New York City Mayor Bloomberg struck what he claims is another blow for the cause of public health yesterday by announcing a ban on the sale of all sugared drinks in containers that measure larger than 16 ounce servings. Because soft drinks are widely believed to be part of the obesity epidemic, he believes it is his duty to try and stop the citizens of Gotham from harming themselves. As the New York Times reports:
“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.
“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”
But even if we concede that drinking too much soda is an unhealthy practice, what the mayor again fails to understand is that the purpose of government is to protect freedom, not to heedlessly infringe upon it merely for the sake of what some people may believe is doing good. Like the city’s ban on the use of trans fats and draconian restrictions on smoking, the new soda regulations are an intolerable intrusion into the private sphere. Though the mayor seems to relish his reputation as the embodiment of the concept of the so-called nanny state, what is going on here is something far more sinister than a billionaire version of Mary Poppins presiding at Gracie Mansion. Rather, it is yet another installment of what Jonah Goldberg rightly termed “liberal fascism.”
Though the term “fascist” has become merely a left-wing epithet aimed at non-liberals, its historic roots are in a movement that above all saw the ends as justifying the means. The Italian fascist state of Benito Mussolini earned a brief popularity around the world for “making the trains run on time” because his regime appeared to make a chaotic political culture more efficient. But the price paid in terms of freedom for the train timetable was very high. Though Bloomberg is no Mussolini, the underlying principle here is the same. He believes it is his duty to solve any problem even if it means expanding the scope of government to govern personal diet.
The point here is not to defend drinking excessive amounts of soda, consuming trans fats or smoking. It is to point out that these are personal choices that cannot reasonably be interpreted to fall under the purview of municipal government. The danger is that the end of personal liberty is not usually accomplished in one broad stroke but is lost by a process of erosion whereby seemingly sensible measures gradually accumulate to create a new reality wherein the once broad protection of the law for private behavior is destroyed piecemeal.
Those who defend the mayor’s actions claim the medical costs of the illnesses caused by drinking, eating and smoking are affected in one way or another by the public and that gives government the right to regulate and/or ban such items. But there is a difference between personal behavior that poses a direct threat to public safety — such as drivng while under the influence of alcohol — and those that constitute minute and indirect contributions to serious problems. If the mayor is allowed to ban private diet or health choices under the principle that he has the right to “do something” about anything that is a public concern, then there is literally no limit to his power to infringe on personal liberty or to intrude on commerce.
It may well be that Americans ought not to drink 20 ounce soda bottles any more than they should smoke. But if we are to live in a free country, they must have the right to do so. Those choices have consequences, but so does giving government the power to take those choices away from us. As grievous as our nation’s health problems may be, the damage from the latter may far outweigh it.
Absolutely correct
Kind of funny, that you protest *against* micromanaging on this issue, but *for* micromanaging on such issues as abortion law, same gender marriages, and other things. I guess expecting consistency is too much.
I don't get your post. Are you addressing the right person? Did I say something about micromanaging anything?
I guess Bloomberg could no longer ignore study after study proving the dangers of secondary coke. n nFirst they came for the cigarettes, then they came for the salt, then they came for the soft drinks, but when they came for the kid's birthday cake I could no longer be silent. n nSeriously, this is why they still teach Plato. You can't tell the players without a scorecard, and there's no better guide than the Republic if you're on the lookout for Guardians who know much more about everything than you do and I do. n nIronically, Bloomberg had just hours earlier endorsed the corpulent Charlie Rangel. Of course, that's a guy, despite his advance years, can still run the Washington con better than any dirtbag Congressman half his age, so I suppose he's worth keeping. n nQuestion: does this mean the Yankees have to trade Sabathia? And what about Christine Quinn? Not exactly Twiggy, if you knowwhat I mean.
Now this is one of the funniest comments I have read in recent memory! Attaboy!
Maybe Bloomberg should remember what happened to Dr. Cocteau.
First they came for the druggies, but I didn't care, because I don't do drugs. Then they came for the smokers, but I didn't care, because I don't smoke. When they came for the fatties, I didn't worry, because I'm thin. Then they came for the Jews . . .
It is amazing how our overall perception of what it means to be free has changed. We are living in a veritable strait jacket, severely limited by the all-intrusive laws, promulgated by our maniacal politicians, on how to live our everyday life, what to do, what to eat, what to drink, to smoke or not to smoke, what to say and what to think. This abuse has become so prevalent and the politicians responsible for advancing it are so emboldened by public apathy and indifference that our personal liberty has turned into a shadow of its former self, a shell with no substance. Politicians face no consequences for attacking and savaging our freedom. New York City has become one of the most tyrannical and suffocating places to live – all in the name of public good.
Bloomberg= Obama= State control. n nI really don't care if people overeat, or do McDonald's 10 times a week. Those are personal choices, and in a free society, you get to make good and bad choices. That's the nature of a free society. That's the nature of personal responsibility. n nThe United States (please read the Federalist Papers and the enumerated powers in the US Constitution and the NY State Constitution). Clearly, Bloomberg does not have the power to enact this decree by fiat. He'll lose on a challenge, and I sincerely hope someone challenges this.
Perhaps there should be a fitness test to living, working or visiting NYC.
But this is only the beginning–next will be the ban on buying 2 or 3 drinks at the same time, then the ban on buying drinks for someone else. next random searches for pop bottles concealed under hoodies, and then the black market. if you think crack is lucrative, what about black market Coke?
Exactly, John C. That's what Bloomberg tried to force other states to do with guns, even threatening to sue them if their gun laws did not meet his liking. If he stays true to pattern, next would come the ban on buying more than one bottle per month. And then will come the ban on Soda King and similar devices that let you make soda at home. Finally will come the ban on drinking cups (disposable or not) that hold more than 16 ounces, and a permit system to buy sugar. These characters parody themselves.
OK, drama queens, dry your panties. He's not "taking away our freedoms." Anybody who wants a giant sugar soda can still get one. He's not limiting who can buy them but limiting who can PUSH them. And no, he's not trying to help right-wingers geezers, who obviously don't need any help from anybody, thank you very much. Bloomberg's mainly focusing on YOUNG PEOPLE. And yes, young people DO need to be nudged in the right direction by the community. I know, "community" is anathema to this crowd, because community means caring for and about people you don't know, which of course means SOCIALISM! (Quick, get out the garlic and a cross!)
Some caring may go a bit too far as it is not asked for. "Community" may also mean forcing on the unwilling others one's views and preferences with no regard to those of the others. New York City is not Mayor Bloomberg's privately owned firm. He might have confused it with Bloomberg L.P. which he may run whichever way he likes.
The only thing that causes obesity is excess calories, whether from soda, fruits, nuts, vegetables, rice, whatever. Once the lefties figure out that banning "bad" foods doesn't reduce obesity, they'll turn to more invasive strategies, such as rationing coupons, or an outright tax for extra pounds. n nI read the readers' comments on the NY Times piece, and it is scary how many lefties are willing to trade freedom for "health" laws from the nanny state. Notice how acceptable bigotry against fat people has become on the "tolerant" left? Fat people need to rise up and tell the liberal fascists that they resent being treated as a "problem." If the lefties want people to bear the financial consequences of their eating habits, no problem. Completely eliminate socialized medicine, let each person pay for their own health care out of their own pockets, and amazingly, people will start making excellent health choices.
Bloomberg's policies and those of his slavish city council should be evaluated also based on historic precedents as history is the only guide to what might be expected in the future. We are still human beings formed into human societies and capable of repeating or emulating whatever our predecessors did. Historical nuances may vary but totalitarian tendencies remain. Liberty is a fleeting and fragile phenomenon vulnerable to abuse. It must be vigilantly protected. The likes of Bloomberg must not be allowed to hack at its very foundation, bit by bit, until they succeed in destroying it.
