There have always been things that “society” at large, meaning governmental authorities with the power to enforce their ideas, have considered more important than the individual liberty of the citizenry. If an idea is deemed sufficiently vital, it is easy to use as a justification for robbing people of their rights.
For many centuries in Europe, the ultimate goal to which freedom was subservient was seen by both church and state as the eternal salvation of the immortal soul. Protection from spending eternity in a lake of fire was regarded, by some at least, as well worth the sacrifice of a few earthly pleasures. This is why the Inquisition was permitted to harass, imprison, and even execute people designated as heretics;saving people from Hell superseded respecting their autonomy during life.
Today, the influence of the church is considerably more limited, and while a large population of deeply religious people still exist, there are only a few extremists who would find such drastic means acceptable even to the most noble of ends. Yet the underlying structure of governments, albeit less theocratic ones, persists, with concern for the soul being merely supplanted by another priority.
Today’s policymakers worship at a different altar: a nebulous shrine known as “health.” The omnipresence of this poorly defined term – I have yet to see a coherent explanation of of what exactly constitutes a “healthy” activity – amounts to an obsession. The promotion of “health” among the general population is used to justify everything from rigorous regulations telling us what we may and may not eat, to a government-run medical system that disempowers doctors and patients alike to conduct their business as they see fit.
Now, a panel of “experts” at the RAND Corporation have released a set of proposed guidelines for restaurants to combat the so-called obesity epidemic we have been told is sweeping the globe, and North America in particular. Leaving aside the fact that the term “epidemic” is wholly inappropriate to describe a non-contagious physical condition resulting from voluntary activities, the continuous push for ever stricter controls over people’s personal health is of deep concern to those of us who value liberty above all else.
Among these proposals is a requirement that restaurants moderate the portion sizes they offer to portly patrons. The argument goes that being served too much food encourages diners to eat more than they otherwise would, applying the odious “nudge” principles that have fallen into vogue among behavioral economists.
There are so many problems with this approach to policy making that it’s difficult to know where to begin. First, it’s nobody’s business how much we eat. Health is an intensely personal thing, and should not be the concern of any government bureaucrat. They argue that, because other people have to pay for medical care for the unhealthy through taxes, this sort of government meddling is justified. I have a simpler solution: let everyone assume personal responsibility for his own health, rather than shifting the cost onto others.
Second, restricting business owners from giving customers what they want can only result in decreased utility for all parties involved. Portion sizes are large because we want them to be large. Restaurants are not going to give us more than we want, because doing so costs them money. Giving people what they want is how businesses thrive and how standards of living increase. The alternative is to give people what others (government) wants for them, an Orwellian idea if ever there was one.
Third, if a person is overweight from overeating, that’s nobody’s fault but his own. No one is forcing him to eat everything on his plate. Government meddlers seem to think of humans as nothing more than helpless puppets, their actions determined not by free will, but by advertisements of big companies. The obvious question is then, whose fault is it that companies choose to run the advertisements in the first place? Once you surrender personal responsibility, the chain of passing the buck can continue back indefinitely. This is the problem with materialism, which denies free will and holds that all human actions are the predictable result of their state of matter.
Just as the Inquisition once saw fit to rule people’s lives for the sake of God, government now sees fit to rule them for the sake of health. Why not let people rule their own lives, and let them face the consequences of their actions as responsible adults exercising their free will? To do otherwise is to degrade the dignity of humanity, and diminish all that we have accomplished as a species.