Conclusions are flawed in several ways. This group is doing a lot of these presentations based on this theory of geographical cultures and what group first settled what part of the US.
that part in and of itself is fine. Thomas Sowell talks about the same thing when he looks at the "redneck" culture of the South, African American culture, etc.
The problem is in their conclusions and causation. When you read it the whole piece oozes disdain for conservative principles, and a whole lot of condescension. That's a bad sign for being objective.
The biggest reason for the differences is likely social and economic, but not political per se: diet. The article even touches on that with one quote talking about heart disease, etc. Of course their spin on it is that this is a lack of education and a lack of pro-government involvement to get people to change their diets.
Well, it's either that or simply that in the South we grow up with certain cultural dishes and we aren't inclined to use the government to pressure people to tell them to eat differently, b/c well, we believe in individual liberty.
I could post on this a lot more, but suffice to say the premise of these long term social impacts of our founding aren't wrong, but their conclusions are rife with bias and faulty science.
even the premise of measuring overall welfare in average life expectancy is probably a false premise. I'm sure if we lived in a totalitarian state that banned sugary drinks, desserts, and required by law all citizens to exercise that we would have better long term life expectancy. Would we be OK with that?
So is having a longer "average" life expectancy the main priority or just one of many goals and measures of the overall health of a culture? It's not bad, but at what price does one get this goal? How are those numbers skewed by being averages?
the premise is intriguing, but you have to take their conclusions with a big grain of salt b/c it's obvious they set out to prove their conclusion before they started their research.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Diet (and possibly "other" consumption, using the term broadly) is probably 90% of the differences. The cause of that diet difference can be debated somewhat, I suppose.
I'll read the article later, looked interesting, but have to go a long way to convince me otherwise.
This kind of science can be very dangerous. it's not causation, just correlation, and that can be misleading.
I have no doubt that regional differences in the US, somewhat based on who founded what region and why they were here and what culture they brought, has an influence on a wide array of issues. The question becomes how much influence, and in this case critically how those influences interact. Obviously a love of food that is bad for you would be one of those huge factors that is definitely based in those cultural differences, but has nothing to do with being more or less pro-government.
the clear position of this piece is pretty hacked, in that it is clear they see things like individualism as primitive and worthy of disdain, and they then go about proving it by arguing that people who accept more government influence live longer.
The problem is they don't control for obvious factors like diet, which is certainly culture based in part, and is probably more of an issue than access to government supported healthcare.
For example they act as if in Appalachia there is more limited health care than in rural Maine. that's not necessarily the case, but what they don't talk about his how in part the Appalachian region has in my view "given up" and in fact is HUGELY now on the government dole.
I could just as easily argue that too much government in Appalachia has led to reduced life expectancy, as the level of disability and false disability in that region is so rife as to be almost a given.
Then there is the rampant drug use, much of it fraudulent and again paid for by the government in concert with corrupt professionals who are not prosecuted by local government. The level of drug use is off the charts, a lot of it done through corrupt rings of doctors and pharmacists, not to mention the obvious consumption of outright illegal drugs.
Suffice to say the poverty of that region, and the impact it has had on people, is not the same as in other areas even if their average incomes are fairly equivalent. One can debate why that is, but clearly the drug problems of Appalachia have a big impact on life expectancy there, and they don't seem to have data to show that drug use in Maine for example is equivalent. I doubt it is, esp. given the level of corruption among the medical community in the mountain regions.
Diet and drug use are far and away the most likely issues in life expectancy differences in the US. Once you control for those things then you can look at other factors, even with this kind of observational data, but if you don't control for those then any conclusions you draw are pretty iffy.
Add in smoking, though less of a thing. At one time Kentucky had one of the highest smoking rates in the US, if not the highest. No amount of access to health care, no amount of education can overcome smoking 1-2 packs a day for your health. Arguably education would change that behavior in some, but part of it is just cultural, and that goes to why this kind of study has so many issues. If Group A loves fried food and tobacco products, and group B doesn't, that's probably your biggest issue for longevity.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 09-04-2023 at 04:32 PM.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Chuck. I have a question for you. And this borders a political question and I don't mean it to get moved to the other board. I'm asking this because of a docu-series I recently watched on this topic (I will speak to that later).Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
BUT....here is my question for you as a libertarian. And speaking to the "at what price does one get this goal" question which I think is a great one.
Let's talk specifically about diet.
From a libertarian standpoint, the government making McDonald's against the law would be no bueno. Understandably so. Yes, it would be healthier and better for the local area....but as you ask....at what cost?
BUT....what if the government incentivized eating healthy through subsidies? Would that be going too far for you?
Meaning (as a silly example):
"The City of Lexington has come together to begin an effort to get healthy. Any restaurant can choose one meal on the menu that meets certain health criteria (below 600 calories, lower sodium, etc). This initiative will pay for half of that meal as a subsidy to incentivize Lexington citizens to order said meal as opposed to other unhealthy choices on the menu."
Just curious your thoughts in general on something like this.
~Puma~
I'll let Chuck handle this one, but I think I know the answer: a libertarian would say it's not the government's job to pick winners and losers.
Last edited by KSRBEvans; 09-06-2023 at 01:41 PM.
U really think players are going to duke without being paid over Kentucky?--Gilbert Arenas, 9/12/19
I am no longer a Libertarian. I now identify as a somewhat portly but still attractive Polynesian woman who has an alien father, sexually attracted to other women but only those with one of the last three letters of the alphabet in their first or middle names, and I also believe that my alien heritage has given me the power to govern over the lives of humanity in their absence, so I think everyone should just do what I say. Would also be nice to stop and bow in my direction once in a while, but that is still voluntary.
Seriously, will gleefully try to answer this without being political, just more a statement of Libertarian ideology as I see it, when I get a few minutes tonight. It definitely borders on "politics", but I will try to answer without saying what is right or wrong, just a statement of how I think the ideology applies to the issue.
FWIW I do think it's a very valid question, and I will also say one of the bigger issues with the Libertarian party is an unwillingness to be somewhat pragmatic, though that has improved a lot in the last 10-15 years. I tend to be more pragmatic I think than most, or at least many.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
FWIW that just reminded me of the great Steven Wright joke:
I got on the bus, sat down and noticed a beautiful blonde Chinese woman crying in the seat across from me...
I moved over and asked her why she was crying.
"I don't usually bare my soul to strangers," she said.
I replied that sometimes it was perfectly fine to tell your story to a perfect stranger. She nodded and said, "I just came out of my therapist session and he says there is no way to cure me."
I asked what exactly was her problem. She said, "I'm a nymphomaniac, but I only get turned on by Jewish cowboys. You know, I do feel better. By the way, my name is Kim."
"Glad to meet you," I said. "My name is Bucky Goldstein."
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Man I love Steven Wright.
Just so we are clear...taxes have never paid for my fudge rounds...
But if they did...I'd probably buy more.
My Libertarian POV on that question is if you remove subsidized healthcare then the Government has no need to keep me from my Big Mac and Super Sized Fries and Shake...just sayin...
“If you just want to move the needle on longevity in the short term, aggressive tobacco control and taxation policies are about the quickest way you can do that,”
And they wonder why social security is insolvent. Give retirees free Marlboros and see how fast we get that SS back on track.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks