Jacob Sullum on the Soda Ban

Jacbo Sullum writes in Reason Magazine about the new "voluntary" ban on soft drinks in public schools.  Jacob begins with:

Now that Chelsea is all grown up and living on her own, Bill and Hillary Clinton have turned their attention to raising other people's children. The senator is determined to protect them from video games, while the former president is saving them from soda.

Jacob has two main points.  The fact that governments intervene often in the attempt to make people healthy (consider the cases of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco) gives one pause as to whether this ban is really voluntary.  The threat of future intervention is probably one reason the beverage industry "agreed" to the ban.

The fact that students have numerous ways of substituting high calorie food and beverage for the banned soft drinks (more soft drinks at home, more candy bars at school, more going off campus at lunch time to MacDonald's) make its doubtful the ban will reduce obesity or improve health to any measureable degree.

An interesting side note: see this graph showing where in the country people say "pop" and where they say "soda."  Maybe this explains why I do not drink soda/pop.  I grew up on the East Coast but spent summer vacations in the Midwest, so I never get the terminology straight!  Thanks to a reader at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish for this tidbit.

Comments

[Mike Huben]

Let's look at an example Miron (or Sullum) would approve of.

A mall owner reaches an agreement with one of his tenants that the tenant will stop selling food in packaging that results in frequent spills on customers.

Will Miron or Sullum complain about this interference? Will they worry that it is voluntary because the mall could establish a policy? Will they point out that customers could bring their own spillable food with them?

Sensible people would wonder why they object to an exercise of power that is perfectly legitimate for private parties. Why should government not be able to do what private parties can?

[Chris]

The answer is obvious Mike, the solution is voluntary when private parties are involved. When government is involved is imposed coersively.

If the store owner feels strongly about not wanting to provide the cups they can always open up shop someplace else. When government imposes the same restriction there are no alternatives. The important distinction is the choice - not the outcome.

[Mike Huben]

Of course there are alternatives, Chris. Ever hear of other nations? Emmigration?

[James]

Huben,

The mall owner has a right to control what goes on in the mall, provided that he bought the real estate from a willing seller with his own money.

No similar claim could be made for the government. For the government to have a similar right to control what goes on in the country, violence would have to be a legitimate mode of transferring the title to property.

[Mike Huben]

James, essentially all property has been established by violence. Including the property of the mall owner, and including the territorial rights of governments. Most of the property/territory of the USA was conquored/stolen/defrauded from the native Americans, who in turn had their own histories of conquests.

Lockean fables about the origin of property are just that: fables.

Sorry, you'll just have to find another excuse. No doubt you will find one: the libertarian literature is full of delusional ideas about history and property.

[James]

Huben,

I'm more than willing to defend the comments I make here, or admit error as the case may be. That said, I never mentioned Locke so I see no need to defend Locke's ideas. Similarly, I don't call statist literature delusional. If you lack better arguments and just want to engage in name calling, at least say so and save us all some time.

I'm fully aware that violence has been used in the past as a way to take all kinds of things from people. That doesn't even answer (or even touch) the normative question here: Ought violence to be sufficient to establish a legitimate transfer of title? If you think the answer is yes, I wonder how you feel if someone were to conquer your car and then accuse you of stealing it from them if you opened the driver door with your spare key. If you think the answer is no, then it's clear that the past was full of illegitimate behavior, but it's not clear that all of the prior illegitimate behavior makes all existing titles suspect. That just calls for some criterion of better title. You probably wouldn't be convinced if I said "Hey, it's a long history of dirty dealing, therefore Dr. Miron may reassign or intrude on property rights at will." I'm similarly skeptical of the parallel view that substitutes the government for Dr. Miron.

As an aside, you really missed your shot at Miron here. From the cost-benefit point of view that he bases his libertarianism on, I think his position on this particular issue is fairly easily called into question.

[Mike Huben]

James: all rights and all titles are ultimately legitimated by violence or its threat. Our only choice is the last violence we choose to consider legitimate as founding rights and titles. After that, we have nonviolent means of transfer.

So the mall owner non-violently bought a title? That title was originated in violence. And of course large parts of the USA were also bought: Louisiana Purchase and Alaska, for example. So surely you have no problem with US governance of those states? And since the other states are treated with no worse force, you shouldn't have problems with them either.

I agree that from a cost-benefit point of view, Miron is probably all wrong. But that would be a much more difficult case to make.

However, I don't think Miron bases his libertarianism on cost-benefit rationales. I suspect that it is a fig leaf rationalization for less justifiable reasons. Otherwise we'd expect to see an honest academic stressing also the times cost-benefit calculations strongly support centrally-planned, liberty-invasive programs such as public health. Mandatory vaccination, for example.

[James]

Huben,

I have to question your history. I doubt that all property titles were established through violence. Some were, and if restitution can be made at this point, then I reckon it should be if the property is still in the hands of the thief. If there is no victim around to collect, treat it as unowned if the original thief is still holding it.

Re: the mall, once a thief sells a stolen item, that doesn't put the buyer in the debt of the victim. I.e., if I use my own money to buy some land that you stole from Miron and I put a mall on it, you're the thief, not me. The dirty deal of the past doesn't invalidate my claim to the property. It puts you in Miron's debt. If I sell the real estate and it gets resold 10 more times after we all die, I don't see how anyone could claim better title to the property besides the most recent peaceful buyer.

I'd have no problem with the LA purchase or AK if the people doing the buying were using their own money. They weren't.

"James: all rights and all titles are ultimately legitimated [emph. mine] by violence or its threat."

Are you claiming that it's the violence that makes the transfer of title legitimate? How big are you? Do you carry cash?

"Our only choice is the last violence we choose to consider legitimate as founding rights and titles."

I'm not sure how to parse "choice." Are you saying that the only option is to treat the most recent violence as a legitimate way of transferring title? This, if applied consistently, would make private theft a legitimate means of transferring title if it were successful.

If you are saying that the only decision that we have to face is which case of violence to treat as a legitimate transfer of title, I can sympathize but I have to disagree. Among other things, this fails to address the issue of when restitution should be made, who owes what to whom after trafficking in stolen goods, whether or not future violence by me, you, or the IRS constitutes a legitimate transfer of property titles, etc.

In short, we have to decide who has a claim to what. I know your answer: the government has a permanent lien on everything. So you are still stuck with the justification of ownership even if you take the statist view. Except that the problem of ownership becomes worse: why should the party on the dirty side of the majority of history's dirty deals get all those spoils? Worse still, it justifies any government at all.

[Mike Huben]

James, I'm afraid your ideas don't match history or law very well.

With the exception of Iceland (one of the few areas newly settled by humans in historical times, though it was sparsely used by arctic aboriginal peoples), essentially all lands are documented to have been conquored at one time or another.

Your example of purchase of stolen property does NOT leave you as the purchaser owning the property: the original owner does, and you are left trying to reclaim your money from the thief because you did not exercise due dilligence.

Of course government was using its own money: tax is just as much government's money as rent is a landlord's money. Both are the result of choices of the occupants, who can relocate at will. Now you may assert differently for a variety of specious reasons (as libertarians often do), but they boil down to "I don't like government so its actions are criminal." Never mind that its actions (like taxation) are identical to those of private parties.

You apparently don't understand my point about choice. All titles and ownership in use today have originated in forceful conquest. All current owners are beneficiaries of past conquest. Our only choice about validity of titles is which conquest we choose to recognize as the origin we'll use. Sure, you can raise other issues too.

It's hypocritical to want the benefits of past conquests without admitting that you're receiving your share of the "spoils" through the system of ownership.

As for justifying "any government at all", why no, it doesn't justify government at all. It merely shows that your argument is bad. If I wanted to make an argument justifying government, it would be different.

In addition, unless you want to go the anarchocapitalist route, you're still stuck with government. Suck it up.

[James]

Huben,

In my last post, I had put a question to you that you did not answer.

You wrote, "James: all rights and all titles are ultimately legitimated [emph. mine] by violence or its threat."

I asked, "Are you claiming that it's the violence that makes the transfer of title legitimate?"

More recently...

"essentially all lands are documented to have been conquored at one time or another."

Only when you make patched of land the size of present day nations your unit of analysis.

