I've always hated people who argue that the state is justified in nannying us about our eating habits and smoking, because after all, it raises health care costs. There's a creeping totalitarianism about it--"Well, we nationalized health care, so now we get to supervise your every move to make sure you don't cost too much!"
Of course, even arguing thusly joins in the assumption that smoking and obesity do drive up health care costs. This seems to be in some doubt. Cancer and massive myocardial infarctions may be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as, say, a prolonged bout with Alzheimers requiring a decade of long-term care. Dying young, even of an expensive disease, turns out to be cheaper than living a long, healthy life. If you really want to save money, you should probably start taxing fitness club memberships.
[So why do health insurance companies spend money on smoking reduction and weight-loss programs? --ed. Because your dying young is expensive for them. People who live a long time die on Medicare's dime.]
Of course, we're not actually trying to save money; presumably, we all agree that it would be nice if everyone lived a long time, even if that meant they cost a boatload more in medical costs. But this is not a good argument for attempting to force them into healthier habits through things like sin taxes. And every time someone wants to raise the taxes on tobacco or sue Coca-cola for being too damn delicious, we hear that we're entitled, because after all, they're costing us money.
Yes, but are people who follow healthy lifestyles more prone to go quickly (and inexpensively) when it's their time? Should that be the case, they might end up costing less even though they live longer. Further study may be needed.
This logic seems off to me. Of course health care costs for healthy people will be more (over time). They live longer. The problem is immediate health care costs. Year to year, diseases caused by smoking and obesity are far greater than costs due to diseases such as Alzheimers.
"Well, we nationalized health care, so now we get to supervise your every move to make sure you don't cost too much!"
But...we haven't actually nationalized healthcare.
Would that really lead to more "nannying"? France is in uproar about just getting around to banning smoking and they've had nationalized health-care for what, decades? I'm not sure a nationalized health care system would have anything to do with it.
jj: The problem is immediate health care costs. Year to year, diseases caused by smoking and obesity are far greater than costs due to diseases such as Alzheimers.
As is standard, the researchers discounted future values: "To reflect the concept of time preference, meaning that an amount of money spent or saved in the future is worth less than the same amount today, net present values were calculated using discount rates of 3% and 4%."
"If you really want to save money, you should probably start taxing fitness club memberships."
Priceless! Thanks for the post Megan.
A big problem I see with this model is that the input data were from The Netherlands. I have difficulty believing that a simulation model based on Dutch population statistics would have good translative applicability to the United States.
It seems to me that even if the results of the study were to pan out such that the long term costs associated with an aging population mitigate any short term savings, there still would be savings, at least for a period of time. In the mean time, it would be prudent to concentrate on curing those diseases that will increase costs in the future, or at least concentrate on making their treatment more affordable.
If we're going for prevention instead of treatment because *it's cheaper*, then:
Breasts should be removed because it's cheaper than treating breast cancer.
Prostates likewise--as I understand it, all men who live long enough develop prostate cancer.
Back to prohibition, because drunk drivers cost society a lot in the injuries they cause.
Prevention can go pretty far if we want it to.
This whole discussion broke down when people moved from discussing smoking to discussing fat. When smoking regulations were first proposed, they weren't about harm to the smokers. They were about harm and inconvenience to nonsmokers who had to breathe second-hand smoke. And about property damage, to a lesser extent.
This argument doesn't work for junk food and obesity. Sometimes people try to argue aesthetics, but I think most of us agree that it's questionable to argue that somebody's mere appearance is offensive enough to justify government regulation. (There's an ugly history of this sort of thing in relation to other characteristics.) So the argument turned to health of the smoker/fat person.
Sorry, but it doesn't work. Try again. Or better yet, don't. There really isn't a valid justification for regulating obesity.
My grandfather began smoking at 9 years old and died of lung cancer 70 years later. His illness, though brutal, was short.
My grandmother, his wife, never smoked, and exercised regularly. She died at 97, but the last 15 years of her life were pretty miserable. She often mentioned that she wished she would just die. Though she didn't have Alzheimers or heart disease or any other serious condition, she was still pretty frail and was always in and out of hospitals, nursing homes, and required home health aides when living at home. All of this was paid by Medicare.
I have a friend with a masters in econ who heavily smokes Marlboro reds. When the tobacco lawsuits were occuring he told me that states should be happy that he smokes so much because it means they'll be paying less for his medical care in the long run, because he'll be dead relatively quickly.
I think a lot of people presume that as long as they avoid the Big C, or some other well-known disease, that they'll be living great, active lives until they suddenly keel over. They don't realize that simply getting old has a lot of serious and unpleasant side effects that frequently require some sort of intervention.
If this pans out, it will lead to a view of obesity and health care costs similar to what has been the view in the medical literature in regard to smoking and health care costs since at least the mid-90s, --(unless somethings changed, having not looked real recently).
"Would that really lead to more "nannying"? France is in uproar about just getting around to banning smoking and they've had nationalized health-care for what, decades? I'm not sure a nationalized health care system would have anything to do with it."
It's certainly an argument you hear quite frequently in Canada to justify these sort of nanny-state regulations. What you choose to do with your body could cost me money, so of course I should have some say in it.
That said, I'm not sure that our laws around smoking, helmets, seatbelts, etc. are considerably more restrictive than in the US (We do tend to love our "sin taxes" though), so it's hard to say if it has any real impact. I suspect the same people would be pushing the same restrictions regardless - this just gives them one more argument to pull out.
