The Nutrition Crisis of 2148
(This is a guest post from our very own Major Zed!)
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Samuel Johnson, et al.
THE NUTRITION CRISIS OF 2148
by Albert Jay Marx
May 18, 2154
Mr. Hanley’s 3rd period social studies
INTRODUCTION
Principles of nutrition began to be understood in the early 20th century with the discovery of vitamins. By the early 21st century, many people took nutrition seriously, but for the vast majority, our nutrition system was still chaotic, disorganized, and dangerous.
People would literally pick things off a shelf and throw them into a hand truck. No counselors to help you make the right choices, no one to write you a scrip, no one carefully putting it all together and bringing it to you. Instead people might pick up a disgusting bag of dead animal parts – with a pathogen warning label right on it! Or they were forced to handle totally gross pieces of foliage taken straight from the ground, with dirt still on them! Then there were paper boxes of ground fiber and starches mixed with sugars, blown with air and pressed into colorful rings – very popular with children! What we enjoy today – smoothly sculpted globules of soy/lentil curd, wedges of aromatic mycoprotein, crisp packets of cultured vat tissue, all certified pathogen free, with customized mixtures of essential nutrients added – would have been unimaginable to our ancestors.
Provenance was virtually unknown. No one could tell where their nutrients came from, unless they produced it themselves in unsanitary and disgusting backyard operations. Mostly they relied on cartoon images on the packaging to give them some hint that what they bought today was the same thing they bought last week. Often, even that was no guarantee.
Attempts to bring order out of nutritional chaos were beaten back by mass propaganda and political maneuverings on the part of monied interests who profited from the status quo. Those few consumers who took nutrition seriously found it difficult to get access to trained professionals, and sometimes ended up dealing with charlatans and criminals instead.
While there was some government-mandated nutrition labeling, it was totally inadequate. For example, it might say that a serving contained 20 grams of protein. We know today that a careful balance of all 23 proteinogenic amino acids, tailored to the individual, is needed for optimal health.
Nutrition could be obtained nearly anywhere, in completely uncontrolled circumstances. Nutrient dispensaries dotted the landscape. Anyone with enough money could open and operate one; there were no educational requirements. None at all! Nutrients could even be bought at the same place people used to buy vehicle fuel, or even by the side of the road from mobile carts! Nutrient consumption centers were similarly uncontrolled, except for the most rudimentary sanitation standards, unevenly enforced. Rather than being focused on optimum nutrition, however, consumption centers of that day combined nutrition with entertainment and social interaction. According to some historical accounts, intoxicating beverages were available as well.
It should not be surprising, then, that this chaotic and largely unregulated situation was very unhealthy. Episodes of acute poisoning and contamination such as E. Coli and Salmonella were common. But the larger evil was that the purveyors of nutrition at that time competed not for the quality and balance of nutrients, but for their appeal to the buyers, who tended to be ignorant about what was important. Dangerous nutrient imbalances and high levels of salts and sugars led generations of people to chronic diseases and early graves.
THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN NUTRITION SYSTEM
This section presents a timeline of the development of the safe and healthy nutrition system we enjoy today.
2022 A deadly outbreak of scombroid poisoning was traced back to canned tuna fish packaged in a plant in Vietnam. Thousands of people got sick and 152 died.
2026 A number of health, nutrition, and public interest organizations, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, American Nutrition Association, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Society for Nutrition, American Medical Association and American Pharmacists Association, backed by the Ford and Guggenheim Foundations, issued a joint report on the status of our nation’s nutrition and nutrient production and distribution systems. This scalding report, authored by Peter Paul Heinz, offered a fifty-seven point plan for upgrading the quality of nutrients (they called it “food” back then) and increasing the transparency of their contents and provenance. H-57, as it was called, was novel at the time due to its increased focus on educational and operational standards for nutrient producers and distributors.
Naturally, selfish special interests resisted the proposals, but some producers and distributors expressed a measured degree of sympathy. Texas A&M University spoke out strongly in favor of the proposals, and soon many other colleges and universities joined in. Nutrition studies emerged as a growing academic subject.
2030 Following the end of the Third Iraq War, successive waves of refugee immigrants broke the gerrymander chokehold that the Republican Party held, and by 2046, Republican presence in Congress had dwindled to less than a dozen representatives and Senator Rand Paul. The H-57 plan promoted by the Committee For Better Nutrition (as the renamed umbrella group had come to be organized) received a much more respectful hearing on Capitol Hill.
2046 A few of the largest nutrient producers set aside their selfish interests and withdrew their attempts to block the adoption of H-57. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created the Joint Commission on Nutrition (JCN) as a public-private partnership to study whether and how to implement something like H-57. The governing board consisted of representatives from the agencies and an equal number of private citizens, most of them associated with the the Committee For Better Nutrition.
