars. and they were caught.
often the ones who suffer are the ones who do not know the real facts. the uneducated. the poor. of course they are not being force fed. but they are not truly aware of better options. in the end - it is the tax payers paying for the unhealthy… the obese are costing this country a fortune and living shadows of the lives they could.
anyway - this is just my opinion. i am sure i can’t make you see it my way and i can rest easy knowing that. the facts speak for themselves. 60% of Tennesseans are overweight. what would you attribute this to?
our kids are smoking, eating FF and watching MTV at 9 yrs old. it’s just not pretty…
Wow, and Tgirsch wants to know how we are less free now than in 1913. If you are a liberal who believes in government helping people and providing them healthcare, think about what she just said.
in the end - it is the tax payers paying for the unhealthy… the obese are costing this country a fortune.
If there was no big government that took care of people, what justification would someone like Claudia have to limit a person’s freedom to choose to eat whatever they want to? I wrote about this in this post also. You people who support government health care have no idea how much freedom you are willing to sign away.
What a crazy country we have become. MacDonalds is not the problem folks. The people that eat there made the choice to eat there. If they become unhealthy because of their diet, the fault is theirs, not the restaurant that sold them the food. Everybody knows that fast food isn’t healthy, but people still have the right to make that choice. They should be prepared to live with the consequences.
Modern liberals are living, walking threats to freedom and liberty. Social conservatives are also to a certain extent, but modern liberals are much worse.
Who knows what they will do next? They are already outlawing trans fats in some places. Are they going to outlaw fast food restaurants next? There is no telling with nanny-staters.
Glen,
I could take this: in the end - it is the tax payers paying for the unhealthy… the obese are costing this country a fortune.
… and translate it into actual reality, by saying:
in the end - it is the tax payers paying for the uninsured… the uninsured are costing this country a fortune.
… and yet, you believe you’re not paying for the uninsured, right NOW. You are.
.
Glen:
MacDonalds is not the problem folks. The people that eat there made the choice to eat there. If they become unhealthy because of their diet, the fault is theirs, not the restaurant that sold them the food.
Like most libertarians (whether or not they capitalize the L), your view of this is way too simplistic. Yes, people have a choice to eat at McDonald’s, or to not do so. This much is true. But you argue as if McDonald’s has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they choose to do so. There’s this thing called “advertising.” Perhaps you’ve heard of it. I guaran-damn-tee you that McDonald’s is doing everything in their power to convince as many people as possible to eat at McDonald’s as often as possible — and that if they’re not doing so, their shareholders would be mightily pissed off at them for not doing so.
Why is it that libertarians always want to hold the individual responsible for everything, but are never willing to hold companies responsible for what they do in the service of making a quick buck? Why is McDonald’s (and other fast-food restaurants’) aggressive marketing completely irrelevant to the topic of whether or not they bear any responsibility?
They are already outlawing trans fats in some places. Are they going to outlaw fast food restaurants next?
Generally, we don’t outlaw things when we can tax the shit out of them.
But seriously, I don’t see how the trans fat bans are a significant infringement upon personal freedom. You as a consumer can go out and buy all the Crisco you want, and eat it with a spoon, for all the government cares. But if you own a restaurant, the ban would prevent you from selling food prepared with trans fats, especially when in most restaurants, the consumer would simply have no way of knowing whether or not trans fats are used.
But even there, I’d prefer a tax to an outright ban. The biggest reasons restaurants use trans fats is because they’re cheaper, and boost the bottom line. Of course, you won’t have a problem with this, because libertarians always value a few extra cents of profit over trivial matters like public health.
hi glen
hey - i’m not a delicate flower. i can hold my own and would not take an attack or a compliment all that personally. either would be your opinion - based on you - not me. so fire away any ol’ time. no blog arguments are capable of altering my well being or mood.
but i appreciate your views on this. it’s a big complicated world - no doubt. i do feel pretty passionate about big business messing with our health and giving their dollars to politicians who in turn put policies in place that do more harm than good - and see it all in share holders dollars as opposed to what is the better way to live.