This study doesn't seem to make any sense. As an exercise in absurdity, suppose one only went in for annual checkups, flu vaccinations, etc. For 600 years. Somehow, I don't think that it would 'prove' that the longer-lived person consumed more medical resources.
The point is, comparing costs in this fashion really doesn't prove anything; you'd also have to factor in, at the minimum, life expectancy of the two grops. I would guess income level and total amount of taxes paid towards health care would have to be considered as well.
Iow, this is just a long-winded way of agreeing with jj.
Two more points:
I think it's pretty much a given that some sort of rationing algorithm will have to be used in order to more 'efficiently' allocate resources, i.e., no one who is not trying to score rhetorical points is trying to claim that some sort of national health care will cover everything.
So why not just severely curtail coverage for certain risky activities? After all, the insurance companies will charge higher premiums based on just exactly that. So, for example, you could smoke all you wanted to under a national plan, but if you contracted lung cancer, well, don't look to your government-issued health plan to cover it.
Really, this just seems like common sense.
The second point goes to 'individualism'. Several posters have objected (without providing much in the way of corroboration) to attributing longer healthy life expectancies to the type of health care they recieve on the grounds that it all comes down to 'life-style'.
Europeans smoke less(not true, the last time I checked, at least in some countries), drink less(ditto), eat healthier foods, exercise more, don't get into violent fights terminating in death or severe injury, etc.
So is this much vaunted 'individualism' just come down to the freedom to behave badly? Just as 'States Rights' a century and a half ago came down to the right to own slaves?
Iow, aren't the people saying it's all about the life style really saying that the people in other countries are just better people? That those Euro-socialist weenies are more virtuous, self-restrained, prudent, etc than your SUV-drivin', gun-totin' bible-thumpin' bad-beer drinkin' American?
Doesn't make American-style individualism very attractive, I'd say.
Moral issues aside, the societal costs of longevity are irrelevant if you ignore the societal benefits. Might not those extra years of life give older people an opportunity to be productive? Not all the old folks are on the dole; many actually do things to make the rest of us happier -- and those gains might very well offset the cost of more medical treatment.
The point is not that it's better to eat good food, get exercise, not smoke, etc... the point is that a government that mandates those things is going to be oppressive. It is going to be monitoring people's daily lives (it must in order to catch them eating badly, etc...), measuring their body (weight, blood pressure, etc...), and punishing (backed, ultimately, by threats of state violence) them for getting fat.
Given that any ten nutritionists will give you eleven answers on any non-obvious diet question and the evident difficulty that people have losing weight, this is a recipe for disaster.
And it's also a fairly steep slippery slope. What about sleep deprivation. Lack of sleep causes all kinds of health problems and, for example, endangers other drivers if you fall asleep at the wheel. Do we legislate, monitor, and punish for sleep crimes? Do we then ban parachuting, skiing, etc...? Even if we don't ban them outright, it would effectively ban them if the state-run insurance won't pay for any injuries as a result of any "risky" behavior.
Each step sounds logical and reasonable on its own but the end result would be an rigidly controlled police/nanny state where it's a crime to have fun...
The mere fact that "outlawing obesity" and legislating a healthy diet is enough reason for me to reject nationalized health care.
The data clearly show that the costs of care for someone with an acute illness related to smoking, diabetes, heart conditions and the like are much more significant than costs of care for someone with Alzheimer's or other long term care conditions. While someone may need care for much much longer with Alzheimer's, the type of care they need is very low-tech and usually provided at home for as long as possible or possibly in a nursing home eventually. A day of care in a nursing home is expensive at $180/day on average in the US but nothing compared to the cost of a day in the hospital where we are talking thousands of dollars. Even in just the "last year of life," I believe the costs of these preventable acute care illnesses significantly dwarf the lifetime costs of ALzheimers. Also insurers are concerned about preventing acute care costs, not because they are larger, but because they are insured. The vast majority of people with ALzheimer's pay out of their own pockets for care because they don't realize until it is too late that they should have purchased long term care insurance in their 40s or 50s while they were still healthy....
The data clearly show that the costs of care for someone with an acute illness related to smoking, diabetes, heart conditions and the like are much more significant than costs of care for someone with Alzheimer's or other long term care conditions. While someone may need care for much much longer with Alzheimer's, the type of care they need is very low-tech and usually provided at home for as long as possible or possibly in a nursing home eventually. A day of care in a nursing home is expensive at $180/day on average in the US but nothing compared to the cost of a day in the hospital where we are talking thousands of dollars. Even in just the "last year of life," I believe the costs of these preventable acute care illnesses significantly dwarf the lifetime costs of ALzheimers. Also insurers are concerned about preventing acute care costs, not because they are larger, but because they are insured. The vast majority of people with ALzheimer's pay out of their own pockets for care because they don't realize until it is too late that they should have purchased long term care insurance in their 40s or 50s while they were still healthy....
The data clearly show that the costs of care for someone with an acute illness related to smoking, diabetes, heart conditions and the like are much more significant than costs of care for someone with Alzheimer's or other long term care conditions. While someone may need care for much much longer with Alzheimer's, the type of care they need is very low-tech and usually provided at home for as long as possible or possibly in a nursing home eventually. A day of care in a nursing home is expensive at $180/day on average in the US but nothing compared to the cost of a day in the hospital where we are talking thousands of dollars. Even in just the "last year of life," I believe the costs of these preventable acute care illnesses significantly dwarf the lifetime costs of ALzheimers. Also insurers are concerned about preventing acute care costs, not because they are larger, but because they are insured. The vast majority of people with ALzheimer's pay out of their own pockets for care because they don't realize until it is too late that they should have purchased long term care insurance in their 40s or 50s while they were still healthy....
