As someone who has lived in New York their whole life, I can say that this is just typical of the city and the people prevalent in it- people who think government is the solution to every problem they can conceive of. I wrote a post on facebook explaining to my friends why they should look at this soda thing, and if they are indignant about it then they should realize that they have a lot to be indignant about.
Here it is- it might be a TLDR for some of you.
What your reaction to the Bloomberg sugary drinks plan says about you
Almost everyone who reads about Bloomberg’s attempt to ban large drink-sizes in New York is reacting with indignation. These people can stand to learn a few things. The few people who applaud Bloomberg are beyond salvation- avoid them and keep them out of your lives.
Who is Bloomberg to tell you what you can or cannot drink? Though the smoking-ban in New York restaurants and bars was essentially the same thing, there was some justification to be found (not by me, but some of you) in that second-hand smoking appears to be harmful to the health of non-smokers, and simply unpleasant at times. Sure. Fine.
But nobody with half of brain will look at somebody chugging a slurpie from 7-11 or a big cup of sweet tea from McDonalds and think to themselves “this person is ruining my way of life and affecting my rights.” Such a person will reserve that thought for Bloomberg.
The problem comes about as a result of the mass confusion about the purpose of government, and the mass confusion about the purpose of politicians. Many of you can’t grasp that the government exists to protect our rights and nothing more. Once the government takes on the responsibility for things other than that, these intrusions into our freedom become more and more frequent. More on that later. The confusion regarding the purpose of politicians is the bigger issue at hand in this particular case. Insofar as being an elected official is viewed by every person who seeks office, it seems, as a career and a job with the same connotations attached to it as any other position, these people distort the purpose of their office into one in which they are required to get results. The president thinks he has a responsibility to create jobs. The governor of New York thinks he has to spend his time in office brokering deals to get casinos and businesses into the state. And the mayor seems to think he was elected to serve as our physician and keep us in shape. They go into the office under the impression that what makes a good politician is someone who has an agenda and goals to meet. But what makes a good politician is not the ability to whip people into shape and tell them what failings they’ve allowed in their lives, but to protect their rights. In that respect, the politician who does as little for his constituents as possible is the best kind of politician. Unless there is a major crisis affecting the rights of individuals (such as slavery, rampant theft or rape or murder or such, invasion, etc), a politician would do well to sit back and let the people live their lives in peace. Bloomberg doesn’t understand this, and a lot of you don’t, either.
But here comes the most important part of the argument. Most of you are smart enough and free-thinking enough to shake your head when Bloomberg announces an initiative like this. Most of you will say “who is this man to tell me what I can or cannot drink?” But most of you will then go on to support policies like this one in some other form.
There are those of you who will listen to Bloomberg defend government intervention into your life, as he did with statements like “all we’re trying to do is to explain to people that if you drink a little bit less you will live longer, you’ll have a better life”, “we’re not banning you from getting the stuff, just if you want 32 ounces the restaurant has to serve it in two glasses” “It’s not exactly taking away your freedoms; it’s not something that the founding fathers fought for”, and “all the studies show that if the glass in front of you is smaller, you’ll drink less”. Most of you will not buy these arguments in regard to the soda situation, but if they’re used for any other issue they’ll suddenly make sense to you.
For example- “all we’re trying to do[….] You’ll have a better life” is the argument that people will use to explain why the FDA will not permit the sale of certain drugs, regardless of whether the consumer has a use for them or not. It is the supposed moral justification that the government finds for imposing massive taxes on cigarettes, and why drugs like marijuana are illegal. Bloomberg in this case says he wants to “explain” something to us, but declaring something illegal and locking people up for doing it is not an explanation. “We’re not banning you from getting the stuff[…..]” but they’re making the decision for us how we take it, and they’re telling the vender how they have to serve it. “It’s not exactly taking away your freedoms; it’s not something that the founding fathers fought for” except that it obviously is taking away our freedoms and it absolutely is something that the founding fathers fought for. The founding fathers were concerned with tyranny by the British crown, but they would not have seen a distinction between a tyrannical monarch and a tyrannical elected-politician. The founding fathers did not create this nation for the sake of protecting us from ourselves- protecting us from becoming fat and dying. Not only do I lose my right to buy what I want, but the business selling things now has to operate the way the mayor sees fit. Do business-owners exist as a separate class from the rest of the citizenry of this country? Do they not have a right to use their mind, their body, their property the way they choose? Do they abdicate their right to freedom the second they decide to sell something? If I go into a store and buy a drink that makes me obese, are they violating my rights?