Your "freedom" to smoke may affect my "freedom" to breath clean air. Your "freedom" to eat yourself into oblivion may affect my "freedom" to enjoy low health insurance costs, your "freedom" to drink yourself into a stupor may affect my "freedom" to cross the street with out being run over by a drunk driver, etc., etc. Individual "freedom" is never absolute.
Should you and the rest of us be forced to spend 2 hours exercising in order to lower your insurance cost? Should we ban all cars and trucks and barbequers from the street so that you may enjoy the pristinely clean air? And drinking oneself into a stupor prior to driving is kind of extreme and directly endangers lives – there is no argument against that.
Bravo! This is a well-reasoned article.
Bravo 2
I looked up your reference, and very few "nannies" are men. It is almost entirely a service performed by mother substitutes, who act as nurses, teachers, psychologists. My major interest in commenting was to complain about Goldberg's book, which I have read twice. It is unfortunate for the education of neocons and conservatives that they have applauded this misconceived conflation of liberalism with fascism.
Sorry, but no conflation of liberalism with fascism. Your objection only substantiates that you have a different view of that history than Goldberg. Many liberal critics praised the scholarship efforts of Goldberg's book – many obviously, who disagreed with him. Find another axe to grind.
If you think the purpose of the book was NOT to leave a strong association of liberalism with fascism, then you are not expert in decoding propaganda. Do read my blog, which is nuanced and precise.
I would guess that you are right and most nannies are women. So are most nurses, but men are nurses. And most soldiers are men but women are soldiers.It seems the wrong forum to complain about Goldberg's book. If “fascism” is taken to mean too much government control then I agree that limiting the size of soft drinks is a step toward fascism.
The CDC estimates that obesity adds 150 billion dollars to the annual cost of health care. Obesity costs billions to employers measured in loss of productivity and higher health insurance premiums. It's a primary contributor to the financial crisis projected for the Medicare system. The military has identified obesity as a threat to our future security as large numbers of potential recruits are unfit. n nIs any of this Mayor Bloomberg's problem? It depends on how much the city spends on healthcare for citizens and city employees that can be attributed to obesity. I agree that in a free society people should make their own choices and live with the resulting consequences. And health insurance companies should be free to charge as much as they want for premiums. But deregulating health insurance would mean higher premiums for those who cost more and less for those who cost less. n nThe current dynamic of freedom to make destructive choices while expecting others to share in the financial consequences is unfair and unsustainable.
Freedom is useless for people who do not assume their responsibility. Obesity of others infringes significantly on other people freedom. We end -up paying a lot more $ for health insurance because of "FREEDOM"!!!! Healthcare cost will destroy the economy under the pretext of freedom! Is that INTELLIGENT? The food industry does not care about health. It cares about $ and stock values and share holders dividend. That is CAPITALISM! Same for the Pharma industry!
And I thought that is exactly why insurance rates can take into account one's health. Much simpler than fascism. Liberal or not.
The only freedom Bloomberg cares about is his own-like being able able to go to Bermuda in a paralyzing blizzard or squashing a report on a badly damaged 911 system and generating phony metrics to give the appearance of effectiveness. Bloomberg doesn't have a democratic bone in his body-as his handling of traffic issues,rubber-stamp school boards, term limits ,and much else demonstrates . An authoritarian plutocrat is the most appropriate description of him,in my opinion.
What's next? Mandated pilates?
Y’know, re: this … crisis— assaulting our Freedoms (and who knew Adam Smith’s groundbreaking treatise actually formed the underpinnings of … my very American, exceptional right to a Big Gulp but hey I mean I guess come to think of it in some very cause-and-effect way that certainly makes sense!): ____… "16 Oz-Max,” sure smacks of a real, communist/slash/fascist-threat to me— oh and we’ll need to print off bumper-stickers (get China in on) totes and Tees and for a tag line how’s this?____Vote: ¡No! To 16 Oz— in the Land of… ____or you think of something. But be quick. And— watch out. Already Big Brother’s afoot plotting to padlock shut all of the Big App’s public restrooms should the law not pass. ____