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.
- Getting revved up over student car raffle - 0
- Manchester Community College graduates told ‘speak your minds’ - 0
- Colby-Sawyer lays off 16 staff workers to balance budget - 1
- White Mountains school board expands preschool - 0
- Milford team wins seatbelt challenge - 0
- Activist resident launches alternative UNH logo search - 1
- Loeb School offers workshop on producing newsletters - 0
- Threats at Goffstown High ‘not credible’ - 0
- Pushback against logo plan for UNH heats up - 1
Students hold ceremony to honor flags
READER COMMENTS: 0- Talk of UNH logo change brings out passions - 0
- John Habib's City Sports: Gosselin stepping down as city AD - 0
- Lackey sharp as Red Sox pound Cleveland, Masterson - 0
- Manchester Vet Center just 'a great place' - 0
- NHIAA Roundup: Bedford netmen earn spot in state final - 0
- NHIAA Scoreboard, May 24, 2013 - 0
- NHIAA Div. I Track: Lynch, North boys prevail - 0
- Two found dead in Belmont; one man detained as part of investigation - 0
- Weather this weekend may be more like Veterans Day - 0
Sox in the city: World champs' appearance highlighted Gill Stadium opening
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



