Government By Actuary

Over the weekend Nanny Bloomberg declared that “I do think there are certain times we (government) should infringe in your freedom.” The left has long believed in government by expert. They’ve essentially moved to government by actuary. Actuaries tend to work at insurance companies calculating risk, the left now basically wants to use their calculations to figure out risk and tax or ban accordingly. Thus the left determines that fat people “cost” taxpayers money and thus they want to tax their conduct in order to make up the difference. In the alternative they behave like Nanny Bloomberg and simply ban the “offending” conduct.

Rather than be free to choose what we eat, the left wants to control us based on expert findings. There’s a limit to their argument of course. The left doesn’t like to look at fat people so they’re an easy target. They don’t like smokers either. But turn the tables to a group the left likes and they go crazy. Ann Coulter did just that over the weekend arguing that sodomy creates great cost to society, usually in the form of expensive HIV treatments. The left doesn’t want to hear any of this and immediately demands that the bedroom remain off limits. How can it remain off limits though when we’re running government via actuary?

The left only wants to talk about the costs associated with people who they either want to control or don’t particularly care about. Thus fat people and smokers are their target. Homosexuals, drug users and unwed mothers are the left’s core constituency, thus they don’t want to talk about their cost to society. AIDS remains a disease dominated by homosexuals and drug users in the United States, the costs of which are extremely high. Drug use creates all sorts of costs to society beyond locking up users and dealers. Unwed mothers create an astronomical cost to society but the left doesn’t want to talk abstinence, which is the only birth control method that actually works.

In a free society we shouldn’t even be considering the cost to taxpayers. If you’re a hundred pounds overweight, that ought to be your financial risk. Instead, the left has ensured that it is the taxpayers risk. It is hardly surprising that after making all risks those assumed by taxpayers that the left would then want to tax and otherwise control people. Especially when those people aren’t a core constituency for the left and/or aren’t a group they’re afraid to lose to the GOP. The minute any of their core constituency is questioned for their cost, the left will suddenly cry personal freedom. The hypocrisy is amazing.

When it comes to our personal health we all create our own risk. Whether we eat too much or too little, whether we engage in risky illicit activities such as sodomy or drug use or whether we engage in risky recreational activities such as skiing, we all create risk for ourselves. When we accept socialized medicine and other massive government programs that shift our personal risk onto government, we can hardly be surprised when government wants to tax our risky activities or ban them. If we want to retain our freedom, we have to push back against massive government intrusions into healthcare. Government doesn’t know what’s best for us but they certainly have actuaries at their disposal who will tell them which of us will cost government the most. We shouldn’t get to that point in a free society.

Food Tyranny in Chicago: Brown Bag Lunches Banned

Michelle Obama’s dreams of tyrannical food control are coming true at some Chicago government schools. It seems homemade lunches are banned at more than a few Chicago government schools. Unless a child has an allergy he is stuck eating the slop that the government school hands out at lunch. His parents have no choice. The government school lunch costs $2.25 if the Federal government isn’t subsidizing it. Not surprisingly the politically connected school lunch company Chartwells-Thompson stands to make a fortune if more schools ban parents from sending their kids to school with a homemade lunch.

The arrogance of the government schools is sort of incredible. They apparently believe it is their responsibility to make sure children eat what they consider to be healthy food. According to one principle:

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

Since when was it the job of the government schools to protect children from themselves? Since when was it their job to step in and prevent parents from determining what their kids eat for lunch? It’s this sort of power that government should not have over students or anyone and yet most turn a blind eye when the government schools declare that they alone will determine what kids eat for lunch.

What’s going on in Chicago does little more that set children up for a lifetime of servile dependency on the state, which is exactly what the socialists at the government school want. They want children to grow up depending on the government to determine what is best for them. They want them to grow up with only the choices that the government decides to bestow on them. What these socialists don’t want is for children to have free and unfettered access to choices that the school or government doesn’t approve of.

One of the goals of the government schools has always been to train the next generation to rely on the state. The schools have always been viewed as the way for socialists to change the next generation. This dates back to Dewey and Mann, the founding fathers of modern government schools. Parents have long been seen as an impediment to radical socialist change dating back to the very beginning of modern government schools. So it should come as no surprise that the next government school movement, the control of food, views parents as the problem and thus seeks to isolate parents from their kids. Ironically the government schools will try to deflect blame for poor test scores by blaming parents when all along they have tried to keep parents away from any serious decision making at the schools.

It is none of the government’s business what our children eat. It is therefore none of the government schools business what parents choose to serve their kids for lunch. Even if we agree that a lot of parents give their kids unhealthy food to eat, that is not cause for government to step in. Parents have an inalienable right to raise their children and thus feed their children as they see fit. Haughty government bureaucrats do not know better than parents and should not be allowed to substitute their judgment with the force of law.

Michelle Obama’s food campaign is dangerous because it seeks to turn know it all government bureaucrats into absolute authorities on healthy eating. Those bureaucrats in turn will substitute their judgment for that of parents. Every time the left gets up in arms about something like food it leads to less freedom for parents and more government control in the lives of children and families. That is exactly what is going on in Chicago today. Mrs. Obama may be jumping for joy in one of her frumpy designer outfits but what she wants costs the American people in freedom. Parents alone should be free to determine what their children eat for lunch. Government needs to steer clear of usurping parental authority.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers