The Sumptuary Manifesto

"Sumptuary" - Regulating or otherwise limiting consumption

This particular JSOTR piece was a brief satire aimed at dismantling the ridiculous and arbitrary nature of laws that regulate consumption, termed sumptuary laws. The piece was short and pithy, a very easy read. Essentially it was a description of different hypothetical laws that limited various types of consumption, from housing sizes to liquor to facial hair, with the justification being the mutual benefit of society. At the beginning and end, in a nice symmetry, the "Peerless Leader" remarked upon the outdated, misguided view of liberty held by the enemy party of libertarians and the like.

I personally enjoyed reading the piece. It conveyed a simple insight into the arbitrary and often ridiculous nature of attempts to regulate consumption, using exaggerated examples to drive the point across. In our society, there are certainly people who believe that there is too much consumption and wish we could do something to deal with it. Many point to a consumption tax as the solution. Perhaps this would work, perhaps it wouldn't, but is there really an issue of over-consumption? Efficiency should be lauded, and some people certainly do lead extravagant lifestyles, but who are we to tell them what they can and can't do, based on our subjective and vague perception of what is "too much" consumption"? The exception to this rule is when there are externalities to the consumption that directly affect others. However, given that every dollar spent has an opportunity cost of whatever else it could have been spent on, is it moral to give money spent on excess and re-direct it to those who are more needy and would use it to buy food, water, or other necessities? This is the mentality behind wealth re-distribution and social safety nets. The economic argument would be that the dollar to a person who is poor has a greater marginal utility than a person who has much money and spends at least some of it on excesses such as super nice cars or extravagantly large houses. Now, I personally try to live within my means, and would be happy without a nice car, but is it necessarily moral for me to turn to someone else who makes more and say "because you have too much money, you should give some away?" In my opinion, this is an immoral mentality. However, assuming that the money is spent well, and used towards infrastructure and social programs, is it a necessary moral casualty to help those in need? This is an open question and one I am personally still debating.