2050 The Nutrition Improvement and Security Act was passed. The JCN was given the authority to recommend standards for the production and distribution of nutrients, such standards to be taken under advisement by the four sponsoring agencies.
2057 Interagency bickering led to an amendment to NISA to give the JCN formal recognition as a Non Governmental Organization, and authority to promulgate regulations.
2062 The first wave of JCN regulations affected nutrient producers. A consortium of “early adopter” producers led by Monsanto-Hathaway, who had been working closely with JCN to craft regulations, were given antitrust immunity to enable them to offer their services to other producers, or to joint-venture with them, to help them meet the tough new standards.
2064-2066 Nutrient dispensaries and consumption centers were given a reasonable period of time with which to comply with the new regulations, after which time they were inspected and graded by JCN agents all across the country. Those not making the grade were given six months to pass, and if they failed a second inspection, they were to be closed.
The inspections resulted in a large number of locations slated for termination. Twitter went off-line for two days during the mass protests. The Supreme Court intervened and rolled back the regulations, citing the disparate impact this had on lower-income and minority neighborhoods (where businesses, of course, found little profit potential and therefore underinvested).
As a result, existing dispensaries that passed pre-existing sanitary inspections were grandfathered, and were given a year to file operating plans that met a basic set of requirements. All new dispensaries, on the other hand, were required to (1) meet all of the ’64-’66 standards, including having a Certified Nutritional Officer on staff and (2) make a prima facie showing of need.
All consumption centers, new and old, were required to follow detailed operational plans, and if their offerings varied from the standard menu, they had to obtain prior approval from the local JCN board. New consumption centers had to follow rigorous structural requirements as well.
Because of disparate impact, a combination of subsidies linked to quotas induced the larger chains to open sufficient numbers of dispensaries or consumption centers in poor areas to balance branches opened in wealthy areas.
2070-2080 The economy totally floated because millions of jobs were created. The nutrient production industry needed lots of people because of the new provenance requirements and documentation and stuff.
Certified Nutritional Officer became a highly sought after credential. The number of applications to schools offering nutrition certification programs skyrocketed, but the quality of certified nutrition professionals was preserved by stringent qualifying exams – administered by the JCN – which limited the number of graduates to those who demonstrated true mastery.
2077 Voight and Kampff discovered that portions of previously-regarded “junk DNA” in the human genome mediated RNA transcription in a way that was highly sensitive to nutrient balance, and highly individualized.
2080-2100 Gradually, many old dispensaries were retired as their owners found it uneconomical to make the necessary technical upgrades. Fully-qualified dispensaries became the norm. Distribution and consumption organized more around the new Voight-Kampff test, and production focused more on generating the exotic proteins that so many people needed.
2093 The JNC formalized this trend by requiring all dispensary and consumption customers to show their V-K test results, and they could only buy nutrients that met floor levels consistent with those results.
2100 The JNC closed out the century by publishing “Nutrition in Retrospect: 50 Years of NISA Success.” Americans’ diets had changed dramatically since the first half of the century, and the old scourges of obesity and adult-onset diabetes had fallen more than 20%. Contamintion was rare. Admittedly, the nation’s share of spending on nutrition was higher than it had been – since 2080 the Nutrition Price Index exceeded the Consumer Price Index by an average of 8 points per year – but the quality improvement was astronomical.
2102 A report by the Nutrient Producer’s Association warned that investment in new production facilities and equipment had peaked in 2077 and fallen dramatically since then, and that the nation’s ability to continue to produce quality nutrients was at risk. Further, it cited the combination of what it called “onerous” testing requirements with “inadequate” rate hike approvals in the nutrient precursor sector for causing the lack of investment. The report, having been sponsored by private interests, was largely ignored in the mainstream media and debated acrimoniously in the alternative media.
2105 The first of a series of nutrition riots occurred in Memphis TN as the scheduled summer offerings for the Kaiser Wal-Agra chain of dispensaries failed to be delivered, due to cease & desist orders stemming from irregularities that were discovered in the supply chain. Riots followed in Atlanta GA and Richmond VA.
Immediately, President Fallaah al-Sajara instituted a crackdown on the black market in nutrients, promising famously, “We shall not be crucified on a cross of GMO!” There was broad agreement that because nutrition was so essential to life itself, there was no role for amateurs, opportunists, and criminals. JCN agents swept through the country, arresting thousands of UPONs (Unregistered Producers/Purveyors of Nutrition) and hundreds of licensed producers and distributors as well. At the same time, long-standing home exemptions were modified. While home dispensing of nutrition was left unregulated, home preparation began to be licensed.
Odd-even days were instituted in most cities, but even so, long lines outside of dispensaries were unavoidable. Nutrient delivery by drones was suspended after several were shot down and their cargo plundered. Even armored delivery vehicles needed police escort in some areas.
