Home » Opinion » Editorials
June 12. 2012 10:40PM
Nanny state: Bloomberg's logical conclusion
The great P.J. O’Rourke wrote years ago that “giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” The wisdom of that quip is reinforced daily, and often by do-gooders elected as smiling, kind-hearted reformers. (Possessed of such wisdom, it is no wonder that O’Rourke moved to New Hampshire, where we take individual liberty seriously.)
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg created an international controversy last month when he proposed a ban on the sale of sugar-sweetened soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces. His previous health policing (banning transfats, mandating calorie counts on menus, reducing the salt content of foods) having met with shrugs from most New Yorkers and applause from elite opinion-makers, Bloomberg was emboldened to go even further. But he’s finding that his big-soda ban was one scolding the public was not so willing to accept.
A lot of people were shocked at Bloomberg’s boldness. “How dare he say I can’t enjoy a 20 oz. soda if I want to?” Many wondered — for the first time — what he might ban next. They never seemed to consider that the soda ban was a logical extension of the mayor’s plan to improve the health of individuals by forcibly limiting their choices (the calorie count mandate is an exception, as it informs rather than eliminates choices).
A government empowered to protect us from ourselves — as opposed to protecting us from others’ misdeeds — will inevitably limit our freedoms by removing options disliked by those who happen to hold power at the moment. It will begin with the seemingly sensible — seatbelt and helmet mandates, say — and wind up telling us that we cannot consume more sugar or salt than the “experts” recommend, even though the expert recommendations are constantly changing. For instance, salt is not nearly as bad for us as is widely believed, and reducing our salt intake to government-recommended levels could actually kill some of us, a health policy researcher wrote in The New York Times on June 2.
“People should...” is no justification for government limitations on individual choices. Governing by that guideline gets us soda bans, health insurance mandates and other forms of petty and not-so-petty tyranny. It is a short slide down the slippery slope from seatbelt mandates to soda bans to dictates that we all eat our veggies and brush our teeth. Over time, one leads straight to the other.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg created an international controversy last month when he proposed a ban on the sale of sugar-sweetened soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces. His previous health policing (banning transfats, mandating calorie counts on menus, reducing the salt content of foods) having met with shrugs from most New Yorkers and applause from elite opinion-makers, Bloomberg was emboldened to go even further. But he’s finding that his big-soda ban was one scolding the public was not so willing to accept.
A lot of people were shocked at Bloomberg’s boldness. “How dare he say I can’t enjoy a 20 oz. soda if I want to?” Many wondered — for the first time — what he might ban next. They never seemed to consider that the soda ban was a logical extension of the mayor’s plan to improve the health of individuals by forcibly limiting their choices (the calorie count mandate is an exception, as it informs rather than eliminates choices).
A government empowered to protect us from ourselves — as opposed to protecting us from others’ misdeeds — will inevitably limit our freedoms by removing options disliked by those who happen to hold power at the moment. It will begin with the seemingly sensible — seatbelt and helmet mandates, say — and wind up telling us that we cannot consume more sugar or salt than the “experts” recommend, even though the expert recommendations are constantly changing. For instance, salt is not nearly as bad for us as is widely believed, and reducing our salt intake to government-recommended levels could actually kill some of us, a health policy researcher wrote in The New York Times on June 2.
“People should...” is no justification for government limitations on individual choices. Governing by that guideline gets us soda bans, health insurance mandates and other forms of petty and not-so-petty tyranny. It is a short slide down the slippery slope from seatbelt mandates to soda bans to dictates that we all eat our veggies and brush our teeth. Over time, one leads straight to the other.
- Hassan’s falsehoods: Does she even care about the truth? - 18
- Tax credit math: Who owns your money? - 9
- Voter restrictions: Who will govern us? - 26
- School board papers: Beaudry gets left behind - 1
- Data overreach Are programs really justified? The weak case for PRISM. - 12
- A Medicaid reduction? That is not likely - 8
- Border security? Maybe, some day, perhaps. Or not - 35
- Priority profs: University system tops HHS - 5
- Recognizing father: Not PC, but still OK - 1
Pearl Street prize: Don’t waive city auction rules
READER COMMENTS: 1- Road to Recovery helps America's heroes - 0
- Valenti Modified Series back at it - 0
- Seabrook scores in OT to give Blackhawks win, series tie - 0
- Apology issued for naming of Boston bomber as a victim of gun violence at Concord rally - 23
- Hellickson, Rays handcuff Red Sox - 0
- Celtics' Rivers, Ainge meet to clear air - 0
- Fisher Cats drop second straight - 0
- Troubles mount for Patriots' Hernandez - 0
- Central High student says he was knocked unconscious; police investigate racial motive - 0
Russian national indicted over phony debit, credit cards
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



