Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanny state. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2009

Selective Nannies

One of the defining features of the nanny state has been to protect us from making bad decisions but is this really the case? We see endless PSA's about not doing drugs, wearing seatbelts, eating healthy but the same government that discourages these sorts of bad behavior encourages bad behavior that it likes. The state I live in, for example, has been trying for years to get legalized gambling for the purpose of funding the government. There are advertisements all over TV for the lottery.

The government wants to protect us sometimes when it suits their purpose. As a libertarian, or a conservative with a strong libertarian bent, I don't think the government should ban gambling. Legalizing gambling for the sole purpose of funding government is a separate issue though. I wonder if the people who are so worried about a kid eating a happy meal are as concerned about the health effects on the family when dad or mom blows their paycheck on the poker slots.

The recent and ongoing housing bubble collapse is another example. The federal reserve with strong support from the government kept interest rates low to encourage home ownership. People were encouraged to borrow too much spend too much. The effect of this bad behavior on people and society at large has been horrendous but you don't see the government encouraging responsibility in this area. At least you do not see it consistently like the constant incessant hammering of environmental issues, and health care issues.

So the government cares about your welfare when it suits their purpose as in when it increases their power but not so much when it comes to filling their coffers.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Fed war on cigarrettes

The Feds are increasing regulatory control over nicotine levels in cigarettes. Now is a good time to sell your GM stock and invest in criminal organizations trafficking high nicotine no tax smokes. And for you terrorist organizations hard hit by the economic downturn, here is an excellent opportunity to raise some operating capital. I'm sure any number of gangs would also be interested in developing new revenue streams.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Food Health Studies Hazardous to Health

After years of being harangued daily about how the food I eat is killing me I decided to do my own scientific study into the effect of scientific studies on the health aspects of various foods on me. I chose myself as a subject since I have in depth knowledge of me and doing research on others would involve well, work.

Background

For last 20 to 30 years I have been told on a regular basis that various foods were bad for me. I am 38 now and I use the range of 20 to 30 years because I don't recall hearing this too much when I was a child. The studies that I can recall were on the following things:
Coffee and caffeine
Pop
Eggs
Red Meat
Fish
Wheat Bran
White Bread
Sugar and Starch
Alcohol
Saturated Fats
Un-saturated Fats
Trans-fats

Findings

Each of the above mentioned items have been taken their turn on the enemies list of the health food nannies. Yet each has at some point been found to have positive affects on health.

My studies have shown that we are bombarded with an endless stream of warnings day after day about how we are fat, lazy , stupid and destroying our health. If the warnings are to be believed, there are entire industries whose sole mission is to make us unhealthy and kill us.

Negative effects

From personal experience, the negative affects I experienced early on were a persistent sense of guilt and worry. A general reduction in self esteem that arose from a feeling of weakness when I would indulge in things that I enjoyed.

I have observed that as a result of these guilty feelings many people resort to a form of self flagellating masochism in an effort to perform some sort of penance for their perceived sins. One example would be the "Biggest Loser" show where teams of people participate in the most degrading humiliation imaginable at the hands of sadistic "trainers". Granted, these people are playing a game for money, but one can't help but get the impression that these people feel helpless to control their own lives. They feel guilty, inferior, weak. Decades of being constantly told that they are eating the wrong things, that they are lazy, that there is something wrong with everything they are doing in their lives have taken their toll. They go to these priests of physical fitness looking for absolution. And the priests tell them that only through working out, at levels inhumanely possible to maintain unless you are unemployed, and abstaining from all enjoyment of food, they can achieve eternal happiness.

For most of us we experience this to a lesser degree. We feel all of the feelings already mentioned. We decide to do something about it. We diet and workout like madmen and for a time it works. Then reality sets in that it is just not possible to maintain this regimen. We slip and slide back into old habits and we sooth ourselves with the food we crave. Meanwhile we are filled with self loathing. We have weighed and measured ourselves by an impossible standard and found ourselves wanting.

Industries harmed

Many industries have been harmed over the years by these periodic health scares. The baking industry for one has been been affected several times, first when white bread was considered bad and then when people were jumping on the low carb high protein train. Remember the Alar scare of the late 80's. Many fast food companies changed their cooking oils as a result of the supposed dangers of saturated fats, now these same companies are being told the oils they switched to are just as bad. Look at how the fishing industry has been hurt over the years with repeated scares regarding mercury, a naturally occurring substance that we have in our own bodies. These are just a few examples.

