6 ms·

It's "interesting" to see the same methods that the tabacco lobby used are used again. We as a society haven't spent the past time in defending ourselves or our

by Jan_jw 10y ago

It's "interesting" to see the same methods that the tabacco lobby used are used again. We as a society haven't spent the past time in defending ourselves or our institutions any better then back in those days. Sad Indeed...

yodsanklai 10y ago
I wonder what point of view libertarians have on issues like this one. How can we regulate this without government intervention? what can we do to counter-balance the marketing power of those corporations?
- monkeybuz 10y ago
  Just don't buy sugar products. Without a government, a corporation can only be strong, when their customers are spending enough money. With a government a corporation can grow out by regulations/subsidies. Regulations are destroying small competitors, not the big corps themselves.
  - blackoil 10y ago
    Just few not buying is not enough, some measure is needed to promote and market it to significant mass, counter advertisement to children...
    - monkeybuz 10y ago
      So go out and promote again big corps. Only education and enlightenment can build up a better world. Governments won't, governments are going to be bought by big corps.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - legulere 10y ago
    That requires humans to be perfectly rational like a homo economicus [1], but in reality people aren't. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
    - monkeybuz 10y ago
      No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them. Just live healthy and promote your lifestyle to other persons, that is the best thing you can do for yourself and for any other person without harm.
      - yodsanklai 10y ago
        > You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them It's not that simple. For instance, kids aren't free to choose what they eat or drink and they can't make rationale decisions. Many adults lack the proper information and so on...
      - Brakenshire 10y ago
        I don't think promoting your lifestyle to others is something that has any force, even if any of us were interested in evangelism. People pick up their everyday behaviour largely from what they perceive as normal, and mass media, which is filled with adverts and even the programming heavily decided by commercial factors, has enormous power to dictate what is normal. At the grass-roots, parents have a degree of power to set a concept of normality for their kids, but that's also strongly driven by peer-pressure which is in turn driven by mass media.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them. Forced for humans is not just "gun in the head", and it's not a binary either. E.g. constant hammering with advertising on TV and internet can be an effective force for forcing people into stuff they wouldn't otherwise do.
    - Kenji 10y ago
  - xg15 10y ago
    And non-sugar products are...? A part of the publication explained how large lobbying efforts are made to make labeling systems less accurate or get rid of them altogether. So, in short, the industry spends a lot of money so consumers don't even know which foods are "suger foods" and which aren't.
  - a_thro_away 10y ago
    How could we not buy "sugar products" when it is added without knowledge everywhere? Wouldn't your point of view also require removing labels; after all gov. regulation put them there. Sugar corp would sell to ag corp, with no transparency. How would we know how much sugar and compare? I know that humans over the past 50 years have been terrible judges on their own.
    - monkeybuz 10y ago
      Yes, this is a big problem, but if you're waiting for the government to solve this problem, you'll wait a long time. The humanity have to build new organizations that help the masses in picking up the right choices and we need new corporations that we can trust. Just have a look at the open source movement, where even commercial companies are opening their source code to improve to build up on trust. We need corporations that put labels of ingredients on their products. But if we force companies to do so, we're destroying the start up resources a new company needs to grow.
      - josinalvo 10y ago
        WHAT? By forcing accurate labels we are disadvantaging small companies? I am quite sure that, in a month of work, a well intentioned NGO with 1 or 2 people could develop a hand-holding website that every company could follow, for labelling. Can you clarify?
    - vixen99 10y ago
      No it isn't added everywhere. Not to fruit, vegetables, raw cereals, dairy products, meat or fish. If you feel you have to buy food industry products (those that undergo some kind of processing) then don't most of them offer low sugar or sugar free options? Finally it comes down to industry meeting human preferences. Change those and the industry will change. I agree it's often a problem but why not carry a lens to check the small print on the package.
      - osteele 10y ago
        Yes, those of us with disposable time and disposable income are able to avoid food industry products and/or to research those we ingest.
  - analog31 10y ago
