TheAgitator.com
Swedish Meatballs
Monday, December 8th, 2003Evidence from Sweden suggests that (gasp!) heavy government intervention seems to have little or no effect on obesity — childhood or otherwise.
For years, this nation of nine million has had the sorts of programs, combining healthy diet and physical exercise, that antiobesity advocates elsewhere in the world dream about. Vending machines in Swedish schools are practically unheard of. TV commercials of any kind aimed at kids under 12 are banned. Schoolchildren as young as eight learn to cook healthy meals. Sports programs are heavily subsidized to get youngsters up and about.But Swedish children are plumping up at alarming rates anyway. The number of kids who are overweight has tripled in the past 15 years — roughly the same rate as in other European countries — to 19% of boys and 15% of girls. Those levels are lower than those in Italy, Spain and the U.S., three leaders in childhood obesity, but they have come as a shock nonetheless.
“The increase is much steeper than we had expected,” says Carl-Erik Flodmark, head of the childhood obesity unit at University Hospital in Malmo. “We had thought we were better off than other countries.”
What is happening in Sweden and elsewhere in Scandinavia offers a note of caution to those searching for public-policy solutions to the growing global problem of obesity. Sweden’s public-health programs, comprehensive as they are, still are losing ground to the combined temptations of fast food, heavy TV watching and Web-surfing that have taken hold in Sweden in the past decade.
So despite millions wasted on top-down programs aimed at curbing behavior, Swedes still eat stuff that tastes good, enjoy the conveniences of modern life, and like to make their own decisions about what they eat, drink, and when and how they exercise.
Shocker.
Unfortunately, Swedish government officials in the article take an unfortunate (if predictable) “what more can we do” attitude instead of, “what we’re doing isn’t working, so why not just drop it, and leave people be?”
The delicious part of this story comes from Norway, which recently imposed the highest tax on soda in the world, and correspondingly saw per capita soda consumption jump to among the highest rates in the world.
Social planners in the U.S. often look to Scandinavia as the model society from whence we should glean our public policy. Perhaps these results will nudge them to conclude that we’re getting fatter simply because we live in an age of convenience (a good thing), where good food abounds (another good thing), and that maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to sit back and let people make their own choices about their lives, even if those choices may not necessarily be the healthiest choices.
But I doubt it.
“… maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to sit back and let people make their own choices about their lives, even if those choices may not necessarily be the healthiest choices.”
That of course would lead directly to anarchy.
Communism did wonders for the waistlines of the Russians; maybe Shrillary Clinton is onto something.
After reading this blog and the 2 prior, I’m depressed. Dang Radley, are you happy about anything going on in this country? Please share, cause I want to be happy too.
Radley Balko: … maybe, just maybe, it’s okay to sit back and let people make their own choices about their lives, even if those choices may not necessarily be the healthiest choices.
John Kennedy: That of course would lead directly to anarchy.
Only in a universe where 2 + 2 = 17.
You are (incorrectly) assuming that if individuals were completely unfettered in making this decision that they would almost unanimously decide against a common code of acceptable behavior and a common authority to enforce that code of behavior. (i.e. a âgovernmentâ)
Anarchy is an ultimately unstable âpolitical systemâ. On the Cosmic scale of things it has a half-life of about 5 nanoseconds before it âdecaysâ into something more stable.
“You are (incorrectly) assuming that if individuals were completely unfettered in making this decision that they would almost unanimously decide against a common code of acceptable behavior and a common authority to enforce that code of behavior. (i.e. a âgovernmentâ)”
Radley’s premise was that people would be left free to make their own choices. That precludes government.
John Kennedy: Radley’s premise was that people would be left free to make their own choices. That precludes government.
A Democracy is a form of government where people are free to make their own choices regarding government. (alternately: Democracy is a system where individuals decide/agree what constitutes the common authority.)
You seem to be implying that there is some magical force that prevents people from banding together for their own common good/purpose/ultimate goals.
“Radley’s premise was that people would be left free to make their own choices. That precludes government.”
Sounds like a gigantic strawman to me.
Letting people make their own choices _about their lives_ (the bit you left out) does not mean that they can do anything they want with other people’s lives.
In other words, just because we use government to tackle murder and rape doesn’t mean we should use government to tackle soda consumption.
“Letting people make their own choices _about their lives_ (the bit you left out) does not mean that they can do anything they want with other people’s lives.”
But it does mean they can do whatever they like with their money, and are not obligated to give a penny of it to government, doesn’t it?
Polyscopique: In other words, just because we use government to tackle murder and rape doesn’t mean we should use government to tackle soda consumption.