The following statement at the top of this site is wrong:
People who live a long time die on Medicare's dime.
Medicare does not cover long term care so people who live long enough to the point of needing care (70% of those reaching age 65 today will need some long term care) pay on their own unless they buy long term care insurance. Only if they are poor or become impoverished paying for care, does the government step in. ANd then it is MEDICAID, not Medicare paying for care in a nursing home.
Get your facts right before you share your information with others.
I wasn't saying anything about the desirability of certain habits from a health perspective. Not at all.
I was making the point that behaving as an 'individualist' seems to boil down in these matters to behaving badly, very badly indeed. Just like the case of States Rights, as a matter of fact: sure one can argue theoretically, philosophically all you like, can do the men of good will can disagree bit, etc. But if in practice, 'States Rights' just means "We want to make slavery legal; specifically, slavery of dark-skinned people", then I really could care less about 'States Rights'.
Similarly with 'individualists'; if it boils down to making very bad decisions for short-term gratification, decisions that hurt other people, well, then I'm not very much for 'individualism'. Not if all it's doing is promoting a lower class of people.
As a side note, I'll point out again that there's no reason to go the 'oppressive enforcement' route. Just don't cover lifestyle related disease (no, you don't get to quibble over how you decide what's lifestyle-related and what's not.) A stubborn 'individualist' smoker, for example, wouldn't be covered for lung cancer, though he would be still be covered for non-smoking related diseases like arthritis. Not a problem.
It's funny when people who think they've proved a point just don't get it.
Eileen, even if it currently isn't on medicares dime if we get national healthcare it will/could be on that cost depending on the system
"People who live a long time die on Medicare's dime"
The point of this quote was to illustrate why your current insurance company wants you to live longer. It doesn't change the overall argument if it's medicares dime or not. It also doesn't change the overall cost argument
Okay... so SoV, who decides what is a frivolous "lifestyle" choice and what is sensible? A government committee? The same group that is ultimately paying for the costs. They will have strong incentives to refust to cover anything that is even remotely risky.
Is your commute too long? Long commutes are too risky and if you get in an accident... too bad!
Did you want to repair your roof yourself? Oooh... you're not a professional roofer so that's too risky. Hire someone.
Etc...
Also, if the government really does take over the health insurance system and everyone has government health insurance, then anything that isn't covered by government health insurance will be really expensive to cover privately. So only rich people will be able to indulge in risky activities.
Oh, and who gets to determine what caused the problem? If you have lung cancer and smoked, are you not covered even if the lung cancer may have been caused by something else? How do we determine what actually caused the lung cancer? What about a smoker who gets pneumonia? A lot of activities increase risks for many things that also happen in the absence of those activities. Is someone going to go through all the risks and create tables of what activities negate your insurance for what conditions?
What about eating too much red meat? Drinking infrequently?
Comparing slavery to drinking or smoking is an appeal to emotion and doesn't actually make a point. There are many people who believe that more power should be in the hands of the States and less in the hands of the Federal government who also oppose slavery. States' Rights does not equal I Love Slavery! Likewise, Individualism does not equal I Love Being Bad!
It's quite possible that some people (me) don't trust the government to decide what's good for me. I've seen government rules and regulations that are counter productive too many times to trust the government to run my life.
Mickey Kaus just called and he says he wants a ban on people stealing his rhetorical devices.
You need to read more carefully if you think I compared eating fatty foods and not exercising with slavery.
I most certainly did not. Read what I wrote again.
As for rhetorical devices . . . how many cutesy posts are put up here that are nothing but rhetorical devices? Such as - drumroll - saying that it's cheaper to die of lung cancer than it is to live a long healthy life.
That's different? Oh, never mind then.
Anyway, I take it we are all agreed that the Euros are better people than we Americans. We may be more 'individualistic', but we seem to waste it on the same things (talk about Goths wearing black to show they're 'different'!), namely the 'individualistic' impulse not to exercise, to eat fatty, non-nutritious food, to smoke and booze it up, etc.
Why don't we have more people express their individuality by painting their houses purple with green polka-dots, or who wear fishing waders and plaid braces to work, or who do all their shopping by riding lawn mower, or who decide never to use the letter 'e' again, and write all correspondence according to that principle, or . . .
There was a great British sitcom called "Yes, Minister" (which later became "Yes, Prime Minister"), basically about the constant battles between politicians and bureaucrats. At one point the politician proposed something to discourage smoking, thinking it was totally uncontroversial and brilliant and would save the government money.
The bureaucrats showed the politician that it would cost money to discourage smoking. Smokers usually live through their 'productive' lives and then die relatively early in retirement of relatively cheap diseases. Thus the government and economy save in both pension payments and medical costs. Smoking is 'patriotic', the bureaucrats claimed.
From the few actual (non-sitcom) studies I've seen, it seems to be true that smokers on average don't shorten their years of work much, and mainly end up missing many of their years of retirement. I wouldn't recommend it, but it probably does save money for the rest of us.
Plenty of other studies -- ignored by McArdle,who after all is utterly ignorant about this issue beyond what appeals to her prejudices-- have shown that nonsmokers tend to have a longer period of lifetime health, and a shorter period of ill health before dying.
