Skip to main content

Nanny Knows Best: Killer Vegetables


Sometimes when I read Nanny Knows Best, I can't decide whether I'm reading the sequel to George Orwell's 1984 or visiting the future of America if our Progressive Brethren and Cistern take power.

For example: now it is being seriously bruited about that the British Government should fine restaurants for serving out-of-season (read, "imported") produce.

The source of this ingenious idea (and the individual who is lobbying Prime Minister Harold Brown for its adoption) is none other than Chef Gordon Ramsay of Hell's Kitchen.

The Orwellian logic behind this idea is that it would cause restaurants to rely on local produce, which would have a smaller carbon footprint because it would not have to be transported as far as, say, bananas from Guatemala.

Unfortunately, this idea is already percolating just beneath the surface right here in the USA, where--for example--Progressive guru George Lakoff intends his healthy foods "strategic initiative" to employ the coercive power of the State to achieve exactly the same end:

Government could have an enormous impact in reducing the cost of and increasing access to healthy, locally grown, organic, and sustainable foods. (From Thinking Points, Chapter Seven)


This sort of thinking--even more disturbingly--has penetrated far down the . . . food chain (sorry!) . . . of progressive/liberal thought, as witness this recent comment by von Cracker at Delawareliberal:

Increase the gas tax - change the paradigm. . . .

not saying that Obama needs to do this, obviously it’s a campaign killer, but it does need to be done.

Force people to drive less, investors will move towards mass transportation, citizens will start buying local foods…etc…


When I respond:

And although I will grant you Hillary’s overt pandering (not that she is unique among current prez wannabes in that regard), it is vC’s comment that reminds me why I’m a Libertarian. . . .

He wants to increase gas taxes to “change the paradigm” and “Force people to drive less, investors will move towards mass transportation, citizens will start buying local foods…etc…”

I love the folks who constantly propose this sort of solution. Who cares about people who have jobs that require them to drive? Who cares about the people left with even more crippling fuel prices in places that mass transit isn’t going to happen for decades (if ever) even with massive government investment? Screw all of them: vC wants light rail and local milk (although still with Federal price supports one would assume), and so the idea of using the government’s power to “force” (his word, not mine) people to fall into line with his political ideas is palatable.


What was funny was how quickly vC wanted to back away from that word force. Not from the policies being advocated, but from the word itself:

Sorry that I didn’t say it’s a long-term approach, understandable since we all so used to instant gratification. And not to get into your semantics game, but the correct word would be “influence”. Feel better now?


No, as a matter of fact, I didn't.

Influence backed up by the tax code, fines, regulations, and the full apparatus of government is not only force, but when it's done with the deliberate Orwellian intent to portray it as something else--something healthful and so good for you that you'd just be a spoilsport to say no--that's not just force, it's mind-controlling authoritarian Statism run amuck.

Which is worse than an episode of Hell's Kitchen, because once you turn it on, you won't be able to turn it off.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...