2106 By spring, nutrient distribution was back to normal thanks to emergency waivers granted to a nutrition import co-op.
2110 The beginnings of Nutritional Insurance emerged as some distributors began offering pre-paid nutrition plans to their customers, to protect them from unpredictable price spikes that had become frequent. A few state governments took advantage of the plans, incorporating them into their SNAP programs as a way to control costs.
Producers and distributors also began using “guarantee” contracts with each other, to protect themselves from shortages. The JCN permitted their use, with chairman Elian Blackbridge calling them “an important risk managment tool.” Within a few years, use of these contracts had grown significantly, with investors and dealers not directly in the business buying and selling them.
2115 Scandal erupted when high-ranking members of the al-Sajara administration were found to have been profiting from trading in nutrition guarantee contracts based on confidential government reports. The Democratic Party, having struggled with internal divisions for decades, finally split into the Liberal Democrat and the People’s Progressive parties. The PPP wanted an immediate end to private production and distribution of nutrition, citing how crucial nutrition was to human well-being. The LDP felt that a well-regulated capitalism was necessary to the security of the nation’s nutrition supply. Congress once again found itself bogged down in partisan bickering. The JCN revamped its regulations on the use of guarantee contracts.
2117 The Palladium War brought about a new reunification of purpose in America. The LDP and PPP joined together to pass legislation to aid the war effort. Comprehensive wage and price controls, backed by strong precedent from the 20th and 21st centuries, were instituted for the duration.
Businesses found they could no longer compete for workers on the basis of wages. Rather than compete on the basis of quality of work life, as President Twinkie Clinton had repeatedly urged them to do, they chose instead to offer pre-paid nutritional plans. A loophole in the tax law, with precedent from the 20th century’s health insurance being upheld by the Supreme Court, allowed them to do so at great advantage to themselves.
2120 Soon, nutrition insurance was well-established in the marketplace, and the federal government followed suit, introducing comprehensive nutrition insurance/assistance plans into the Senior Security program. This proved invaluable in securing nutrition for elderly people who could not easily cope with the rolling shortages of nutrients that had emerged in the early years of the War.
2125 Nearly 100 percent of seniors were covered by nutritional guarantees under the Senior Security program. Nearly 80% of non-retired Americans had some form of nutrition insurance coverage. This split between 25% receiving some form of government guarantee and 55% obtaining it in the marketplace, mostly through their employers. Because non-employer insurance came with high premiums and onerous restrictions and reporting requirements, few could or wanted to buy it.
2126 The Palladium War ended. Wage and price controls were lifted, and the price of nutrients skyrocketed. The People’s Progressive Party again pushed for nationalization of the nutrient production and distribution system, but the Liberal Democratic Party blocked them.
The PPP and LDP once again groped towards compromise. Said Senator Thelonius Kennedy (P-MA): “It is going to take a drastic overhaul of our entire way of doing business in the nutrition field in order to solve the financing and organizational aspects of our nutrition crisis. One aspect of that solution is the creation of comprehensive systems of nutrition delivery.”
2128 Representatives reached across the aisle to craft the Nutrition Stabilization Act which allowed for the formation of Nutrition Maintenance Organizations. These organizations controlled costs by standardizing the nutritional offerings of their members, and restricting them to access only “network” distributors and consumption centers. The NMOs were regulated and their competition coordinated (to protect all stakeholder interests) by the JCN. Government programs, while technically reorganized as NMOs, operated under different rules and had broad powers to negotiate price caps on widely-used nutrients. All citizens were required to join an NMO. In return, they were guaranteed access to 150% of their V-K minimum nutrient levels. This was known as the Rule of 150, and was the platform that propelled the PPP to its first presidential win as Senator Kennedy became President Kennedy.
2132 The iPhone XCVI worked with violetooth-enabled nanobots that monitored nutrients in the user’s bloodstream, making real time nutrient monitoring of all 2,146 essential nutrients affordable for the masses. This led to a dramatic increase in utilization of nutrient dispensaries as nutrition-conscious people sought to keep their nutrient levels within a narrow optimimum zone (based on their V-K profiles), a practice known as “nurking.” This led to frequent “runs” on certain exotic nutrients, where entire metropolitan or even larger areas would run out temporarily. The JCN combatted this destabilizing trend with the “It can wait” campaign, with the message that no one needed to have perfect nutritional balance in real time, that imbalances could wait hours or days, sometimes even weeks, before needing to be addressed.
2133 Not only did the campaign fail to moderate nurkers’ behavior, but in the wake of the publicity and consciousness-raising, the sport of “competitive nurking” emerged. The 2,146 essential nutrients are laid out on two 29×37 arrays. “Poppa” board is offense, the other “momma” or defense. Teams post their V-K results to social media. The rules are like a cross between Go and Battleship. [CENSORBOT: A 3,428-word description of the rules and strategies of competitive nurking have been removed from this message. Repeated attempts to transmit this illegal information will result in prosecution.]
