Do YOU See It?

by Don Boudreaux on June 12, 2008

in Food and Drink, Myths and Fallacies, Regulation, Risk and Safety, Trade

It’s discouraging that the USA Today editorialist who penned these paragraphs doesn’t see the internal contradiction therein; it’s even more discouraging that many readers will miss this contradiction:

While the mad-cow fears in South Korea might be overblown, neither the
U.S. cattle industry nor the federal government seems to understand
that food is not like steel or plastics. What people eat is an
intensely personal matter. In many of the countries that have banned
U.S. beef, food is part of the culture and, in some cases, the religion.

In the USA, food might be less spiritual, but it is keenly
important. Some consumers are turning away from large-scale
agriculture, buying organic products and even dealing directly with
local farms through subscription programs known as Community Sponsored Agriculture.

To some degree, those consumers and protesters in the streets of
South Korea are sending the same message: They don’t want big
government and powerful industries telling them what’s for dinner.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • ps

    Vidyohs, nothing wrong with the people peacefully assembling to petiton the government for change. In this case the irony is that these people are petitioning the government to take away a food choice. Anyone in South Korea can choose not to buy US beef if the ban is lifted, maintaing the ban is what limits choice. So we have some of the people asking the government to limit the choices of all the people. Not nice to impose the will of some of the people on all of the people. Of course our own government continues to do just that (smoking bans in privately owned businesses, prohibitions on unhealthy foods, etc.). Too many people want the government to take care of them - eventually they will get what they are asking for and they will not like it.

  • vidyohs

    I am sorry, I am confused by the post and the responses.


    South Korea's government is supposedly modeled after our own and ours is supposed to be a representative republic in which the people express their wishes and the representatives (government) obey and follow suit.


    So, with that in mind, how do we twist the fact that people peacefully assembling and expressing their will to force change on a government to become the "government dictating to them what they can have for dinner?" It would appear to me to be an instance of the people saying "we don't want it" and the government either obeying or disobeying. In this case it seems the S. Korean government does not want to do the will of the people. (now none of this addresses the rational of the people and whether they have a good case or not)


    I now have to go to a function, when I'd rather stay here and address the U.S. Government and its actions. So, I'll just have to save that for later.

  • Al Abbott

    ". . . food is not like steel or plastics."


    Really?!

  • ps

    I just read the full original article. The South Korean protestors are protesting the government's lifting of a ban on US beef. It is by maintaining the ban that the government controls what they can eat. Lifting the ban gives them more options. By protesting the lifting of the ban they are in effect asking the government to continue telling them what to eat.

  • Eddie

    "They don't want big government and powerful industries telling them what's for dinner."




    At the point in time that you can buy organic food, how is big gov't or industries telling them what's for dinner.

  • There. I edited it for you:


    "To some degree, those consumers and protesters in the streets of South Korea are sending the same message: They want big government to protect powerful industries telling them what's for dinner."

  • Adam

    "There is no government. Just a subset of people that call themselves 'government'. What you meant to say is that some people like/get paid, to tell other people what to do, or not do."


    Today, I tried to explain to a colleague that the "government" has no right to tell my cousins that they're not allowed to come to Canada to attend my wedding. I went about it along the lines you're discussing above, but of course he's so immersed in the statist world that he can't even grasp this kind of logic. He said it sounded like the THC-induced mumblings of a pothead.


    Sigh.

  • You're right there is a glaring contradiction here, but its the sort of mistake many people make many times. I think what's going on in the head of the writer is: I don't want big government or powerful industries (i.e. other people) telling us (i.e. me) what to do, but reasonable people (like me) making reasonable rules that nobody could object to (well I don't object) is perfectly ok (well I can't see a problem).


    The interesting question is: what line of argument is the best to take to convince the unreflective ordinary person that there is a contradiction. (Remember that for non-nerds analysing arguments is about as interesting as filling in a tax return, and that expressing an opinion about public policy is more about making a display of tribal loyalty.)

  • ps

    CSA is not big government telling us what is for dinner. It is a voluntary arrangment between (i.e. a partnership) farmers and customers. It is not government mandated. My problem with the editorial is the statement "They don't want big government and powerful industries telling them what's for dinner." Government can tell people what's for dinner but powerful industries cannot - as proven by the CSAs.

  • Brad Hutchings

    OK, I'll spoil it for you guys... Follow the link to Community Sponsored Agriculture... It's big government (USDA) telling us what's for dinner. LOL.

  • Paul from Florida

    Spell check is my friend. Spell check is my friend. Spel........

  • Paul from Florida

    There is no government. Just a subset of people that call themselves 'government'. What you meant to say is that some people like/get paid, to tell other people what to do, or not do.


    As far as I could tell from your comment, there are some type of 'religious people' telling other people what to do. Oh, great (/sarcasm)


    If there are Koreans that don't want US Beef, tell them not to buy it, or if they can not hanle it mentally, too bad.


    Ideas have consequenses. No US Beef, adios KIA, Hundai.

  • As above, plus:


    "Some consumers are turning away from large-scale agriculture, buying organic products and even dealing directly with local farms"


    Seems to indicate that people don't *need* government prodding; they're perfectly capable of acting in their own self-interest.

  • David P. Graf

    Good grief! I'm in favor of more, not less involvement of the government in issues of food safety, but even I see the contradiction.

  • ...if the government banned u.s. meat, then it precisely has told the citizens what is for dinner. Or, at least, what isn't for dinner.

  • Adam

    He wants more regulation to avoid government telling us what's for dinner. Utter absurdity.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: