New York Times columnist Mark Bittman is having a jolly good time contemplating ways to control other people. “It’s fun — inspiring, even — to think about implementing a program like this,” he declares. And what kind of program is he talking about? One which directs people away from their own preferences and toward making the ‘right’ choices, according to him and a select elite:
Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there’s little disagreement that changing it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives.
…Yet the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn’t matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they’ll continue to sell the health-damaging food that’s most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That “other force” should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.
Let’s be clear on what he is saying: The market, driven by consumer preferences, is wrong and needs to be corrected. Consumers are making the wrong choices, so government must step in to make the rights ones on their behalf.
He continues:
Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks. The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available.
…This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit.
This last statement is an absurd argument, which is probably why he never bothers to substantiate it. Simply asserting something does not make it so. “Public health” in this instance means nothing more than an aggregate of individual health choices. They are no more the government’s responsibility than individual entertainment choices – potentially known as “public entertainment.”
On principle, meddling of this sort represents everything that is wrong with modern government – it is too big, too intrusive, and too consumed with managing the private day to day affairs of the people. But even as a practical matter it should be concerning. The U.S. government doesn’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to promoting behavior. Not too long ago politicians decided that home ownership was worthy of promotion through tax breaks and subsidies, and we all know how that turned out. Or even if we limit ourselves to other examples of “public health” concerns, the war on salt is not exactly based on solid science, nor has it even been successful at reducing salt intake.
Mark Bittman thinks it is fun for centralized authorities to make choices on behalf of others, so long as those choices are also his own. One wonders if he would find it equally enjoyable if the government decided a particular preference of his was no longer acceptable. In either case, such ‘fun’ is not the purpose of government in a free society. In a free society people are responsible for their own choices, and if you wish to change them you should seek to do so through persuasion instead of force.
(Hat-tip: Jacob Sullum)
