http://www.preceptgroup.com/blog/2008/counterpoint-government-needs-to-intercede-on-behalf-of-citizens-health/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=counterpoint-government-needs-to-intercede-on-behalf-of-citizens-health An insider's perspective on employee benefit programs and the issues that affect employers most. Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:19:27 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.preceptgroup.com/blog/2008/counterpoint-government-needs-to-intercede-on-behalf-of-citizens-health/#comment-35 nick Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000 http://webdev.preceptgroup.com/blog/?p=2641#comment-35 I have the following criticism of Lexi's comment, which is not original with me, but has been adapted from comments on similar ordinances. The ordinance in question can be criticized as being at once unnecessary, because information about calorie content can be conveyed without requiring that particular restaurants be banned, and paternalistic, because people concerned about their weight have the incentive and ability to inform themselves about the number of calories that they consume. The ordinance may also be ineffectual, because most people eat most of their food at home rather than in fast-food outlets; anticompetitive, because other restaurants can provide the 'fast' food anyway; blind to the effect of competition in forcing restaurants to develop menus that will give them an advantage in competing for health or calorie-conscious consumers; and sacrificing a liberty interest without the basis of a responsible cost-benefit analysis. In short, the problem with Lexi's comment is that the issue is only in part whether or not the government has a 'right' to limit individual conduct or choices (which is noncontroversial writ large, the problem is in the application in each case) but the question of whether it is justified in this case, and whether such an ordinance will be likley to accomplish its stated objective, while sacrificing substantial liberty interests. I have the following criticism of Lexi’s comment, which is not original with me, but has been adapted from comments on similar ordinances. The ordinance in question can be criticized as being at once unnecessary, because information about calorie content can be conveyed without requiring that particular restaurants be banned, and paternalistic, because people concerned about their weight have the incentive and ability to inform themselves about the number of calories that they consume. The ordinance may also be ineffectual, because most people eat most of their food at home rather than in fast-food outlets; anticompetitive, because other restaurants can provide the ‘fast’ food anyway; blind to the effect of competition in forcing restaurants to develop menus that will give them an advantage in competing for health or calorie-conscious consumers; and sacrificing a liberty interest without the basis of a responsible cost-benefit analysis. In short, the problem with Lexi’s comment is that the issue is only in part whether or not the government has a ‘right’ to limit individual conduct or choices (which is noncontroversial writ large, the problem is in the application in each case) but the question of whether it is justified in this case, and whether such an ordinance will be likley to accomplish its stated objective, while sacrificing substantial liberty interests.

]]>