Nobody is going to be banning meat in the near future, but that is for political reasons. There are simply too many meat eaters and not enough fanatical vegetarians. It is a question of power, not ethics, and the author of this article – vile authoritarian though he may be – inadvertently makes the libertarian argument very well. If it is the government’s business to prevent people taking voluntary, informed risks about one lifestyle choice, there is no reason to stop at smoking.
He asks whether it’s “OK to allow free choice” or “OK to prevent ‘unhealthy behaviour'”. In my view, the only moral answer is that it’s OK to allow free choice. It is not the government’s business. The author obviously disagrees, but I bet it wouldn’t take long to find something he likes doing that has been linked to cancer. At least his argument makes more sense than the scatter-gun bigotry of people who argue for state force to be used against activities they don’t like while demanding protection for those they do.
– Christopher Snowdon, from an article titled “The NHS as a tool of social control”.
The problem with bureaucracies and our hugely expanded regulatory sector is that the people in it are never going to say they’ve got what they wanted, resign and look for alternative employment.
They’ll keep demanding more bans, rules and regulations to keep their cushy jobs.
Monarchy understood what elected politicos do not, that the bureaucracy is not merely administration, it is competition.
What the ministry spends, the King cannot.
In the end our democratic experiment needs a vast overhaul.
I have long argued that the term limits we need are term limits on government employment of any sort. 10 years and you’re out.
You barbecue cheese burgers and non-kosher hot dogs, with carbon based fuel?
You know that socialist medical care payment plan that you’ve been extorted by, under penalty of law, for YEARS?
Health “services” payment DENIED!
Off to debtors prison with you.
It’s not even their business to allow – none of it is their business at all, period.
BTW and FWIW, I have never met a fanatical vegetarian. From what I’ve seen, vegetarian who turns fanatical usually goes vegan.
Fully half of history is the record of people trying to enforce their personal crazy whims with coercion and violence.
Enforcing vegetarianism is no more ridiculous than enforcing Catholicism, communism, or Louis XVI makes the best decisionsism.
staghounds nails it.
From a TV programme on human evolution in Africa:
Typically, vegetarians have smaller brains; you can see that by looking at the African savannah today …”
Self, watching:
… or at people in New York today.”
For obvious reasons, vegetarian diet and lower intelligence are correlated in evolution.
Alisa remarks that “BTW and FWIW, I have never met a fanatical vegetarian. From what I’ve seen, vegetarian who turns fanatical usually goes vegan.” My impression, recalling what I can of how the discussion evolved between the 80s and now, was that “Hitler was a vegetarian” began to be said in the 80s, as a snappy response to holier-than-thou vegetarians, and that the word vegan evolved as a response to this, so they could go on being holier-than-thou. I think vegans would still be calling themselves vegetarians but for this unwelcome fellow-traveller.
A friend of mine once tried to avoid an unwelcome training course by claiming to be a strict fructarian, to whom even vegan diet was morally unacceptable, let alone vegetarian. He was upset when told that the venue had managed to arrange his fructarian diet. 🙂 (I’ve never met an actual fructarian.)
Maybe, but the two are very different lifestyles, not to mention diets. And, FWIW2, I personally knew 2 vegans back in 79-81. The differences were the same back then as well.
Fructarian? But don’t FLM? 😛
I have only ever met one “militant” vegetarian face to face.
MV: “Do you realise this is a dead creature who felt pain and had feelings?”
PdeH: “Yes, although I have not had the opportunity for some years, I have been known to shoot, butcher & then eat living creatures myself.”
MV: “I regard you as a murderer. Eating meat should be illegal.”
PdeH: “I like fatty meat as it is usually more flavourful and you are quite flabby. I wonder what you would taste like?”
Other than that, I only ever encounter them online. Most veggies I know are not trying to force their views on others.
Same here, and with vegans it usually is the other way around.
With quality recording equipment set to the correct frequencies, scientists can hear a broccoli screaming when you rip its roots out of the ground.
At least an animal has the chance to run, swim, or fly away. Plant life has no chance. I hope you’re proud, you cruel monster.
(Okay, not really, but I’ve managed to annoy a few proselytizing veggie-types with this.)
Call me weird, but few things are better than a juicy steak with a side of steamed broccoli 😀
Back on point, people – let’s not lose sight of the story which sparked this discussion, which was the announcement that at least one NHS trust will no longer perform surgery for non-life-threatening conditions on patients who are overweight, or who smoke, citing budget issues.