when it comes to details - i am often out of my realm. i only pay so close attention to most of this and forget half the details i hear and read. but our food supply is getting messed with bigtime and it is rearing its ugly head via increased obesity, diabetes, unexplained depression/fibromyalgia, cancers, heart disease - etc. and there is a cost associated with this. and you are paying it. as am i.
it just feels very wrong to me. on some inherent level i believe that we are making very bad decisions with our food that will bite us very hard. and i also believe this country is not prepared for a big crisis - either due to a widespread illness or a compromised food supply.
anyway - i am not much of a debater or a writer. but thanks for taking the time to say how you feel.
No problem Claudia. Its just that you didn’t purposely enter into a discussion on a political blog. I know you are not a delicate flower. Think of it like this. I once posted on the subject of my dog dying. Somebody linked to it in a nice post and the discussion turned into something political, pretty much about how Hitler even liked his dog. Glen Dean is a Nazi, blah, blah, blah. Most people thought that was inappropriate, since my post didn’t really invite that. I was just acknowledging that my post might not be appropriate since your post did not intentionally invite that. While doing so, I was also messing around, you know being a smart ass, the emotional women stuff.
Tgirsch, where does it stop. Are you going to cause the price of M&M’s to rise because you are taxing the hell out of them? What about a Hershey’s bar, or a Milky Way? Those beer commercial sure do make it look like drinking a lot is fun, fun, fun. What about car companies that sell sports car, which go really fast and are really dangerous? It seems like you guys are really selective with the corporations you pick on.
Do we hold individuals responsible? You bet your ass we do. People make choices and people should live with those choices. Government is not to be the people’s mama and daddy, shielding them from everything that might hurt them. By banning trans fats, you are actually hurting the individual that eats out there. You are taking away one of his choices in what to eat. You are making him pay more for the same food some times. As for taxing the heck out of a company that you don’t like, do you really not understand how that works? I can’t believe for one second that somebody as smart as you does not know that those taxes are embedded into the products that people buy. Tax fast food an extra 20%. Guess what, that burger just went from one dollar to 1.20.
Has the liberal philosophy of not allowing people to be responsible for their own situations really helped them. Look at how many people live in government housing since the Great Society. Look at the increase in out of wedlock births. Look at the current mortgage situations. And what do the Democrats propose? Well to bail them out of course and encourage the same behavior all over again.
People want cigarettes. They want alcohol. They want candy bars. They want triple cheeseburgers. They are not stupid little children. They know these things aren’t healthy. Leave these folks alone and leave the market alone. Government should not be out to social engineer in any way.
Modern liberals and social conservatives are mirror images of each other. They are like the same person, except maybe one is bizarro world. Both want to use government to further an agenda which is anti-liberty. I used to hang out at a now defunct blog called Liberal Thought when I first started. Everybody there cursed the big government “conservatism” of George Bush. I laughed and asked them how it felt, thinking the situation would make them see and feel what it is like to have government used for a different purpose than one they approve of.
You guys are correct to acknowledge that people are flawed. But if people are flawed, then what is government? Is government not ran by people, a select few people who are arrogant enough to tell the other people how to live?
Like I said, liberals in the modern sense are anti-liberty, and the thing is, most of you guys don’t even realize it. You still think you are doing good, never considering the unintended consequences. Just look at Claudia’s response, “when it comes to details - i am often out of my realm.”
JP, we are for sure. But do you believe that we will pay less with government run health care? You think its expensive now. Wait until its free.
