Skip to main content

The Limits of Libertarianism

I recently watched an excellent movie called “Fed Up” with my family and friends.  The movie is a must-see for all families as it explains very clearly, in a manner accessible even for young children, why obesity is so prevalent today, and it dispels numerous falsehoods that lead so many down the wrong path.  In short, sugar is the main culprit.  It is apparently 10 times more addictive than cocaine.  The worst offenders are sugary drinks, which enter our bodies with nothing to slow down the liver’s insulin response, thus translating into immediate creation of fat in our bodies.  Food companies that want to continue to sell their products with impunity have paid for studies that blame the obesity epidemic on the sedentary nature of kids today and shift the blame away from their sugary products.  I won’t dwell more on the science, but instead strongly suggest that each person view this film and if you have kids watch it with them.

After the movie we debated the correct societal and governmental response to the facts.  A very libertarian leaning friend felt that it was not government’s responsibility to intervene, fearing that there is a very slippery slope before government is called upon to control all aspects of life and then our freedom to choose for ourselves is sacrificed.  I am personally very sympathetic to this line of thinking and am a huge believer in personal responsibility, however, I believe that freedom is lost once society agrees that there needs to be any social safety net.  At that point, people lose the freedom to keep the rewards of their efforts, and must subsidize the lives and bad choices of others.  As I explained to my friend, if government simply allows the purveyors of sugar to prey upon human beings’ proclivity towards addiction then the consequences will inevitably be borne by all of us in the form of higher taxes to pay for the increased medical care costs that result.  

A true libertarian society is one that in reality no one really wants – a complete free for all.  There is and will continue to be a social safety net to protect our weakest and most vulnerable and lift them up into some reasonable quality of life.  This is the reality and it will never be any other way.  Given this, there must be laws in place to limit the societal costs associated with human weakness. Addictive behaviors that businesses can easily prey upon such as illegal narcotics, sugar, and gambling must be heavily regulated lest their costs to society continue to skyrocket.

Popular posts from this blog

Greed & Laziness

In this most contentious and fascinating of election cycles, when nearly each conversation leads to politics, and when polarization runs so high, I ask myself - what is the essence of the debate between left and right?  What does it really mean to be a Conservative or a Liberal?

Why Rates Must Remain Low

There is an old bond trader joke that I first heard in the 1980’s when I traded mortgage-backed securities at Drexel Burnham Lambert.  It went like this:  “Upon dying, Albert Einstein finds himself in what he is told is heaven.  He encounters another individual there and asks him what his IQ is.  When he is told that it is 175 he is overjoyed, knowing that he’s found an intellectual peer with whom he can share much.  Upon meeting another, he discovers that person’s IQ is 140 and is pleased to have met another highly intelligent person with whom he can enjoy chess and other pursuits.  He is feeling pretty good about heaven, when he comes across a person who tells him that his IQ is a mere 90, and he is flummoxed.  What, he wonders, is this guy doing in my heaven and what can I even say to this person?  Then it comes to him.  ‘Where,’ he asks, ‘do you think interest rates are heading?’”

CMBS In Flux

The CMBS market has been in a period of upheaval, with dramatic spread widening on bonds and a resulting much more expensive cost of capital for real estate borrowers who depend upon this channel for their debt financing.Market participants today wonder whether we’ve entered a period like the summer of 2011, when spreads on bonds last widened this dramatically and then snapped back within a year to provide tremendous returns for those who were courageous enough to purchase bonds at the time when there was panic selling.Or, people wonder, is this recent downturn a prelude to a structural or systemic problem, like what was experienced in 2007, when spreads widened and sucked investors in, only to punish those early responders with a much more dramatic price collapse in the next 24 months.