FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Thank you Registered!
Posted on 06/13/2002 7:30:16 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
In the last few months some people have begun to do what seems at first inspection the logical thing, namely, to extend the policy measures against tobacco smoking to other areas, specifically, the consumption of fattening foods. For example, Kathy Cullinen, the head of Rhode Island's Obesity Control Program, in that state's Department of Health, is talking enthusiastically about all that government could do to get us in shape. As The New Republic reports, in its May 13, 2002, issue, the lady is a zealot, proselytizing eagerly with the aid of an article, "Halting the Obesity Epidemic," written by Marion Nestle and Michael Jacobson, for the February 2002 issue of Public Health Reports. Jacobson is an old line public health statist, a corporate basher extraordinaire and one who has never felt the need to rethink his enthusiastic support for state regimentation of human conduct. Cullinen is something of a late comer but all of these people are now on the warpath, championing the use of government power to make us all eat right and keep fit. Just how outlandish all this is may be appreciated from the fact that the author of the piece for The New Republic, not what might be considered a libertarian magazine, ends his piece by noting, "Health is only one measure of a good life, and government is far too crude a mechanism to effectively — or humanely — calibrate its importance for millions of different people." She adds, "Slippery-slope arguments are usually specious [readers aren't told why], and until recently the fat-tobacco analogy offered by tobacco execs seemed so as well. But, in fact, we are on the exact slope they claimed, and we are picking up speed. Somewhere, Joe Camel is laughing." OK, but hold it a moment. Arguably the reason that most Americans, or at least Californians, have given some support to anti-tobacco campaigns, including Rob Reiner's efforts to add 50 cents to the taxes levied on a pack of cigarettes in California, is one that will probably not carry over to the developing diet-fascism. This is that the anti-tobacco position has a pretty strong libertarian element in its support, namely, the idea of second-hand smoke. Americans tend to favor the live and let live outlook, especially when it comes to personal habits, unless they get scared and lack the principles to moderate their fears. That is one reason they are willing to put up with drugs laws — they are frightened by all the propaganda and lack the needed conviction about individual rights to overcome their panic. So, they support drugs laws, never mind how unjust and useless they are. It is different with smoking. Sure, tobacco smoking carries considerable risks of impaired health. So do lack of exercise, mountain climbing and dozens of other kinds of activities people undertake. But it is their business, not something others should meddle in. However, with tobacco smoke there is the somewhat recent contention about the adverse impact from what has come to be called second-hand smoke. Here matters change — the specter of innocent people being felled from one's smoking is something quite nasty, in the very terms Americans uniquely appreciate — the idea is that people are interfering with the lives of others who haven't consented to this interference. One can pretty much speculate that almost all the anti-smoking laws have gained their acceptance in large measure because of this specter, not solely from allegations about lying tobacco executives — who weren't really lying any more than Bill Clinton was lying when his lawyers told him to play fast and loose with words. (Addiction, after all, is a seriously disputed state and to deny that smoking is addictive has some serious backing in the scientific literature — see the works of Stanton Peele, as an instance.) Obesity has no second-hand impact, however. So, those who want the government to mess with us on grounds that we may be getting obese from some of our habits will have to clear a higher hurdle than did the anti-smoking champions. They had this libertarian element on their side which the obesity fascists do not. Clearly, if I choose to live my life in a way that makes me obese, it is entirely implausible that I am dragging others down with me. Oh, perhaps obese parents might exert some influence on their kids, but even that is stretching things a bit — and once grown, the kids can cope. So, I would expect that Americans, as a group, will resist the appeals for their support in this most recent call for government regimentation. Sadly, however, while the libertarian element in the American psyche is evident enough, it is largely subconscious. "Don't tread on me" may be second nature but it is easily over-ridden by instilling fear, given that the conviction behind the gut feeling is largely lacking. Still, it is more than nothing — people in most other cultures have little if any of these inclinations and so there is a lot more work to be done in those regions for those of us who want to spread the merits of individual liberty and rights. In America there is some reason for hope but it may not last for long. Machan, who teaches at Chapman University in Orange, California, advises Freedom Communications, Inc., on public policy matters. His most recent book is Initiative — Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000). His email address is Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com. |
No second hand impact? Tell that to my back.
I work as a nursing assistant in a long term care facility and 75% of the residents are overweight. One of my residents is over 300 pounds. I use a lift to get her from her wheelchair to sitting on the side of the bed, but I need another aid's help in positioning her on the bed. She supports her back and I pull the resident's legs up on the bed. The legs must weight 75-80 pounds each.
When I do her bed check, with one arm I have to pull her on her side and change her with the other.
Obesity puts so much stress on legs that they are weakened as the person ages. Eventually other people have to assist that person to just get up and down.
Hmmm.
If the majority of Americans are overweight, then that's the norm. Hope they got good airconditioning in that windowless room.
:)
Here's a novel idea. How about instead of punishing obesity, the slim-and-trim are rewarded.
Perhaps declaring that those that keep themselves physically fit are exempted from the 3,000 new laws and regulations politicians and bureaucrats create and implement each year. Forget for the moment that each year's 3,000 new laws and regulations are "must have" laws. That is, that people and society couldn't live without them. Forget for the moment that people and society have survived and prospered for years and decades prior to each year's 3,000 new laws and regulations.
Opps, this isn't working out as I planned. Time to switch gears. Don't reward those that are thin-and-trim, instead, punish obesity by not having each years 3,000 new laws apply to overweight people. In other words, if a person is overweight they don't get the protection off all those new laws.
Darn it, that isn't going to work either. Because as soon as somebody points out that the fat person on the elevator doesn't respect the law that person will be labeled as fat-profiling. Not to mention that a lot of people would chose to be overweight in order to be exempt from each year's 3,000 new laws. Obesity would probably increase, not decrease.
Where does most lawlessness emanate from?
"Each year politicians and bureaucrats pass and implement about 3,000 new laws and regulations, and that number also increases on average year over year. That's how the long list of alphabet agencies came into existence. They tell us that these are must have laws and regulations that people and society can't live without.
"Question: how have people and society survived and even prospered for years and decades prior to the plethora of new, must have laws created each year? Are we to believe that people and society would run headlong into destruction without those law? Would they have us believe that man's nature is so perverse as to harm his fellow man so frequently that thousands of new laws need be created each year? And what about their nature-- the nature of politicians and bureaucrats? Are they not of the same nature as all other in the human species? Accordingly, they too would be so perverse that they would harm their fellow man. Perhaps by imposing destructive laws and regulations.
"Despite parasitical elites usurpations and harms, individuals and society prosper. For it is the creators and producers of products and services that enable and encourage man and society via science and business to survive and flourish.
"The only people that need 3,000 new laws and regulations each year are the politicians and bureaucrats."
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Atlas Shrugged
It would be for the children.
Thank you Registered!
I work as a nursing assistant in a long term care facility and 75% of the residents are overweight. One of my residents is over 300 pounds. I use a lift to get her from her wheelchair to sitting on the side of the bed, but I need another aid's help in positioning her on the bed. She supports her back and I pull the resident's legs up on the bed. The legs must weight 75-80 pounds each.
It may interest you to know that Lincoln freed all slaves more than 135 years ago. Perhaps you should consider working in a hospice wherein a good many of the patients are quite thin.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.