So persons who have paid ‘insurance’ premiums for years, and/or who have been promised ‘healthcare, free at the point of delivery’ for 4 generations now, are now being told ‘but not for you. You’re too expensive to treat. The system only treats cheap patients. But you still have to pay for it.’
Just as Obamacare enters its entirely-predictable ‘death spiral’, and serious noises are now being made in the US to ‘reorganize’ and ‘streamline’ it to be a ‘single payer’ system like the NHS, this story should be trumpeted to the rafters. ‘Single payer’ healthcare inevitably leads to rationing, either by waiting for treatment (like the NHS) or denying treatment (like the NHS).
llater,
llamas
And, this thread is making me hungry!
A problem with government programs is that the attached strings always grow. That’s why I think we need to legally define all such benefits as ‘gifts’ from the government to the beneficiaries, allowing no claim on the beneficiaries for accepting them.
The alternative to doing this is what we have now.
Yes Perry – the “logic” of the paternalists (including the so called “libertarian paternalist”) is totalitarian.
Remember, these are the kinds of people who will ultimately decide your ‘choices’ if this sort of thing is not nipped in the bud.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/keith-vaz-will-be-told-to-quit-top-role-as-he-faces-questioning/
“Polish painters” – I expect to see that become a Private Eye meme in nothing flat.
llater,
llamas
If you belong to the state, then you belong to it body and soul.
If you belong to yourself, then you belong to yourself body and soul.
This is the most fundamental choice of all, and it must be made, one way or another.
Those who say I had no choice are only saying I was too cowardly to choose myself.
The BMI level which defines ‘obese’ has previously fallen – it used to be higher.
Watch the level fall again as Governments around the world look for another reason to further ration state healthcare. Not make it more efficient, of course, or even barely efficient – all the relevant stakeholders are against that.
Not a single person will have put on an ounce of weight, but suddenly there will be more ‘obese’ people, and the list allowed treatment shrinks again and the pressure eases, but only until the next crisis.
Glancing at the height and weight of Wasps First XV rugby players (Wasps are an English professional rugby union side). Calculated BMI rating for each:
James Haskell 31.4
Joe Launchbury 31.4
Nathan Hughes 32.3
Marty Moore 35.7
Simon McIntyre 36.4
The last two are props, and are carrying some body fat, but both will be top professional athletes.
Even one of the backs makes it at 30.8, you can see the disgustingly fat non-athlete here:
http://www.wasps.co.uk/players-staff/player/alapati-leiua
These people are mad.
In the news today it has been announced that the NHS is considering prescribing exercise as a treatment. This seems like a good idea if you don’t think about it too much.
I have direct knowledge regarding how well this could work. I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in may 2013 at the age of 54. I took the medical advice about getting fit very seriously and took up doing triathlons. As my condition improved I was re-diagnosed as type 2. I am planning to do an ironman next year. I have really enjoyed myself getting back into shape and have gone from having five injections of insulin every day to just diet and exercise. Obviously I have saved the NHS a huge amount of money, I had to deal with a huge amount of diabetes medication in the early days, now I just have to do a weekly blood test. I consider that this has all been worth it because of the vast improvement in my quality of life.
But what are the NHS going to do when they prescribe exercise to people who don’t enjoy it the way that I do? Boot camps?
But what are the NHS going to do when they prescribe exercise to people who don’t enjoy it the way that I do? Boot camps?
Why yes, I think it will be boot camps. Fluffed up with lots of self-esteem-boosting activities and sunny, treacly rhetoric of empowerment, no doubt, but boot camps nonetheless.
The camps, of course, owned and operated by well-connected nonprofit organizations accepting vast government largesse for only the best of reasons.
And they will FAIL 99% of the time, but that won’t matter because the whole point of the exercise (see what I did there) is to deny you actual medical treatment.
I remember hearing some years ago that “Vegetarian” is a Navajo word which translates as “Lousy Hunter”. This implies a “Vegan” lacks the competence to sneak up on an egg. Now both are working for the government to avoid starvation. Figures.
Lifestyle enforcement is based on the good old guilt complex, that humans are somehow harming nature or destroying something, underneath the thought process is no different to religious fairy stories. The problem is arguments are taken at face value and never challenged, and the tyranny of power is not allowing them to be challenged. We all condemn a certain ideology for not being open to criticism, but in reality the concept of shutting down opposition, even a scientifically reasoned one, is widespread, you can witness the global warming debate for a good example.
