I am liberty minded, so I'm not supposed to like this show. There's so much not to like. Some Brit comes to my town to tell me how to eat. He wants legislation, which I certainly don't like. I believe in free market solutions, not endless government bureaucracy.
I do like this show, though. I like some of what Oliver recommends.
My progressively minded friends might wonder, if there was no overbearing government bureaucracy, how could a free market ever implement the solutions Oliver recommends? They are mutually exclusive, after all. You can't have a free market if you have government bureaucracy. And you can't have government bureaucracy if you have a free market. One will win while the other gets squashed (guess which is which).
First of all, what are Oliver's solutions? The ones I like are:
- Truth in Labeling
- Healthy Options
- Informed Consumers
Who could be against those things? And how would the free market just stumble upon those solutions without help from a benevolent body? After all, the free market is only interested in profit. If people are hurt in the process, there is nothing to stop them except a disinterested party like government. And the key is to always make sure this disinterested party is indeed disinterested.
The Disinterested Party
Disinterest is an interesting concept. "Disinterested" is not the same as "uninterested." Uninterested is the word for not being interested in or concerned about something or someone. On the other hand, disinterested is the word for not being influenced by considerations of personal advantage.
All this to say, government is supposed to be disinterested and not uninterested. That is the presumed role of government. The progressive typically sees it as guidance. The liberty minded typically sees it as meddling.
How exactly does government get the free market to implement Truth in Labeling? Well, it can't get the free market to do that because it's free.
Since words matter, and we have made a distinction between disinterested and uninterested already, let's also define "free."
If someone is free, it means that they are not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
So if government is able to successfully implement item Truth in Labeling, then we're not dealing with the free market.
And since previous labeling laws exist and have been implemented in the past, we know there is no free market. Why do we talk about the free market if there is no free market?
Rabbit-hole
The main reason is because the so-called free market is comprised of corporations, not individuals. Corporations are legal fictions. They are words on paper. They are like very boring books. These "books" are written by very boring individuals called lawyers. Corporations are created by legislative fiat. Fiat is a formal authorization, proposition, or decree.
Since corporations are created by people, people therefore control corporations. The people who create corporations have more control over these corporations than the people who did not create these corporations. That is to say, the lawyers have more control over corporations than you and me.
And the people who define these corporations have more control over these corporations than the people who create these corporations. That is to say, legislators have more control over corporations than lawyers.
There is a distinction between "create" and "define." If I define something, I have gone about how to create that thing.
If someone defines a corporation, they have set forth a method on how to create corporations. If a corporation is created, then the definition changes, the corporation that has already been created also changes.
All of this to say, corporations are not part of the free market because they are subservient to those who define and create them.
Anyway, that was quite a rabbit-hole. I think the other two solutions Oliver mentions have the same problem without the free market. Forcing businesses to offer Healthy Options and ensure Informed Consumers is incompatible with the free market.
But a free market can implement them. The food industry has a stake in the general health of their customers, especially in a free market economy. Without government force, the stake is unprotected, unshielded.
If a free market provider of food is unable or unwilling to work with Truth in Labeling, Healthy Options, and Informed Consumers, competition with the foresight to implement such ideas will have an advantage.
Trouble is, the average person doesn't believe free market forces will promote this kind of competition. We don't have very many examples to go on. Maybe consider John Stossel's various pieces on the subject:
| John Stossel - Food Police Fatheads |
|---|
 |
Did you catch that quote at the very end?
"I am a good cancer." - Rep Felix Ortiz, New York State Assembly (D)
Information is the way to go. Hit pieces on the provider of unhealthy options can work in a free market.
Jaimie Oliver's information and presentation is over the top and very entertaining. His goal to affect legislation is misguided but other than that, I appreciate his efforts to get the information in front of people.