Studies also show smokers' diseases are more expensive. You worry about Alzheimer’s? Smokers get Alzheimer’s' and dementia more and earlier. You worry about a decade of long-term care? Try emphysema.
The point is, this isn't the only study in the world. In fact, the last one like this was done by Philip Morris itself to fight a Czech tax hike. Its presumptions and elisions were roundly trounced. But would-be industry shills like McArdle let 50 years of established science about the horrendous harms of tobacco go by without comment--and then suddenly plunge into the issue, big know-it-alls who latch onto one study and proclaim it Holy Gospel.
And, as with the Czech study before it, there are lots of problems (again, ignored by McArdle) with this study. The study itself admits it doesn't account for lost productivity, let alone other collateral losses mentioned by commenters here.
Imagine the costs society bears when a smoking father of 4 dies of a "cheap" heart attack at 48. Imagine the costs--emotional, educational and financial-- the family bears.
McArdle should keep her ignorant, ugly swill to herself. What she's trying to do is thoroughly despicable.
Great post. I see more attempts to impose the nanny state. Here is a link to a bill introduced in the Mississippi legislature to make it a crime for a restaurant to serve obese people (a term not defined in the bill, but to be supplied later by state health department regulation).
While this sort of hamhanded attempt won't pass, I think there will be plenty of other nanny-state regulations, and few enough of us will object to stop many of them.
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/pdf/HB/0200-0299/HB0282IN.pdf
While the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, it certainly is a powerful document that lays out the philosophy behind the founding the United States. The purpose of the government is to secure each person their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness.
Regulating and controlling every aspect of an individual's life in order to increase his lifespan or "useful lifespan" or productivity is at odds with the above statement.
The idea of universal, government mandated health insurance is not necessarily at odds with the above principles, a bureaucracy that meddles in the daily life of each citizen, deciding what behavior is too risky, what food is too unhealthy, etc... certainly does.
A life where one is driven to make safe decisions by government influence and in accordance with bureaucratic rules is not one that is conducive to meaningful life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
And SoV, my motivation for arguing about the value of individual liberty and individualism has no bearing on the strength of my arguments. If all I want to do is drink, smoke, and eat bacon but I come up with a very compelling and substantial argument for why the government should stay out of my life, then the arguments are just as valid as they would be if I wanted to live in a cave, eat nuts and barries, and walk everywhere. The motivation of the person making the argument doesn't change the facts behind the argument.
You most certainly did compare individualism with slavery. Here, I'll bold the relavant phrases:
I realize that you tossed some "if"s in there, but your point was still pretty clear. It may not be what you intended to say, but your words certainly give that impression.
SoV wrote: Anyway, I take it we are all agreed that the Euros are better people than we Americans.
Nope.
It's been said before, but it seems to need frequent repeating: While Europe was rebuilding out of war poverty, the United States still had all of its manufacturing centers intact and was at the forefront of the petrochemical revolution. We spend the 1950s and 1960s getting rich, while Europe was merely trying to re-attain normalacy.
As a result, the US has been about 20-30 years ahead of Europe on wealth, and has always had more open land available to move into in the course of spending that wealth. Hence, more food availability; large and low-density housing; ubiquitous vehicle ownership with an excellent road system on which to use vehicles; etc.
I have interacted with numerous Europeans who either visited on holiday or moved to the United States for work, notably Germans, French, Dutch, and English. They all say the same things ("The houses are huge! The portions are huge! There are trucks everywhere!"), then promptly do the same things: eat larger quantities of food, rent or buy large vehicles, buy large suburban houses, and so on.
It's not a matter of being fundamentally better; it's a matter of what kinds of wealth, and opportunities, the history and geography have enabled.
A government mandate to pester everyone about their diets will involve pestering everyone, not just the people whose behavior qualifies as "bad" under current theories of nutrition. People who behave "well" should object to such surveillance every bit as much as people who live entirely on saturated fat. It's a "freedom from" argument, not a "freedom to" one.
Denying coverage for "lifestyle" ailments isn't a real enforcement mechanism, because how do you know? Unless you check up on people all the time, that is. They check school lunchboxes in Britain, which is insane. We don't want that here.
Slavery is different because someone else's rights are involved. The government SHOULD be involved in monitoring and preventing something like that, but that doesn't grant a blanket authorization to monitor everyone's Twinkie consumption. Different issues entirely.
While it probably is not actually integral to the debate, smokers don't die all that much earlier than non-smokers. I think it is only about 3 years earlier. I don't know the costs of the diseases they get, but it isn't hard to believe that they have medical expenses that more than make up for dying 3 years earlier to a significant degree.
That doesn't really impact the debate though. If it's moral to curb activity for a trillion dollars, it's moral to curb it for a dime. The only reason for controlling substances is if they pose a danger to those who are not choosing to partake, or if a significant imbalance of knowledge inherently exists between the purveyor and the consumer about the dangers involved.
I'm looking over what I wrote, and I don't see how you got that at all. I used 'states rights' really means 'slavery' as an example, nothing more. Let me try again:
It is all very well to talk in the abstract of theories. But what really matters is what actually happens in practice, regardless of the theory.
For example, look at the contentiousness over 'activist judges'. Now, it is all very well and plausible to argue that the judges are not in the business of interpreting a law, that to do so is to usurp the functions of a legislative branch, that their constitutional mandate is in fact to see that the laws are applied as written. It is also pesuasive and in good faith to argue that a certain amount of interpretation is impossible to avoid, that inevitably a situation will arise in which a certain law will obviously apply, and equally obviosly it will be in circumstances not anticipated by the crafters of the law (i.e., the law of Unintended Consequences.)
