In 2018, universities are basically just left/green-leaning think-tanks. They are candid about seeking to influence the political agenda, and the ends to which they will influence it. What they don't admit to is that their work is 'ideological'. It is.
Does it sound too much to say that an ideology is at work behind the desire to tax red meat?
1. The presupposition is that you cannot make your own choices, and should not be free to make them.
That is a deeply political presupposition.
That is a deeply political presupposition.
2. The broader context of risk-management as the primary role of government alters the relationships between people, various institutions (i.e. universities, etc) and the state.
That is a political thing, no matter how much the academics protest that they are objective.
That is a political thing, no matter how much the academics protest that they are objective.
3. Depriving people of material choice is analogous to depriving people of political choice. Under the presuppositions of 1 & 2, the voter can no better choose a political party than what to eat for dinner.
Could you argue otherwise -- that people are not competent to decide what to eat for dinner, but can participate in decisions about how they are governed?
I deny that you can.
I deny that you can.
4. We know what makes people healthier.
Wealth.
Wealth.
But politicians and their public health researchers are made extremely nervous about debates about how wealth should be produced and distributed.
It might mean that they lose their jobs.
It might mean that they lose their jobs.
Panics about risks are attempts to sustain a political compact between mediocre institutions, populated by mediocre politicians and 'researchers'.
It has nothing to do with saving people from the risks of eating slightly too much red meat.
It has nothing to do with saving people from the risks of eating slightly too much red meat.
