Mike Yates mentioned soldiers and smoking. The troops in the trenches during WW I were give free ciggies. Then Freud's famous double nephew, Edward Bernays, had the debutants march in the Easter parade, identifying smoking with freedom. This period is expecially interesting. Now Louis says that preference formation is foreign to Marxism. I am not so sure. I have read quite a bit about the period that suggests that there was an intentional effort to shift workers' focus from their identity as workers to their identity as consumers. The car is an interesting example of how these preferences set of a chain of unforseeable events. The car was seen as liberating, including sexual liberation. But now we can see how the car has destroyed public space, making the cities less enjoyable. As long as we see preferences as individual, then we have lost the game. Once we see the social role of preferences, then we have a better chance of reconstructing communities. Doug was, of course, correct in noting that Clinton is pointing to children smoking as the core of the problem of tobacco. Bill emphasizes that the choices are not merely the product of an individual choice. We are sometimes too easily influenced, as Bernays realized. Now, everyone has limits on how far individual choice is permitted. Some would limit pornography, cannibis, tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, leaf blowers, etc. These discussions usually occur is the framework of questions of morality. I am only suggesting that we frame these questions in a political context. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
