The fat poor quote brings up an important topic for puncturing the libertarian baloon. Just one more way that libertarianism misunderstands human nature. People crave sweets. They do so for deep biological reasons, based on millions of years of evolution. They crave other tastes as well for similar reasons.

The fast-food industry--and the mass-food industry behind it--are powerfully motivated to get us eating as much food as they possibly can. The mass of food they get us eating is cheap by volume, but short on the nutrients we actually need to be healthy. Which is why we have the phenomena of poor people being fat. They are still suffering from bad nutrition, like the poor always have.

As the British McLibel trial revealed in the ancient pre-9/11 era, McDonalds intentionally advertizes in a way that depends on mobilizing the "pester power" of young kids--from 2 to 5 years old--to brow-beat their parents into taking them to McDonalds. All the libertarian blabber in the world can't turn kids of that age into the rational autonomous actors of libertarian theory. Nor are parents harrassed to distraction by their kids the stuff of which rational actor models are made.

Thus, we have another example in which goverment regulation--restricting advertising on kid-oriented TV, for example--can dramatically increase the actual individual autonomy of both parents and children quite direcly, and also, indirectly, increase their well-being.

Yes, yes, I know. McDonalds is now "responding to the marketplace" by offering salads and such. But this is clearly an instance of too little, too late for tens of millions of Americans.

The "magic of the marketplace" is that under properly structured conditions the market is far more efficient and rapid in responding to consumer needs and desires. But part of what this requires is perfect information--or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof. And, of course, that's precisely the opposite of what advertising (particular "pester power"-oriented advertising) delivers. This is why narrowly-tailored regulation of commercial speech can substantially improve the working of markets to deliver what they're supposed to, according to the libertarian dream.

Had we done this all along, McDonalds would never have been so deeply toxic in the first place.

Nice catch on the Philly Freeper newspaper. The funniest thing is they're trying to sell their rag to commuters on SEPTA... I thought Republicans didn't believe in public transit OR evolution....

Holly, to individual Catholics, but my disagreements with both the theology and the administration of the Church are of long standing, and fundamental to my own view of both the temporal and spiritual responsibilities which we all share.

To put it briefly: Catholic Workers, yes, the satrapy in Rome, or the little old ladies pressing $20 bills surreptitiously into the extended hand of an attractive young priest -- a ritual I've witnessed myself on more than one occasion -- no. No in thunder, as a matter of fact.

Here's where our latest example does us a favor: pointing out how he prefers emergent, dynamic processes. This is actually where liberals fail. There has been precious little work done on processes other than the market that are primarily internally driven.

Now, we all know that the market is a creature of the government, but one which in it's day to day running is self-regulating and propagating (a simplification yes, but one that does have a grain of truth to it). Now the best liberal response is of alternative modes of organization that are similar. But I'm damned if I can find many modern ones. Pre-modern societies were filled with them - we often call them religious ritual. But the modern world seems to lack faiths beyond the market.

Where is our imagination? Where are our political scientists?

is the good works of selfless individuals... But these individuals would do that if they were Buddhists or atheists or Marxists like Father Camillo Torres.

Are you familiar with Dave Pollard's blog? In case you aren't here's the link: http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/

You might find something you like among his posts...

but the Rosenberg remedy is wrong on so many levels....

Thus, we have another example in which goverment regulation--restricting advertising on kid-oriented TV, for example--can dramatically increase the actual individual autonomy of both parents and children quite direcly, and also, indirectly, increase their well-being.

* The parents are supposed to be in charge,

* Advertising is protected by the 1st Amendment,

* If restricting McDonald's commercials is beneficial, so would restricting sex and violence.

* One would have to ban all fast food commercials.

* If people are so incompetent that they have to be protected from fast food commercials, should they be allowed to be parents?

And so forth, and so on. One needs no better example of superseding the biological parents for Big Brother.

Rosenberg blames McDonalds....

but the Rosenberg remedy is wrong on so many levels....

Thus, we have another example in which goverment regulation--restricting advertising on kid-oriented TV, for example--can dramatically increase the actual individual autonomy of both parents and children quite direcly, and also, indirectly, increase their well-being.

* The parents are supposed to be in charge,

So are parents supposed to cover their children's eyes? TiVo everything, including PBS? It is simply asinine to leave it at "parents in charge" when parents are asymmetrical opposed to a multi-national. Advertisement limitation is parents working collectively.

* Advertising is protected by the 1st Amendment,

Says an intellectually incoherent supreme court. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to use a gigantic bullhorn in the public square.

* If restricting McDonald's commercials is beneficial, so would restricting sex and violence.

Which we already do. We limit the content and the hours of sex and violence on TV already. Most communities limit billboards, etc.

* One would have to ban all fast food commercials.

That's just stupid. Limiting fast food commercials at 9am on Saturdays or on PBS kids shows does not imply banning fast food commercials at 10pm on Fridays. It would be perfectly reasonable to allow late night whiskey commercials also - but who would want them on at all hours on children's programming?

* If people are so incompetent that they have to be protected from fast food commercials, should they be allowed to be parents?

It's not about competence. It's about allowing people to act as a group, to counteract another group. Economists long ago worked out some of the problems of these asymmetries. If you think an individual parent can take on multinationals, that the market works under those conditions, you're either a liar or delusional.

And so forth, and so on. One needs no better example of superseding the biological parents for Big Brother.

We need no better example of Big Brother superseding biological (and non-biological) parents.