Both positions have merit, both positions can be honestly argued in good faith.
But in practice, that's not what hue and cry over 'activist judges' is about, is it? In the case of Elian Gonzalez, very conservative, precedent-following courts scrupulously going by the letter of the law decreed that custody of the child should be awarded to Elian's father. And what did we here about in the news, constantly? A lot of moaning about 'activist judges'. In a similar case, feeding tubes were withdrawn from a woman(Terry Schiavo) in a vegetative state at the request of the husband after many years of devoted bedside nursing. Again the court scrupulously followed precedent and the law, yet what did we here from the right? More protests about 'activist judges' taking the law into their own hands and acting against God.
Similarly, in the new Roberts court, there have been plenty of activist rulings - the 'Bong Hits for Jesus' case, for example - that most certainly did not follow precedent or law. But few, if any right-wingers disapproved of these rulings.
So we see that however much one might argue over the philosophies of activism vs fidelity, what it really comes down to in practice is that 'activist judges' just means 'rulings I don't like', and to say that members of the Federalist Society should be promoted to the highest courts of the land because they are not 'activist' merely means that they should be promoted because 'they give rulings I agree with'.
Similarly, with 'States Rights' a century and a half ago, or, perhaps, 'individualism' today, these were not really appeals to high-mindedness, but pleading for a special, and usually very destructive interest.
And that's where I'm coming from. What is there about this much-vaunted 'individualism' that does not, in practice, merely devolve to 'behaviour which is reprehensible but I should be allowed to indulge in'? At least from a medical standpoint?
What sort of _postive_ expressions of individualism can you refer me to? Something a little more uplifting than 'nobody can pry my Cheetos out of my hands, no matter how much this ends up costing others'.
Seems to me that the Euros that everyone likes to sneer at here have some rather admirable traits, like personal restraint, prudence, etc, not exercised nearly as often here in these great United States.
I'll see your 'numerous' and trump it with my personal observations of hundreds of Europeans who have come here and reacted with some bemusement at the culture of engorgement. Many who have gone on to move here and live quite sensibly.
Gee, ain't personal anecdotes grand?
What we're left with is the undisputed fact the the 'lifestyle habits' of the descendents of those who did not sail into the West are better than their younger cousin's in this regard.
It also occurs to me that for all the moaning of a 'totalitarian state' micromanaging everyones affairs for 'health reasons', not one example has been provided from that commie socialized medicine abroad. For example, since this was mentioned:
I assume there is some country where this is the case.
SoV, re the slavery things... you didn't imply that individualism was the same as slavery, you implied that people arguing for individualism were like people arging for states' rights who really wanted slavery.
But if you are going to argue that the existence of hypocrits who take a certain position invalidates the position, then you will have to disregard the validity of all positions. Hypocrits are everywhere.
But I guess that saves you from having to address the argument.
I'm not sure how to answer this. Are you seriously asking this? I'll try...
1. There will usually be someone who believes that any given behavior is reprehensible and should not be permitted. Some or all of these people will firmly believe that this is for "your own good." The number of those people is not necessarily related to the correctness of their belief.
2. Some behavior may be reprehensible in one circumstance but virtuous in another.
3. Risky behavior that is medically stupid may have other benefits that outweigh the potential medical costs.
4. It is often difficult to tell how risky a behavior is or how high ensuing medical costs may be. Many things carry with them unknown or difficult to quantify risks.
An individualist is someone who wants to be free to make the above judgements for himself, not have some government bureaucracy make them for him. Obviously, there are some things that should not be allowed, like murdering someone. It's pretty clear that governments must take some role in protecting people from other people who seek to do them harm. This is why we have laws against murder, assault, theft, burglary, etc...
If I were taxed more and then given government health insurance, I probably wouldn't be able to afford extra insurance on top of that. If this government insurance started refusing to pay if I did something risky, then I would have to be really, really careful to avoid risking a non-payment. Given the vagaries of government bureacracy, I would have to assume that I would not be given the benefit of the doubt.
I have always objected to laws intended to protect people from their own choices. Some of those laws may do more good than harm. But I do not like laws or government regulations or rules that are intended to stop people from choosing to take risks that they are aware of. If the US government starts taking over health care, there is a huge potential for this kind of meddling in people's lives.
As a whole, they have some good traits and some bad traits. Some of their "restraint" is really the fact that they are poorer than we are. That's a choice they make in exchange for not working as hard. They are also a lot more crowded. And they have plenty of other problems.
I was giving extreme examples of the principle you espoused. Though with the increasing popularity of environmentalism combined with a nanay-state health care system, I would fully expect to see long commutes condemned and punished with penalties, taxes, withdrawn benefits, etc...
Oh... and the "activist judge" thing... the idea is that judges should interpret the law and the Constitution more or less as written with a minimum of extrapolation. Personally, I don't like it when any judge rules based more on what he believes is right and less on what the plain wording of the law is. Yes, judges interpret the law. But they should interpret the words that are written not what they think the law really should be for all our sakes. If they go beyond the words, then their rulings become arbitrary and inconsistent.
Yes, many people who object to judicial activism are hypocrits. That doesn't mean that judicial activism isn't still a bad thing.
