SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: How Do You Know It's Christmas? The Food Nazis Are out Again!

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Mon, 2011-12-26 22:09

SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: How Do You Know It's Christmas? The Food Nazis Are out Again!

Mark Hubbard
December 27, 2011

The festive season always brings out the Food Nazi killjoys. This year Herr Tony Falkenstein, ONZM, chief executive of Just Water International, has goose-stepped up to the plate in the Herald, arguing for an even bigger Nanny State to jail free men and women in.

I’m growing tired of writing this refutation every year, but it must be done, on principle, because the notion of a fat tax now comes up so regularly I can guarantee you some well-intentioned politicians will be writing it into their manifestos, given the road to every Gulag has always been paved by the best of intentions of the arrogant know-alls for the little people who can’t be left alone to run their own lives.

Needless to say, Herr Falkenstein opens by expounding the well-intentioned reason for why he wishes to have a fat tax for the utopian Gulag of Good Intentions he would impose on us:

We now have two newer addictions - sugar and fat. These are the major cause of Diabetes 2, which is responsible for the biggest percentage increase in our health budget.

Fine, but the answer to this is not to advocate increasing the already huge power of the coercive state, as he goes on to do, but to: a) market me the no doubt healthy products of his company, Just Water International; and b) argue for the privatisation of the health system so that individuals in following their rational self-interest can change their lifestyles, voluntarily, or pay the true cost of not doing so, rather than being relieved of the responsibility for being fatties by socialising the cost of their obesity through the tax system—which as he rightly points out, is leading to an ever-fattening population. (Do you get it yet, Herr Falkenstein?)

Herr Falkenstein, then lurches, as Nazis always do nowadays, for the gun of taxation:

Introducing a tax on [sugar and fat] will not only reduce these addictions, but provide funds to handle the increasing cost of them. The simplest tax to administer is an excise tax on sugar and its related products. Sugar is an addiction, so a gentle weaning off the addiction will make it more manageable for consumers as well as giving manufacturers time to adjust the composition of their products. The excise tax I propose would be 20 per cent on all products with more than 10 per cent sugar content.

Get this straight: tax was only ever conceived, initially—and even then, given the uses it has been put to, wrongly—as a way of funding government activities. Advocating its use, here, to not only change consumer lifestyles but products that are manufactured, in the voluntary free market of interactions between consenting adults, is a step way beyond this into meddling where the State has no place in a civilised society. What I eat is nothing to do with government. Taxes on food to change my food choices are a tax on choice, period. It’s an attack on freedom. My freedom, and the freedom of every other individual. And that’s where the argument ends.

Finally, Herr Falkenstein then shows why the road to our serfdom no longer happens by the blitzkrieg, but by the hubristic Gramscian Godwin on a dumbed-down state-schooled population of:

Last month, Denmark, which has one of the lowest obesity rates (one-third of the New Zealand rate) introduced the world's first fat tax, levied on foods, including butter and bacon, that contain more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat. So, why not a fat tax here?

Why? Because during one of the darkest periods of human history, Poland was the first country to have concentration camps, but that was no reason to replicate the same fascism everywhere else. And Herr Falkenstein’s advocacy of the Big Brother State that meddles in all parts of our lives, including the very food we eat, is the ethic that leads to concentrations camps, not a civilised classical liberal society free of the barbarity of the coercive state and bullies like him who would impose their will over the free will of others.

Thus, because instead of choosing to market his healthy products to me, hoping to win me over voluntarily, Herr Falkenstein decides to go for the iron fist of State to force a lifestyle change via the taxation system, this freedom- loving individual chooses to boycott anything sold by Just Water International—whatever the hell that is. Bugger Busy-Body Tony Falkenstein!

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com

Mark Hubbard: mhubbard@ihug.co.nz


( categories: )

And...

Ross Elliot's picture

...despite their nasty Eurodollar-ratfucksonofabitch lefty economies, they live longer than we do.

I say, screw the sugar, and eat fat, protein and veges, smoke until your ass bleeds, and sing until it hurts.

Further...

Ross Elliot's picture

...what the Spaniards do is eat even more fat, protein and vegetables, drink even more wine and smoke even more cigars.

Jesus, give me a chorizo cigar!

Further...

Ross Elliot's picture

...what the Italians--despite their phenomenal consumption of pasta and rice--do right, is follow the French example.

Christ, someone give me a cigar!

The thing the French do right...

Ross Elliot's picture

...is eat lots of protein, fat, vegetables and drink wine, and not *worry* about it.

Bless their little garlic-flavored bums.

hubbard he is not talking about sugar

seymourblogger's picture

altho the confusion is his fault for not saying what he meant. It is not sugar but high fructose corn syrup that is the culprit. Why is it the culprit? Because we still have a stupid blockcade on Cuba. In 1959 when Castro and his brother came to the UN and were on Jack Paar's show (I saw it) they wanted to establish trade with the US. I doubt that they were any more socialistic at the time than the UK or France, etc. Castro wanted medical care and education, as those were his priorities. Was he a communist? I have no idea. He was not a Stalinist then. He wanted to trade with the US, and that's capitalism, right?

We wanted to marginalize him as Batista was our dictator. He was our man. He belonged to us. We owned him. Castro was a free agent at the time. We said no. Then because we wouldn't, Castro turned to the Soviet Union. He wanted to survive; nothing wrong with that. Then of course came the Bay of Pigs, the hard blockade instead of the "soft" blockade, and our cold war with Cuba was on. Castro became more Stalinist to appease the Soviet Union which was his survival. When the USSR collapsed, Castro was on his own. Cuba has done many entrepreneurial economic things since then in order to survive. Very interesting too. I think Houellebecq in his novel Lanzarote has probably described and analyzed the Cuban journey as well as anyone and in only a few pages of monologue from a Cuban character on vacation.

So because we don't buy world sugar on the world sugar commodity market where it is incredibly cheap, but we buy domestic sugar in the US that is very expensive, so the capitalistic marketplace has turned to high fructose corn syrup with all the corn agriculture subsidies that lower its price. To the detriment of the masses of people who eat cheap fast food. And with the present economic situation this will go on for at least another decade, but probably longer.

Your good answer can be found if you think genealogically and enter the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/capital. This is not to cast judgment on what you have said. Nor what the water guy has said. The US "fat" situation is a bigger situation than anyone has thought about yet, and is not going to go away, Michelle Obama and her Weight Watcher advocacy not withstanding.

I am not bad-mouthing capital either as the liberals would, nor "freedom" to choose as the right wingers would, I am just seeing the situation genealogically. If we traded with Cuba, sugar would be cheaper than HFCS and some of the "fat" problem would not exist. I said some.

Hah! Perhaps he should think

Mark Hubbard's picture

Hah! Perhaps he should think of moving to France. Though the one thing the French do right is drink more wine than water.

I emailed at his website

gregster's picture

Frankenstein replied;

Thanks Greg,

As long as you also get your clients to boycott Coke as well, I would be very grateful.

All the best for 2012.

Tony

Tony Falkenstein
Just Water International Ltd
Mob: +64 21 950856

Fat Tax Legislated in France

Mark Hubbard's picture

No surprises here. From the country that brought the world the compulsory 35 hour week, and soon, national bankruptcy, of course they've foisted a fat tax on their sheeple:

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/au...

France's highest rule-making authorities have approved plans to slap a fat tax on sugary drinks.

The move is both to fight obesity, and fatten up frail government coffers.

But France correspondent Catherine Field says the move has sparked a fierce dispute with the world's biggest soft drink manufacturer.

"CocaCola is absolutely furious, they say this tax will impact on how they carry out operations in France," Says Ms Field.

At one stage CocaCola said it would pull all its businesses out of France - but the company's backed away from that now.

My New Year's wish: that CocaCola leave France for Galt's Gulch. That would be interesting.

A well known nit commenting on No Minister ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

... has invoked the Godwin on my piece above, due to it's reference to concentration camps. Actually, in context, I never have a problem with such inferences, but, regardless, in order to explain better how my piece works, I copy below my exact reply to the nit:


Um, more context on my piece for Red. I invoked concentration camps as a deliberate Godwin, to emphasise I had created a new Godwin, being any argument for a tax that rests on 'but they do it in this other country', loses by default. The tax must be justified solely on its own merit. Falkenstein also did this, but I refuted his premises there, as well, that is, taxes must only be to fund legitimate govt. activities, not to influence lifestyle choices, as that is the State then inappropriately meddling in the lives of individuals. It was after that stage, and my refutation, that Falkenstein then ended with the 'but Denmark did it' as his final rationale, which I've turned into the Godwin, as it should be.

There, how's that? It just went a little above your head, that's all.

KASS, Bro Hubbard!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Good going!

Oh ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

The Herald censor was asleep ... or I wore him down.

Further reply to

Mark Hubbard's picture

Further reply to Falkenstein's comment to his Herald thread, which I shall put up here as only half the below post is likely to make it past Granny Herald's editing goons:

Falkenstein says: "Would you rather pay more tax to finance the effects of Diabetes 2, or not pay a tax because these food and beverage multinationals have been regulated? That's the choice. "

But that's not the choice at all. In using the tax system as a State tool to change lifestyles, and force producers to alter their products, to butt the State against, and amongst, the voluntary free market of interactions between consenting adults, the choice here is freedom versus totalitarianism, and I'm afraid you're not on the good side. This is a philosophical issue of the politick, not a health issue.

I give a full refutation to your premise on my blog, unfortunately, Granny Herald still lives in the Stone Age of pretending the rest of the Internet doesn't exist, and will not allow links, so true discussion on these forums cannot exist. But just in case one of the censors is sleeping, Google SOLO and Mark Hubbard, and you'll find the blog post soon enough. My next post to that blog will be to ask why commentors bother with the Herald?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.