Obesity and the Fallacy of the "Common Good" Argument
Somehow we as citizens get used to hearing the word "crisis," and, naturally, we feel that something should be done about whatever it is this time that is causing the next in the long line of so-called crises. However, why is the assumption that government should be the solution? Why are other solutions not sought after? Take John Stossel's recent show on obesity (two clips):
1. Meme Roth tells us why it is in all of our interests to regulate "the obesity epidemic" (codeword for crisis):
2. Nick Gillespie from Reason TV effectively argues for why this is not something government should regulate even if it were a crisis:
As one can see, Meme Roth uses all of the standard demagogic arguments for government action. Our kids are our most precious asset and parents are just too stupid to take care of them. Second, because this is happening in a public sphere, it should be regulated. There are all kinds of problems with such arguments, and Nick Gillespie simply didn't have enough air time to get to the core of the idiocy, although he certainly did a good job of showing the authoritarian nature of her arguments.
Problems:
1) Sure, kids are a precious asset, but they don't belong to a collective or the nation. In other words, they are not a "common good." Each kid has his own set of parents, and only they can and should be the first source of information about the world. There is simply no justification, especially when it comes to diet, for the government to raise kids in place of the parents. Government has enough problems keeping its own house in order. Why on earth should we trust it to take care of kids?
2) Like most statist arguments, the beginning and end of the argument goes something like this: "You're an idiot, and only I know what's best for you." Put simply, it takes a massive amount of arrogance for someone in a bureaucratic position to believe that he or she has all of the information necessary to decide what is better for other people's children. Meme Roth's whole justification for regulation is that she somehow knows how other people's children should live their lives.
3) The biggest fallacy in this sort of argument concerns the so-called public sphere. First, we don't have any choice over where our kids go to school. Government demands that they be schooled, and if we can't afford a private school, well, we have to send our kids to the nearest rundown, incompetent public school. So, here's the logic: "Because you have no choice about going to school and we sure as hell won't privatize schools, if you go to one of our schools that we choose for you, we get to regulate your kid's life." This translates as: "We tell you where to go and what to do." Government forces us into the public sphere and then tells us that we have to listen to it because, voila, we are in the public sphere. Second, as Nick Gillespie pointed out, if the justification for regulation is the "common good" or "public sphere," then the answer is simple: either remove schools from the public sphere or don't regulate health care.
Common good arguments are always based on these fallacies, and behind them there is usually a common thread. There is always someone who wants to use the force of government to impose his or her authoritarian view of how society should be on the rest of us. As C.S. Lewis said long ago, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Unfortunately for us, it doesn't look like the tyranny of good intentions will be ending anytime soon.
1. Meme Roth tells us why it is in all of our interests to regulate "the obesity epidemic" (codeword for crisis):
2. Nick Gillespie from Reason TV effectively argues for why this is not something government should regulate even if it were a crisis:
As one can see, Meme Roth uses all of the standard demagogic arguments for government action. Our kids are our most precious asset and parents are just too stupid to take care of them. Second, because this is happening in a public sphere, it should be regulated. There are all kinds of problems with such arguments, and Nick Gillespie simply didn't have enough air time to get to the core of the idiocy, although he certainly did a good job of showing the authoritarian nature of her arguments.
Problems:
1) Sure, kids are a precious asset, but they don't belong to a collective or the nation. In other words, they are not a "common good." Each kid has his own set of parents, and only they can and should be the first source of information about the world. There is simply no justification, especially when it comes to diet, for the government to raise kids in place of the parents. Government has enough problems keeping its own house in order. Why on earth should we trust it to take care of kids?
2) Like most statist arguments, the beginning and end of the argument goes something like this: "You're an idiot, and only I know what's best for you." Put simply, it takes a massive amount of arrogance for someone in a bureaucratic position to believe that he or she has all of the information necessary to decide what is better for other people's children. Meme Roth's whole justification for regulation is that she somehow knows how other people's children should live their lives.
3) The biggest fallacy in this sort of argument concerns the so-called public sphere. First, we don't have any choice over where our kids go to school. Government demands that they be schooled, and if we can't afford a private school, well, we have to send our kids to the nearest rundown, incompetent public school. So, here's the logic: "Because you have no choice about going to school and we sure as hell won't privatize schools, if you go to one of our schools that we choose for you, we get to regulate your kid's life." This translates as: "We tell you where to go and what to do." Government forces us into the public sphere and then tells us that we have to listen to it because, voila, we are in the public sphere. Second, as Nick Gillespie pointed out, if the justification for regulation is the "common good" or "public sphere," then the answer is simple: either remove schools from the public sphere or don't regulate health care.
Common good arguments are always based on these fallacies, and behind them there is usually a common thread. There is always someone who wants to use the force of government to impose his or her authoritarian view of how society should be on the rest of us. As C.S. Lewis said long ago, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Unfortunately for us, it doesn't look like the tyranny of good intentions will be ending anytime soon.
Posted by Michael at 1/30/2010 8:07 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: Stossel Libertarian Big Government Anarchy Deluxe
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: Stossel Libertarian Big Government Anarchy Deluxe
Hmm. Interesting line: "we're in the throes of a national obesity bailout"
Reply to this