2135 Competitive nurking created havoc in the exotic end of the nutrient market. In particular, selenomethylene (methylated selenomethionine), because if its location in the offensive array, was subject to a chaotic demand schedule.
2136 Competitive nurking was banned, but it is a difficult crime to prosecute because millions of people post their serum nutrient profiles in public every day, and without knowing what people are in which teams competing with which other teams, it is difficult to prove that their nutrient choices are other than random and idiosyncratic. Statistical analysis of public posts can find likely teams and games (and reporting these analyses has turned into a profitable gambling business), but the false positive rate is too high for this to meet a criminal burden of proof.
2147 Despite the efforts of NMOs, the Nutrition Price Index continued to rise. Approximately 18% of GDP was being spent on nutrition. A JCN report cited several reasons, including nurkers (who at that time comprised about 10% of the population), but mainly “better nutrition: As more sophisticated and expensive ingredients and techniques are used, the overall health of Americans has improved measurably. Unfortunately, this public good comes does not come for free….”
2148 At a time when two of three selenomethylene plants in the US were off-line for required upgrades, and stockpiles of the nutrient were unusually low (statistics suggest due to a massive competitive nurking tournament known as the Chesapeake Bay Game), the lone plant manufacturing it caught fire. The JCN ordered two other large plants to immediately shift to producing selenomethylene. However, those plants had been manufacturing precursors to other nutrients. Soon massive nutrient production failure cascaded through the system.
Producers, who had previously relied on intercompany guarantees to avert temporary shortfalls, found that they could no longer count on their guarantees nor honor their guarantee obligations to others. Within a matter of weeks, key nutrients were nearly unavailable, with black market prices hundreds or thousands of times higher than official prices (which, since the Nutrition Stabilization Act, were not allowed to rise by more than 10% in a given month so as to prevent gouging). The NSA also, however, required any dispensaries or consumption centers that could not honor the Rule of 150 to shut down. As a result, thousands closed their doors.
Once again, nutrient riots rocked the country. Large portions of the Los Angeles commercial district were lost to an urban firestorm which appears to have been started by a meticulous and well-prepared terrorist group calling itself the Free Lunch Movement.
A week later, the JCN issued emergency waivers to reopen most of the closed dispensaries and consumption centers. But many producers by that time were mired in lawsuits and bankruptcy hearings. For another year, millions of Americans who could not afford nutrition insurance became malnourished, and even those lucky enough to have a job that provided it found the rolling shortages difficult to cope with.
CONCLUSION
The report by the Nutrition Crisis Inquiry Commission offers a complex picture of the recent failure of our system to handle the demand for nutrition. Climate change and demographic problems set the stage. The Commission did fault the JCN for inadequate supervision of nutrient guarantee contracts and its failure to properly track precursor production, but it identified “precursor diversion” as the critical element. The still largely-unknown numbers of outlaw UPONs diverted key nutrient production elements to the black market, triggering shortages in “critical hubs” of the production network. This occurred despite the fact that tens of thousands of UPONs are arrested and incarcerated each year. The inquiry Commission’s report also detailed how incentives inherent in private ownership of the means of production and distribution facilitated and even encouraged this reprehensible behavior. Their recommendations included that diversion be made a capital offense. Congress is considering it.
The LDP keeps saying “capitalism can still work if we tweak it enough,” like anyone is still listening. Late Night host Paul Walkman was right when he said:
“It wasn’t government that gave us nearly 50 million nutritionally underserved Americans. It wasn’t government that gave us calorie and vitamin limits that have given so many people the dilemma of going hungry or going into bankruptcy. It wasn’t government that gave us a system in which the gap between what we spend and what we get is so enormous. It was the free market.”
The free market failed. Single Payer Nutrition now!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
wikipedia.org
peoplesprogressive.org
jcn.gov
“It Can’t Happen Here” – Frank Zappa
(Photo is “Soylent green sign” by Portland Mercury reporter Alex Zielinski, used under a creative commons license.)
I see what you did there.Report
For the record, I started writing this mid-August and had most of it done last month. But your post motivated me to submit it pronto.Report
It’s certainly a very well-crafted send-up of certain kinds of nutritional thinking, so I gotta give props for that, as much as it kinda stings.