    Without a government, there can be no corporations. A corporation is a creature of regulation. You can already operate a business under fewer regulations by forming a sole proprietorship or general partnership. Why don't people do that? The entitlement of liability limitation afforded by corporate regulation is what makes it possible for businesses to be bigger than a certain nominal size. Something like the "sugar industry" might not exist at all without that entitlement. Likewise, if the individuals forming a sugar industry marketing or lobbying entity could be held personally liable for the actions of that entity, it probably wouldn't exist. That's the closest thing I can think of to a concept of business law in a libertarian sense: If you own a certain fraction of General Motors, then you're responsible for a fraction of GM's debts, if those debts exceed its assets.
- baddox 10y ago
  The concept of a "lobby" wouldn't make very much sense in a world with little or no government regulation.
  - yodsanklai 10y ago
    no, but the concept of marketing still makes sense. We know that corporations devote a lot of resources in marketing. Is it ok to "brainwash" people into buying stuff that harm them?
    - baddox 10y ago
      My impression is that most forms of libertarianism would support the ability to take legal action against firms for dishonest marketing.
      - Joof 10y ago
        In my opinion, this is basically every commercial or advertising I've ever seen. Emotional arguments damage my ability to make good decisions. Unfortunately, I can't sue.
      - yodsanklai 10y ago
        What is dishonest marketing? for instance, using various tricks to make people smoke cigarettes or drink coke (that is bad for them), is that dishonest?
      - zzalpha 10y ago
        Huh? No. Dishonest marketing does not infringe upon your property rights. I've never heard any libertarian claim that limiting speech, for any purpose, is justifiable base on libertarian ideals. Where do you get that idea?
        baddox 10y ago
        I've read a ton of libertarian stuff, and my impression is that they generally oppose dishonesty from one party in a commercial transaction. It's not very different for a cigarette manufacture to claim their product is healthy than it is for a construction company to agree to build you a house but then stop halfway through despite receiving payment. I think it's pretty clear that both would be opposed by most or all prominent forms of libertarianism.
- tomp 10y ago
  I'm very libertarian, but I view "liberty" primarily as an individual thing; I don't subscribe to the notion that corporations are people or have human rights. I think it's most certainly in the interest of us all that the governments enforce certain rules and protect us in some ways, as long as there are ways to avoid the rules. For example, killing is forbidden, except euthanasia (in certain countries). Hedge funds can exist, but they can't do any marketing and can only have "sophisticated" investors. In Sweden, alcohol is only sold by special stores. I'd advocate the same approach to health & food safety. Businesses can sell everything, but there should be limits on (1) marketing (can't market sugar to kids, if at all), (2) taxes (more sugar, more tax - similar to tobacco), (3) general availability (can't buy cigarettes under 18), and (4) labeling (I support labeling of GMOs and of even trace amounts of trans fat). Edit: especially number 4 above - I see no reason that a honest business would ever see information disclosure regulation as a negative thing; in addition, availability of (trustworthy) information will only increase the economic activity and decrease economic waste (again, only applies to honest companies and products).
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    If I were trying to run a small bakery or confectionary under all the terms (and more, presumably) of your last paragraph, I'd have a hard time believing you took my individual liberty (or that of my customers) very seriously.
    - tomp 10y ago
      Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. E.g. some rules apply only for businesses with more than $100k turnover, or $1M or whatever. Alternatively, your customers need to sign a statement that they will pay out of pocket for any medical costs resulting from eating your sugar (similar to "sophisticated investors" and hedge funds). But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. After all, you could also say that your individual liberty is being infringed by taxes - but you can always move to a deserted island, stop using the services provided by the governments, and pay no tax!
      - 10y ago
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Libertarians are not the same thing as anarchists. Most libertarians agree that government is necessary, they simply discuss the limits of its power.
- cwilkes 10y ago
  In this case isn't it the business - government collusion that has high sugar tariffs making corn syrup an attractive case? Without the government enforcing this perversion we might not be in this situation (probably in some other situation but who knows).
- Kenji 10y ago
  My libertarian view: Let companies add as much sugar as they like and consumers shall decide what tastes and feels best. If there's too much sugar inside your food, nobody's gonna buy it. Not the government should decide how much sugar I eat, I should decide that. Everything else infantilizes the people. The only thing that should be illegal is actually lying about sugar content.
  - josinalvo 10y ago
    lying and non-disclosing? of just lying? because every sugar product conceivable can be 'part of a nutritious breakfast' without any lying (but misleading a lot of people)

by Jan_jw 10y ago

yodsanklai 10y ago

I wonder what point of view libertarians have on issues like this one. How can we regulate this without government intervention? what can we do to counter-balance the marketing power of those corporations?

