BBC World Service radio are debating the idea of a fat tax. I came across your blog.

The programme, World Have Your Say is specifically asking whether fat people should pay more. We are a global call in show with our biggest audiences in North America and West Africa.

Keen to chat more to you about your possible participation. We are on at 1800-1900 GMT. Is there a number I can reach you on?

Thanks

Krupa

I remind you that I said “I see no evidence that the government has the authority to play the consumption police”. Consumption includes alcohol and other drugs.

For what it is worth, I think a meaningful distinction can and should be drawn between alcohol, cocaine, and other drugs that impair judgment and drugs like tobacco (and presumably fatty foods) that simply have ill side effects.

In a private correspondence with a libertarian friend of mine, I expressed this idea in what I called “The Analogy of a Rottweiler.”

I am the owner of a Rottweiler. I happen to love my Rottweiler a great deal; indeed, one could say that the dog was my greatest joy in life. I would do anything to make this dog happy if given the chance. Unfortunately, this dog, being a Rottweiler, does not feel the as much love for the general populace as he does for me. Children in particular irk him beyond measure- I am quite sure that the first child who came within snapping distance of his mouth would lose a hand (if not worse). I usually keep this dog in a small kennel where I know he won’t be able to harm anyone. I know that if I let the dog loose the chance of some bystander receiving an injury is not a small one. However, over the last few days the dog has been whining something terrible, and I cannot stand to hear such cries of sorrow. So I decide to open up the kennel and let the dog run lose across the neighborhood. Within a couple minutes I hear a scream- the dog had attacked a hapless woman, leaving her leg a tangled and bloody mess. In a stroke of brilliance, I find the way to justify my actions: “I did not infringe upon anybody’s freedom” I declare. “I simply opened the door to my dog’s kennel. I had no control over what the dog did after that, and as such, I should not be held accountable for opening that kennel- it was certainly within my rights to do so.”

At this point a local police officer walks up to me and says, “Sorry chap, but you happen to be wrong about that. You are only correct on one count- you didn’t have any control over what your dog’s actions once you let him loose. However, you did have full knowledge of what might happen if your dog was not in his kennel. Because you had the knowledge when you opened that cage, you are responsible for anything the dog did once he left his kennel.”

Now after reading this lengthy analogy, I am pretty sure you all get my point. A person under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not have the ability to think or perceive clearly, and as such, they can no more be held accountable for their actions than can a person who is mentally ill. The person who drives in an erratic fashion because he is intoxicated drives no different than the person who drives in an erratic fashion because he is having a stroke- both are clearly driving in a fashion that infringes on other people’s liberty, property, and right to life. Furthermore, the person who is intoxicated has no more control over his driving than the person who is suffering from a stroke. Under the libertarian system promoted by Miss —-, both cases should be treated the same, as both are the exact same crime. It does not take a genius to figure out that something is wrong with this scenario- but what is it?

The difference between the two men is simple. While both men had no control over their actions while they were committing the crime, only one man made the choice to put himself in a position where he would have no control over his actions. When you ingest, inhale, absorb, or otherwise partake of mind altering drugs, you destroy your agency. If you take drugs with the full knowledge that you will lose this agency, you have made the choice to infringe on the freedom of others. Because this choice WAS conscious, you are held accountable for the actions you may perform in your altered state.* That, ladies and gentlemen, is why the United States government is justified in punishing individuals who choose to take Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and other illegal substances.

—-

*Along a similar line of thinking, a man who has sold classified information to an FBI plant is still guilty of treason. This is not because he actually committed treason- the FBI agent is part of the American government- but because he intended too. Consuming drugs is a crime of intent

I hope this analogy makes clear my thinking on this issue. One should have the freedom to make the choice to damage one’s own body. No government has the authority to intervene. The logical corollary to this is that individuals alone should be responsible for their choices, and the ills effects of these choices should not be foisted onto the collective.

Judgment inhibiting drugs, however, foist there effects upon the collective all by themselves – they serve as a present danger to the liberty and health of those around the drug user. The state, therefore, has the authority to regulate or ban their consumption.

(The constitution, of course, does not provide this authority anyway, so really this discussion should be mute.)

I for one think obesity is no different from alcoholism, if anything its worse because its sore on the eyes. So fat tax is justified by myself on these grounds.

That said, I’m not necessarily for a fat tax in states without public healthcare systems, e.g. the US – though I would add that the resulting high rates of obesity / morbidity arising from the American fast food culture raise insurance premiums for everyone else, so even here it’s not that simple.

PS. Waiting for Dietwald to furiously storm in here any hour now.

I am confused. You discuss how a fat tax could be implemented, and you even go so far as to describe the social benefits a fat tax might have, but you never did explain why any of this is the concern of the government in the first place. Outside of your throw-away reference to universal health care, no attempt is made to convince the reader that this is within the bounds of proper governance. Indeed, I see no evidence at all that the government has the authority to play the part of consumption chief at all!

It is the unstated assumptions of any analysis that are most revealing. The assumptions found within this piece (this whole series of fat tax articles, really) are frightening.

I could explain why this is so, but someone else has done a satisfactory job on this count already. In exhibit A, I give you William Saletan, writing in Slate Magazine.

Then They Came for the Fresca: The growing ambitions of the food police.
Saletan, William. Slate Magazine. 22 September 2009.

Read what Saletan has to say. He is right, and I can’t add much to it.