But it only kinda stings: I think as a critique of my project in particular it falls flat — I’ve been quick to agree with the criticisms of the government’s handling of food issues, and as will be apparent when my next article is posted, I’m skeptical of these kinds of centralized bureaucratic solutions. So it’s good to hear that this was written beforehand — it means I have less of a quarrel with this fine piece of writing!Report
Yes this is a funny snarky reply to your emotional appeal to snobbery.Report
This post is a funny snarky response to the orginal emotional appeal to snobbery.Report
Jay, this post is a thing of beauty.Report
It absolutely is! (It was written by Major Zed. I’ve done more to make that explicitly clear and I apologize for the hour that I left it as being by me rather than by Guest Authors.)Report
Agree absolutely! Bravo Major Zed, Bravo!Report
Wow that was some artisnal, gluten free strawmaning mixed with some free range paranoid slippery slopeism.
The Soylent Green sign was good though.Report
In the 90’s, when everybody started with the smoking bans (you couldn’t smoke in Denny’s anymore?), people started saying “what are they going to ban next? Soda pop?”, they were accused of strawmanning and paranoid slippery slopeism.Report
Who has banned soda?Report
Bloomberg? It was totes in the news.Report
You mean the soft drink size limit?Report
Lordy knows i remember the days when i could get a 64 oz soda for a buck at 10 places within 5 miles of my house….those were the days. Well that is today. Of course is NY you can’t get that….well you can get all the soda you can drink in NYC…..but you know…..bloomers is a dink.Report
Yup plenty of paranoia to go around, just listen in to Alex Jones. Plenty of crazy crazy stuff out there. I’ve heard that smoking is still legal, just not where, you know, other people have to breathe the smoke. I might suggest libertarians would be first in line to pronounce other people shouldn’t have to breathe their noxious fumes. That whole my freedom ends when it start to go into your lungs or something. Yeah that is being snarky and you could make it more complex but whatever.
All this talk of soda bans makes me thirsty. I better go drink some more before it is outlawed, because that is a thing.Report
I hear that Colorado may legalize soda pop sometime soon. Coke and Root Beer, anyway, not the hard stuff like Dr. Pepper.Report
That was the great thing about Bloomy’s ban, though. It turned “you’re making a strawman slippery slope!” into “they didn’t *BAN* it… you could still buy two of them if you wanted to drink more…”
The problem with the ban was not that it didn’t go as far as its critics were criticizing it for, but that it was created in the first place.
Compare to, say, abortion. Let’s say that they wanted to ban all abortions in the second half of the pregnancy. Is “you can still get an abortion in the first half!” a good counter-argument to the argument that you should get your government out of my uterus?Report
Or, as Mike points out, “It wasn’t in all states, your state wasn’t affected!”Report
If a regulation that would have affected a single city and was declared illegal by three different courts before it ever went into effect isn’t the sign of a dangerous trend, I don’t know what is.
Anyway, the silver lining is that success in overturning it might inspire free-market crusaders to overturn other anti-busness regulations, like pointless building and fire codes.Report
Dude, I didn’t say that the argument given the anti-smokers was “there’s no way that courts will find such legislation to be legal”. It was “nobody’s ever going to try that, you’re arguing against a strawman and engaging in the slippery slope fallacy!”Report
Yup, there is one counterexample. When did we all turn into mathematicians?Report
Mike, I’m surprised to see you arguing that gun regulation is unnecessary since there aren’t very many school shootings per year (either on an absolute basis or on a per-school basis).
Oh wait, that wasn’t what you were arguing? Maybe you should go back and think about what your reasoning is actually saying, then, because when you claim that it’s just a numbers game then you kind of are saying that.Report
If there had ever been only one school shooting and the gun jammed immediately, you’d have a point.Report
I would say that it’s a parody of right-wing thinking, but it’s not.
However, props to a couple of spots on your timeline where you mentioned something being blocked for over a decade.Report
Would one have been paranoid, in observing the beginnings of the income tax in the US, a temporary measure affecting a tiny fraction of the population, to think that in a few generations it would take in a significant fraction of nearly every working person’s income?
Would one have been paranoid, in the early 1800s, to imagine that the provision of health care would become the monopoly of trained experts, with unelected persons controlling the number and operation of educational institutions that train and certify such experts, with an acknowledged goal of maintaining the incomes of such experts?
Would one have been paranoid around that same time, to think that in a bit more than a century, not only would all bank notes be government issued, but that they would no longer be convertible into real money (i.e., gold)?
In the midst of the cold war, fighting “Godless communists,” would one have been paranoid to think that in two generations, religious expression in public (i.e. government) settings would be regarded as unconstitutional?
My answers: probably yes, you would have to have been paranoid to think that. But you would also have been right.Report
Except, if a 19th century person could have foreseen today’s developments, would they see it as a dystopian nightmare, or a terrific advancement?
I mean, to tell a 19th century person that he would pay about 20% of his income in taxation, he might be horrified; but then show him what those taxes purchase, he might be delighted.
