3 ms·

> tobacco companies and junk food in schools Bear with me, I think these are actually two examples of net good (potentially) done by lobbyists, where their (a

> tobacco companies and junk food in schools Bear with me, I think these are actually two examples of net good (potentially) done by lobbyists, where their (admittedly uncaring) business incentives end up standing up for what people want. Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. Just because they aren't good for you, government shouldn't be telling people what to do. Luckily (and I mean this, it's essentially a coincidence) the incentives of tobacco companies and soft drink manufacturers or whatever align with giving people what they want, so ordinary people who would otherwise get pushed around by controlling political types (for their own good) get an unexpected ally. I've seen this with covid too, few stand up for people who just want to do their own thing and not get pushed around by people who want to impose their values of maximizing for health (pretending to) at the expense of all else. The only groups with the clout to stand up to health officials mad with power end up being lobbyists for companies that are losing money hand over fist, and the interests align. I'm not saying it's utopian, but for better or worse, they end up providing a much needed countervailing force against what might otherwise be a march to some technocratic hell hole where people can't make their own choices because someone knows better.

brimble 5y ago
> Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. Just because they aren't good for you, government shouldn't be telling people what to do Schools should absofuckinglutely not be serving, nor even making available, junk food to kids on any kind of regular basis. This isn't the government raiding your cupboards and throwing out things they don't like.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jawarner 5y ago
In a lot of cases, the relationship between a product and a consumer is abusive. Take heroin for example. There is a huge (black) market for heroin. People "want" it, and will become addicted to it, and "want" it even more. The monetary value of a product is not a measure of how much good it does.
cptskippy 5y ago
The problem problem with your argument is that you're saying it's perfectly ok for businesses to manipulate their products to make them addictive, the public with marketing, the schools with kickbacks, and the politicians with lobbyists. But when big government rears it's ugly head and tries to do any sort of regulation for the greater good, it's automatically bad and imposing on my freedoms and choice. You're advocating for a world where people have the perception of freedom while being oblivious to the fact that they're actually being manipulated for profit. But that's ok as long as it's Facebook, Coke, Philip Morris and Nestle and not big bad government.
- version_five 5y ago
  I'm summarizing the status quo, in which there are governments and other advocacy groups as well. My point is not that those should go away, it's that under the current system, there are cases where lobbyists (or corporate interests generally) can provide pushback that prevents runaway regulation and nanny-state-ism. If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe cause the kind of things you're talking about.
  - jawarner 5y ago
    On any given issue, some people care more about it, and some people care less about it. Special groups in general are not a bad thing. > If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe cause the kind of things you're talking about. That's exactly what the problem is. On many issues, there are no opposing forces to the special interest groups. These arise when for example when an industry causes a small issue for a large population. It's difficult to organize and litigate in such cases. Edit: I think we're mostly in agreement. I think what is needed is, like GP suggested, a rational way to balance the incentives for the special interests and the public good. Our current system relies on mustering large public support to make legal changes for the public good, but that's not scalable, and doesn't tend to rational, balanced thinking.
mmarq 5y ago
> Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. It is insane that a minor is allowed to buy or consume junk food in an institution (a school) that’s supposed to look after them. Food served in schools should be selected by a professional, such as a dietician. It should not be possible for a child to eat hamburgers or jacket potatoes or fries, first of all because we should not poison them and second because part of their education should include teaching them how to eat properly.
- version_five 5y ago
  I can't tell if this is serious, you are calling it insane that a minor should be allowed to eat hamburgers and fries at school? If you are serious, I'd say this supports my argument that we need to counterbalance these extreme views, and that coincidentally, industry lobby ends up being on the other side, and helping normal people who think it's ok to enjoy a burger sometimes
  - mmarq 5y ago
    I’m dead serious, school menus in Italy are (at least in theory) monitored by the ministry of health, to ensure they are healthy and well balanced. Children don’t buy food at school, they are served a meal from a fixed menu (which may change for religious or health reasons). I’ll leave to you to determine which county has better eating habits. The notion that a 7 year old can buy fries or may think it’s normal to buy fries (rather than it being an exceptional thing that happens no more than once a week under the supervision of an adult) is as stupid as thinking that they should be allowed to buy and consume beer.
sdanvjsndks 5y ago
I do not think things are as black and white as you think and its a blurry line, there are so many other factors to consider than just "government shouldn't tell me what to do" - such as how addictive the substance is, what demography of the people is the regulation going to target e.g. children etc. If you ask me if a person should be able to choose if they want to smoke, I'd say yes; and if you ask me if there should be regulation around marketing tobacco products targeting kids or if there should be regulation to prevent selling/consuming cigarettes in schools/colleges or in public transport, I would also say yes. Different people draw the line differently, with what products should be regulated and how stringent should the regulation be, and we keep trying to find the best compromise and not deal with absolutes. The problem I have with these groups/people that "end up standing up for what people want" as you phrase it, is that while such groups generally stand up for the causes they like its also generally the same people that also carve out their own list of exceptions that they think the government should intervene on. So, in essence, what's the difference between them and the "protect us from ourselves" crowd as you phrase it.

brimble 5y ago

> Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. Just because they aren't good for you, government shouldn't be telling people what to do Schools should absofuckinglutely not be serving, nor even making available, junk food to kids on any kind of regular basis. This isn't the government raiding your cupboards and throwing out things they don't like.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jawarner 5y ago

In a lot of cases, the relationship between a product and a consumer is abusive. Take heroin for example. There is a huge (black) market for heroin. People "want" it, and will become addicted to it, and "want" it even more. The monetary value of a product is not a measure of how much good it does.

cptskippy 5y ago

The problem problem with your argument is that you're saying it's perfectly ok for businesses to manipulate their products to make them addictive, the public with marketing, the schools with kickbacks, and the politicians with lobbyists. But when big government rears it's ugly head and tries to do any sort of regulation for the greater good, it's automatically bad and imposing on my freedoms and choice. You're advocating for a world where people have the perception of freedom while being oblivious to the fact that they're actually being manipulated for profit. But that's ok as long as it's Facebook, Coke, Philip Morris and Nestle and not big bad government.

version_five 5y ago
I'm summarizing the status quo, in which there are governments and other advocacy groups as well. My point is not that those should go away, it's that under the current system, there are cases where lobbyists (or corporate interests generally) can provide pushback that prevents runaway regulation and nanny-state-ism. If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe cause the kind of things you're talking about.
- jawarner 5y ago
  On any given issue, some people care more about it, and some people care less about it. Special groups in general are not a bad thing. > If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe cause the kind of things you're talking about. That's exactly what the problem is. On many issues, there are no opposing forces to the special interest groups. These arise when for example when an industry causes a small issue for a large population. It's difficult to organize and litigate in such cases. Edit: I think we're mostly in agreement. I think what is needed is, like GP suggested, a rational way to balance the incentives for the special interests and the public good. Our current system relies on mustering large public support to make legal changes for the public good, but that's not scalable, and doesn't tend to rational, balanced thinking.

mmarq 5y ago

> Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. It is insane that a minor is allowed to buy or consume junk food in an institution (a school) that’s supposed to look after them. Food served in schools should be selected by a professional, such as a dietician. It should not be possible for a child to eat hamburgers or jacket potatoes or fries, first of all because we should not poison them and second because part of their education should include teaching them how to eat properly.

version_five 5y ago
I can't tell if this is serious, you are calling it insane that a minor should be allowed to eat hamburgers and fries at school? If you are serious, I'd say this supports my argument that we need to counterbalance these extreme views, and that coincidentally, industry lobby ends up being on the other side, and helping normal people who think it's ok to enjoy a burger sometimes
- mmarq 5y ago
  I’m dead serious, school menus in Italy are (at least in theory) monitored by the ministry of health, to ensure they are healthy and well balanced. Children don’t buy food at school, they are served a meal from a fixed menu (which may change for religious or health reasons). I’ll leave to you to determine which county has better eating habits. The notion that a 7 year old can buy fries or may think it’s normal to buy fries (rather than it being an exceptional thing that happens no more than once a week under the supervision of an adult) is as stupid as thinking that they should be allowed to buy and consume beer.

sdanvjsndks 5y ago

I do not think things are as black and white as you think and its a blurry line, there are so many other factors to consider than just "government shouldn't tell me what to do" - such as how addictive the substance is, what demography of the people is the regulation going to target e.g. children etc. If you ask me if a person should be able to choose if they want to smoke, I'd say yes; and if you ask me if there should be regulation around marketing tobacco products targeting kids or if there should be regulation to prevent selling/consuming cigarettes in schools/colleges or in public transport, I would also say yes. Different people draw the line differently, with what products should be regulated and how stringent should the regulation be, and we keep trying to find the best compromise and not deal with absolutes. The problem I have with these groups/people that "end up standing up for what people want" as you phrase it, is that while such groups generally stand up for the causes they like its also generally the same people that also carve out their own list of exceptions that they think the government should intervene on. So, in essence, what's the difference between them and the "protect us from ourselves" crowd as you phrase it.