Posted at LP.org by Andrew Davis
When it comes to your life and government regulation, the government has two rules. The first: Government is never wrong. The second: Should there be an exception to the first rule, government was at least trying to do the right thing, so they are still right.
Even after growing up, going to college and becoming a functioning part of society as an adult, the government looms over us like an overbearing and extremely protective parent. Firearms are dangerous, so the government tells us we must put trigger-locks on all of our guns. Certain light bulbs are good for saving money, so government requires by law us to use compact fluorescent lights. And, my absolute favorite, cigarette smoke is unhealthy, so government goes ahead and gets rid of smoking at private businesses so that I don’t have to make the choice of whether to go to a smoking or nonsmoking bar.
Thanks government! I couldn’t have done it without you.
After all, our government officials are great role models for the citizenry. I could learn a thing or two about nutrition from Sen. Ted Kennedy (or, for that matter, substance abuse), or, how about a lecture on family-values from Sen. David Vitter? And, let’s not forget the life-lesson of always telling the truth from the Bush administration.
Let’s face it—if government is supposed to be a role model for how to live life, we’re destined for either an early death or a long stint in rehab.
With so many of its own problems, why is it then that government feels so compelled to tell us how to live our own lives?
If there is one issue that is the perfect paradigm of choice versus government authoritarianism, it is in the regulation of our diets and food choices. From keeping sweets out of the classroom, to banning fast food restaurants in the neighborhood (one wonders if can business get around this by serving food very, very slowly?), government has taken upon itself to regulate the very food we pick up and put into our mouth. As if it weren’t obvious that a diet of strictly anything that begins in "Mc" isn’t the healthiest of choices, government feels compelled to keep us from making this mistake.
Now, a new study out shows that banning fast food ads may mitigate childhood obesity, and it won’t be long before this becomes the new rallying cry of those whom Rick Berman and the Center for Consumer Freedom call "Food Cops."
Berman is the founder of the Washington-based media firm Berman and Company, which runs the Center for Consumer Freedom—a nonprofit consumer advocacy coalition that promotes consumer choice and debunks the myths behind government regulation. Berman has made an enemy of food radicals who seek to enact legislation to inhibit, or outright prohibit, choices we make as consumers.
"People should not be led around by the nose by bad information," says Berman in an interview with 60 Minutes. "You can make up your own mind as to whether or not margarine is really rat poison, as some people say."
Berman says the regulators and Food Cops create a "’Chicken Little’ mentality, that the sky is falling, over everything," and "drive the government to fill this artificial public need."
"If the government is truly interested in my health and welfare, then I’m appreciative of it, but I think I can take care of myself," says Berman.
If people have a child in the house, common sense says to keep firearms protected from misuse. If there is a financial incentive to use more fuel-efficient light bulbs, then people will make the switch. And if people are bothered by cigarette smoke, they will patron restaurants and bars that make the choice to ban smoking.
Likewise, if food is unhealthy, then it is the responsibility of the consumer to decide to eat it.
The government doesn’t have to tell us what we all already know.
Perhaps Nick Naylor, a Washington lobbyist played by Aaron Eckhart in the 2005 movie "Thank You For Smoking," said it best. "Gentlemen, it’s called education," says Naylor during a Senate hearing on a new warning label for cigarettes. "It doesn’t come off the side of a cigarette carton; it comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves."
This is what Berman seeks to do: Replace government regulation with consumer choice, and give consumers the information they need to make informed decisions for themselves. When consumers decide fast food is not for them, fast food establishments will make healthier choices available. And, it’s already happened, in case you haven’t noticed the plethora of "healthy" choices on fast food menus.
Imagine that—consumer preference in the free market actually works. And wouldn’t you know, government regulation hasn’t.
Granted, some people are just stupid and make really bad choices, but government can’t legislate intelligence. People must learn from their own mistakes, and when government gets involved, it spreads the blame across the board—much like the teacher punishing the whole class for the antics of a single student. Instead, individuals should—and must—take responsibility for their own mistakes without government there telling them its not their fault.
Besides, it’s not just about effectiveness.
