Saturday, January 22, 2005

Breast implant tax revisited

Micha Ghertner at Catallarchy wrote a well thought out post in response to my post endorsing a tax on breast implants.

Although many have linked to my post, only Ghetner seems to have understood my argument that breast implants create a net negative for society. He compares it to the problem of people standing up at a concert:

This is a familiar problem in economics and in everyday life. It happens everytime we go to a concert or a sports arena. Inevitably, someone stands up to get a better view. But this blocks the view of the people in the row behind, so they stand up as well. Pretty soon, the entire stadium is standing to get a better view, even though we would be better off if we all sat down instead. (Same view, less leg strain)

Ghertner also makes a comment I'd like to respond to:

Women get breast implants not merely to attract men, although that may partially explain some women’s motivation. Rather, most women say that they get implants to increase their own self-esteem.

I'm sure women pretend it's about "self-esteem" because it's a politically correct answer. Just like people say they go to the gym for the "health" benefits, when in reality people go to the gym to improve their physical appearance. I shamelessly admit that I go to the gym to have a better looking body and not for the health benefits. But at least going to the gym might provide some health benefits. Unless the gym-goer is enhancing his results with steroids, in which case he'd probably be healthier just sitting home and watching TV.

If women with breast implants have higher "self-esteem," it's only at the expense of other womens' self-esteem which surely goes down when their breasts become smaller when compared with surgically augmented women.

Going back to steroids, they're comparable to breast augmentation surgery. Steroids give the user a short-term advantage of bigger muscles at the expense of long-term health problems (and premature baldness). This is why society has chosen to ban steroid use for muscle building purposes. But despite the ban, there exists a thriving black market.

Why is breast augmentation surgery treated differently than steroids? Probably because these rules are made by men--old out of shape skinny men who do not want other men building bigger muscles making themselves seem even scrawnier by comparison. But they don't mind if womens' breasts get bigger. They probably get excited thinking about it.

(For the record, I think that out of shape skinny men are cute too, especially if they're smart, libertarian and rich!)

UPDATE

Another on topic post by Patri Friedman of Catallarchy. Because Catallarchy seems like an excellent blog, full of free-market goodness, I added them to my blogroll.

10 comments:

David Foster said...

Thought experiment: Suppose the procedure were 100% safe (or as safe as anything can be in this world). Would you still favor the tax?

photoncourier.blogspot.com

Dick Freely said...

You are asserting, apparently seriously, that the free-will choice of some individuals to alter their appearance is somehow a forced reduction of the value or freedom of others, and hence demands tax-bassed compensation.

Your assertion is illogical, unfounded, and basically a personal, emotional opinion. You are then willing to immediately draw the guns of the state to "rectify" *your* perception of a non-existant wrong caused by *your* emotional reaction.

You should immediately either retract this irrational assertion, or change your blog name to "Libertine Girl", as you are not exhibiting the ethics of liberty, but rather indulging your own whims and irrational conclusions at the expense of others who can't match the firepower of your tax-funded goon squad.

Sincerely,
Dick Freely

Micha Ghertner said...

I'm not sure why one's reasons for going to the gym has to be *either* health benefits *or* improving their physical appearance, and not both. While it's possible that everyone is just lying to themselves about their ultimate motivations for exercise, I don't find this likely or reasonable, barring some evidence or further argument. So too with self-esteem. As I said, self-esteem may be closely tied to increased ability to attract a partner, but either way, it is still extremely important for psychological well-being.

As for the steroid/breast implant inconsistency, a better comparison might be penis enlargement surgery, which is just as legal as breast augmentation surgery. Why society accepts elective cosmetic surgery while rejecting elective drug use is a good question, but not one that sexism alone can answer.

mikeca said...

I think it is the basic “war on drugs” mentality that makes steroids illegal. If there were a breast-enlarging drug, it would probably be illegal too.

As to breast implants and women’s self-esteem, women should realize that not all men like big breasts. I personally prefer women with smaller breasts and I hate breast implants. It is usually juvenile, immature men who are impressed with large breasts.

John T. Kennedy said...

How is your working out at the gym for better looks different in principle from another woman going to a cosmetic surgeon for the same reason? Doesn't your exercise disadvantage flabby lazy women? Shouldn't there be a tax on your exercise?

Chad said...

What about women who have Virginal Breast Hypertrophy. Should they be taxed when they have a breast reduction to improve their appearance? Or alternatively what about breast cancer patients who have implants after a masectomy. Transexuals who have implants to help with their self identity issues? And what about strippers and porn actresses who have implants to improve their earning power, can they write off the implants as a business expense? As an alternative I would suggest an tax on all women with large breasts since its really not fair that they receive extra attention from men. Alterrnatively we could tax small breasted women who don't get implants because they are causing people who don't find that attractive to have to look at them.

But I'm not a college graduate so I am not really into thinking about deep issues like these.

Scott said...

"Why is breast augmentation surgery treated differently than steroids? Probably because these rules are made by men--old out of shape skinny men who do not want other men building bigger muscles making themselves seem even scrawnier by comparison. But they don't mind if womens' breasts get bigger. They probably get excited thinking about it."

Possibly, but what does that same analysis imply about women who want to tax breast augmentation?

"[Flat women] who do not want other [women] [getting] bigger [breasts] making themselves seem even [flatter] by comparison."

Catallarchy is indeed an excellent blog.

Stephan Kinsella said...

Even assuming so-called libertarian girl's assumptions are true about the "net benefit" or whatever for breast implants--it simply does not justify a tax. A libertarian could never think so. For the liertarian, the only purpose of government, if it is to exist, is to protect individual rights. Individual rights can be violated only by force or fraud. That is, the only type of harm that can justify the power of the state and law to be used in response thereto, is invasive, unconsented-to, violations of the borders of the bodies or property of innocent victims. That is all. Period.

This used to be elementary to libertarians, but apparently not so to so-called libertarian girl. If you can point to some "socially wasteful" phenomenon (like breast implants), this still does not justify a law, because a law is simply a rule backed by force of the state. As ever libertarian knows, such force is initiated force--aggression--and thus impermissible, if it is in response to some non-aggressive action.

Anonymous said...

this blog is operated by a socialist. has "libertarian" become a cool word for obvious leftists to throw out to friends when unveiling one's latest social engineering plan (based on force)?

here's my "libertarian" take: i want this blog taxed, because it depresses me. it has negative externalities that must be addressed with a gun. but don't worry, i'll ask somebody else to knock the door down when it's time, so it's not aggression; it's... it's... it's... um...

libertarian? bah! shameful.

Faré said...

negative sum game? What about the benefit for all males??? It's as if you said that competition in production was a negative sum game looking only on the effects on producers, not on consumers.

With your stupid one-sided reasoning, women should all be ugly. And by an analogous reasoning, men should be prevented from competing for women, and will end up all being stupid, lazy, macho, violent, uncaring, etc.

Welcome to the world of dysgenics and dysmemics!

You call yourself libertarian, but what do you know of the basic principles of libertarianism? For a starter, maybe you could read Frederic Bastiat's Economic Harmonies...