I like your style Poly.
Look, guns are often used in the commission of a crime. So does that mean that ALL guns are evil and we should ban ALL guns in order to prevent crime?
By the same logic you could say, some of the functions of our government are analogous to crime, ergo we should ban all forms of government to prevent crime.
Mr. Kennedy is really just arguing that guns are the source of all evil and need to be eliminated for the betterment of society. It is an extremely naïve viewpoint in my assessment.
“By the same logic you could say, some of the functions of our government are analogous to crime, ergo we should ban all forms of government to prevent crime. ”
I’m simply saying you shouldn’t collaborate in crime, and taking other peoples money by force to do as you see fit with it is theft.
John Kennedy: But it does mean they can do whatever they like with their money, and are not obligated to give a penny of it to government, doesn’t it?
Letâs imagine that the society is very small (100 individuals) because it is easier to see what is happening that way. And lets assume that there are no other people anywhere in the vicinity (maybe this is a new colony on a far away planet?)
Suppose that this 100 person society decides they are going to have an extremely minimal government. Itâs only function is to uphold and enforce contracts between individuals and arbitrate any disputes that arise over those contracts. The government is also going to enforce and uphold a minimal set of laws. There are only 3 crimes â murder, stealing, and rape.
Are you saying the citizens of this society should assume that there is NO COST for this minimal government? Are you saying that individuals living in this society are not obligated to give a penny to the very organization which they formed for their own mutual benefit? Are you saying there should be no charge for an institution which ultimately serves (benefits) them?
Now I would say that an individual was free to reject this minimal government and strike out on his own. But he cannot live amongst the society, and since he has no obligation to the society (he has rejected it) the society has no obligation to him (thatâs anarchy). In other words, an individual cannot reject the society around him and expect that the society will not return in kind. It would be against the societies own self-interest to do so.
John Kennedy: I’m simply saying you shouldn’t collaborate in crime, and taking other peoples money by force to do as you see fit with it is theft.
John, I couldnât agree more. But if you want to address the fundamental issue of Individuality you cannot do it without addressing the Individuals who comprise the system itself, and I donât see Anarchy doing that any more than I see Atheism doing it.
In order to get a society of Individuals you have to actually get people into the mode of thinking (behaving) like Individuals in a Society. In reality you could like chocolate ice cream, and I could like vanilla, and we could peacefully disagree on which is better, yet we could coexist on an eternal timescale. However, if you like owning your own possessions, and I also like owning your possessions we have a conflict that can only be resolved by one of us either A) conceding to the will of the other, or B) by one of us annihilating the other.
“Are you saying the citizens of this society should assume that there is NO COST for this minimal government? ”
I’m saying they’re not entitled to impose the cost on anyone who would prefer to make other arrangements.
McDonalds makes food but that doesn’t entitle them to charge whoever they choose, only the people who voluntarily turn their money over to them.
McDonalds isn’t the only agency that can produce food, and people out to be free to whatever producers of food they like. Likewise your proposed government isn’t the only agency that can produce security from rape, murder and theft and people should be free to patronize the producers of security they choose.
“Now I would say that an individual was free to reject this minimal government and strike out on his own. But he cannot live amongst the society, and since he has no obligation to the society (he has rejected it) the society has no obligation to him (thatâs anarchy). ”
So why does he have to move instead of them?
“taking other peoples money by force to do as you see fit with it is theft.”
It is not theft if the ‘people’ have essentially empowered said authority to do so for the betterment of the community. And by electing officials to govt that is what we are doing. We are empowering them to take the money we offer and use it for the community’s good. Sometimes, more often as time goes and books are harder to follow, the money gets mis-used, ut that is the chance the people take.
If you don’t vote and don’t want to participate, then that is your problem. You are leaving your destiny in the hands of strangers.
“If you don’t vote and don’t want to participate, then that is your problem. You are leaving your destiny in the hands of strangers.”
Quite the contrary, by putting your life up for a vote you are delivering your destiny into the hands of strangers.
Serpent (previously): Are you saying the citizens of this society should assume that there is NO COST for this minimal government?
John Kennedy: I’m saying they’re not entitled to impose the cost on anyone who would prefer to make other arrangements.
I agree.
John Kennedy: McDonalds makes food but that doesn’t entitle them to charge whoever they choose, only the people who voluntarily turn their money over to them.
I think you already know we see eye to eye in this regard.
John Kennedy: McDonalds isn’t the only agency that can produce food, and people out to be free to whatever producers of food they like. Likewise your proposed government isn’t the only agency that can produce security from rape, murder and theft and people should be free to patronize the producers of security they choose.
Mr. Kennedy, surely you realize that we cannot both play the same game of chess if we are each using our own set of rules. Similarly we cannot have commonly held ideals if we cannot mutually agree on those ideals.
Are you honestly suggesting that we can exist within a society where we disagree over what constitutes stealing or murder or rape? Can a contract exist between the two of us if we each write our own version of that contract?
I guess it would be nice, unfortunately reality seems to be standing in the way of your dreams.
Serpent (previously): Now I would say that an individual was free to reject this minimal government and strike out on his own. But he cannot live amongst the society, and since he has no obligation to the society (he has rejected it) the society has no obligation to him (thatâs anarchy).
John Kennedy: So why does he have to move instead of them?
Why not ask — Why do they have to move instead of him?
Isnât this individual the same person who could not mutually agree with those around him? He has already stated by word and by action that he does not wish to be a part of that society, so what makes you believe that society should not take him at his word?
Do the lunatics run the asylum?
Except in the case of ultimate needs (desires) verses immediate needs it is true that,
The needs of the Many (the Society) outweigh the needs of the Few (the Individual).
John Kennedy: Quite the contrary, by putting your life up for a vote you are delivering your destiny into the hands of strangers.
Thereâs your problem â¦
If you consider your fellow citizens â the fellow members of your community â to be strangers then that explains your misplaced loathing of Democracy.
If you are unwilling to make the effort and take the time to explain to people that there are better ways to do things then I guess resorting to force (or anarchy, or chaos) to get your way is the only option you have left.
The fact is that libertarianism is very much a âcommon senseâ philosophy. And in my experience most people have no trouble following and accepting its logic when you take the time to explain it to them.
“Are you honestly suggesting that we can exist within a society where we disagree over what constitutes stealing or murder or rape? ”
I already do.
I’m saying people can live by making private arrrangements to secure their individual liberty.
“Why not ask — Why do they have to move instead of him?”
I didn’t say they ought to move, you said he ought to. Why should he have to?
Any failure to come to an agreement is mutual, so why would either party be obliged to move?
“Do the lunatics run the asylum?”
Good question for Radley.
John Kennedy: I already do.
You have your own definitions of murder, rape, and stealing?
Regardless of your own definitions, I bet if you violate the commonly held definitions of those terms the private security force is still gonna come for you.
John Kennedy: I’m saying people can live by making private arrangements to secure their individual liberty.
Okay, but what happens when your private arrangements directly conflict with my private arrangements?
Or what if your private arrangements directly conflict with EVERYONE elseâs private arrangements?
I mean, I bet I could make private arrangements to secure complete and total liberty (personal protection) as I rob your house and kidnap your children. Is that what you are advocating?
John Kennedy: I didn’t say they ought to move, you said he ought to. Why should he have to?
It is in societies interest to restrict membership to only those who mutually agree to its rules Thatâs why we have prisons. In ancient times banishment was the preferred method for dealing with the situation.
John Kennedy: Any failure to come to an agreement is mutual, so why would either party be obliged to move?
Well if we are speaking strictly on practical terms Iâd say its because the many have more power than the individual. In other words, the will of the many is in harmony, and it is only this individual which threatens that harmony.
Its kind of like the idea of Heaven. You start off with an ordinary universe full of random individuals (some good, some bad). Then you use that universe to sort out all of the compatible entities, the ones who can freely accept a certain specific (yet minimal) code of behavior, from the ones who canât. Now if you had another universe full of compatible entities, all working from the same common set of rules, then you could eliminate almost all of the problems we experience in our societies ⦠down here.
The problem isnât bad government (a bad sub-system) Mr. Kennedy, the problem is bad (incompatible) individuals and our inability to deal with them in a consistent fashion. Put another way, the problems of individuality are problems with specific individuals, not problems with the concept of âgovernmentâ.
“Well if we are speaking strictly on practical terms Iâd say its because the many have more power than the individual. In other words, the will of the many is in harmony, and it is only this individual which threatens that harmony. ”
In other words you have no moral argument whatsoever.
I just wanted to say I hate Sweden.
The Serpent: Well if we are speaking strictly on practical terms Iâd say its because the many have more power than the individual. In other words, the will of the many is in harmony, and it is only this individual which threatens that harmony.
I’d say you’re advocating “tyranny of the majority.” Isn’t our government set up to prevent that?
It also appears that you want to force your “social contract” onto to others. Are you in favor of forcing Kwanza on me? Will your society evolve into one where your government determines sustainable lifespans as in “Logan’s Run?”
