More on Bloomberg’s drink ban, and liberty
I suggest you read the whole thing—but here’s what I take away from this article on NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to ban large sugary drinks, as well as previous health efforts to protect the Big Apple’s citizens from their own rapacious appetites:
There is little available data showing the cost of the programs, the number of participants or the results.
It’s taken as a matter of faith that this sort of thing works, though. Some of the people interviewed for the article seem to know better, such as Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz Jr.:
“Ultimately people need to be responsible for their own actions,” Mr. Diaz said, explaining that “if they’re of a certain mind-set, they’re going to continue to have poor eating habits, and we’re still going to have the same problem.”
But in the following quotes, we have an academic at Yale, and Bloomberg himself, perfectly elucidating the liberal mindset—it’s health vs. liberty in opposition to each other, with the former taking priority over the latter:
Kelly D. Brownell, the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, said that while education and incentives were popular with the public, those programs tended to reach relatively small numbers because of their limited funds. He said he supported the use of regulations like the city’s proposed ban on large sodas as a necessary step toward curbing obesity.
“It completely makes more sense to make the environment healthier rather than to just do pure education,” he said.
In defending his proposal, Mr. Bloomberg said at Montefiore that the ban was not intended to tread on anyone’s rights, and he noted that more than individual liberties were at stake. “We are absolutely committed to doing everything in our power to help you get on track and stay on track to maintain a healthy lifestyle,” he said. “Because this isn’t your crisis alone ”” it is a crisis for our city and our entire country.”
And yet, even if you forget about the compromise to liberty—which is a huge and vitally important issue—there is no evidence that such programs work. We really know very little about how to successfully and permanently control obesity even in well-motivated people, and we also know little about the health effects of being slightly overweight, the most common type of problem.
And before some of you tell me in the comments section that I’m missing the point, because for far leftists the compromise of liberty is the point—a feature, not a bug—I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the more numerous well-meaning (oh, save us from the well-meaning!) liberals who think sacrificing their liberty to buy a supersized Coke is a very small price to pay for increased health, and don’t see the dangerous slippery slope they’re on—and don’t much care until they found we’ve slid quite a bit further down that hill.
“And yet, even if you forget about the compromise to liberty…there is no evidence that such programs work.”
It’s never been about results with the Left, it’s about good intentions. It’s about feeling good about yourself for doing something, anything, to “help” people, even if they haven’t asked for or needed it.
I am happiest when my cold drinks contain more ice than coke or tea. Maybe Nanny could calculate for me the amount of ice I need to bring the sweetened drinks to an acceptable level.
I would love to know how he did in science in college. Is he even capable of understanding a paper on diet? I’d guess he’s right up there with Michelle.
If the government is paying for your healthcare, it has an interest in keeping you healthy even if that involves coercion. Loss of liberty is the cost of “free” stuff from the government.
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
― Thomas Jefferson
“We are absolutely committed to doing everything in our power to help you get on track and stay on track to maintain a healthy lifestyle,” he said.
Maybe the proletariat doesn’t want to get on track and stay on track to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Did Comrade Commissar ever think of that? Butt out, comrade. It’s not your life, and therefore not your call.
“Because this isn’t your crisis alone – it is a crisis for our city and our entire country.”
As a voice crying out in the wilderness I say again: why do liberals/ leftists /whatevers make everything into a crisis, an impending catastrophe, a matter of imminent doom? Despite all of the existential threats to our survival, the freeways are more crowded every year. What gives?
“I would love to know how he did in science in college. Is he even capable of understanding a paper on diet? I’d guess he’s right up there with Michelle.”
I bet he didn’t even take a science course in college. For a long time, I’ve been more interested in what courses he took than what grades he made. He probably made fairly good grades…he graduated with honor. But I’m betting he took a lot of BS classes. Even if he was forced to take some math or science courses, I betcha they were the ones intended for liberal arts majors and not the ones that science, math, or engineering majors had to take.
At Rice, they had “academ math” and math for science and engineering majors and believe you me, they were two very different things.
I’d be amazed if Obama ever had a course in calculus. which is SO fundamental to modern technology.
“If the government is paying for your healthcare, it has an interest in keeping you healthy even if that involves coercion. Loss of liberty is the cost of “free” stuff from the government.”
As usual, Mr. Frank, you hit the nail on the head. I don’t think the liberals give a damn about the health of any individual. They just want to optimize the cost of health care for the entire community since the government is paying most of the cost of health care…especially under Obamacare.
It’s the age old issue of what’s best for the community versus what’s best for any individual and to hell with individual responsibility.
“Because this isn’t your crisis alone – it is a crisis for our city and our entire country.”
But the national debt is not a crisis. Nosir. That’s just peachy. Terrorism, communist subversion, illegal immigration? No problem there either. Sugary drinks, that’s our big problem.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, the vehicle to hell is driven by hubris and hell is other people — all smarter than you.
