Quote:
Originally Posted by Sion
You don't. People will either take responsibility for themselves or they won't. But as long as government is there to bail them out every time they fuck up...most people aren't likely to change their stupid ways.
|
The basic flaw in this argument is dualistic thinking. There are only two options in your ideology: bootstrap individualism, or government paternalism. The real picture is much more nuanced. There is a role for collective, civic action (think "government" if you must) that isn't a "bailout" and that does not neglect the role of individual action.
This is an interesting article that addresses some of these issues:
eMJA: Obesity, law and personal responsibility
Some highlights:
"Personal choice will be influenced by the environment in which people are making that choice. 'People are more likely to exercise personal responsibility if they’re not expected to swim against a current of advertising and promotion.' "
and
"A spurious dichotomy: Despite all the controversy, personal responsibility and the wider community response are not on opposite sides of the fence, says Chris Reynolds. 'These two ideas are inextricably linked. One is necessarily supported and sustained by the other. The community must create the environment that maximises the potential for people to make healthy choices.' And Magnusson’s answer to that question from the floor about how the law can help reframe this debate? 'We can turn it around and say that, if we really want to deliver on autonomy or individualism, we need to introduce legislation that allows people full freedom of choice.' "
This is a public health issue - it costs all of us billions of dollars. And it's not SOLELY the result of individual action...you can't separate people from the context in which they live. If you want to look at it as an issue of fairness, you're not asking people living in different circumstances to make the same choices. Healthy choices can cost more in time, distance, and money for those who live in communities where those choices are not planned for or incidentally convenient. If you want the situation to actually change, you have to admit that there is a utilitarian value in changing that context to enable or encourage choices that make people healthier and cost us all less money.