My post was about how government involvement has taken away freedom. For example, we are paying for the costs of a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet when he busts his head open on the highway. That fact causes the biker to lose his right to go helmet free. Thats my point. More government always has the unintended consequence of less freedom. Always.
so how do you feel about global warming? should we just allow that to happen too?
since i am new to all of this i was just wondering what a libertarian’s view of this would be… it’ all an education to me.
btw - i kinda liked ron paul at one point. so did my boyfreind. but then he said he didn’t believe in evolution and well, i just thought he was a crazy man…
I believe the earth is warming, but I don’t believe there is enough proof that humans are causing it. I also believe that anything we tried to do would not help very much, even if humans were the cause of the warming. What those ideas would do though is halt economic growth and transfer power from the people to government. Notice that most of the global warming nuts are also socialists. Kind of makes me suspicious. I am not a Paul supporter myself, because I think he is wrong on national defense. But I have always wondered why somebody would vote for somebody based on what they believe or do not believe about evolution. We aren’t electing a theologian in chief or a scientist in chief, but a commander in chief. It just seems like religious bigotry to vote against someone because of a belief like that that has no relationship to the job of governing.
Btw, I am a Baptist that thinks Mormonism is a goofy cult. However, I’m voting for a Mormon today.
Glen:
You know, if a law enforcement officer actively encourages someone to make a bad decision, we call it “entrapment,” and we punish the officer. But when a corporation does it, we call it “advertising,” and we not only don’t punish it, we encourage it and we laud it. Why this difference?
I’m not arguing, as you seem to think I am, that we should absolve the individual of all personal responsibility for their actions. Indeed, I argue nothing of the kind. I just don’t share your apparent belief that we should completely absolve companies for their role.
Libertarianism (whether the L is capitalized or not) seems to have as a foundational principle the belief that people cannot be manipulated into doing things they would not otherwise do. But this is demonstrably false. Two entire industries — advertising and public relations — exist solely to take advantage of the fact that people’s opinions, emotions, and actions can be manipulated. Yet [L/l]ibertarians would ignore this, and shift all the blame to the individual. I don’t get that.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, mind you. That’s something we collectively need to work together to figure out — how to find a balance between personal freedom and corporate responsibility. But to me, that’s what regulation of commerce is for. Maybe it starts with disclosure, not unlike what you’re starting to see in pharmaceutical ads: when you advertise that Big Mac, you say right there in the ad that it’s 540 calories, 29 grams of fat (10 saturated, 1.5 trans), and 1,040mg of sodium.
Otherwise, a couple of points:
By banning trans fats, you are actually hurting the individual that eats out there. You are taking away one of his choices in what to eat.
Bull pucky. Who do you know — be honest — who goes out of their way in search of trans fats? Most people dining out would have no idea whether or not what they’re eating has trans fats in it. How can they “choose” or make an informed decision if they don’t know that? And what incentive do restaurants have to tell their customers, shy of government requiring them to do so? The truth of the matter is that trans fats are used almost exclusively because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. Restaurants could switch to trans-free fats at only a marginal extra cost, and with no perceptible difference in taste. The only “choice” that’s being taken away is the choice of the restaurant owner to serve an even-less-healthy product for a few extra cents of profit.
Look at the current mortgage situations. And what do the Democrats propose? Well to bail them out of course and encourage the same behavior all over again.
Again, no. (And, as an aside, since when is Bush a “Democrat?”) What Democrats actually propose is that the mortgage lenders should be more tightly regulated, and not be allowed to make such oppressive loans in the first place. I defy you to tell me, with a straight face, that subprime ARM loans are anything other than a ripoff for the vast majority of people who get them. Yet somehow, it’s a [L/l]ibertarian article of faith that it should be perfectly legal to rip people off, and all of the responsibility lies with the individual for allowing themselves to be ripped off.
People want cigarettes. They want alcohol. They want candy bars. They want triple cheeseburgers.
Again, you ignore the demonstrable fact that people can be manipulated into wanting those things. You act as if people have an innate craving for a snickers bar, and that M&M Mars does nothing but act to meet a demand that is inherent. You pretend that demand cannot be created. That would make you a piss poor economist.
Leave these folks alone and leave the market alone.
“The market” loves things like sweatshops and child labor. Should we leave that alone, too?