At least his argument makes more sense than the scatter-gun bigotry of people who argue for state force to be used against activities they don’t like while demanding protection for those they do.
Most religious and political ideologies have just been a variant of this, the reason I turned to libertarianism is because it really seems to be a truly different approach.
Regarding the BMI scale. One benefit of my exercise regime has been a much improved body shape. I’m now very lean and carry very little fat. Despite this I am still borderline overweight according to the scale. My weight is 75kg which is back to what it was when I was in my twenties, not bad for someone who is pushing 58 you would think. But no, I’m right on the upper limit of the “Ideal Weight Range”, so if I put on even a few grams that makes me overweight. To be fair, the specialist nurse, who I have to visit every six months, doesn’t put much stock in the BMI scale.
I suggest that the NHS adopt an idea for their buildings that I’ve been suggesting for the benefits offices for years:
Make all the public doors 18 inches wide.
We are more concerned with making people free than making them happy; we would rather that they choose badly than not at all.–Isaiah Berlin
An unimpeachable principle that negates modern government’s raison d’etre.
BMI scale is known to be totally useless, since it assumes an average body type and does not allow for the normal fluctuations of humanity.
I’m about average height, but heavily built (or as my parents used to lovingly describe me ‘a mobile barrell’). I also run two-three times a week, orienteer regularly (because I like to meet vegetarians who will share good recipes with you (I’m broad minded OK)) and play squash and football once a week (not at the same time, although that sounds like fun). I also occasionally do some work… But despite all this I am apparently a few pounds off obese. As it happens I normally could lose a further half stone (I also eat cakes and drink beer) but as the last nurse who did a health check for me said, I am in no way unhealthy. Apparently my resting heart rate is in the normal range for athletes (although I blame that on the contentment that cakes bring).
The nurse before just took my height and weight, and told me I needed to do exercise because I was heading towards obese. Because clearly she is an unthinking drone (actually we have form with her – she is definetly a box ticker). I, being British, politely nodded and ignored her, safe in the knowledge that only my mum in my family is actually in the normal range for BMI…
The unpopular truth is that vegitarianism and/or veganism are unhealthy lifestyles. People eat meat for a reason.
BMI is complete garbage and has always been garbage. NO ONE pays any attention to it, and yet like horrible songs, it won’t go away. (Rock me Amadeus?)
It’s sort of like the 1950’s Food Pyramid devised, not by nutritionists or doctors, but rather by the USDA, i.e. department of agriculture. Is it a surprise that they tell you to primarily eat like a cow or fatting pig with primarily grains, including corn?
And then there’s the “meat is bad for you” crap. I suggest that there is a REASON fatty meats taste good to us. There is a REASON that we have “savory” tastebuds. There’s a REASON we need a common ready source of B12, B15, B18 and iron. Blood is red because of iron. It’s what makes red blood cells “red”. Hemoglobin carries oxygen, which is typically why vegetarians look (and feel) like shit. They’re anemic.
Bobby said,
Ronald Dahl ‘horror’ story, The Sound Machine.
There’s nothing new under the sun. ~ Me quoting Sherlock Holmes quoting Shakespeare quoting his mom.
I agree. Making benefits gifts also sets the legal conditions such that benefits can be withdrawn by the voters without the courts or the EU or whoever interjecting.
“Ronald Dahl ‘horror’ story, The Sound Machine.”
Yes! Brilliant!
(In retrospect, I have to apologize to you for a bit of facial virtue-signaling I did the other day. For familial reasons, I feel strongly about the whole “lazy Mexicans” trope – it’s simply not true. But, I think I knew when I was writing it that that’s not what you were communicating – I understood your point – I agreed with your point – but I chose to make it clear that I was pure of racial enmity, at your expense. I took your sort-of-ambiguous statement and made it racist, and I was wrong to do so, and I apologize.)
bobby b, September 9, 2016 at 1:25 am: ” I chose to make it clear that I was pure of racial enmity, at your expense.”
Speaking as merely an observing third party in that discussion, I wish, first to praise “bobby b” for making this courteous clarification; this kind of tone helps this blog.
Secondly, I note that, by coincidence in this case, the statement, minus any thought of apology, could be applied to much that appears on the web. The twitter mob have infinitely more cause to say exactly those words – but of course never do.