Telling him that his granny is no longer able to sell her potions, he might be affronted; but tell him that her potions were poisonous, and he could be safely assured of getting effective and pure drugs instead, he might be happy.
And if this 19th century person were Jewish, being spared constant admonitions to praise Jesus Christ his personal Lord and Savior might be a refreshing advancement.
See, you’re trying to warn us of scary nightmares, but your examples aren’t that frightening.Report
Does the correctness of their (hypothetical) predictions tell us anything meaningful about the correctness of other predictions made today?Report
@owen
No, actually, and this is an important point.
The logic behind Zedd’s post is the issue of creeping loss of freedom. It isn’t just a slippery slope fallacy- it defies empirical analysis.
When have we seen this happen? Lets take the best examples of tyranny, Soviet Russia and Maoist China.
They didn’t introduce tiny steps leading to tyranny- from the outset they were tyrannical. There was never a moment when the people actually had control of the government.
An example- Russia nationalized its health care system; so did Britain. Why were the results so different?
Because the Russian nationalization was issued without the participation and consent of the people, while Britain’s was. The Russian example was just a tiny part of an already tyrannical state, whereas Britain did it as part of free civic participation.
In Zedd’s scenario, are all these restrictions enacted with the full support and backing of the people? Or are they imposed against their will?
In virtually every regulation in free countries, there are hardship exemptions, thresholds, individual carvouts allowing dissenters to exercise without regulation; this is why you can cut your friend’s hair, just not do it as a ongoing business. Does this occur in Zedd’s scenario?
Zedd assumes that tyranny has already occurred, and the food regulations merely a part of it. In his world, the state has already assumed a terrifying power, regardless of whether it regulates food or haircutting.
Almost every single piece of regulation, from child labor to Social Security to Medicare to Obamacare, there have been cries that this was the first step to serfdom, that tyranny was Just. Around. The. Corner.
Yet it has never arrived.
Because the slope is only slippery when people are enslaved first, then regulated. Regulations enacted with the people’s consent don’t normally lead to tyranny, because a free and empowered people can dismantle regulation as well as erect.Report
@lwa …
Except, if a 19th century person could have foreseen today’s developments, would they see it as a dystopian nightmare, or a terrific advancement?… See, you’re trying to warn us of scary nightmares, but your examples aren’t that frightening.
I think early 19th century people would marvel at the technological achievements and incredible benefits brought about by the industrial revolution, and would welcome many public improvements such as sanitation and public health. However, they would wonder if it was necessary to adopt the Prussian model of social organization to reap all of the benefits of modernity. They would be absolutely horrified to see the size and reach of modern (especially central) government power. Those examples would have been scary to them.
Money well spent? Over half of US “discretionary” spending funds a globe-encompassing standing army, thrusting the country into an endless series of undeclared and dubious wars. “Mandatory” spending consists mostly of transfer payments that would be considered highly offensive to all but a few utopians of the day. Another big block of spending goes to paying interest on an ever-increasing debt incurred because the tax receipts aren’t enough! And then there’s the fiat money and a long, steady decline in purchasing power that dwarfs even the 15th-17th century European “price revolution.”
Safe and effective drugs are one thing; a tightly-controlled monopoly on health care is quite another.
A devout person of the day would be aghast to think that in modern times, morality would dictate that expressions of faith be restricted in order not to offend atheists. (NB: The 10 Commandments came from the Jews.) That the culture would also morph in the direction of worshiping the State, or the Collective, or Nature (sans humans), but God – not so much…. Now that would be scary to them.
You are not scared, because you are here. You were raised in this culture, you accept the narrative of how we got here and that the tradeoffs were both necessary and worth it. You accept that we lurch from crisis to crisis because, well, um, because that’s the way it is; there are simultaneously too many things to blame and nothing to blame; it’s too complicated.
Regulations enacted with the people’s consent don’t normally lead to tyranny, because a free and empowered people can dismantle regulation as well as erect.
Well… sometimes. It’s generally a lot harder to undo bad law and bad regulation than to put it in place, for several reasons. There is regulatory capture and the politics of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. There is the all-too human desire to get something for nothing (and to believe, fervently, that is possible). There is “ce qu’on voit est ce qu’on ne voit pas.” And there is the ability of humans to adapt and get used to just about anything.
Since the introduction of compulsory schooling, and the widespread adoption of government as the funding and directing mechanism of that, schools have been teaching the basic lessons of technocratic society: (1) sit down and shut up, and (2) defer to authority. Despite the debates and revolutions concerning what else to teach and how to do it, those lessons remain, and are being reinforced. Zero-tolerance policies in the lower grades double down on both principles. Speech codes and “free speech zones” do it at the collegial level.
