Replies

What is one to do then, about all the people who have gotten grossly overweight, or developed health problems, *linked* to unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyles? Do I advocate a nanny state, or outlawing of junk food, or forced exercise? Absolutely not. If people are free to be ninnies, then ninnies some will be. What is the solution? Well, we should recognize that the free market goes towards what people like, not always what is good for them. “I want” tends to speak more loudly than “I ought”, especially when it is backed up by advertising. If the government wants to encourage healthier food, (since it is in society’s best interest for people to live long *healthy* lives, and not to need a lot of expensive health care), then they should establish incentives for healthier habits. And this is what joins the “crunchy” with the “con”: crunchy says that one should remain a good steward of one’s body, and look towards larger societal goals. Conservative says one does not do it with government coercion. “But,” you may object, “people should be responsible for their own lives.” That’s true. But since they so often *don’t*, then the government uses that as an excuse to come in with “safety nets” such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Prescription Benefit Programs, which in effect tax the productive, and those who are responsible for themselves, in order to protect the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions. The ultimate cure for this would be a change in human nature, so that people *did* the right thing in the first place. Short of that, since the government seems to stick its nose under the tent anyway, I’d rather we get the government in the habit of rewarding good instead of becoming an “enabler” of the bad.

And for all the rest—hydrogenated oils, margarines, potato chips—they are not sold because they are a need, as the original mega-farm products were. They were created because they had properties the mass marketers wanted: cheap to produce, long shelf life, they encourage repeat business (“bet you can’t eat just one”): and because they generate a large profit. This is the entrepreneurial genius of America, run amok. It is not a victim of its own success—-but its customers are, as the state of America's waistlines can attest.

I've read a few studies as well, detailing the costs to our health that hydrogenated and partially-hydrogenated oils can have, and that these additives have a direct link to the increase in Multiple Sclerosis patients in "modern" countries where foods containing them are mass-produced.

Pinging to the Multiple Sclerosis and Health lists for discussion, if anyone has heard similar.

There are what have been called "safety net" programs, but they have become behemoths of waste, and society as a whole would be better off without nanny government.

Now is a good time to remember the wise words of Ronald Reagan: "If you want to discourage something, tax it. If you want to encourage something, subsidize it." And another along the lines of: "If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't move, subsidize it. If it moves fast, regulate it."

You have to realize that, well-meaning as you may be, your "incentives" are merely subsidies for your own personal prejudices based on your personal experience. While I happen to agree with your findings, that doesn't warrant the government subsidizing our theories, and that is why you will catch flack for this part of your musings. Only liberals believe government should underwrite their idea of do-goodism.

Until people start (gasp!) taking responsibility for themselves and their families (as long as they believe "it takes a village"), government should not be in the do-good business. Every incremental loss of personal freedom is a surrender to the socialist nanny state.

If the government wants to encourage healthier food, (since it is in society’s best interest for people to live long *healthy* lives, and not to need a lot of expensive health care), then they should establish incentives for healthier habits.

There's where you lost me, as I imagined you would from your first thread. The answer to counterproductive subsidies is not to establish dueling subsidies. The answer to counterproductive incentives is to eliminate them.

In my opinion, there is no other conservative position on this issue. The government should have no interest in my health.

One might respond, "Yes, but the government is involved." Well, get them uninvolved. More government is always bad.