This case illustrates the danger of government regulation. Do not be fooled by the fact that this is a supposed “good cause” and it is designed to serve “the greater good,”- those are the only arguments that they can put forth and they’re both hollow ones. This regulation attempts to curb a behavior that is entirely within the realm of an individual’s private life and does not come close to constituting an abuse of the rights of others. The regulation suggests, essentially, that the obese are living in sin and that they shouldn’t be allowed to live that way without someone letting them know at all times that they’re making a mistake. That’s horrible in and of itself, but then the effect of the regulation extends to those who aren’t obese; people who are either fortunate enough to have genetics that protect them from the effects of sugary drinks, or people who are careful enough in their consumption of such things that they render the effect negligible. These are innocent bystanders being dragged down by the agenda of politicians, by their far on the obese.
There is a reason why people who are obese and want to do something about it consult a physician, take on a diet, visit a fitness center or a weight-loss specialist rather than visit a politician. When I finally decide to quit smoking, I’m not going to go to Mayor Bloomberg and ask for help. That’s because it’s none of his god damn business. He can suggest that we’re all part of a great chain and that the obese will eventually affect my life somehow; that my health-care costs will go up because of them, but why must I or any other American live my life differently because some people are making mistakes or enjoy food a lot?
The problem is that regulation doesn’t work, either on a moral or practical basis. The moral basis is the weakest one- “the greater good” again. The implication behind making laws for “the greater good” is that one is acting in favor of some, or a lot, at the expense of one or a few. But we live in a country founded on respect for the rights of the individual and equality under law. Our nation not a democracy; democracy is a system based entirely on majority consensus, which is to say that the largest gang will make decisions for everyone else. We live in a republic, where the rights of the individual are not subject to the whim and tyranny of either the majority or the minority. And then there is the practical aspect- regulations will not stop people who purposefully wish to harm others. Murder, theft, and rape are illegal- one could say that the government has placed a ban on such things- but that does not stop immoral people from killing, stealing, and raping on a daily basis. What stops the majority of people from not doing these things is not the threat of government force preventing them from doing so, but the fact that they have respect for the rights of people and above that, for their own rights, and that they understand that if they were to do such a thing to someone there would be no reason why they should not expect to suffer the same fate themselves.
The question then becomes “do we have enough confidence in our ability to think, in our ability to make choices, and our trust in ourselves?” I do. I imagine that most people do. And I imagine that there exists a tremendous mass of people who have no confidence in themselves whatsoever and expect the government to make every decision for them. Fine, let them absolve their rights and defer to the government in every aspect of their life, but do not go so far as to suggest that that behavior must be the default; that those of us who know what we’re doing must defer to the lowest common denominator and get dragged down to their level.
You don’t think you can control yourself when someone offers to sell you a massive drink laden with sugar? Fine, listen to the mayor and follow his suggestion-but don’t change the law so that I have to suffer because of your lack of control. You’re afraid of trans-fats? Listen to what the mayor says and don’t buy them, but don’t forbid me from getting food containing trans-fats and private enterprise from selling it. You think a business is polluting your air, your river, your whatever? Fine, sue them- on a case by case basis. You want to live in harmony with nature and don’t want to cut down trees? Fine, but don’t tell me that I have to coexist with nature rather than be the master of my surroundings. You don’t want to take a risk with an experimental drug that may be able to cure cancer or multiple sclerosis? Fine, listen to what the FDA says about these drugs and don’t buy them, but don’t get the law to make it illegal for the rest of us. If the drug kills us and we knew the risks, it is our own problem, not yours.
In summation, what you learn from a situation like this- when the government decides that they’re not going to let you smoke, drink, build a bird-bath in your backyard, erect a second level on your house, whatever new restriction they impose on your freedom because they feel it’s for your own good or at least “the greater good”- you must learn to apply to the other abuses of government power that you may not be able to perceive. Those of you who shake your fist in anger at Bloomberg but then go on to nod in approval when Obama announces that he’ll do whatever he can to block Boeing from building a factory in South Carolina because he wants to protect the unions. Those of you who think Bloomberg is outrageous but then nod your heads when a prospective politician talks about how J.P. Morgan need more regulation because they took risks, or how the bailouts were necessary. All of you need to wake up and realize that it is exactly the same thing.