Outside of school, the Millenial generation is being taught (well, all of us actually, but they will absorb the lessons the best) that 24-7 surveillance and checkpoint frisks are no big deal and really, in the end, good for them! Police get military-grade weapons and equipment and are trained to effect mass social control, starting with the neutralization of
dissidentsterrorists. The mechanisms of “turnkey totalitarianism” are being put into place. Some people are alarmed, but what really is being done about it?Seven years ago, Naomi Wolf wrote that the Bush administration was following the “10 easy steps” to establishing a dictatorship in America. She reveals in a 2009 podcast that she feels Obama is doing more of the same. There, she emphasizes how easy it is to relinquish your rights, to accept as “the new normal” what was previously unacceptable, and how hard it is to roll back those changes.
If recent trends don’t trouble you, if you don’t see storm clouds on the horizon… I can’t imagine what else I could say.Report
What would most horrify the hypothetical observer from the early 19th Century is social acceptance of homosexuality. Same-sex marriage would seem particularly insane and evil, as if Satan has established his rule on earth and had begun mocking everything that was holy. Interracial marriage would be only a bit behind that, though as less of a surprise: he’d always known that’s what those d____d abolitionists were after, as much as they denied it.Report
@mike-schilling
I’m reminded of a joke…
Should anyone ever ask, “What would the Founding Fathers say if they were alive today?” in response to some social or political change — real or proposed — the best answer would be, “Holy shit, you guys can fly?!?!?!?!” the moment an airplane flew overhead.Report
@major-zed
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the surveillance state and security apparatus- we all should rightly be alarmed by this.
I just think a big claim (such as Tyranny) needs big evidence. Too promiscuous use of the term makes it unconvincing.
I’m thinking of the quip made about Jonah Goldberg, that to him, government torture of prisoners at Gitmo is a wise use of power, while a smoking ban is fascism.
Yes, he’s a ridiculously easy target, but the underlying point is that it is an error not just of tactics but of logic to lump petty and parochial concerns (like food regulations or Big Gulp bans) in with serious concerns (like torture and domestic spying).
Further, a big claim needs a sharp focus- lets stipulate that tyranny is the loss of freedom and agency, coupled with a crushing of the human spirit and dignity.
We can easily see that the plight of black people, or migrant farmworkers or poor women seeking reproductive care can easily fit that description.
But do barbers and doctors who are subject to regulation, or people who want to smoke in the public parks also fit into that category of victims?
Like Mike Schilling’s retort to notme below, this is why the libertarian and conservative cries of tyranny about taxes and gummint regulation sound so false to liberal ears- they pass over real injustice in favor of the petty concerns of the comfortable.Report
“Except, if a 19th century person could have foreseen today’s developments, would they see it as a dystopian nightmare, or a terrific advancement?”
We would show them our modern world, and they’d say “wow, so everybody in America lives to be like a hundred and fifty because of the magic drugs and machines you have now, right?”
And we’d say “well, we can’t really research drugs or machines like that, because the FDA would never approve research like that.”
And they’d say “what’s an FDA?”
And we’d say “a government body that reviews all drug and medical device research and decides what gets to be researched and sold to people.”
And they’d say “how often do you vote for the FDA?”
And we’d say “never, it’s part of the Executive Branch.”
And they’d say “you fucking what? We had a war about that!”Report
@lwa
(Sorry to have taken so long to reply – from Black Friday to Cyber Monday I’ve been a good little consumer, doing my part to boost aggregate demand.)
it is an error… to lump petty and parochial concerns (like food regulations or Big Gulp bans) in with serious concerns (like torture and domestic spying)…. cries of tyranny about taxes and gummint regulation… pass over real injustice….
I agree with you that a person condemning the small injustices but not the large cannot be taken seriously. But two points beg to be made.
(1) Too much regulation, inappropriate regulation, and captured regulation all contribute to the plight of people who find they cannot better their position in life. The barbers and doctors you mention are not the victims of regulation, they are the beneficiaries! It is the people who might have made a living working on hair or helping people with their health, but who were kept outside the moat of monopolized professions, who are the victims. It is much harder to see this kind of victim. The ambitious woman in the inner city who has a business idea but finds she cannot make it work due to burdensome requirements imposed by unelected bureaucrats, she is an important unseen victim. Her success might have raised up the lives of dozens of others in her neighborhood, too.
(2) A Big Gulp ban is indeed trivial, taken out of context. But the attitude exposed by the phrase “petty and parochial concerns” is telling. There are individuals who feel they have a certain basic right to make their own life decisions, “petty and parochial” as they might seem to the outside expert. They accept restrictions on their behavior when it makes sense as a matter of public safety and order, etc. They do not respond well when they are treated like children by the State. The more trivial the law, rule, or regulation, the more evident it is that the promulgating authority does not respect their autonomy. Hence the reaction appears inversely proportional to the seriousness of the regulation. And this perplexes the promulgating authority, because it truly doesn’t respect their autonomy; it really doesn’t understand what individual freedom means.Report
@major-zed , congratulations on a well-crafted piece in the hoary old tradition of classic pulp sci-fi. It’s a time-tested formula of taking some current trend that you find alarming, or perhaps just annoying or interesting, and extrapolating to the point of absurdity.
