4 ms·

I completely agree with you about making our own decisions on our health, and very much oppose soda taxes. That said, as I read it, UCSF didn't ban soda, they m

I completely agree with you about making our own decisions on our health, and very much oppose soda taxes. That said, as I read it, UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus. While not technically a private organization, they should still have the ability to choose what they offer their employees. By the same token, employees should be able to bring their own soda and seek employment somewhere that does stock sodas.

grzm 10y ago
"UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus." This calls to mind "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness"[0]. It discusses, in part, setting up decisions and choices so that the default choice is in the best interest of the decider. (It's been a while since I read it. Improvements on my sentence-long summary welcome :) They also discuss what they term "liberal paternalism".[1] Good, interesting stuff if this are interests you. This seems in line with the decision UCSF made. You still have the choice to drink sugary soda. They're just not going to make it as easily available. Where this line is drawn is often going to be contentious. That said, there's always going to be some sort of line, right? Why this is being called into question now is that something is changing. At some point in the past, soda machines weren't on campus. Putting them on campus likely didn't have this same issue. But it did change the environment, and opened up more choice. What choices should be made available? All legal ones? All healthy ones? I think it's an interesting and valid question, one that needs to take into account both the individual and the community as a whole. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism If you choose to down vote, I'd appreciate it if you'd also take the time to reply in a comment. I'm interested in hearing what you think!
- cam_l 10y ago
  Agree.. Why is it when a public org makes a decision on your behalf it is paternalism, but when a company decides to put 10-15 teaspoons of sugar in almost every drink you have access to, it is choice?
  - gwright 10y ago
    The situation is actually more complicated than your question suggests because a public university is a mashup of government, corporation, and parent. So the simple answer to your question is that your relationship to government is not voluntary and is backed by the the use of force. If the government forbids something from being sold you have no legal recourse beyond leaving the jurisdiction. If a company makes a change that is unwelcome, the market readily adapts to providing alternative solutions that are more welcomed by the market. The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government. Lots of policy conundrums with public schools disappear when you consider the same situation at a private school: religious content, political philosophy, gender segregation, choice of beverages to provide, and so on. That isn't to say that policy choices don't have pros and cons, just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied (to all public schools, for example).
    - cam_l 10y ago
      "The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government." That was exactly my (counter)point. Your argument is theoretical, but in practice often the relationship with a company is as difficult to change as with government. The example raised of sugary drinks, in practice, due to aggressive marketing and positioning meant that sugary drinks were the only option in most places I lived for quite some time (school, public places, fast food, work) unless you had access to a tap. (The bottling of water in the last few years has made a dent in that stranglehold.) Clearly the market can be easily manipulated at least in the short term, with advertising, market monopolisation, lies from sugar industry lobbyists.. "just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied" Arguable. Private policy choices, if economically successful create internal feedback effects and spread. (Bear in mind economics does not follow peoples values, wishes or best interests.. at best it follows their desires, and not even always). But even otherwise, it matters little if you are one of the unfortunate kids attending that school with skewed religious / political content.

grzm 10y ago

"UCSF didn't ban soda, they made a decision, as an institution, not to stock it on campus." This calls to mind "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness"[0]. It discusses, in part, setting up decisions and choices so that the default choice is in the best interest of the decider. (It's been a while since I read it. Improvements on my sentence-long summary welcome :) They also discuss what they term "liberal paternalism".[1] Good, interesting stuff if this are interests you. This seems in line with the decision UCSF made. You still have the choice to drink sugary soda. They're just not going to make it as easily available. Where this line is drawn is often going to be contentious. That said, there's always going to be some sort of line, right? Why this is being called into question now is that something is changing. At some point in the past, soda machines weren't on campus. Putting them on campus likely didn't have this same issue. But it did change the environment, and opened up more choice. What choices should be made available? All legal ones? All healthy ones? I think it's an interesting and valid question, one that needs to take into account both the individual and the community as a whole. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism If you choose to down vote, I'd appreciate it if you'd also take the time to reply in a comment. I'm interested in hearing what you think!

cam_l 10y ago
Agree.. Why is it when a public org makes a decision on your behalf it is paternalism, but when a company decides to put 10-15 teaspoons of sugar in almost every drink you have access to, it is choice?
- gwright 10y ago
  The situation is actually more complicated than your question suggests because a public university is a mashup of government, corporation, and parent. So the simple answer to your question is that your relationship to government is not voluntary and is backed by the the use of force. If the government forbids something from being sold you have no legal recourse beyond leaving the jurisdiction. If a company makes a change that is unwelcome, the market readily adapts to providing alternative solutions that are more welcomed by the market. The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government. Lots of policy conundrums with public schools disappear when you consider the same situation at a private school: religious content, political philosophy, gender segregation, choice of beverages to provide, and so on. That isn't to say that policy choices don't have pros and cons, just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied (to all public schools, for example).
  - cam_l 10y ago
    "The relationship you have with a corporation can easily be replaced unlike the relationship you have with your government." That was exactly my (counter)point. Your argument is theoretical, but in practice often the relationship with a company is as difficult to change as with government. The example raised of sugary drinks, in practice, due to aggressive marketing and positioning meant that sugary drinks were the only option in most places I lived for quite some time (school, public places, fast food, work) unless you had access to a tap. (The bottling of water in the last few years has made a dent in that stranglehold.) Clearly the market can be easily manipulated at least in the short term, with advertising, market monopolisation, lies from sugar industry lobbyists.. "just that in a private entity the policy choices are un-complicated by constitutional concerns or by concerns about them being universally applied" Arguable. Private policy choices, if economically successful create internal feedback effects and spread. (Bear in mind economics does not follow peoples values, wishes or best interests.. at best it follows their desires, and not even always). But even otherwise, it matters little if you are one of the unfortunate kids attending that school with skewed religious / political content.