To paraphrase your question: The poor choose to drink, eat and smoke themselves to death so why should well-minded peternalistic academic elites try and stop them against their will?
One argument - drawing on the behavioural discourse - would be that the choices they (we all) make are not rational informed choices but are heavily influenced by the choice architecture.
The Nanny State spends £17.6m on information/ social marketing campaigns about the risks of alcohol. Meanwhile, the drinks industry spends £200m on advertising, plus another £400-600m on promotions and marketing (including extensive sports sponsorship). How are we meant to make free choices in these circumstances?
This argument draws on older ideas. The concept of individual liberty in relation to consumer choices may be seen as an ideology. To paraphrase (albeit clunkily):
"An unhealthy choice is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker. Consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness
-----Original Message-----
From: The Health Equity Network (HEN) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam Oliver
Sent: 01 February 2010 11:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Quick question
Those that seem most concerned with inequalities in health outcomes also
often seem to think that the 'voice' of the disadvantaged is not heard
(a sort of democratic deficit). And yet isn't it the case that the
policies that are most often proposed to address health inequalities
conflict with individual liberty, going against the grain of what the
majority (including the majority of the disadvantaged) appear to say
they want?
How is that circle squared?
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplianceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
|