1. Is the choice to be unhealthy covered in libertarianism?
2. Are you, Vox Day, a victim of the Madison Ave thought police, accepting their invented standard of beauty? The brothers love a chunky gal.
As the WB knows very well, I happen to have a strong preference for slender blonde women. If Madison Avenue is to blame for this, so be it. I suffer the affliction with quiet dignity. Hold me, Ralph.
Haven’t most of history’s societal standards of beauty leaned toward the unlean side? Do you dismiss that fact solely on the grounds that to be “heavy” in societies of want symbolized wealth, and therefore the standard of beauty gravitated in that direction because those women were deemed better and healthier breeding partners, or were there other reasons? And do you then follow a logic path that says currently we embrace the thin, in shape look because we believe those women are better breeders? Are there any stats to support the notion that in-shape women fare better in the delivery room, or other factors more important to impregnability, sustainable pregnancies, and success of full term delivery without complications?
Unlean – when did you go PC? Yes, certainly. But what is Progress, if we do not aspire to new heights of beauty? I dismiss nothing, nor have I done any research on who makes a better breeder, though one presumes the classic child-bearing hips make things a little easier.
Besides the inflated public health cost associated with a heavier populace, what other arguments are there for people to be thin (assuming that they, in a libertarian model, are the best determiners of the right course to achieve their own happiness, and may have standards different from your own and even unfathomable to you) This is the first post on your blog in which I see a “personal choice” bias, so I point it out to you. Life expectancy does not equal happiness, thinness does not equal happiness. Freedom from disease might equal happiness on some level, but one could argue that taking on the risks of getting diabetes or heart disease is part of a valid utilitarian framework in which the utils generated in the early part of a life of excess more than make up for the pain and suffering (negative utils) suffered during the diseased end of that life.
I think there’s a strong utilitarian case to be made for chunking out, just as there is for smoking and drug use. I absolutely support the decision of every individual to get as fat, stoned and tar-lunged as they choose, however much it might offend my sense of aesthetics. Unlike many columnists, my personal distaste for something does not necessarily dictate my political views. I do find it bizarre, however, that smoking is singled out by the law while another, similarly unhealthy habit is not. Ideally, neither of them would be legally persecuted in any way.
Of course, I don’t understand why marijuana is illegal when beer is not either. I’d MUCH rather be surrounded by 200 people stoned out of their mind than 200 drunkards. And the same gateway arguments that apply to the herb apply just as well to alcohol. The one thing that does bother me is the kids who never get to make the choice and enter adulthood with the deck stacked against them, but I would never suggest impairing parental power and responsibility “for the children” for this or any other reason. After all, it’s quite possible that the government helped create this obesity explosion by pushing the whole low-fat thing in the first place, not to mention locking the kids up in public schools all day. That would be an interesting study – to see if homeschooled kids are healthier and better shape than their government-schooled counterparts as well as being ahead of them academically.
I have to add, this is all pretty rich coming from a sexist pornographer like the WB.