Money, health, love

Money is like health and love: an energy source that can help create an easier and more pleasant life.

You may have lots of money because you worked hard for it. You may also be in excellent shape because you work out. You might be well-loved because you worked sacrificially on behalf of others.

Then again, you may have lots of money because it was given to you. You may be in excellent shape because of good genes. You may be well-loved because of your charismatic personality without having done anything virtuous or admirable.

And, it's very possible that hard work won't lead to more money, or a better body, or the love of others.

You might deserve what you want, but not get it. Others may have what you want, without ever "earning" it.

You can resent them, or be happy for their good fortune.

What's the benefit of resentment? 

Is the public the people, or The State?

In the name of public health, the FDA is banning trans fats.

When I first heard the term "public health" sometime in my youth,  I thought it was about protection from dangers that could harm anyone and everyone: contaminated air, water, or land; contagious diseases.

I thought public health had something to do with the public!

Turns out, when most people talk about public health, they refer to what people choose to ingest or smoke. Unhealthy choices, they say, will drive up health care costs.

But whose health care costs?

Health care is expensive because of supply and demand. The State restricts the supply of medical professionals, prohibits some kinds of medicine, and regulates procedures and facilities.

All these restrictions mean there's there's less health care to go around. Naturally, prices go up.

So it's not our "health care costs" that concern The State. If it cared about that at all, it wouldn't restrict the supply.

 It is, rather, The State's own health care costs that it's worried about. After all, it must pay for the "free" health care it promised to various large constituencies.

That's why it insists on supposedly healthier and safer options for you and me. Our liberty is subservient to The State's bottom line.

One can't help but conclude that in the mind of those who would ban trans fats and a multitude of other things,,,

The public isn't the people, the public is The State.

Prohibition and the Health Care Cost Argument

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

From seat belt laws, to smoking bans, to prohibition of (some) drugs, prohibitionists have led their propaganda campaigns against personal freedom with a "health care cost" argument. "Society" (by which they mean, taxpayers) will bear the health care costs from vehicle injuries, diseases from second-hand smoke, and addiction.

And now, they are extending their successful agitprop campaigns to salty, sugary, or fatty foods -- that is, all the foods you like!

But make no mistake: Their muckraking logic could extend to nearly EVERY facet of your life. What isn't healthy for you should be regulated or banned, because "society" will have to pay for your healthcare costs.

The prohibitionists have it exactly backwards...

The health care costs of supposedly "irresponsible" behavior isn't a reason to ban the behavior, it is a reason to get the government to stop paying for health care.

Insane in the Membrane

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. A little longer than usual, but hopefully interesting.

Patriot Act all over again

Have you heard about the ban on lead in children's products?

I'll have more to say about it in a week or two. Briefly, every producer of anything marketed for children will have to go through rigorous third-party testing to ensure each component of the product is lead-free. The testing of each component will run to hundreds of dollars; of the entire product, perhaps many thousands (depending on the number of components). And no distinction is made between products with some history of lead and those with none; all must be tested.

It will bankrupt almost every small business and hobbyist who makes toys or children's clothes. Here's an example.

It is the ultimate war on small business. Even though it was a big business, Mattel, which was the source of the lead-recall hysteria of 1-2 years ago.

It reminds me of the Patriot Act:

• This "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" sailed through Congress with votes of 422-1 (guess who?). With the Patriot Act, just 66 voted against it in the House and 1 in the Senate.

• Congress's reaction was one of grandstanding. Despite Sept 11, terrorism never was a threat to the United States and the authorities know it. This is demonstrated by the very fact that no government would be able to stop car bombers and mass shooters. There hasn't been anything like that before or since 9-11 in America. Likewise, a few minutes searching the Centers for Disease Control website would reveal that lead poisoning is no longer a serious public health threat, and when it is, paint in older houses is the culprit, not toys. But almost nobody in Congress could be bothered to do even this much homework.

• Americans are being punished for the sins of non-Americans. The Patriot Act, with its unprecedented invasions of privacy, didn't apply only to foreign visitors (as were those who pulled off 9-11), but to American citizens as well. Similarly, the lead scare could be traced to sub-contractors in China, yet American businesses will have to go to the expense of proving they're innocent of contaminating their products with lead.

What is infuriating about Congress, and President Bush, who signed the bill (Obama was too busy campaigning to vote) is not that they are corrupt. Not that they listen to "special interests" and lobbyists. No, what is disgusting is their sheer contempt for the rest of us. They think they have the right to make laws like this.

It will no longer do to say, "They had good intentions, but the bill had unintended consequences." If they were so lazy and so full of themselves to vote for this bill, they can't get credit even for good intentions. Each one who voted for it is presumably guilty of wanting to destroy small business, weaken competition, raise prices on the poor, and deepen the recession.

Is Charlie Gibson a Communist?

Last night Gibson's World News Tonight had a feature on the salmonella tomato scare, from which nobody has died. Why is it so hard to trace where the tomatoes came from? I thought, "Yeah, barcode every tomato, ha ha," and they suggested precisely that. Undoubtedly, such a federal plan would be ruinous for small farmers, just as the National Animal Identification System would be, and raise the price of food all the more.

"Prevention" and "protect the consumer" programs have unseen opportunity costs. For every case of food poisoning prevented, there will be a cost that will probably cause 1000 children to go hungry or malnourished.

And if central control of the food supply isn't communism, what is?

The Good Intentions of an Ignoramus

Almost all of my knowledge is from hearsay, not direct experience. But most of it is reliable. I knew that Manhattan existed before I arrived there on a road trip, and even though I've never been to London I trust it exists on the same kind of reliable testimony that had told me Manhattan exists. The theories that the Earth is a spherical planet and is orbiting the sun, I accept on similar grounds. Everyone else tells me so, as do the books and tv shows. In the same way, I trust that persons I was told existed and events I was told happened did indeed exist and did indeed happen, and that the world today is the Effect of their Cause. I believe this is more reliable wherever there is clear continuity in the record-keeping. It is more believable that U.S. President Millard Fillmore actually lived, than that Moses or Jesus lived as described in the Bible - even though the latter two allegedly accomplished more important things. That's because the existence of Moses and Jesus depend on more remote hearsay evidence; there are definitive records of Fillmore's existence in our federal government's archives, and, presumably, in the archives of the Foreign Offices of foreign countries. In contrast, you have to accept Moses and Jesus on faith, not evidence.

But a lot of what I know amounts to associating names and categories to visual recognition: gold is an element, water is a compound. Chimps and humans are both primates. Housecats and tigers are felines. Wolves and poodles are canines.

And so I am also told that oil from the ground comes from fossils of preexisting life on earth. The Big Bang happened because it makes the most sense, I am told. "Darwinian" Evolution is true because it makes the most sense, I'm told.

Then I'm told that Evolution somehow proves there's no God, as if progression in four-dimensional space-time is the only Reality there is. But then physics tells us there are more dimensions than that, and one wonders if consciousness and creation can't exist in those dimensions, and that some sort of God or spiritual/supernatural force might exist after all.

And then I'm told that Global Warming is real, and then I'm told it's a myth. That it's impossible for the Twin Towers and Building 7 to have fallen as they did according to the official story on Sept 11, and then I'm told it is quite possible for them to fall.

Because I have a lot of Oscar and Super Bowl trivia in my head, I don't see how I'm expected to form an intelligent opinion on these matters. Heck, the only reasons I know it's foolish to microwave a metal plate or drop a radio in the bath is because I've been told about these dangers - I wouldn't know enough to figure them out for myself. On most matters relating to the physical universe, I am an idiot, and have no way of knowing when "respectable" science is corrupted by greed and power, or when "alternative" theories and therapies become too paranoid or cult-like. Is the homeopath selling snake oil? Is the hospital grossly overcharging? How am I supposed to know? And why should I trust the "mainstream" and the "respected" as opposed to the despised and rejected?

I don't know if I'll ever trust my own judgment. Every sound argument for an "established scientific fact" is countered by, to me, an equally persuasive counter-argument. I'm not smart enough to figure it all out, and even if I did have the time and intelligence to get it right on one subject, I wouldn't know enough about other subjects to form an educated opinion.

I do know that what has appealed to me about Christianity and other religions and philosophies is the degree to which they express genuine love and respect for every human being. The more theological and technical their dogma becomes, the more I'm turned off. And that's also why I'm attracted to Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment theories of Constitutionalism, Classical Liberalism, and Libertarianism. They also invoke similar love and respect for every human being, including giving them room to make choices I may disagree with, provided they don't harm anybody else. They don't reduce other people to pawns in ideological struggles, but treat individuals as ends in themselves.

That is why, as much as I would love to kill Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the junta in Burma, it is simply not my decision to make. Bad as the inflation is in Zimbabwe, and the post-cyclone misery in Burma, an invasion or civil war in either country will probably bring even more suffering. I don't believe it's my call to make, nor is it the call of the U.S. President or Congress.

I'd kill Mugabe and the Burmese junta because I hate them, not because I believe killing them will actually accomplish anything good for the suffering in their countries. Should I act on my hatred, or should I do what I can on behalf of the innocent and helpless? Ideological justice says "Kill the tyrant!" but real justice is motivated by love for the innocent, not hatred for the guilty. In any catastrophe, the poor, the innocent, and the weakest will always suffer most of all. Taking the meek and humble path means that not every one of these will be rescued. But they won't be rescued in any case. Not by authoritarian means. And certainly not by an invasion or civil war.

What I'm saying is that I believe Love is the Ultimate Reality, and the only true God. Though I may err in situations, I hope I never abandon my best intentions.

The good thing about a bad economy

There are two different approaches to achieving the same ends. One is guilt-manipulation and preaching "sacrifice." This is the tactic of religious and political leaders: You are [sinful/selfish] if you don't "help the environment;" preachers say "the body is a temple" while politicians wage "wars" on obesity, tobacco, and drugs. In their world, you are not only sinning against God if you don't take care of yourself, you are also (or should be) a criminal.

The second approach is giving advice and tips designed not to make you sacrifice, but to profit: Just by doing [thus-and-so] to your house, you can cut x amount from your utility bills, and, by the way, you will help the environment; you can save hundreds of dollars of dollars per year, and lose y amount of pounds, if you just cut one serving of z per day."

What motivates you more, improved finances, or being marginally less of a sinner in the eyes of a still-angry God? Improved health and happiness, or making the government's health and economic statistics look better by 1/300 millionth?

Those of an authoritarian bent will tell is that something is "bad" because it is sinful or somehow harms "society" (by which, they mean The State). But it's more accurate to say that something is "sinful" because it is bad, because it makes you worse off. And so it's a matter of incentives. If we are made to feel guilty about our behavior, we are more likely to tell the (religious and secular) puritans to mind their own business. But if we see the benefits of changing bad habits to good, we are more likely to follow through.

Monetary inflation is wrecking the economy in much the same way I said it would two years ago. While I don't want anyone to lose their jobs, lose their homes, or starve, I do see some positives about economic uncertainty. For instance, just about every day on Yahoo there is a story about how to save money or cut down on gasoline consumption. Many of the money-saving tips are environment-friendly, and of course cutting gasoline is itself both helpful economically and environmentally. For instance, today there's a story on home-based jobs. Working from home not only saves on gas, but allows one to a) work at one's pace and time, b) be flexible when making appointments, c) be there for the kids, d) be less likely to spend money and gain weight on vending machine snacks and restaurant lunches, e) steer clear from the stress of office politics and gossip. And, oh yes, by the way, f) cuts down on carbon emissions.

Other positive developments include the greater demand for hybrid cars. Also, the higher shipping costs provide incentives from people to purchase from local growers and producers. And the more people get out of their cars, the better. Walking and biking is good for the body. Reading on the bus or train - which you previously didn't have time to do when commuting by car - is good for the soul. And the more people who choose debt-free living, the better off everyone will be.

A bad economy forces people to prioritize and make changes. There is potential for people to discover that by cutting certain expenses, they are not sacrificing their quality of life, but are actually enhancing it. And improving the finances, health, and minds along the way. And also the environment.

Fat Traps

Shane Ellison writes in the June 16 Early to Rise newsletter on "a scheme designed by food manufacturers to make you eat more of something that you think is healthy," i.e. grocery store fat traps. Such as high fructose corn syrup (hfcs):

HFCS transforms people into eating machines. Once consumed, it sets into motion a chemical cascade that begins with spiked insulin and ends with feel-good molecules known as "endorphins." Intoxicated by artificial feel-good, the brain is unable to sense overeating and demands more, more, more - and the excess calories get stored in your body.

I’ve even heard of kids accidentally taking bites out of their fingers when under the influence of HFCS. Worse yet, many children who overindulge in Frankenfoods that contain HFCS and other sugars eventually become diabetic.

From beef jerky to bread and even spaghetti sauce, HFCS has infiltrated most processed foods and turned them into fat traps. Avoid this ingredient at all cost!

Others "fat traps" include:
- "fat free" labels, because while fat is removed, sugar is added;
- artificial sweeteners, "drugs disguised as sweeteners;"
- MSG: "not only spikes insulin, it also lowers the hormones that ward off obesity, premature aging, and diabetes: IGF-1 and human growth hormone." The fetus of a pregnant mother who consumes MSG may be doomed to overeating for the rest of his or her life.

I normally don't pay attention to what I eat, generally assuming that if it's not a fresh fruit or vegetable it's probably bad. On the whole, I don't see how adding chemicals to foods can be good for you.

But this does suggest that there's more to being overweight than "lack of discipline" or sedentary lifestyles. The people are persuaded, and sometimes manipulated, into buying processed foods through advertising and labeling. Then, they feel guilty for not controlling their appetites better, for not having the "will power." The solution? Purchase diet books and special diet foods! Round and round it goes. It's just another way to get people to part ways with their money. Much of it is wasted.

There isn't any particular way to control or prohibit this. The FDA doesn't act, and can not be made to act, in the "public interest," if there is such a thing. Prohibition of certain foods or chemicals would be, in a word, moronic. But, just as we are better off to know the subtle manipulations of advertising and propaganda, we are better off knowing the ways processed foods affect our brains and bodies.