In fact, whether the regulation works (which, it doesn’t) is second to the fact that government has no right to make these decisions to begin with. There is something inherently wrong with government taking food off your plate. That’s a decision for you to make as a consumer and because it’s your body. That sick feeling in your stomach is your conscience telling you that this isn’t right—that is, if it isn’t you starving to death because government won’t let you eat.
Therefore, for his work in protecting the freedom of consumers, promoting the free market over government regulation and illuminating the absurdities of a paternalistic government, we are making Rick Berman our free market hero of the week.
The Libertarian Party’s "Free Market Heroes" feature seeks to recognize individuals that promote free market values by working to eliminate government intervention in the marketplace and sponsoring other pro-freedom initiatives. If you know of an individual that should be recongized, please email your suggestion to Andrew Davis at media [AT] lp.org.
Of course. But there would be a lot more if the government did not lull many people into a false sense of security with its certification system, which has many flaws.
Is there demand for independent certification?
That’s why there is demand for independent verification, which there would be far more of if people were not mislead to believe that government is already taking care of it.
The government has nothing to do with companies setting up their own certification systems in order to mislead customers, though.
You can’t have real competition among independent verifiers when the government’s intrusion into the certification field distorts that market as much as it does.
But there’s competition now. There are various certification systems set up. Problem is, when a company has set up a certification for its own products only which means nothing, there’s no competition.
Competition.
GE – how would a free market ensure that organic certifications are up to par? They’re not being regulated at all right now, as far as I know.
From the Whole Planet Foundation website (on microloans):
Interest is charged at lower rates than borrowers would typically receive from usurers or money lenders who charge exorbitant rates in lieu of collateral or to take advantage of the borrower’s inability to obtain credit from traditional sources.
OH NOES!
G.E. likes John Mackey? The one who specifically argued for corporations to consciously undertake social responsibility?
I figured G.E. would just call him a socialist like he does everyone else.
Did you know that the Whole Planet Foundation makes microloans in third world countries at *gasp* below-market rates???! With no collateral or contract? ZOMG G.E. he’s TEH Socialist!
He’s an libertarian btw..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackey_(businessman)#Libertarian_ideas
Ross – That’s not how private certifications would work in a free market.
John Mackey is the CEO and founder of Whole Foods.
GE – I don’t know who he is, that’s what I was asking.
As for private certifications, they tend to be more lenient. They make the company look good by giving them a certification, but the company doesn’t have to meet the USDA’s standards and it doesn’t have to pay to be certified.
socialism (n.) – Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Do you see “also, critics of payday lending” in there anywhere, G.E.?
Didn’t think so.
Well they have to impose tighter standards than the USDA, etc., right?
Regardless: In the absence of government, there would be less inherent trust in certifications, and thus, a private certifier would jealously guard its reputation. Anyone lying about certification to make big business look good would quickly be exposed, and their verification seal would be worthless.
Ross – From what I know about Mackey, he qualifies as a “free market hero.”
SOCIALIST ALERT! SOCIALIST ALERT!
I’d also nominate EZCorp as a wonderful free-market corporations serving the needs of the poor where banks will not.
This is known in the biz as “picking a fight”.
Yes, payday lenders just *happen* to be set up in poor, urban areas because they are heroes!
Or, alternatively, they are aware that the undereducated make easy targets.
What about him?
There are some private organic certifiers out there, but some of them are concocted by big businesses to make themselves look better.
How about John Mackey of Whole Foods?
I’d also nominate EZCorp as a wonderful free-market corporations serving the needs of the poor where banks will not.
Ross – Private organic certification would work better and to the greater benefit of small farmers. I’m glad you gleaned some libertarian lessons from the Omnivore’s Dilemma, and you’re seeing that in MOST CASES, regulations supposedly intended (NOT!) to “rein in” big business, actually work in FAVOR of big business at the expense of their smaller competitors. The FDA, the USDA, etc., are just rackets to generate monopoly profits for big business, and of course, the biggest racket of them all is the Federal Reserve Act.
Hey! I resemble that remark. But seriously, I have been dieting for a month and a half and I’ve lost 20 lbs.
Anyway: Food will provide nutritional information when consumers demand it.
I like your thinking, Ross!
