willhines.net

1. Will

   Mar 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm

   Linda — the woman who posts here asking for pictures of my cats: who are you?

2. DC

   Mar 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   Libertarians walk among you! I am one. We favor small government, civil rights, and personal choice. We are pro-economic-freedom, pro-choice, anti-drug war, and just basically pro-fun. I haven’t read any libertarian screeds on the subject, but I imagine most libertarians are anti-trans-fat ban (as I am).

   But I also enjoy things like subways…so…y’know…it’s tough.

   A good libertarian blog is http://reason.com/hitandrun

3. DC

   Mar 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   We are also pro-Linda who wants pictures of your cats.

4. Jim

   Mar 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pm

   I consider myself to have libertarian leanings and I’m for the trans-fat ban. Why should I have to subsidize that unhealthy lifestyle? The strain obesity and cardiac disease puts on the system takes money out of my pocket. And that money comes out as both higher premiums and higher taxes, so I’m getting it from both the private sector and the government. I’m all for everyone eating and living the way they want to, right up until they want me to pay for the consequences of their poor choices.

   The same goes for people constantly rebuilding in flood zones and not buying flood insurance.

5. DC

   Mar 24th, 2007 at 4:56 am

   Jim-

   That’s interesting, I hadn’t heard that argument. Are you pro-indoor-smoking-bans, or anti-smoking, for the same reason?

   We also want to know where you come down on the Linda situation.

6. YLlama

   Mar 24th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

   Jim, the “higher taxes” element of your argument only makes sense because we don’t live in a libertarian society. Do away with government-infected health care (e.g. Medicaid, hospital regulations that forbid turning away the destitute and dying, the FDA) and you’re no longer paying for other people’s unhealthy decisions. A good libertarian would bemoan tax dollars going to support health care, not justify trans-fat bans an other paternalistic mistakes.

   And the “higher premiums” element of your argument is only makes sense if you assume high costs for insurance companies to discover whether people are eating trans-fats. If it was cheap to discover whether people are consuming trans-fats, the insurance companies would have started asking that question and charging higher premiums to those that do already. But here’s my question: at what cost are we banning trans-fats? Actual implementation and enforcement dollars, I mean? Factoring in the efficiencies of collecting taxes and running a government operation? How much does that cost you? Is it greater or less than the amount the trans-fat eaters are costing you?

7. Linda

   Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:12 am

   I don’t understand why I’m suddenly so popular… or unpopular… in the comments section, and I don’t know if my feelings should be hurt or not.

   But then I saw a picture at the top of the screen of Will’s cats playing in a box, and I felt better.

8. Birch

   Mar 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am

   I think I’ll be pro-Linda but I need more info.
   A short bio?
   Pictures?

9. Billy P

   Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

   A/S/L?

10. Terry

    Mar 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    Libertarianism is great and all, but we want more pictures of L I N D A.

    -Terry

11. Jim

    Mar 26th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

    First question. I am pro-indoor-smoking bans. This argument is so obvious it shouldn’t even be an argument anymore.

    Second question. I guess this is why I lean libertarian and am not a good libertarian. I don’t believe society can become libertarian. Our society has gotten to the point where everyone expects to avoid as many negative events as possible and they demand the government help them with that. I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing, as to do otherwise would lead to a giant rift between the haves and the nearly destitute and such a society would not be sustainable.

    That said, if society as a whole wants to pay for the government to run their lives, then they are going to have to play by the governments rules. Your argument about costs holds water for only the first year or so of the ban. After that, the market forces will drive transfats producers out of the market anyway, so their would be little need for further enforcement. Therefore, it is ultimately cheaper than the long term health-costs.

    The insurance companies don’t charge higher premiums for bad behavior now, so I doubt a simple trans-fat test would do that. Also, it’s easier to determine the ingredients to any meal before the meal is made, than after it’s eaten. So your argument is really apples-to-oranges.

    I’d love to see the libertarians get a hold of a state and put their ideas to the test. I think it would be a terrific foil to our current system. I remember that Wisconsin was once the target state, but I think it’s New Hampshire now.

12. YLlama

    Mar 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    New Hampshire was chosen by the Free State Project. Although, as a former resident of Idaho, I have to say the Inter-Mountain West is really more appropriate in some ways.

Leave a Comment

trackback address