Curly Capitalist Question Number 3
Anonymous has a good question that cuts to the heart of welfarism and parent's rights
I consider myself pro-market, but often wonder about harm from large private companies. The giants (McDonalds, etc) sell shitty food so I don't eat it. But millions do, they get fat/unhealthy and die. I don't like "solutions" like Green's proposal to regulate food advertising, but at the same time I don't like that companies can do so well selling harmful products. The mental reconciliation I've come to is that people who are too lazy or stupid to eat properly bring it upon themselves, with (maybe) some blame accorded to a lack of rules/enforcement about what is actually in food. I'm not sure I'm satisfied with my answer, so what do you think?
Also, how does the situation of a child who has one of the aforementioned lazy/stupid people as a parent fit into this? Should a parent have the freedom to raise the fat little porkers I see in the supermarket? (They seem to at the moment!)
Why do people think they can eat crap food, smoke and drink to excess and treat their kids like walking waste disposal units.?
Because three generations of welfarism and state health care have lowered the general level of personal responsibility for family health.
Combine that with very low educational standards, in English, maths and the sciences and you have an underclass that has easy access to high carbohydrate food, little knowledge of nutritional science and no economic pressure to try and improve their health.
Obesity was once largely confined to the rich, now it is the disease of the poor. Why, because the poor also tend to be less educated and responsible and more state dependent for income, health services and education.
You work as a railway labourer, your wife cleans dunnies at the local RSA. You want to have nine kids.
Right now you do that and all the low child, higher income, gay and single people pay for it. You feed the kids on cheap carbohydrates to fill them up and shut them up and you buy lots of takeaways because you are too lazy or ignorant to cook properly. There is no penalty for this stupidity, in fact you are rewarded with free medical and dental care.
Imagine a truly free society. Have as many kids as you like, educate and feed them to your liking, but be prepared to bear the consequences.
You want nine kids. You're on low incomes. You either have to pay to feed and educate your kids, or rely on private charities with the power to set conditions.
You pull finger, educate yourself, improve your skills or start a business to raise your income levels sufficiently. Alternatively you settle for three kids.
In a free society, all but the ultra rich would want to insure their own and their kids health. All insurance comes at a price and to reduce those premiums there will be conditions.
Will you attend a course on nutrition? Healthy cooking? If there are obvious health problems, will you enrol your kids in one of the cheap private health monitoring schemes run by the local church, service group, friendly society or entrepeneur?
Will you get your kids involved in sport? Will you sign a pledge to stay away from McDonalds except on birthdays and tax freedom day?
Ironically, welfare statism is a boon to certain industries. Tobacco, alcohol and crap food companies all do well where welfare levels are high.
My contention is simple. The crap food industry is not a symbol of capitalism. It is in fact a symptom of welfarism.
Reduce welfarism, increase personal responsibility, replace state health and education with private and civil society provision and I believe that within a generation, the general level of children's health will improve dramatically.
Anybody care to argue?
I consider myself pro-market, but often wonder about harm from large private companies. The giants (McDonalds, etc) sell shitty food so I don't eat it. But millions do, they get fat/unhealthy and die. I don't like "solutions" like Green's proposal to regulate food advertising, but at the same time I don't like that companies can do so well selling harmful products. The mental reconciliation I've come to is that people who are too lazy or stupid to eat properly bring it upon themselves, with (maybe) some blame accorded to a lack of rules/enforcement about what is actually in food. I'm not sure I'm satisfied with my answer, so what do you think?
Also, how does the situation of a child who has one of the aforementioned lazy/stupid people as a parent fit into this? Should a parent have the freedom to raise the fat little porkers I see in the supermarket? (They seem to at the moment!)
Why do people think they can eat crap food, smoke and drink to excess and treat their kids like walking waste disposal units.?
Because three generations of welfarism and state health care have lowered the general level of personal responsibility for family health.
Combine that with very low educational standards, in English, maths and the sciences and you have an underclass that has easy access to high carbohydrate food, little knowledge of nutritional science and no economic pressure to try and improve their health.
Obesity was once largely confined to the rich, now it is the disease of the poor. Why, because the poor also tend to be less educated and responsible and more state dependent for income, health services and education.
You work as a railway labourer, your wife cleans dunnies at the local RSA. You want to have nine kids.
Right now you do that and all the low child, higher income, gay and single people pay for it. You feed the kids on cheap carbohydrates to fill them up and shut them up and you buy lots of takeaways because you are too lazy or ignorant to cook properly. There is no penalty for this stupidity, in fact you are rewarded with free medical and dental care.
Imagine a truly free society. Have as many kids as you like, educate and feed them to your liking, but be prepared to bear the consequences.
You want nine kids. You're on low incomes. You either have to pay to feed and educate your kids, or rely on private charities with the power to set conditions.
