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.
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 14
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 22
- Roaming jihadis: A terrorist visits Manchester - 3
- Athletes and PE: Give them credit for sports - 7
- The EPA's friend: It has a loyal ally in Shea-Porter - 16
- Leading vs. following: Ayotte, Shaheen and the polls - 24
- The cupcake police: Stop! In the name of lard! - 15
- Page One Editorial: Obama is right - 27
- Taxed tips: Another NH revenue grab - 9
Not so merry: Giving Robin Hood a bad name
READER COMMENTS: 0- Updated: Man fatally shot on Manchester street; neighbors shocked - 3
- Nashua mayor to recommend Bennett for corporation counsel - 0
- Claremont group disputes incinerator plant's permit - 0
- Goffstown artisan gives new face to Wolfeboro tower - 0
- Katie McQuaid's Scene in Manchester: Kiwanis and the kids - 0
- Town may have to fix grave error - 0
- Gate City Musings: Mayor just keeps on spending - 0
- Nashua set to begin budget review - 0
- Manchester 'homeless meter' program seeks to deter panhandling - 0
Manchester alderman urges review of police phone use
READER COMMENTS: 1
Sorry, no question available