They’re just as bad. No libertarian is going to defend government subsidies of…..anything.
The party should emphasize that more.
I would suggest reading “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” if you have time. It’s by Michael Pollan.
It goes into moderate detail about how the government gives billions in subsidies to food processors – the same people that make fast food. They also subsidize the growing of “field corn #2”, which is not sweet corn. It is corn that can only be eaten after processed, and it makes up a majority of most meals from McDonald’s (and surprisingly, about 40% of a chicken nugget). Without these subsidies, which began to be majorly implemented in the 1970s by Nixon’s administration, fast food companies would be nowhere near the size they are today, if they would even exist.
As for things that impede the growth of the organic industry, there’s organic certification, for one. Although that can be argued both ways. It’s so expensive that small (family) farms would go out of business by opting for it, but it also offers the consumer a way to know that their food is at least less environmentally detrimental and a bit healthier than the “conventional” alternative. However, because of big business’s influence, the standards are kind of lax.
Another impediment explored in The Omnivore’s Dilemma is slaughterhouses, and I’m only mentioning this because it’s what I remember best. It isn’t legal for a farmer to slaughter certain animals on his own land (or more than a specified number of other types of animals), so they must be sent to a slaughterhouse, which ups costs, prices for consumers, and cuts profit. Then the slaughterhouses must meet USDA regulations, which were designed for big business, meaning that every new slaughterhouse costs at least $1 million, and it’s nearly impossible for small (family) farmers to build one on their own.
“What about the government subsidies and regulations that prop up the fast food industry? Why not bash them?”
They should be bashed. They’re just as bad. No libertarian is going to defend government subsidies of…..anything.
With that said, im not aware of large-scale regulations or subsidies that prop-up the fast-food industry, but perhaps I just havent stumbled across them.
“Equal and open access to information abt products is the first step toward freedom of choice in consumption.”
You cant look up the ingredients involved in McDonalds Fries before you shove them into your fat face?
Fast-food isnt toxic…otherwise no one would eat it. Bad for you? Absolutely, and you want the GOVERNMENT to tell us not to eat it–cuz we’re too stupid to take care of ourselves.
No one forces people to eat McDonalds. No one forces them to eat Taco Bell. We ALL know that both are not GOOD for us. We eat it anyway because we like the taste, the speed with which we can attain it, and the cheap price. These people want Taco Bell to NOT use transfats. They want Taco Bell to braodcast at the end of every commercial “Consumption of many tacos can cause DEATH or FLATULENCE!”
Let the free-market work.
What about the government subsidies and regulations that prop up the fast food industry? Why not bash them? Why not rail against the government for silently pushing organic foods out of the picture by making them harder and more expensive to produce?
“and even Joe the Plumber knows socialism has failed.”
Joe the Plumper apparently reads Mises…so perhaps that should read, “especially Joe the Plumber knows socialism has failed”
Most of this article has nothing to do with dangers to liberty, much of it is abt making apologetics for disinformation used by corporations to sell products that contain dangerous and toxic substances.
This is not abt endangering peoples range of choices, this is abt making sure people have access to factual information so that people can make nformed choices. Choices that satisfy their needs/wants, without endangering them.
I agree abt the stupidity of policing cigarette smoking, but that is an entirely different subject from making sure corporations aren’t selling us toxic products, and making sure people who are buying can know the realities of what they are purchasing.
Equal and open access to information abt products is the first step toward freedom of choice in consumption.
The Libertarian Party’s “Free Market Heroes” feature is a grand idea, we might just copy it here on the other side of the pond.
I especially think Rick Berman and Robin Ficker (FMH Vol 1: http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/free-market-heroes-vol-1-robin-ficker) are very deserving of this recognition! Congratulations to both for receiving and the LPUS for endowing this reward.
We are about to witness a big push for what is euphemistically called “single payer universal health care.” Which means socialized medicine, but they can’t say that, because it doesn’t test well (!) and even Joe the Plumber knows socialism has failed.
But here’s where it leads: when the collective is responsible for paying your health care… they will also write rules to prevent you from doing things that it deems contrary to health maintenance. “It’s for your own good, don’t worry.”
I am chilled at that prospect every day.