Replies

"Fedgov has no business concerning itself with childhood obesity. Period."

I disagree. The preamble to the constitution says that one of the duties of the federal government is to promote the general welfare. It is definitely in the government's interest that we are a nation of healthy people. Now, as Jeffererson said, that does not mean that the federal government should allocate money and authority to ensure people are within weight standards:

"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; "

I would have no problem with Moochelle if she was out promoting that our kids need to be healthier and that schools should get back to better physical exercise in gymn. My problem is that when she tries to use the power of the federal government to monitor what our kids eat in school, at home or takes away food choices in the name of "healthy". Similarly, if all these people are doing is raising the alarm and trying to alert the public of this serious problem and informing the public of ways to get healthier, I have no problem with it. There should not be any coercion in it by the federal government, thats all. The coercion needs to happen from parents!!

Here's something that relates to those who attempt to use the power of the federal government to enact their views of how society should be run:

What is the end to which we want to apply scientifically gained knowledge of nutrition and health? That answered, what are the means we will employ?

In the broadest terms, is the end to be a state of knowledge in which the individual is able to understand the possible consequences of his behavior and is then free to choose according to his own desires and goals, the general state of society then an amalgam of informed individual choices? Or is the end to be a state of being in which the individual’s choices are limited by others to a range calculated by them most likely to result in that state of being, the general state of society then an expression of coerced individual actions?

The latter end is characteristic of family (both nuclear and extended), of tribalism (the mythologized extended family), of socialism (re-mythologized tribalism in a suit), and of totalitarianism (demythologized socialism with guns). All consist in the individual being forced by others using various means into behavior that will be
1) for his own good later in life (the family),

2) for society’s good (tribalism/socialism), or

3) for the good of the individuals in control of the society (totalitarianism).
While this is universally seen as appropriate within the child/family relationship for developmental reasons, its application to society at large by some group within that society, or by one society to another, has been the cause of most social ferment throughout history

Some health professionals seem to believe that the government should sponsor their efforts to counter the self-interested efforts of others (nutrition and diet quacks for example) because they are right and the others are wrong, because they are altruistic and the others are not. It may be true that they are factually correct and genuinely altruistic, and that what they wish to do will have a beneficial effect on many people, but it doesn’t follow necessarily that the government should fund them.

This is a manifestation of a widespread phenomenon brought about by the advent of the secularized state. Instead of viewing the state as a limited means to a limited end, the tendency has been to imbue it, a temporal entity, with the attributes of a transcendent final judgment in which all injustices and inequalities are finally rectified. In this way, the secular state has been categorically, though not personally, deified and expected to act accordingly (something of a diffuse divine right of kings).

This is seen in those who believe the necessary response to a social ill is the passage of a law, especially a federal law, and the enactment of a program, especially one that they can devise and administrate (and that not necessarily for cynical reasons). Those who feel they are on the side of right, certain they aren’t acting against society’s interest, often appeal to the State to aid them in their struggle against evil. Since the spirit of the secular state is money and power, they ask to be endowed accordingly. It’s pathetically naive and dangerous.