You pull finger, educate yourself, improve your skills or start a business to raise your income levels sufficiently. Alternatively you settle for three kids.
In a free society, all but the ultra rich would want to insure their own and their kids health. All insurance comes at a price and to reduce those premiums there will be conditions.
Will you attend a course on nutrition? Healthy cooking? If there are obvious health problems, will you enrol your kids in one of the cheap private health monitoring schemes run by the local church, service group, friendly society or entrepeneur?
Will you get your kids involved in sport? Will you sign a pledge to stay away from McDonalds except on birthdays and tax freedom day?
Ironically, welfare statism is a boon to certain industries. Tobacco, alcohol and crap food companies all do well where welfare levels are high.
My contention is simple. The crap food industry is not a symbol of capitalism. It is in fact a symptom of welfarism.
Reduce welfarism, increase personal responsibility, replace state health and education with private and civil society provision and I believe that within a generation, the general level of children's health will improve dramatically.
Anybody care to argue?
posted by Trevor Loudon at
6/21/2006 07:34:00 PM
11 Comments:
Right i will step up. I dont think these low income families will follow all the steps mentioned in the above post. I just think the inevitable 9 kids will end up sick and malnourished. The parents with no mimimum wage will be forced way below the poverty line as the market loosens up a little, the kids get sick but the parents can afford to go to a private hospital so 3 of em die.... you get the idea in a capitalist free for all society those at the bottom get exploited by all :)
My contention is simple. The crap food industry is not a symbol of capitalism. It is in fact a symptom of welfarism.
I hadn't considered that link before. Thanks Trevor.
Ironically, welfare statism is a boon to certain industries.
Welfare helps a lot of industries, without welfare, surplus workers die of starvation when they're unemployed, then if businesses require more workers in the future, they have to compete for for workers, one company raises wages to bring workers from another company, and so on as is the law of the market.
(more benefits of unemployment)
sounds like with all those requirements that a lot of ppl would be much more free to make decisons about their lives under the current system
In some ways you're right squirrel. Freedom carries responsibility. Human growth comes through taking on more responsibily and consequently gaining more freedom. This ain't easy, but it is satisfying and makes life meaningful. The choice is yours-live life to the max with all its highs and lows, freedoms and responsibilities, or drift on through, achieving nothing better than an "easy" life.
Yea i get your point trev. surely in our current system the way you live your live is dictated by a not so benevolent government, i dont know if it would be better that our lives were dictated by some insurance company or employer.
Yacap in a capitalist "free" society some quickly build up wealth and this puts the balance of power in their favour - it doesnt allways have to be this way but their is huge potential for inequity and exploitation in a free market system. For example if im hungry and you own all the land in the city and their are only 2 or 3 employers then their is a real chance that i would be forced to accept poor working conditions and a low standard of life. ie "exploited by all"
as for the removal of the minimum wage those currently unemployed recieve enough state welfare to survive. In a free market system when their are too many workers those unemployed may not be able to survive.
Im willing to accept a free market system if it can be shown that gross inequity will not occur :) (plus a few other requirements)
Squirrel. I have two favourite sayings
a A rising tide lifts all boats.
Free markets do bring inequality, which I think is good. I think all people should be equal "before the law", but thats it. Some people will become hugely wealthy, but everyone else will also be better off. Who cares if your neighbour has a Porsche, when you have a Mercedes and you used to drive a Skoda. No two atoms in the universe are equal. Why should people be?
b Socialism is the equal sharing of misery. Self explanatory really.
And i would rather live in an equitable fair society with a moderate standard of life for all. I guess thats where you and i differ.
"And i would rather live in an equitable fair society with a moderate standard of life for all. I guess thats where you and i differ."
So you are basically calling for all progress and invention to cease squirrel?
Thats what would have to happen to sustain your utopia of stagnation.No free thought or action could be allowed because that would allow some people to become ...Horror! ...unequal!
How big and brutal a State would be required to make your fantasy a reality? The USSR and North Korea may provide a few hints for starters.
"Free men are never equal and equal men are never free.."
I prefer a decentralised network of governance as opposed to say the USSR.
As for constant improvment and innovation i am not at all opposed to them, i realise that their will always be disparities in wealth and thats completely natural and that their must be a carrot for people to strive after if they are to work hard though i am not convinced that carrot needs to be increased personal wealth.
What i am opposed to is the centralisation of wealth and power into the hands of a few that i see unbridled capitalism creating. So far no libertarian has ever explained how a libertarian society would cope with this centralisation of wealth and power apart from vague mumblings of charity and "working hard". Until some concrete explanations are given i will continue to support appropriation of wealth from those that have to those that have not.
Squirrel Free market capitalism most certainly does not centralise economic power. Just the opposite. I will try and deal with this point in one of my curly questions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home