The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3147
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by sophie » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am

I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, pugchief's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:12 am

sophie wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am
I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, pugchief's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I think the argument goes like this, "I don't care what food you buy with your own money, but when you're taking my money I get a say in the matter."

Don't we all remember that (awesome) video of the California surfer dude using his EBT card to buy lobster and sushi?
There are several thousand nearly complete viral genomes integrated into the human genome, most now inert or missing a crucial gene. These account for 1.3% of the entire genome. That may not sound like much, but 'proper' genes account for only 3%. If you think being descended from apes is bad for your self-esteem, then get used to the idea that you are also descended from viruses.
Ridley, Genome
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:23 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:12 am
sophie wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am
I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, pugchief's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I think the argument goes like this, "I don't care what food you buy with your own money, but when you're taking my money I get a say in the matter."
I largely agree with your point, but there's still a slippery slope there. And some perverse incentives. For example, the way the feds mandated the national 55MPH speed limit and the drinking age of 21. It was through highway grants. Basically, the feds took a bunch of money from people which states could have taken, then offered it back to the states in the form of grants with all these strings attached. An end-around around the Constitution, really.

I guess the extreme in this example would be more and more people being considered poor and eligible for food stamps, and thus more and more people under the government's micromanaging. Unlikely, perhaps.... But if we really do turn into a society with a small upper crust and a large underclass, it amounts to the elites telling the plebs exactly what they may and may not eat.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8810
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:53 pm

sophie wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am
I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, pugchief's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I’m against micromanaging a la Michael Bloomberg and soda. Just playing devil’s advocate, though, is it the intervention that led to diabetes’ spread or just something that was bound to happen with a rise in prosperity? I guess we were already prosperous in the 70s, but we had to stand up even to play video games. O0

I know the food pyramid has turned out to be a very poor guideline. Does that count as part of the intervention?

People on SNAP are going to find a way to drink Pepsi and eat Pringles no matter what is done with SNAP. Even so, the one justification I can think of for trying to impose restrictions is medical savings down the line. Like with the pyramid, we won’t get everything right, but I don’t think we’re going to find out in the future that soda is actually good for us. (Or, if you like Woody Allen’s ‘Sleeper’, chocolate cake).
Gold has passed 1645/oz
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3147
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by sophie » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:52 pm

dualstow wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:53 pm
sophie wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:42 am
I've wondered that too. They could limit the cards to unprocessed foods, and ban them from being used for desserts, sodas etc. People could still buy them just with their own money.

But, pugchief's larger point is correct: whether it's SNAP limitations or talking grocery carts, why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat anyway? For millions of years, humans got by just fine without official dietary guidelines - and that was true for most of the industrial age as well. It's only since the US government started doing that (1977) that people started getting fat and sick - and there's plenty of evidence that it was exactly this intervention that led to the diabetes epidemic we're currently faced with.
I’m against micromanaging a la Michael Bloomberg and soda. Just playing devil’s advocate, though, is it the intervention that led to diabetes’ spread or just something that was bound to happen with a rise in prosperity? I guess we were already prosperous in the 70s, but we had to stand up even to play video games. O0

I know the food pyramid has turned out to be a very poor guideline. Does that count as part of the intervention?

People on SNAP are going to find a way to drink Pepsi and eat Pringles no matter what is done with SNAP. Even so, the one justification I can think of for trying to impose restrictions is medical savings down the line. Like with the pyramid, we won’t get everything right, but I don’t think we’re going to find out in the future that soda is actually good for us. (Or, if you like Woody Allen’s ‘Sleeper’, chocolate cake).
Someday I might provide a full answer to your devil's advocate question, but in the meantime...yes, there is a very large body of evidence that the intervention led to the diabetes epidemic.

I do get the idea of: your bad behavior costs me money, therefore I have a right to regulate your behavior - but as Xan said it is indeed a slippery slope. If you can demand that people on food stamps not drink soda, then would you also support legislation limiting your iPhone use to 1 hour per day, and requiring 3 1 hour sessions at the gym every week? The failure of Prohibition provides a useful precedent, because in the end we as a country decided that this was not an appropriate use of legislation. Thank heavens for that.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8810
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:03 pm

Sure. I agree. Not to mention the harm it may do businesses like Pepsi and CVS, which has amusingly renamed itself CVS Health.
Please do post that follow-up sometime if you should come across it.
Gold has passed 1645/oz
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by boglerdude » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:38 pm

If im paying for some bum's dinner its gonna be rice beans and vegetables. Not factory-farmed, superbug-creating, rainforest-clearing McDonald's
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Maddy » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:08 am

I'm afraid I just don't see the "slippery slope" here. Maybe because I have no problem with the idea of requiring even very significant lifestyle changes from people who have voluntarily submitted themselves to a system by which other people are required to pay not only for the choices that put them in a dependent situation to begin with--but all the choices that they make going forward. The key, for me, is the voluntary nature of participation and the fact that at any time an individual can opt out of that system without forfeiting any of the rights that anyone else has to conduct their lives as they see fit.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm

Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.

I should point out that I think the real flaw here is the subsidy, and government intervention on health care, not necessarily the idea that people on food stamps should be required to make good food choices. But this is the world we live in.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2973
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by pugchief » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm
Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.
And what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 pm

pugchief wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm
Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.
And what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.
The reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.

I guess the requirement was sort of removed with a wink and a nod, "we won't enforce it" kind of thing. Which still isn't great. And there are still a bunch of requirements on the "insurance" products that are available: cheaper, catastrophic insurance is illegal.

Somebody wants to buy catastrophic insurance, and can't because of the government. He can't afford the "insurance" that is available, because of the government. He buys a subsidized plan because what else can he do? Presto, now you've turned formerly self-sufficient people into those whom you can tell what to eat and do.

This was the big argument against Obamacare in the first place, of course.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1513
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Cortopassi » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:04 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm
Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.
You really don't want the government dictating how to stay healthy! Standard American Diet, healthy whole grains at the top! Limit your meat, eggs and saturated fat! That has worked out sooo well! Have a bowl of heart healthy cereal with a couple slices of heart healthy whole grain bread and top it off with another 20-30g of sugar in your heart healthy OJ! What could go wrong?
Post Reply