Reuters is reporting that "researchers" at Oxford University want the UK to impose a "fat tax" on foods rich in lipids. Of course, their rationale for the proposal is that such a tax would "save" many lives and save lots of money for their socialized medical system.

So would the abolition of the automobile.

But, the proponents might say, the car is "necessary", while lipid-rich foods are not.

While this point is historically unfounded (people once used horses and buggies; cars are simply more efficient, not necessary for survival), we understand the silly argument. So let's look at serving size per body weight and expenditure of calories per day. If the UK government is interested in surveying what people have the capability of eating, then deciding what is or is not "good for them", they must also look at the quantity of that food, right? Certainly one cannot argue that one french fry a day is hazardous to one's health. At what level does it become hazardous, and if one is four-foot, ten inches, and 100 pounds, can one only eat a few greasy foods per week, versus someone who is 6'-5", and 250?

The use of taxes and regulations to control the non-coercive, non-threatening actions of others "for their own good" is one of the hallmarks of a corrupt governmental system. Of course, one could rationally say that all government, in the abstract, is based on a corrupt view of human nature, but that is a different argument for a different time. The supposed basis for government is to stop us from bringing direct harm to one another, and to allow each of us to act freely within that sphere. The UK government imposes its will on people through the transverse, injecting itself to intervene because people might bring "indirect" harm onto unwitting and unwilling others. This can only be done if government ties them together against their wills, such as, oh, through SOCIALIZED medical systems. At that point, the government steps in and begins to regulate, because "we all pay" for the risky or mistaken actions of others.

Trouble is that this approach leads to policies which cannot be justified with any consistency. For example, the Oxford "researchers" claim that by taxing "fatty" food (which kinds of fat?), they will "save" lives, and save money for the health system as well. But there are many consentual activities that can bring death or injury that could be burdensome on the UK health system. What about a "Fit Tax", for those who exercise too much or with too little care, and injure themselves? These injuries force up costs in the medical system, and "we all pay", so we must clearly tax soccer balls and running shoes. After all, we can't figure out HOW MUCH people are excercising, but we know that high usage of such items makes them wear out more quickly, and thus requires their replacement... So why not impose a tax that covers things generally and acts as a retardant against over use of the balls and shoes?

Unworkable? Arbitrary? Based on majority whim and popular sentiment, rather than on any concrete principle of human action? Indeed. Welcome to paternalism. Welcome to socialized medicine. Welcome to slavery.

Here is the article, from Reuters:
____

Updated: 9:55 a.m. ET July 12, 2007

LONDON - A “fat tax” on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

“A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease,” the study concluded.

Rejecting 'nanny state'
The team from Oxford’s Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.

They used a mathematical formula to estimate the effect of higher prices on the demand for foods such as pastries, cakes, cheese and butter.

However, they said their research only gave a rough guide to the number of lives that could be saved and said more work was needed to get an exact picture of how taxes could improve public health.

Any “fat tax” might be seen as an attack on personal freedom and would weigh more heavily on poorer families, the study warned.

A food tax would raise average weekly household bills by 4.6 percent per person.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously rejected the idea as an example of the “nanny state” that might push people away from healthy food.

The Food and Drink Federation has called the proposed tax patronizing and says it would hit low-income families hardest.

It suggests that people eat a balanced diet.

The British Heart Foundation said it does not support the tax.

“We believe the government should focus on ensuring healthy foods are financially and geographically accessible to everyone,” it said.