Sigh. Again. No. Though you're closer. It's easy to argue that slavery is a 'states rights' issue. But if, practically speaking, the only time 'states rights' comes into play is as an argument for maintaining slavery, one has to concede that all of the positive aspects being argued for that supposedly comes bundled with states rights can't really be used as an argument.
Iow, saying that without 'states rights' states couldn't have their own minimum wages set above the national can't really be used (though the argument may be true) if, in fact, that states in question have zero intention of raising the minimum wage and are in fact working hard to get around it.
Do you know what a hypocrite is? From the way you're using it here, I do not think the word you're using means what you think it means.
If you look up above, I've already addressed it (if it's what I'm thinking of), in fact, have addressed it several times. It just struck me all of a sudden how, in practice, 'individualism' seems to come down to gratifying some (imho) rather base desires.
You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking why those particular bad behaviours may not be so bad after all, or that what is bad and what is not is a matter of opinion (and which I agree with, incidentally), I'm asking what is _postive_ about individualism, what are the _good_ things about it?
It seems, upon reflection, that it does anything but promote good character, for example, and I would think that you and I would agree that good character is a desirable trait. But I see no evidence that 'individualism' enourages thrift, prudence, charity, a work ethic, honesty, respect, etc.
I'm looking for something along those lines.
You know, if your going to threaten us all with the looming boogeyman of authoritarianism come to you in the guise of national health care, it would behoove you to produce actual examples where this has happened. Not speculations on what _may_ happen, somewhere, sometime, but has actually happened nowhere yet.
I give up. My head hurts and the wall appears to be unharmed...
I do have one more thing to say...
Individual liberty is an end unto itself. It does not need to be justified as a means to an end.
I believe that the US is successful precisely because we have a culture that favors individual achievement. If our culture changes and encourages collectivism and discourages individualism, we will lose much of what we are and will no longer be successful.
Things like the PC movement, the revealed environmentalism movement, the push for universal health care and nanny state-ism, etc... are all pushing us away from the individualism that makes us strong.
Individualism encourages people to better themselves and to achieve great things. Collectivism encourages people to go along with the group and fit in. Capitalism and free markets encourage people to strive for greatness... by paying them when they achieve it.
They had a saying in Russia... "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." It may not be a real saying, but it's an accurate description.
If you don't understand the value of individualism, I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind.
I can't believe that someone's arguing against individual liberty. I just can't comprehend that mindset.
Sure, it's an argument from authority, but it's a pretty solid authority. I find it more compelling than yet another "Sigh"...
Individualism and liberty are synonyms? What's the difference between them? Excuse me, but I thought the individualism was the philosophic placing of the individual over society, a stance that valued self-reliance, personal independence, personal repsonsibility, etc.?
That sounds fine, and wise, and strong. But if, in the end in practice all it means is freedom to consume Cheetos, to sit on your duff in front a big screen, freedom to drink and smoke as much as you like, well, what does theory have to do with anything? Why not just cut to the chase,leave out the fancy words, and say that individualism is all about the God-given right to eat junk food, not exercise, and to smoke and drink as much as you like?
Now, I've got a few partial answers as to what positive actions, endeavors or attributes individualism may foster, but they don't seem to hold up under even the briefest scrutiny:
'Successful' and 'individual achievement'? There are many other countries that are 'successful'; are you saying they all favored 'individual achievement'?
People throughout history have tried to better themselves, people throughout history have achieved great things . . . under any regime. The canonical tear-jerker, a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies, that's not done out of a sense of some sort of group identification? Further, believe you me, I've known _a_lot_ of people who used their 'individualism' to smoke heavily, cheat on their wives, show up to work late, etc. That's some fine expression of individualism.
The equating of individualism with capitalism is just muddled thinking, no offense. The terms don't really have that much to do with each other, for example capitalism has practiced in China.
You don't find citing an argument from authority to extoll the virtues of indivualism the tiniest bit, er, ironic? Further, if I sigh, it's because sometimes (frequently) I feel as if - to use E.I.'s metaphor - I'm up against a wall of blockheadedness. Not an unusual feeling for someone teaching at the undergraduate level to people who don't really want to be there, I'm sure :-)
The point is, if you, who are going on and on about 'individualism' and 'personal liberty' can't even tell me what's so danged good about it (I would have thought you could have reeled off 10,000 words standing on one foot in front of a firing squad during a blinding rainstorm), maybe you better think about it, instead of accepting it as Mother's Milk.
Shoot, I'll give you a freebie, the sort of answer I was prodding you to give: I would say that individualism, at it's root, seems to encourage the questioning of authority. That is, if one hears what seems to be an obvious bit of nonsense, one doesn't think "Well, it seems absurd, but the people telling me this must know what they're talking about, so I'll accept it." Similarly, if one hears a proposition advanced in a political science class, or a history class, or a class in physics, geology, etc, one doesn't simply blindly accept it; on actively thinks about it, assesses it, sees how it fits in with previous propositions, and if something doesn't work out right, challenges the authority at the front of the room by asking questions. If the city councilmen, or the President, or the combined Justices of the Supreme Court offer up a pronouncement in their divine wisdom, one doesn't say, "Well, they're the President/Mayor/Judge. What they're saying must be true." One says, "Hey wait a minute - how'd they come up with that?"
As I said, this is the theory, or rather, the theory as I learned it. The reality seems to be that this sort expression of individualism seems to be used very infrequently indeed.
Now. Do you see what I am getting at? Do you have any examples of what I am asking for?