John Kennedy: In other words you have no moral argument whatsoever.
What!?! Are you kidding me?
You are the one arguing the 99 should move because of the 1 I am arguing that the 1 should move because of the 99.
It was the 1âs choice not to be part of the 99, so it is the 1 that should suffer the consequences of his own action!
Your argument seems to be that if there is a murderer living in your neighborhood that the rational thing to do is to let the murderer live in peace and send all of the neighbors to prison.
“The problem isnât bad government (a bad sub-system) Mr. Kennedy, the problem is bad (incompatible) individuals and our inability to deal with them in a consistent fashion.”
Serpent, my man, you are carrying my banner. What a great summation.
Although. as solid as your argument is, you cannot rationalize with someone (JTK) who’s irrational. Who knows, maybe JTK is disagreeing just for the sake of debate, although I don’t believe so.
The whole thing has definitely moved me to deeper thinking AND appreciating more what we have here in America. JTK wouldn’t be able to say the things he’s saying if it weren’t for the very govt he’s bashing securing his liberty to do so.
Tony: I’d say you’re advocating “tyranny of the majority.” Isn’t our government set up to prevent that?
Just to be clear Tony, I am NOT advocating a âtyranny of the majorityâ, I am simply advocating majority rule. Mr. Kennedyâs point is that the majority has no rights to control the Individual. I believe that is a ludicrous position to hold, but it is the kind of anomaly that occurs when you believe in âfree willâ.
Now as you point out, our government (the Constitution) is set up to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. The minority are granted certain âinalienable rightsâ which the majority cannot infringe upon under ANY circumstances. But keep in mind Mr. Kennedy and myself were discussing a hypothetical situation with a small isolated society â not the U.S.
Tony: It also appears that you want to force your “social contract” onto to others.
If by âSocial contractâ you mean I want to force you to accept certain definitions such as: âMurderâ, âRobberyâ and âRapeâ, then Yes you are correct. A society is not a society unless there are common rules of conduct for Individuals within that society.
Tony: Are you in favor of forcing Kwanza on me?
I guess if a majority of the citizens wanted to establish a national holiday, or day of celebration to commemorate some significant event in our shared history that would be okay. Why, do you see something wrong with that? If a lot of people want to spontaneously have a birthday party for you, should the government step in and stop them?
Tony: Will your society evolve into one where your government determines sustainable lifespans as in “Logan’s Run?”
The ultimate needs of the Society outweigh the ultimate needs of the Individual.
If I recall correctly, the reason the society set a limit on itâs citizenâs lifespan in Loganâs Run was because there had been a Nuclear war and there was limited space available for the citizenry to live. Now regardless of how realistic a plot line this is, I would say that if a Society has to sacrifice a single Individual so that the Society itself (the âManyâ) can survive then it is relatively simple arithmetic.
Why do you suppose that 1 guy jumps on the hand grenade, sacrificing himself to save his 6 buddies in the fox hole? Are you saying it is preferable if the 1 guy just jump out of the fox hole and saves himself while his 6 friends get blown to bits? I guess if you believe you will cease to exist when you die that would be the proper way to play it?
Ms. Dani: Although. as solid as your argument is, you cannot rationalize with someone (JTK) who’s irrational. Who knows, maybe JTK is disagreeing just for the sake of debate, although I don’t believe so.
Well thank you for the kind words Ms. Dani. I enjoy reading your posts very much as well.
As for Mr. Kennedy, I find him to be a very intelligent, respectful, and wise individual. I have no doubt that his belief in the superiority of Anarchy as a âpolitical systemâ is genuine. For the most part I would say he is highly rational, although I have accused him of having a mystical streak.
Ms. Dani: The whole thing has definitely moved me to deeper thinking AND appreciating more what we have here in America.
I agree — there is a lot to be optimistic about.
Ms. Dani: JTK wouldn’t be able to say the things he’s saying if it weren’t for the very govt he’s bashing securing his liberty to do so.
I guess it would depend on who ends up running the private security force?
Hey — so was I correct the other day Ms. Dani? Are you an Irish girl by any chance?
I’m more of a ChoctawIndian-German mix, but close(?).
You’re right about JTK. He is obviously very bright and has put much thought into his opinions.
I love this blog.
Ms. Dani: I’m more of a ChoctawIndian-German mix, but close(?).
I was thinking Dani = Daniel, and I donât think I have ever met a âDanielâ who wasnât at least part Irish. Plus, something in the tone and/or substance of your posts made me think Christian/Catholic (which of course would tie in with the Irish business. I think all of the Irish (like the Italians) are required to be born Catholics).