Oh Hell!
NeoPaleontologist Bloomberg may have evolution on his side.
Remember the old saying “If you’re so smart how come you ain’t rich?”?
I keep seeing examples of the obverse, which is “How did an idiot like you become rich?”.
Bloomberg presents several in the short paragraph above:
“In defending his proposal, Mr. Bloomberg said at Montefiore that the ban was not intended to tread on anyone’s rights”
And yet it does!
“and he noted that more than individual liberties were at stake. “We are absolutely committed to doing everything in our power to help you get on track and stay on track to maintain a healthy lifestyle,””
Is he not aware of the difference between help and coerce?
“Because this isn’t your crisis alone – it is a crisis for our city and our entire country.”
I have a solution, Mayor B – don’t make people’s health care a governmental function. Crisis over.
Seriously, how did this dimwit become rich?
If everyone had to pay for their own healthcare, would that be an incentive to try to stay healthy? IMO, it would. Eat right, exercise, and try to follow good health practices (good dental hygiene, safe sex, etc.). If insurance companies were allowed to set premiums by how healthy a person is and people knew how much they could save by taking responsibility for better health, wouldn’t that lead to better outcomes? And without the loss of freedom and choice. The government could then concentrate on defense, law enforcement, protecting property rights, and other such trifles rather than controlling how much sugar we eat. But of course, all that would not allow the elites to control the bitter clingers. It’s just too much to ask.
SO…how will Nanny Bloomberg keep one of his wards from calling up Papa John’s and ordering an extra large meat lover’s pizza, and a 2 litre bottle of Coke? ban the sale of 2 litre bottles? put your food allotment on a card, and when you hit your allotment for the week or month, you’re cut off?
I can see it now: you’re walking in New York, and a shady looking dude approaches you and asks if you’d like to score a little coke.
Nose candy, or stomach candy?
😉
I R A Darth Aggie: LOL
J.J., that’s crazy talk.
Seriously, it sounds like an outbreak of common sense.
Those “well-meaning” leftists who do buy supersized Cokes rarely want to limit that liberty. “Well-meaning” leftists seem to have the uncanny luck of only wanting to restrict those liberties they don’t often use, themselves.
People should have seen all this coming after the left went absolutely insane over smoking and trampled every right in the book (including the most important foundation of individual liberty – private property rights) in order to promote their smoking bans. The public health argument using asinine second-hand smoke stories (which was the 7th in the line of arguments used against smoking) was the most ridiculous, though most effective. Evidently, we can work in coal mines and by sewer lines but to work in a smoky bar is just beyond the pale.
I would note that your faith in “well-meaning” leftists is easily tested by finding out how many leftists who rant and rave about needing higher taxes send in extra money to the government(s) in order to make their own voluntary tax rates the level at which they are trying to force on others. Related to this is that your standard “well-meaning” leftist doesn’t even donate to private charity at anything near the rate that conservatives do, and the hated religious conservatives, most of all.
Leftism is almost always about control … when it’s not about plain ol’ nihilism. I leave you with the tag line for a leftist-inspired car commercial – I can’t remember the company or the exact line, but it ended with some idiotic line about environmental impact: “The best impact is having none at all.” This … is where the “species that not only adapts to its environment but that adapts its environment to its needs” has now been dragged. It’s sad.
The percentage of actual “well-meaning” leftists is insignificant. Most leftism is driven by nothing more than the petty emotions of deranged personalities.
Barky the Dog-Eater’s mention of “profit AND earnings ratios” showed that he doesn’t even understand the simple fact that division or ratios are NEVER translated to “AND”, which is something that pretty much any normal American 8th grader knows. Clearly, Barky has problems with simple arithmetic with fractions. His later idiotic claim that ObamaCare “will reduce monthly premiums by 3000%” showed that he has no clue, whatsoever, about percentages. Again, he showed that he has the mathematical sophistication of a slow 8th grader, if that.
Barky would have been lucky to even get close to 420 on the math section of his SATs. He is an idiot. A true idiot.
And when someone makes a 15.9 oz container, how far down will they inch it to claim to be properly under 16oz?
I find myself ambivalent on this issue, but I asked my wife and she said it was ridiculous. She’d rather have a tax on them, like cigarettes. Either that or get rid of corn subsidies. That makes sense to me.
Neo, your idea of the well meaning liberal in your last paragraph doesn’t really exist because you attach self sacrifice to their character traits.
When have you ever seen a person ask the government to protect them from their own vices? I only see this sort of controlling behavior extolled among the voting population when the vice belongs to someone else. I seriously doubt that the people in favor of banning large sodas actually buy large sodas.
It is only when government tramps on the rights which directly affect them that they sit up and say “wait”.
The greatest challenge most people face during their lives is to understand their own mental and physical functions. People cannot reasonably exchange liberty for submission with benefits and hope to succeed in this fundamental task.