SOV,
You're missing the point. It's not the individualism is good or bad, it simply is. It's axiomatic. Humans are simply not bees in a beehive, we each have our own opinions and desires. You don't have to like it anymore than you have to like gravity, but you fight either to the same end. Given that individualism exists, you might as well rejoice in it.
Now, I agree that some people "abuse" their liberty in ways that are not beneficial to society, or even in ways that are self-destructive. For every "I have a dream" there often seems to be a dozen "God hates fags"; for every "Eppur si muove" there's a thousand "The earth is at the center of the universe". And you know what? Sometime it only takes one person with a dream.
You're hardly this first person to regret that we are all have our own desires. The search for the New Soviet Man didn't start with you. Somehow, though, it always seems to end badly.
---
BTW, you're not lecturing to a bunch of undergrads. Here you're just another person with an opinion and an internet connection, and your logic and reasoning often strikes others as specious as you find others. You opinion on, say, individual liberty is hardly a privileged position, it's just another opinion. The condescension is unwarranted and frankly, obnoxious.
Who said anything about looking for New Soviet man? You have this distressing habit of continually attributing to me things I most patently did not say. Nor am I saying anything about 'fighting' it. As for stuff like this:
Given that murder, theft, war, etc. exists, you might as well rejoice in them. Somebody tell me what's wrong with this logic, if anything. Maybe there isn't; after all you used it in the quoted passage.
Finally, I am by no means being condescending, and I can't help it that you think I am. I am merely asking for something I thought would be at your fingertips. What I got was, ironically, an appeal to authority.
If I point out that it seems to be that in practice 'individuality' seems to comes down to indulging in various self-centered and destructive appetites, and you are unable to give me any concrete virtues that are manifested in practice, it is hardly my fault. It seems that all you are saying is that people in other countries are better behaved, at least from the standpoint of health, because they are 'less individualistic'.
This is not the sort of position I would ever put myself in.
"a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies"
This is an excellent example of individualism - a soldier choosing to give her life to save her buddies. The opposite would be society deciding to throw one soldier on a grenade to save the rest.
Individualism is the right to choose. Sometimes people make choices that you don't like - like eating cheetos - but other times they choose to volunteer to help others, to work together to build a better society, etc. The difference is whether they decide for themselves or have it forced on them by 'society'.
That's the key to the mention of the Creator giving unalienable rights. If the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is given to us by the king, or by society, then the king or society can take them away again. But if those rights were given to me by God, then if you're not God, you don't have the right to take them. Yes, individualism as opposed to collectivism is about liberty. People can still choose to work together, or they can choose to eat cheetos, but it's their choice, not yours.
SOV:
I must not be making my point clear. Individualism exists. The quote from the Declaration of Independence doesn't argue that it's good, it asserts ("We hold these truths to be self-evident") that it exists.
But is it good? I have already given examples of the positive effects (The Declaration of Independence, Galileo and Dr. Martin Luther King in case you didn't understand the references), but the positive aspects abound. It's found in Freedom of Conscience and the Enlightenment. Individualism embodies the golden rule; it's the essential basis for the modern notion of human rights. And on a smaller scale, you experience it every time you do something that you enjoy. I simply can't understand someone who can only seemingly view individual liberty in terms of somebody getting overweight or smoking. I'm not denying that aspect of it, but respect for individual liberty encompasses so much more than that.
And if you're going to argue against individual liberty, it's only fair to consider the alternative. Historically it's meant the gulag, the killing fields and the concentration camp. I'd rather have overweight smokers. Even if you deny the positive aspects, it's still clearly the lesser evil.
But if you truly only see the negative side to individualism, you are no different than those looking for the New Soviet Man. You are a fellow traveler, if you will.
I'm not going to try to convince you, SoV. You obviously have your opinion and feel very strongly about it. I have no duty or obligation to answer your every request. I'm not going to re-argue the benefits of individual liberty and freedom.
The fact that you say that China has capitalism, therefore capitalism and individual liberty are unrelated shows me that you are using those terms in ways that seem like nonsense to me.
I'm not really interested in delving into where, exactly, your beliefs are nonsense and where they are not.
My quoting the Declaration of Independence wasn't an attempt at arguing from authority. It was a reminder of the principles that this nation was founded on. I like them. I will fight against anyone who wants to change this country into a nation of collectivists.
If you're not an American, then obviously the principles that the US was founded on aren't relevant. But this discussion originally started by discussing US health care...
Whether _my_ beliefs are nonsense? I don't know that we've even discussed them. But I will say - politely - that your beliefs don't seem to be very well thought out, seeming to be a chaotic cloud of metaphor, aphorisms, and poorly understood concepts. And to the extent that they are understood, they seem to be . . . vague. (Oh, and yes, as even SG realizes, what you were doing was quoting from authority.)
Finally, we were originally discussing health care, and the notion was brought up that, essentially, Europeans are better behaved when it comes to matters of health. They know the consequences of their behaviour, and don't tend indulge in practices which give a very poor return on short-term enjoyment. In contrast, even when they know the consequences, Usians will still behave most swinishly, and it was suggested that this was because of our much-vaunted 'individualism'.
It was at that point that I suggested that for all the fine oratory about individualism, it seemed what it seemed to come down to in practice was a credo that said "if it feels good, do it", something that I thought we had left behind (quite rightly) as an admirable mode of conduct sometime in the 70's (while they were still the 60's).
Maybe this isn't politic to ask, but, how old are you? I get the impression from the way you talk and what you know that you are rather young, perhaps haven't even finished college.