Long term consequences (legislation, loss of freedom)

The long term consequences are scary. We are seeing a steady increase in government control. Many cities such as New York have already tried to regulate the restaurant industry to ban trans-fats. The likelihood is that we will have some form of federally subsidized national health care in the near future. Government will use this to claim authority in regulating your personal habits. The government's position will be that we are paying for your health care and therefore it is the government's right and responsibility to regulate those activities which are determined (whether true or not) to increase the cost of health care. When the people belong to the government and not the other way around we are in trouble.

People will willingly turnover control to the government. After being brainwashed into believing that every indulgence they allow themselves is a sin, they will feel helpless in running their own lives. They will gladly turnover their lives to the government so that these decisions are no longer theirs to make. People will on the surface complain that the government has no business telling us what to eat, but, these are the same people who spend their days feeling guilty about everything they eat. The "know" in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong and subconsciously they will be thinking "I am a sinner and it is impossible for me to lead a sin free life". They will consciously or subconsciously look to the government to remove that temptation that causes them to "sin".


What possible conclusions can be drawn from this

1. These studies are an evil plot by SPs that are really PTS/SPs bent on the destruction of Tom Cruise and Scientology.
2. Nanny statists are endangering our health by subjecting us to endless studies and warnings telling us that what we are doing is wrong.
3. Nanny statists are endangering our freedom by undermining our confidence in our abilities to manage our own lives, thus inviting further government intrusion.


Proposed actions

Find ways to be happy. Happiness starts from within. Find things that work for you. The idea that you are going to spend 10 hours a week working out for the rest of your life is and eat only wheat germ and yogurt is preposterous. Stop looking for silver bullets. For Gods sake stop feeling guilty every time you take a bite of ice cream or pizza or whatever your favorite food is. Enjoy that food. Life is not meant to be lived in a perpetual state of guilt. Realize that not all of us are going to have six pack abs and that is ok. I love food. I find ways to enjoy it without guilt and still maintain my health reasonably. There is nothing wrong with me.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Universal Health Care vs. Dangerous Activities

Today I was watching some YouTube videos, with my wife, of something called Parkour. Not sure exactly what this is but it appears to be people jumping all over the place, climbing walls jumping across roofs, sort of like a Jackie Chan movie. While I was watching this it occurred to me that this is a dangerous activity and prone to cause injuries. By the way, I am new to blogging so I probably should add some YouTube link here but I don't know what I'm doing so that may have to come later.
Anyhow, my thoughts wandered to smoking and obesity. Now we have all been told what a drag smoking and obesity are on health care costs. There is an obesity "epedemic" supposedly. Many justify banning smoking or taxing smokers based on the added cost to the health care system. Now maybe you can see where I am going with this. If the government wants to regulate smoking and ban foods that make us fat (allegedly) on the basis that it will cost taxpayers money, what about risky activities? Have you seen the shows on TV such as MTV's "Scarred"? Here is a whole show dedicated to extreme sports injuries. Expensive injuries that require surgery and months of rehabilitation.
Now if some form of Universal health care were to get passed in this country, would the government seek to regulate or eliminate certain activities that drive up the cost of health care? There are already attempts to pass legislation banning trans fats in cities like New York. Once health care becomes the sole responsibility of the government, will it seek to limit costs by controlling our behavior? Perhaps we will form health care task forces that will enforce ordinances against risky behavior. Children riding bikes without helmets, skateboarders and inline skaters who are not wearing the appropriate safety gear could be issued citations their parents would have to pay. Better yet, to offset the costs to the taxpayers we could tax products related to risky behavior the way cigarettes are taxed. Bikes, skateboards, roller skates, soccer balls etc. There is no end to the amount of government regulation that could be imposed. This sounds silly but then again I never thought smoking a cigarette in a bar would be illegal or that the government could tell McDonald's what kind of oil to cook their french fries in.
Universal Health care is going to give government a way to bypass the constitution in the name of health. Your body which you thought belonged to you will become the governments responsibility and therefore they will get a say in how it is maintained and used. This may not bother everyone and if government plays its cards right it won't tick off enough people at any one time to raise a big enough fuss over it. It can pick the low hanging fruit the way it did with smokers. Maybe those skate boarders hanging out on the corner with the baggy pants are the real cause of health care costs some will say. We should tax skateboards to cover the costs associated with skateboard injuries. There ought to be enough older people who actually vote who don't like skate boarders with baggy pants to go along with it.
 
Add to Technorati Favorites