I’m just surprised — and pleased! — to see a libertarian such as yourself coming down so strongly against the corporate McDonald’s/Monsanto/PepsiCo dystopian paradigm. Here’s to grass-fed beef, free-range chicken, vine-ripened tomatoes, and all things organic! Real food for real people!Report
Baptists & Bootleggers, it has always been thus.Report
This was great. Thanks for the shoutout to my great great great grand-nephew.Report
Did you know that cows have four stomachs? (Not just cows, either!) The first is a giant fermenting vat. They’re drunk all the time; have their own wine-barrel on board! But they prefer grass liquor, their stomaches are not designed to digest corn liquor. (nothing’s designed for that; which is why it’s best used as a cleaning solvent.)
Did you know that a vegetable that’s been chewed on a bit (snails, slugs, beetles, grasshoppers, crickets are all potential chewers) release chemicals to defend themselves? These chemicals, often called phytonutrients, are good for you if you eat from the same poor, abused plant?
Did you know that we still don’t know all the types of species that inhabit healthy soil? That fungi in the soil seem to help release minerals from rock, making it available to plant roots? A friend of mine actually started a college to study soil; it’s a relatively new field of science. I understand that most people think ‘organic’ is about the lack of stuff on their free-range veggies, but it’s really about healthy soil.
Did you know that drainage is one of the biggest farming problems? There are two extremes; sand, which doesn’t hold water at all, and clay, which doesn’t release it? And that the best way to solve both problems is adding organic matter (compost!) to the soil?
Did you know that the single biggest source of water pollution in the US now is chemical fertilizers we put on our lawns? And we let our kids play on that stuff?
Did you know that stoop labor — picking strawberries and string beans and tomatoes — actually requires skill?
Did you know that when you pull a carrot from healthy soil, the smell of carrots is released, sweet and fresh and better than any smell of carrot you’ll find otherwise?
Did you know that crop rotation is important; and a four-year schedule works best: legume, root, leaf, fruiting body?
Did you know that companion planting is an ancient tradition, and that carrots and tomatoes grow well together, peas and potatoes don’t?
Just give my my messy back yard, some animal dung (pref. from a grass-eating animal), a compost pile, and a handful of seeds.
Food begins at the farm.Report
corn liquor [is] best used as a cleaning solvent
If that isn’t in violation of the commenting policy, the policy is in need of revision. Some things just shouldn’t be said.Report
I think it was a very cute bit of fiction. Well done.Report
I get the sense that a lot of you think this is just a satirical fiction. It isn’t.Report
We definitely have a shortage of some medications.Report
The gap here between the anxiety and the feared offense is so wide, it becomes sort of a self-parody of Comfortable White People’s Fears, Level 11.
I mean, in 1984, the state crushes the human spirit; in The Handmaid’s Tale, the state reduces women to chattel; in The Hunger Games, the state brutalizes young people.
Here? The state cruelly takes away your Ho-Hos and Slurpees and forces you to eat a balanced nutritious meal.
Its sort of the Not-Really-Hungry-But Kinda-Got-The-Munchies Games, Mocking-Jay.Report
You can have my Ho-Hos when you pry them from my corpulent, distended fingers.Report
bro
you’re not supposed to read a satire and then say “well YEAH that’s how it OUGHT TO BE!”Report
Here? The state cruelly takes away your Ho-Hos and Slurpees and forces you to eat a balanced nutritious meal.
Not at all the point. Here, the state takes over the food industry and fishes it up royally, introducing by degrees a series of controls that eventually become so totalitarian, you need to be certified to cook in your own home, and you risk death by farming and/or trading in food off the books.
I’m disappointed no one seems to have noticed the parallels to the histories of health care and banking.Report
You are still free to keep your money in your mattress and preform surgery on yourself.Report
@greginak Real freedom is having the ability to commit fraud on other people and being able to get it away with it because you have better lawyers.Report
I did (that’s what the link was about.)
To be more explicit, this story is quite close to the situation with sterile injectables, right down to accusations of hoarding.Report
Those bankers are pretty fishing oppressed, all right.Report
It is amusing to see liberals refuse to acknowledge that this coubtry is on the way down hill due to liberal nannyism, between Bloomberg’s attempted soda ban, Michelle o’s starvation lunch program or that town that wanted to ban tobacco. They tell us that we should accept their oversight bc they know what is good for us.Report
You’re right. Compared to a proposed soda ban that never went into effect, Gulf War II was nothing.Report