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.
- Ignorance abounds: Obamacare and small businesses - 24
- Mayor development: Growth and a Manchester city office - 1
- Page One Editorial: Control of NH’s future: Today’s House vote will be one for the ages - 17
- Consider Nevada: Gambling always expands - 9
- Missing the point: The IRS scandal and state power - 27
- Helping panhandlers: A method worth trying in Manchester - 7
- For the people: A century of the NH primary - 0
- What innovation? The casino way is the lazy way - 10
- Not so merry: Giving Robin Hood a bad name - 4
Just say it: Our fight is with radical Islam
READER COMMENTS: 38- Governor orders flags to fly at half-staff for Memorial Day - 0
- Woman accidentally backs car into husband in Rye, pins him to wall - 0
- Portsmouth drug raid nets four arrests for sale of heroin - 0
- Manchester Market clerk robbed by man armed with knife - 0
- McCafferty nominated to federal bench to succeed McAuliffe - 0
- Man who spent days under Salem woman's trailer recording sentenced to prison - 1
- Mother cow lures wayward steer back to Epping farm - 3
- Wanted: Shaun Springer - 0
- Man sought for attempting to lure girl into white van near Nashua school - 0
Police investigate death scene in Belmont
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



