Cheap Meats, Part II

So, I went for a run this afternoon and started thinking some more about the last post. I revisit it because I think it is a simple illustration of what is a dominate thread in political discourse and the implicit agenda of liberal-Democrats.

Ezra Klein thinks meat is too cheap: "A situation in which meat were a bit costlier and we were thus forced to eat more grains and vegetables would not exactly be a tragedy." Poor Ezra, someone must be holding a gun to his head an forcing him to eat inexpensive meat.

For starters, this is not an externality problem. No one besides the livestock is harmed when I chose to eat meat. Perhaps you think slaughtering animals is detestable under any circumstances. But if that’s the case, you should be arguing for it to be illegal to eat meat, not that it should be more expensive. (There is, no doubt, a group who would argue for a ban on meat. I’ll have that debate as soon as you find one reasonable person who would support an outright ban on all carnivorous activity. Good luck.)

Once we’ve dispensed with the externality issue, Ezra’s argument is effectively that people should be poorer. He’ll be happy to know that there was a time when meat exhausted a much larger percentage of income and, indeed, the average individual in Western society consumed much less meat. I believe the age is referred to as Medieval. If anyone would like to revisit that time period, I suggest he move to some remote village in Eastern Europe…perhaps an ex-Soviet bloc would suit him. Better yet, he could found an isolated, self-sufficient commune in Montana where he and his brethren are free to eat meat in any quantity and quality they agree upon. This would be a perfectly legal and inoffensive endeavor. True, the standard of living and life expectancy in his commune will be lower, but they will have succeeded at getting rid of cheap meat.

Alas, I suspect this is not what Ezra wants. No, what he really wants is to share in the freedom and prosperity our society provides while imposing his preferences and values on others. Not a single person is protesting his trip to Whole Foods, but he is comforted by his narcissistic moralizing when he proposes that others should be refused the right to consume as they see fit.

But Kevin, you say, aren’t you overreacting. I don’t think so; it’s this same attitude that underlies the paternalistic social-fascism that’s inherent in any number of other policies. These policies have the advantage of being deceptively paraded as protecting animal welfare or second-hand smokers or the elderly or home-schooled children or the innocent poor. But sadly, what they are really meant to protect is you, from yourself. And, even sadder, there is very little protection achieved at a great cost to freedom.

You might be surprised by my experience at the dirt-cheap, mouth-watering Tortilla Café for dinner tonight. I had a pork tamale. My girlfriend had a vegetarian burrito. And I’m sure there were trans-fats used somewhere in the process. Shockingly, everyone involved (except the pig) approved of the transaction and not a single person was offended. We didn’t even require that some central authority verify the café was fit to serve us food; we could tell by its reputation. Oh…and I jay-walked to get there.

I challenge liberal-Democrats of the nanny-persuasion to accept the following offer. I will grant you a large measure of redistribution of wealth if you are willing to stop meddling in people’s lives and pretending you know what is best for them.

If you’re feeling real bold, let’s increase the stakes. Once your welfare state fails to achieve the equality you seek and, instead, stymies growth and innovation and diversity and choice, we get to go entirely to a system which respects the sovereignty and responsibility of individuals.