tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post110710510560264902..comments2023-10-30T01:52:04.961-07:00Comments on Miniver Cheevy: MarketsJonathan Kormanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06249159323930786199noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-1107422026838307452005-02-03T01:13:00.000-08:002005-02-03T01:13:00.000-08:00Regarding the non-randomness of injury and illness...Regarding the non-randomness of injury and illness: true, but irrelevant. No matter how unpleasant it is for society to pay for the care of semi-volitional conditions, it's still nowhere near as unpleasant as having one of them.<br /><br />The danger with too much support from society is that it might become too tempting to rely on it: the proverbial "they'll send me welfare checks for not working? Great, I quit!"<br /><br />As it turns out, medical technology is quite far from the point at which you might run into "they'll pay my hospital bills? Great, get me some lung cancer pronto!"<br /><br />-ConnerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6216910.post-1107220104714396362005-01-31T17:08:00.000-08:002005-01-31T17:08:00.000-08:00How can an approach to achieving societal goals th...How can an approach to achieving societal goals that takes these two stands simultaneously be internally consistent?<br /><br />"The state shouldn't be trying to keep me from ingesting things that it deems immoral or ineffective;"<br /><br />and <br /><br />"We should tax sugar back into being a luxury, and subsidize the salad industry."<br /><br />Why is being strung out on sugar worse than being strung out on meth? If warning labels are good enough for (currently illicit) drugs, why shouldn't the warning labels that are already on fatty, sugary foods be sufficient to keep people informed about the risks they're taking by eating them? <br /><br />"People get sick and injured largely at random"<br /><br />Not true, at least for many diseases and injuries. People who play basketball are more likely to rupture their ACL than people who don't. People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer. Should society as a whole subsidize the risky choices made by individual basketball players and smokers? If so, why should we intervene to curb obesity and not basketball? <br /><br />-- JD (who knows it's easier to ask picky questions than to answer them)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com