Thursday, May 31, 2012

Seat Belts Justify Food Rationing.

I'll get to the title in a bit.

By now I'm sure you know that wannabe-Baron Bloomberg wants to ban all sodas and other disallowed sugary drinks from being sold in containers larger than 16oz.

And Tam wonders why New Yorkers don't get sick of this paternalistic nonsense?
Apparently New York City is about "doing something", if by "something" you mean taking a lot of patronizing lip from nosy busybodies with Napoleon complexes.

Think about it: This is a man who thinks he can tell you what size container you may place sugar water into. That's nuts. That's completely, flat-out, Howard Hughes-meets-Kim Jong Il bugnuts crazy. Are you all going to just sit there and go "Derrr... hokay, boss!" while the rest of us snicker behind our hands at you and tell jokes about pre-ban soft drink cups, or are you going to toss this jackhole in the East River?

Well, plenty of people support the idea. Including talking heads on the news happily sipping from their 20oz Starbucks.

But I actually talked with a person who supports Bloomberg's idea. Yes, it was Mr. A once again.

He actually takes the If it saves one kid from being a fatty line.

Here's a few choice quotes as I recall them:

Sure it's paternalistic, but when you've proven that 58% of the target population can't manage not to be giant fatassess, well.. that's when a paternalistic approach is appropriate

Representational government? What's that?

I'll note two nerves that struck, he got very angry at the suggestion that this was any type of rationing, but expressed hope that it would retard consumption. He also professed a strong assertion that the health care savings would be considerable and make up for any extra police cost, but got angry when it was asked if saving health costs was a valid reason for a law then what else could be banned.

He was very big on the idea of "Well you could still buy as much coke as you want."
And repeatedly pointed to seat belt and helmet laws as a justification for this law.

Naturally he also demures from any idea of a limiting principal:

I'd rather just take each law on a case-by-case basis and weigh the harm done against the good done.
I question the morality of pursuing a philosophical construct like that, at the expense of good laws that impose on peoples freedoms in minor ways but benefit them in major ways again, as with seatbelt laws.

I seem to recall emphasis in his little speech there.
As for "good done" well how good is it to force someone to be "better" at gunpoint?

What's interesting is he was very, very aggressive on denying any mention of rationing, and pointedly not considering future laws.

One can easily see Bloomberg decrying the Big Gulp "loophole" that enables people to buy more than 16 ounces at a time. Even Mr. A admits that the law as it is is largely toothless on stopping consumption, but pointedly ignores the door that leaves open to "fix" said law.

And thus, you get rationing. First soda but then, the sky's the limit, because hey if the good outweighs the bad...

Oh and for an added, delicious, bonus Mr. A is a regular scotch drinker, a marijuana legalization advocate, and does want to own a gun.

You see his interests and hobbies are normal! Being a fatty? That's a sin!

Basically, Mr. A views disapproved self-destructive behavior as something the state has every right to regulate, no mater how petty, paternalistic, and totalitarian it becomes.

I'll repeate a line I made earlier (but clean it up a bit):

The whole point of having liberty is that you are free to make mistakes, be wrong, be a jerk, do things harmful to your health, do all that. You're free, provided you do not infringe on another person's liberty. Then, and only then, you are punished, and only after the action and due process.

If your concept of liberty is dependent on people making "the right" choices. Then you don't have it.

It does make one wonder why anyone can stand living under the thumb of such a ninny.

Though plenty of people are voting with their feet and fleeting New York State by the million (I would be among them). Ed Driscoll in a roundup post notes that and other hings.

As Jim Treacher once quipped, “You can marry a person of the same gender in New York City, but you can’t eat your own wedding cake without Bloomberg slapping it out of your hands.” And don’t even think about washing that cake down with some soda.

And don't even thing about carrying a gun unless you're rich, famous, or connected.

1 comment:

Barbarossa said...

I have to admit I'm not sure who I'm angrier at here, the people who make these decrees or those that actually support them. I'm leaning towards the latter, if only for the fact that politicians are operating under the law of the hammer. They see a problem, they have to make a law to "fix" it. Never mind that it might not be a problem or that more legislation might not be the best way to go about solving it.