barrowaj

I suppose it depends on how you define behavior. I hate arguing about definitions, but I needed to look up the definition for my own edification. Dictionary.com says behavior is "The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli." This would mean that if you gave the same stimuli (ie. McDonald's, and a job where they sat on their ass) to people of the 1930s, they would still get fat. So then behavior as a set of actions or reactions to a given stimulus is constant.

But clearly people can make their own decision about whether they want to eat more or exercise more, but I don't think people wake up and think "today I'm going to get more fat." So, as a result I think that there is a reason to try to discourage unhealthy eating and encourage exercise.

I know that you are a hardcore libertarian, so let me put my philosophy in other terms. The success of libertarianism is contingent on people acting in their own rational self interest (within the confines of law). However, people don't always act in their rational self interest. Furthermore, things like drugs and ultra high calorie fatty food (which can be likened to a drug in many ways), cause people to act even more irrationally. Therefore I think that there is an imperitive to try to curb irrational behavior. In the spirit of freedom, I think the best way to do this is generally by creating taxes and tax incentives rather than outright banning certain behaviors. Anyway, sorry for the digression, but I thought I had to let you know the reasoning behind my words. Learning a lot about Biology (especially evolution) really has changed my perspective on the world. You begin to see people not as someone with unbounded free will, but as a variable set of behaviors that respond to their environment.