"Your example of purchase of stolen property does NOT leave you as the purchaser owning the property: the original owner does, and you are left trying to reclaim your money from the thief because you did not exercise due dilligence."

If the theft happened yesterday, maybe, although I have reservations. Who has the right to control the property when the thief and his victim have both been dead for years and the title had been transferred nine times?

At any rate, none of the dirty dealing of the past is sufficient to rebut my previous claim that "The mall owner has a right to control what goes on in the mall, provided that he bought the real estate from a willing seller with his own money. No similar claim could be made for the government."

The mall owner may be the last in a long line who have purchased a "hot" title. The government is the party that made it hot to start with.

"Of course government was using its own money: tax is just as much government's money as rent is a landlord's money."

Only if the landlord conquered the land himself. Or if the government bought the land occupied by the parties who are made to pay taxes. Seems like a chicken and egg problem: Which came first, the right to tax or land ownership by the government?

"Both are the result of choices of the occupants, who can relocate at will. Now you may assert differently for a variety of specious reasons..."

I was going to claim that the occupant having a chance to relocate isn't a sufficient condition to justify taxation or rent. The party collecting payments should have the prior right to control the location. But that's specious, right? You may leave the country if you don't wish to make regular payments to me. Maybe it's not such a specious argument after all.

"You apparently don't understand my point about choice... Our only choice about validity of titles is which conquest we choose to recognize as the origin we'll use"

Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I'd take the position that if it's too late to make restitution (e.g. the guilty party and victim are both long dead), we should treat any stolen property as unowned homesteadable property. If some third party makes use of the property after the act of theft, then call that third party the owner.

"It's hypocritical to want the benefits of past conquests without admitting that you're receiving your share of the "spoils" through the system of ownership."

At most, this would show that I don't have a right to the things I claim. Since I'm not interested in discussing myself, I'll agree in advance to any personal failings that you wish to accuse me of. Now that we are in total agreement about me, we don't need to drift off to that boring topic again.

"As for justifying "any government at all", why no, it doesn't justify government at all."

Specify the necessary and sufficient conditions. So far, all you've suggested is that we must choose (how?) among prior acts of conquest to decide who owns what. That's hardly enough to rule out all of the governments you wouldn't want to defend. You haven't said if you go as far as to claim that conquest lends legitimacy to the conquering party's claims of ownership. If so, then that would justify every government.

"If I wanted to make an argument justifying government, it would be different."

That would be the special case. What would the the general rule? That is, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to make an ownership claim legitimate?

"In addition, unless you want to go the anarchocapitalist route, you're still stuck with government."

I must be a poor communicator. Here and there I might give a mixed impression by defending some statist program because I see such programs as superior to whatever other statist programs we have now. But I happen to be an ancap.

[Joel Phillips]

IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ISLAM
by Joel Phillips
publisher: www.religiousfreedomwatch.org
owner: American Coast Title www.actfortitle.com

Just watching the news from London is a reminder that we’re living in an age of terrorism. And, sad to say, almost all terrorism has something to do with Islam and Muslims, you just won’t find much of it that is not in some way connected.

Just look at a few:

First World Trade Center Attack: a blind Egyptian guy was behind it. No one contests it.

Oklahoma City: don’t forget that McVeigh served in the first Gulf War. There is good reason to think he was recruited by jihadists in Iraq who were active at the time.

9/11: Islamic suicide extremists, forget the other theories. They were Taliban zealots hoping for 172 virgins and palaces in Islamic heaven.

Spanish train bombs: more Jihad extremists, basically the same bunch as the 9/11.

London train bombs: not the same 9/11 and Spain guys, but more British Muslims from Pakistan.

Virginia Tech: This one is so sad. Psychiatry started Cho out. Then Islamic recruiters told Cho he would get infinite sex in Muslim heaven from the 172 virgins so he converted. By trying to destroy Virginia Tech he thought he was attacking Bush’s aggression in Afghanistan.

London night club bombs: Good for the Brit cops, they have caught some of the guys and it is more of these Pakistan guys and doctors at that, some of them were even psychiatrists. Maybe it is time to have a serious think about what to do about Pakistan. Mixing up Islam, Muslims, psychiatry and Pakistan is a recipe for mass murder and terrorism. Trust me on this one.

It is no accident or coincidence the bigots who oppose religious freedom are inspired by Islamic thought.

Just look at some of the fine people on www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. EVERY SINGLE PERSON on there is a zealot, bigot or extremist and you will find that most of them have extensive criminal records. Take a look at these criminal records and you will find the influence of Islam.

Charlotte Kates: this young woman is a card-carrying member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. They are kind of the poster child for Muslim terrorists and an inspiration to Islamic murderers all over the world. What is her problem?

Peter Alexander: this man makes hate films. He is also building some kind of an amusement park in the Arab Gulf. Is is clearly doing the bidding of Islamist extremist jihad promoting masters all the way around.

Patricia Greenway: this woman is Alexander’s business partner and lover. She likes to live the high life and Arab money helps out there. Word in Ybor City is that she has her eye on an Enzo.

Kristi Wachter: she puts out a daily hate newsletter. She has paid for the theft of materials from churches. She says she used to run a record company but how much money could it make? It seems to me she is getting her money from bin Laden and his friends.

David Touretzky: don’t be fooled. This man is not a mouse brain researcher, he is a bomb expert. Who is really paying for his research? Could it be the same bomb makers loose in Iraq?

Keith Henson: first, don’t forget that but for www.religiousfreedomwatch.org this man would still be on the loose. He’s not just a bomb expert but a proved bomb maker. And who wants to pay for bombs? Jihad extremists! Who is paying for him to be able to buy toothpaste in jail? Could it be a guy called Osama?

Tory Bezazian: she walked away from her husband of many years to engage in hate activities. Where does she get money? The answer is Islam. She is a directly funded agent of the Los Angeles Koranic Council.

Andreas Heldal-Lund: the man is proud to support Lars Gule who was behind bombings in the Middle East. That sort of speaks for itself now doesn’t it?

As to the site, www.religiousfreedomwatch.org, it is paid for 100% by my company, American Coast Title. I am one of the owners. The other two owners, Frank Berriz and Linda Blood are 100% behind what I am doing as is our parent underwriter Stewart Title. We also get pretty good support from our employees although it would be illegal of me to impose my political beliefs on them.

Does it surprise you that I am being attacked by Indonesians? Not a coincidence that Indonesia is an Islamic country. The company is willing to pay a nice reward to the person who will stand up and help me stop them. Please look at my site for details.

Props to George Ramirez. These guys came around to poke fun at the company. He stood up like a real man and sent them on there way. Can’t say for a fact that they were Islamic jihadists but the truth always comes out!

Expect without doubt a lot of trouble in Glendale. That’s where American Coast Title is located as well as a dense population of Armenians. The Armenians don’t like Arab Muslims so the area is getting very tense as the clock ticks down for Islamic terrorism.

So I am calling for the total elimination of Islam. Many other religious choices are available to those currently in Islam. Islam must go and no Muslim can be allowed to remain anywhere in the world.

All Mosques must either be destroyed or made into something else. The other day we did a title for one that was converted into a shopping center, now that’s a good use for one!

All copies of the Koran must be rounded up and burned or otherwise destroyed. If libraries insist on keeping them for historical reasons they have to be under lock and key and they have to post a guard to make sure no one copies them.

Conversion to another validated religion or acceptance of atheism are the only options I see. No other religion is associated with state sponsored terror as documented by the US State Department Report on Terrorism.

One thing that has to happen after is that women have to wear normal clothes. No more of these Islamic things. I mean local clothes are fine and kind of cute but no symbol of Islam can remain as it will just get cause restimulation of what started out as the worship of a giant magnetic stone by savage nomads. So get rid of all those crescent moons and so on!

This is a strong statement but it is time to end these attacks with bombs full of nails and gas. No other group does this. It is all and always back to Islam, Muslims, the Koran and groups like the Taliban and various sleeper cells.

Stand up with me on this one. Stand tall with me against Muslims who kill in the name of jihad and Islam and the false words of the Koran hoping for 172 virgins in a palace. Stand shoulder to shoulder with me to stop the next bunch of suicidal bigots and zealots from burning down your city.

Proud to be an American and a Scientologist

Joel Phillips