Don’t dismiss anger at the sugar tax as mere knee-jerk hatred of nanny statism
Are there any libertarians left in Britain? The BBC doesn’t seem to think so. Its reporting of the Government’s new sugar tax was interested in only one question: will it work? Not: is it legitimate for politicians to seek to mould people’s behaviour in this way? Or: by what right do they interfere in our diets? Or even: what has gone so badly wrong that so many people no longer feel obliged to look after their own health? Only whether the measure will be enough to reduce sugar consumption, with barely a hint at the anger that many of us feel at the state presuming to encroach on our choices in this way.
This is the most revealing aspect of the introduction of the sugar tax: the shift in what is apparently considered legitimate grounds for opposing such an intervention. Even 10 years ago, libertarian arguments were treated seriously, if ruthlessly dispatched. The smoking ban became a classic battle over where one person’s liberty should end and another’s begin. That boundary was set in the wrong place: pubs and bars should be able to make their own rules. But at least the right arguments were aired.
Today, if you oppose the sugar tax, minimum alcohol pricing, the coffee cup levy or whatever else on grounds no wider than it is not the state’s job to decide these things (and, unlike smoking, my sugar consumption does not harm your health), at best your arguments are deemed lightweight
Even 10 years ago, libertarian arguments were treated seriously. The smoking ban became a classic battle over where one person’s liberty should end and another’s begin
hatred of “nanny statism” and at worst are ignored altogether as the ignorant ravings of “addicts” or the selfish.
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that the BBC thinks this way, but companies have been co-opted into this tendency, too. Social media is awash with complaints from customers no longer able to choose between the “full-fat” and zero sugar versions of different drinks because their manufacturers have reformulated the former to get around the sugar levy. They don’t like the fact that they are no longer responsible for their own health decisions. The companies don’t care. Ribena, which tastes horrible now that much of the sugar has been replaced by sweeteners, instructs its customers, politely, to get over it; it was the right thing to do. That shoppers may not want to be told what is good for them by a cordial maker hardly seems to register.
There will be consequences to such arrogance. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is that people will not lie supine as their opinions are disrespected, even if the justification is as good intentioned as improving public health. It hardly seems conducive to improving health, either: the gulf between the attitudes of officials and ordinary people doesn’t seem likely to encourage better behaviour, only to create suspicion.
Above all, the progressive marginalisation of libertarian opinions in public life is sad. Rejection of paternalism is not mere bloody-minded, knee-jerk hatred of being told what to do, but part of a serious intellectual tradition based on a centuries-old understanding of the rights and responsibilities of the individual. What a shame that that’s now barely understood.