Just a silly little guessing game, I like to play.
I am Christian purely by adoption, if you know what I mean. And definitely not Catholic.
Ms. Dani: I am Christian purely by adoption, if you know what I mean.
Iâm familiar with the âorphanageâ if that is what you are referring to?
Serpent,
How is “99 to 1″ a moral argument?
If the majority of the inhabitants of a territory favor slavery is that a moral argument for slavery?
“99 to 1″ is not a moral argument. It is an argument for the justification of individuals coming together for the good of the sum.
John Kennedy: If the majority of the inhabitants of a territory favor slavery is that a moral argument for slavery?
Slavery always exists in one form or another Mr. Kennedy only the name (semantics) changes.
Now of course a Society could agree upon a âConstitutionâ â a contract defining specifically what an âIndividualâ is and enumerating the specific fundamental and inalienable rights of Individuals, which (henceforth) the majority will not (can not) violate under any circumstances.
If the majority of the inhabitants of a territory favor slavery is that a moral argument for slavery?
“Now of course a Society could agree upon a âConstitutionâ â a contract defining specifically what an âIndividualâ is and enumerating the specific fundamental and inalienable rights of Individuals, which (henceforth) the majority will not (can not) violate under any circumstances.”
Suppose the majority of the inhabitants of a territory agree that blacks may be enslaved and bought and sold as property. Is it then moral to enslave, buy and sell blacks within the territory?
John Kennedy: Suppose the majority of the inhabitants of a territory agree that blacks may be enslaved and bought and sold as property. Is it then moral to enslave, buy and sell blacks within the territory?
From their perspective, or from ours (yours and mine)?
Look, if I see a grown adult who is constantly relieving themselves in their pants, then I would suspect that they suffered from some kind of mental impairment. However, if I witness the same behavior in very young children then I donât find it that odd at all.
“From their perspective, or from ours (yours and mine)? ”
Independent of perspective.
John,
Are you seriously asking if slavery is immoral independent of human perscpective?
Why donât you tell me??? What does a rock think of slavery?
Do the laws of physics condone it?
“Are you seriously asking if slavery is immoral independent of human perscpective?”
It’s a consequence of human nature but independent of individual perspective.
In this it’s like your thought which is a consequence of our common nature but independent of my opinion. Whether you think or not is independent of whether I think you think, though it is not independent from your nature as a human being.
Likewise slavery is right or wrong independent of individual opinion even though morality is a consequence of our nature.
If you want to affirm that morality is not independent of individual perspective then your then you affirm that your argument for government has no moral basis.
Serpent: Are you asking if slavery is immoral independent of human perspective?
John Kennedy: It’s a consequence of human nature but independent of individual perspective.
How can human morality be independent of human perspective? Or are you asserting the existence of an Absolute Morality? (I believe in the existence of an Objective Morality myself, but not an Absolute one).
John Kennedy: In this it’s like your thought which is a consequence of our common nature but independent of my opinion. Whether you think or not is independent of whether I think you think, though it is not independent from your nature as a human being.
Iâm still not seeing your point.
If I donât think that you think, then isnât that the same as Me thinking that you are non-conscious ⦠Inanimate? And if I believe you are non-conscious, then why would I assume you have any rights relative to me?
John Kennedy: Likewise slavery is right or wrong independent of individual opinion even though morality is a consequence of our nature.
How can slavery be ârightâ or âwrongâ independent of (conscious) Opinion? I mean, the Earth apparently orbits the Sun independent of our opinions, but that is because Celestial Mechanics is a consequence of the laws of Physics.
Are you suggesting that Morality is also a result of (consequence of) the laws of Physics?
Kind of like saying that Morality is the result of âGodâ isnât it?
But perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
John Kennedy: If you want to affirm that morality is not independent of individual perspective then your then you affirm that your argument for government has no moral basis.
I donât comprehend what you are trying to say here. Why would I assume the action is independent of the object in the first place?
Iâm still not seeing your point.
If I donât think that you think, then isnât that the same as Me thinking that you are non-conscious ⦠Inanimate? And if I believe you are non-conscious, then why would I assume you have any rights relative to me?”
You’re free to assume what you like.
Does whether you actually think or not depend on whether I think you do?
John Kennedy: Does whether you actually think or not depend on whether I think you do?
I suppose that depends upon whether or not I am a figment of your imagination?
I hate Sweden, stupid country..
Denmark on the other hand I LOVE..