Is government not ran by people, a select few people who are arrogant enough to tell the other people how to live?
That’s why, with very rare exception, I don’t support the government “telling other people how to live.” In fact, I’m on record many times saying that I think individuals should be free to do just about anything they want, as long as they harm no one else in the process. Businesses, on the other hand, are not individuals, and have proven time and again throughout history that they will take unfair advantage of individuals given half a chance. As such, those need to be tightly regulated. Contrary to what you might think, it’s not a radical proposal. The ability (and, you could argue, the responsibility) to regulate commerce is written into the constitution.
Now, you might read that and think that I’m anti-business, and that’s simply not true. I just don’t think businesses should have carte blanche to do whatever they want and let “the market” figure it all out. (”The market,” after all, gave us robber barons, PCBs in the Hudson, unsafe working conditions, and child labor.) If a business can make an honest buck — without cheating or exploiting people, and without encouraging people to make self-destructive decisions — then I’m all in favor of them doing so. But without meaningful oversight, businesses can’t be relied upon to abide by those rules. (Even with oversight, some of them go far out of their way to find ways to cheat.)
Like I said, liberals in the modern sense are anti-liberty
Only if you use a very broad, odd definition of liberty, that includes the “freedom” to harm others around you.
claudia:
Not only does Ron Paul not believe in evolution, he also doesn’t much care for black people. Your impression that he’s a crazy man is dead-on correct.
I believe the earth is warming, but I don’t believe there is enough proof that humans are causing it.
Out of curiosity, what would constitute “enough proof?”
It just seems like religious bigotry to vote against someone because of a belief like that that has no relationship to the job of governing.
I can’t speak for Claudia, but from where I sit, belief (or lack thereof) in well-established science speaks to a person’s judgment. If someone lets their religious dogma override extremely-well-established facts and evidence, then that is relevant to their suitability to be commander-in-chief.
Tgirsch, public awareness campaigns take care of all of this. Do they not? Even with all of the info right there on the pack, people are still stupid enough to smoke cigarettes. You know that I do not believe in the freedom to harm others. A cheeseburger harms nobody though unless somebody makes the decision to put it into their mouth. Intentionally sneaking poison into that burger would be different though. But MacDonalds hides nothing. Add disclaimers all you want, but don’t take away the product.
You guys are so into government and controlling people. It’s sick. I bet if you did a poll of codependent people, you’d find that 100% of them are liberals.
In defense of Dr. Paul, he is no racist. He might be an unusual dude, but he isn’t a racist. Of course liberals think everybody is racist, everybody that disagrees with them, that is.
Glen:
Tgirsch, public awareness campaigns take care of all of this. Do they not?
They’re a start, but by no means the be-all and end-all solution. For one thing, the advertisers are outgunning the public awareness campaigns hundreds-to-one.
You’re still ducking the entrapment issue, by the way.
You guys are so into government and controlling people.
No, I’m not. I’m into regulating businesses, which is a very different thing. It so happens that government is the best (and only) tool to do this.
In defense of Dr. Paul, he is no racist. He might be an unusual dude, but he isn’t a racist.
Oh? He’s trying to distance himself now, but here’s a selection of what you could find in the “Ron Paul Report”:
I’m sorry if my hyper-sensitive liberal mindset makes me leap to the unreasonable conclusion that these statements could in any way be construed as racist. (Paul insists that he had nothing to do with these writings, despite the fact that they appeared in a newsletter he published and which bore his name.)
Also, it’s not just us liberals who expect Paul to be a racist. Several white supremacist groups have endorsed Paul’s campaign. (And, on another level of crazy, the “9/11 was an inside job” folks have also endorsed Ron Paul.)
Yeah, there are some crazies in the Paul camp. Who did the socialist party and communist party endorse though, btw? Who do they always endorse?
Lew Rockwell, another crazy purist libertarian wrote that excerpt, btw.
I know you’re not a fan of socialism, but are you really putting socialists in the same league as white supremacists?
Okay, but not communists.