If it's all that, you should be able to explain why then, right? As for that 'experience it every time you do something you enjoy', I can't even make sense of this as a statement. You seem to be implying that the only time you can enjoy something is for 'individualistic' reasons, which again, haven't been clarified, and even then, would apply to everyone, in those under the most totalitarian regimes.
And no, that's not the only way _I_ would view it; what's in question are the way you libertarians view it. I'm trying to get a handle on this, but you're all over the map (Gallileo!?!?!? Where did that come from?)
Am I really being this unclear? Are you asking why I think individual liberty is good (because I like freedom of conscience, the modern concept of human rights and respect the Golden Rule), or why does individual liberty flow from the golden rule and lead to the modern concept of human rights?
If the former, I believe I've stated my point. If the latter, that's more history and philosophy than I care to indulge in on blog comment but it's a well-trodden path. John Rawls is a good place to start and you can work you way back to Hobbes (although as a believer in the Golden Rule -especially Hobbes' negative formulation, I can't in good faith actually recommend that someone read Leviathin; consult a reading guide). Also your position, which I infer to be some form of utilitarianism, has a respectable lineage as well, Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill if you want to delve into its theoretical underpinnings.
These don't constitute proof of course, but a lot of people have spent a lot of time thinking and writing on these topics. It's foolish not to take advantage of it.
Now clearly, individualism to collectivism defines a spectrum and a libertarian Utopia is just as unachievable as a collectivist Utopia. Any functioning society is going to have to exist at a place somewhere between the extremes. But a society that starts regulating what and how much people eat is going to far to the collectivist side for my tastes. I hope the bloody history of collectivism is well-known to you.
Oh, and Galileo is a well-known (I thought) as an individual who correctly challenged the dominant paradigm in a time and place that didn't respect individual liberty and was punished for it. He's provides an object lesson in why it's important not to value conformity over individual liberty; you will squash the next Galileo. See Lysenkoism to see this lesson being put into practice.
I don't know why you don't get this. I have said, several times, that I don't care why individualism is considered good in the abstract. I don't care about putative examples of the benefits of individualism in other times or other places or under other systems of government.
I care about specific examples, which show, _in_practice_ individualism is something more than 'if it feels good, I should be allowed to do it,' which seems to be its dominant expression here in the United States in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Do you understand this? You have to give specific examples which show how it is implemented _here_ and _now_. I really don't understand how this could be such a difficult concept to grasp.
You may assume (this is said in a rather dry tone), that I have read most of the 'standard' texts, and then some (Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, a hold-over from the Carter years.) Also a good number of primate ethology pieces, evolutionary psychology, neuro-psychology, etc.
No, I don't think of myself as being particularly utilitarian either.
You may also assume that I know who Galileo was, and your interpretation of his conflicts with the Church is, to put the best possible face on it, somewhat novel.
As most people know, Mr. G got into trouble not for the teaching of heliocentrism, but for advocating over the teachings of Aristotle, and for insults, deliberate and otherwise, given to powerful Church officials. Officials who had previously been friendly and sympathetic to his cause.
You didn't know this? I'll ask you the same question I asked E.I.: how old are you, and what is your education? The answers from this end appear to be 'not very old', and 'largely self-taught.'
SoV... resorting to ad hominems?
Value judgments can't be proven correct or incorrect.
I can't figure out if you're trying to be a devil's advocate or feel it necessary to nitpick because you think it will help us formulate our beliefs better. Either way, you don't seem to be engaging in a symmetrical debate. Instead of meeting halfway or engaging, you seem to be drawing back, continuously demanding proofs, citations, examples, etc...
I based my idea of your beliefs on your arguments... though perhaps you are not arguing what your beliefs are but are just making arguments for the sake of making arguments.
I can't see where I've resorted to any ad hominems, and if I did, I certainly didn't mean to. Do you you know what the ad hominem fallacy is? It is an attempt to discredit an argument by attacking or belittling the one presenting the argument. Nowhere do I see anything from me saying, "Well, it's Ernest making the argument, so of course you can't believe it."
I have pointed out that your opinions seem unformed, the sorts of opinions that someone either rather young or not very well-informed yet might make. But that is by no means an ad hominem argument.
I would also note that _most_ people start out young or not very well informed, and progress from there, so it's no sin if you are either of those things. You're what, 18 or 19? Trust me, that's much better than being on the far side of the half-century mark with a bad back, aching knees, dietary restrictions, no ability to function without a minimum amount of sleep . . . kids thinking you're not merely old, but ancient.
Just the latest study, widely reported, that contradicts McArdle's nonsense (don't hold your breath waiting for her to acknowledge it):
"Smoking, diabetes, obesity and hypertension significantly reduced the likelihood of a 90-year life span . . . Furthermore, men with a life span of 90 or more years also had better physical function, mental well-being, and self-perceived health in late life compared with men who died at a younger age. Adverse factors associated with reduced longevity--smoking, obesity and sedentary lifestyle--also were significantly associated with poorer functional status in elderly years."
Citation:
Studies identify modifiable factors associated with exceptionally long life
EurekAlert, 2008-02-11
A healthy lifestyle during the early elderly years--including weight management, exercising regularly and not smoking--may be associated with a greater probability of living to age 90 in men, as well as good health and physical function, according to a report in the February 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine . . .
http://www.tobacco.org/scripts/jump.php?article_id=259397&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2008%2F02%2F080207091846.htm