Why Can't They Just Trust Markets and People?

If you want proof that there are still advocates of big government liberalism, here's Paul Krugman, writing in the left-wing dishrag about how we should utilize government to help stop obesity. He starts by talking about the government crusade against smoking, pretending that it was the government's efforts that reversed people's desire to smoke. This leads to the question of how to counter obesity, and Krugman's distrust of the marketplace...

How can medical experts who see obesity as a critical problem deal with an ideological landscape tilted in the direction of doing nothing?

One answer is to focus on the financial costs of obesity, and the fact that many of these costs fall on taxpayers and on the general insurance-buying public, rather than on the obese individuals themselves.

...It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.

For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.

And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese. In fact, even many economists know better: the most widely cited recent economic analysis of obesity, a 2003 paper by David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro of Harvard University, declares that "at least some food consumption is almost certainly not rational." It goes on to present evidence that even adults have clear problems with self-control.

Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.

Here, in a nutshell (um... salty), is the problem with old-school big government liberalism.

Krugman points to the campaign against smoking and the construction of sewer systems as indicative of government efforts that we should follow, without differentiating between the two and determining the effectiveness of each. With the latter, the need for a sewer system is established by the market -- most of us don't want to live in our filth. There are functions of basic society that almost all of us don't mind seeing contracted out to the government, mostly because we're not sure that the marketplace, whose desire is to make a profit, would add in the public benefit when determining whether and how to provide certain services. I don't want to contract out the Army, the cops or the sewage system. But I also don 't want a nanny state telling me what I need to do and more importantly, that I must do it.

Here's the thing. I don't smoke because I made that choice -- not because government tells me not to, and not because the government now makes it incovenient in many communities to do so. Does the government's public advocacy of the dangers of smoking help? Probably, but it helped a hell of a lot more that my parents would have killed me had they ever found me with a cigarette, and that a lot of really attractive girls don't want to date a guy with breath that resembles an exhaust engine.

Some people make the opposite choice -- and that's their decision. With regard to obesity, the same is true. In fact, there's a relentless public campaign against obesity already in place. But Krugman and his fellow liberals want to remove our ability to choose to be thin or fat, in pursuit of some collective good. Sorry, I'm not willing to buy an argument to turn the industries that provide us with fatty foods into evil-doers. I don't think anyone's promoting the health effects of a Big Mac -- they're promoting that it tastes good. It's an individual decision to eat it.

I love arguments that devolve into "do it for the children" because they're never quite able to articulate what government is doing for the kids that their parents can't do better. I sympathize with parents being stuck with kids who want the latest sugary snack because they saw a commercial during their favorite TV show. But the people who are arguing in favor of government intervention here are the same folks who tell parents they need to do a better job of monitoring their kids' viewing habits when parents complain about sex and violence on TV.

Yes, I'm aware that we have single-parent families, and in most families, both parents now work. I know this makes the job of taking care of kids more difficult. But guess what? Divorce is bad for society, and I don't see Krugman arguing against letting people get divorced, or against letting single parents raise their own children. These are choices people make, and some are unwise. That's part of being human. As for two parent families, I know there are some couples where both want to work and make that decision. In most, people are probably both working because they need to do so. Maybe if alleviate the crushing tax burden brought about by having government try to solve every problem, a few more couples might leave one of the breadwinners at home.

Yes, some food consumption isn't rational. So are other decisions people make every day. People sleep around. They fall in love with the wrong people. They don't get enough sleep. They spend money foolishly. Should government step in and change these things as well? To some extent, it already does -- it has rules in place to protect us from investing our money foolishly, and you need to get a marriage license to tie the knot. But as a society, we tend to want the right to make stupid decisions -- because sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong, and we're right. And sometimes we don't care, because we want pleasure immediately instead of the right thing. We then face the consequences -- added pounds, potential pregnancy, whatever. That's part of freedom.

What it comes down to here is that Krugman and his fellow liberals believe that there are particular ideals to which we should all aspire... and that government should not only promote them, but somehow get people to "make" the right choices. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with them about what those choices are -- and some don't even want government promoting any ideals. I actually don't have a problem with the latter -- we're a democracy, and if the voters what government to promote public health by telling people they should strive to be thin, or telling people to avoid drugs or smoking or pre-marital sex, that's fine. Just avoid putting rules in place that force me to follow your suggested course of action, and don't hide those rules behind the veneer of sin taxes and complaints about the costs to society from people who partake in various pursuits.

One of the fears everyone has about the religious right is that they will try to impose their values on the rest of us through government. Last I checked, President Bush hasn't forced me to convert or give up my right to spend Christmas and Easter on the couch watching obscene and violent movies. But Paul Krugman and his ilk apparently want government to take away my right to consume a bag of Doritos, or make it a lot more expensive, while watching such movies.