Jim Harper at Cato is arguing against mandated product labeling for fast-food restaurants. He writes:

If consumers had unlimited attention, the surfeit of notices would be an unqualified good thing. But consumer attention is not unlimited. Consumers quickly learn to ignore notices that don’t interest them. Notices can easily confuse consumers. Mandated notices often provide information that consumers would already get in more accessible ways.

Agreed. But there’s a big step between providing too much information and not providing enough and one could argue that reasonable people can agree on a compromise, such as putting only limited information on the sign board but more detailed info elsewhere.

But Harper is committed to the bigger picture:

Information about products and services is subject to market demand just like every other feature of the things we buy. If you don’t believe me, try running a grocery store without putting price tags on or near the canned peaches.

I’m a libertarian, but this is always something I’ve taken issue with: the assumption that the EVERYTHING is or should be subject to market demand. To hold to this strictly requires believing that all human demands are rationally formed and/or considered or that the costs of allowing large sections of the population to behave irrationally doesn’t have potential consequences for those of us smart enough to watch our weight and take care of ourselves.

Don’t the people stuffing Moonpies and Doritos in their mouths inevitably show up at a Democratic debate somewhere crying over not being able to afford their insulin? And isn’t the cost of encouraging responsible behavior through soft paternalism lower than allowing these people to wreck the political system. And doesn’t labeling give society the moral authority to hold people more accountable for their actions?