monkeybuz 10y ago
Just don't buy sugar products. Without a government, a corporation can only be strong, when their customers are spending enough money. With a government a corporation can grow out by regulations/subsidies. Regulations are destroying small competitors, not the big corps themselves.
- blackoil 10y ago
  Just few not buying is not enough, some measure is needed to promote and market it to significant mass, counter advertisement to children...
  - monkeybuz 10y ago
    So go out and promote again big corps. Only education and enlightenment can build up a better world. Governments won't, governments are going to be bought by big corps.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- legulere 10y ago
  That requires humans to be perfectly rational like a homo economicus [1], but in reality people aren't. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
  - monkeybuz 10y ago
    No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them. Just live healthy and promote your lifestyle to other persons, that is the best thing you can do for yourself and for any other person without harm.
    - yodsanklai 10y ago
      > You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them It's not that simple. For instance, kids aren't free to choose what they eat or drink and they can't make rationale decisions. Many adults lack the proper information and so on...
    - Brakenshire 10y ago
      I don't think promoting your lifestyle to others is something that has any force, even if any of us were interested in evangelism. People pick up their everyday behaviour largely from what they perceive as normal, and mass media, which is filled with adverts and even the programming heavily decided by commercial factors, has enormous power to dictate what is normal. At the grass-roots, parents have a degree of power to set a concept of normality for their kids, but that's also strongly driven by peer-pressure which is in turn driven by mass media.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >No it don't. You're free to choose unhealthy products, but aren't forced to choose them. Forced for humans is not just "gun in the head", and it's not a binary either. E.g. constant hammering with advertising on TV and internet can be an effective force for forcing people into stuff they wouldn't otherwise do.
  - Kenji 10y ago
- xg15 10y ago
  And non-sugar products are...? A part of the publication explained how large lobbying efforts are made to make labeling systems less accurate or get rid of them altogether. So, in short, the industry spends a lot of money so consumers don't even know which foods are "suger foods" and which aren't.
- a_thro_away 10y ago
  How could we not buy "sugar products" when it is added without knowledge everywhere? Wouldn't your point of view also require removing labels; after all gov. regulation put them there. Sugar corp would sell to ag corp, with no transparency. How would we know how much sugar and compare? I know that humans over the past 50 years have been terrible judges on their own.
  - monkeybuz 10y ago
    Yes, this is a big problem, but if you're waiting for the government to solve this problem, you'll wait a long time. The humanity have to build new organizations that help the masses in picking up the right choices and we need new corporations that we can trust. Just have a look at the open source movement, where even commercial companies are opening their source code to improve to build up on trust. We need corporations that put labels of ingredients on their products. But if we force companies to do so, we're destroying the start up resources a new company needs to grow.
    - josinalvo 10y ago
      WHAT? By forcing accurate labels we are disadvantaging small companies? I am quite sure that, in a month of work, a well intentioned NGO with 1 or 2 people could develop a hand-holding website that every company could follow, for labelling. Can you clarify?
  - vixen99 10y ago
    No it isn't added everywhere. Not to fruit, vegetables, raw cereals, dairy products, meat or fish. If you feel you have to buy food industry products (those that undergo some kind of processing) then don't most of them offer low sugar or sugar free options? Finally it comes down to industry meeting human preferences. Change those and the industry will change. I agree it's often a problem but why not carry a lens to check the small print on the package.
    - osteele 10y ago
      Yes, those of us with disposable time and disposable income are able to avoid food industry products and/or to research those we ingest.
- analog31 10y ago
  Without a government, there can be no corporations. A corporation is a creature of regulation. You can already operate a business under fewer regulations by forming a sole proprietorship or general partnership. Why don't people do that? The entitlement of liability limitation afforded by corporate regulation is what makes it possible for businesses to be bigger than a certain nominal size. Something like the "sugar industry" might not exist at all without that entitlement. Likewise, if the individuals forming a sugar industry marketing or lobbying entity could be held personally liable for the actions of that entity, it probably wouldn't exist. That's the closest thing I can think of to a concept of business law in a libertarian sense: If you own a certain fraction of General Motors, then you're responsible for a fraction of GM's debts, if those debts exceed its assets.
baddox 10y ago
The concept of a "lobby" wouldn't make very much sense in a world with little or no government regulation.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  no, but the concept of marketing still makes sense. We know that corporations devote a lot of resources in marketing. Is it ok to "brainwash" people into buying stuff that harm them?
  - baddox 10y ago
    My impression is that most forms of libertarianism would support the ability to take legal action against firms for dishonest marketing.
    - Joof 10y ago
      In my opinion, this is basically every commercial or advertising I've ever seen. Emotional arguments damage my ability to make good decisions. Unfortunately, I can't sue.
    - yodsanklai 10y ago
      What is dishonest marketing? for instance, using various tricks to make people smoke cigarettes or drink coke (that is bad for them), is that dishonest?
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      Huh? No. Dishonest marketing does not infringe upon your property rights. I've never heard any libertarian claim that limiting speech, for any purpose, is justifiable base on libertarian ideals. Where do you get that idea?
      - baddox 10y ago
        I've read a ton of libertarian stuff, and my impression is that they generally oppose dishonesty from one party in a commercial transaction. It's not very different for a cigarette manufacture to claim their product is healthy than it is for a construction company to agree to build you a house but then stop halfway through despite receiving payment. I think it's pretty clear that both would be opposed by most or all prominent forms of libertarianism.
tomp 10y ago
I'm very libertarian, but I view "liberty" primarily as an individual thing; I don't subscribe to the notion that corporations are people or have human rights. I think it's most certainly in the interest of us all that the governments enforce certain rules and protect us in some ways, as long as there are ways to avoid the rules. For example, killing is forbidden, except euthanasia (in certain countries). Hedge funds can exist, but they can't do any marketing and can only have "sophisticated" investors. In Sweden, alcohol is only sold by special stores. I'd advocate the same approach to health & food safety. Businesses can sell everything, but there should be limits on (1) marketing (can't market sugar to kids, if at all), (2) taxes (more sugar, more tax - similar to tobacco), (3) general availability (can't buy cigarettes under 18), and (4) labeling (I support labeling of GMOs and of even trace amounts of trans fat). Edit: especially number 4 above - I see no reason that a honest business would ever see information disclosure regulation as a negative thing; in addition, availability of (trustworthy) information will only increase the economic activity and decrease economic waste (again, only applies to honest companies and products).
- twoodfin 10y ago
  If I were trying to run a small bakery or confectionary under all the terms (and more, presumably) of your last paragraph, I'd have a hard time believing you took my individual liberty (or that of my customers) very seriously.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. E.g. some rules apply only for businesses with more than $100k turnover, or $1M or whatever. Alternatively, your customers need to sign a statement that they will pay out of pocket for any medical costs resulting from eating your sugar (similar to "sophisticated investors" and hedge funds). But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. After all, you could also say that your individual liberty is being infringed by taxes - but you can always move to a deserted island, stop using the services provided by the governments, and pay no tax!
    - 10y ago
ekianjo 10y ago
Libertarians are not the same thing as anarchists. Most libertarians agree that government is necessary, they simply discuss the limits of its power.
cwilkes 10y ago
In this case isn't it the business - government collusion that has high sugar tariffs making corn syrup an attractive case? Without the government enforcing this perversion we might not be in this situation (probably in some other situation but who knows).
Kenji 10y ago
My libertarian view: Let companies add as much sugar as they like and consumers shall decide what tastes and feels best. If there's too much sugar inside your food, nobody's gonna buy it. Not the government should decide how much sugar I eat, I should decide that. Everything else infantilizes the people. The only thing that should be illegal is actually lying about sugar content.
- josinalvo 10y ago
  lying and non-disclosing? of just lying? because every sugar product conceivable can be 'part of a nutritious breakfast' without any lying (but misleading a lot of people)