-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
Eminentoes
Mayor Bloomberg’s Lessons in Liberalism
Like liberals generally, he is tone deaf when the issue is freedom.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has ignited a minor firestorm by proposing a ban on what he calls “sugary soft drinks” in larger than 16 ounce containers. Even though it’s an asinine idea that will have no tangible impact, it is notable because of what it says about divisions in our political philosophies. This is a learnable moment.
The proposed ban is not just a reflection of “Nanny Bloomberg,” it is a reflection of nanny liberalism. If you think Bloomberg’s proposal makes sense, you’re a liberal.
In Mayor Bloomberg’s view, “We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.” That’s interesting. How can anyone possibly believe that someone can be forced to understand? “You have to make a conscious decision?”
The Mayor admits that he’s applying force but claims that is will not diminish anyone’s freedom. He’s illustrating the mental contortions that are necessary to liberalism.
The Mayor went on to say, “It’s not perfect, it’s not the only answer, it’s not the only cause of people being overweight — but we’ve got to do something. We have an obligation to warn you when things are not good for your health.” Does the government actually have “an obligation to warn you?” Says who? Where did such an obligation come from?
If the government doesn’t warn us about something, does it mean it’s safe? “We’ve got to do something” are five of the most dangerous words in the English language. More often than not the “something” we’re told “we’ve got to do” does far more harm than good.
Bloomberg claims to have our best interests at heart: “I would just like to push that from the consumer point of view and to force the consumer to hopefully move over to the less fattening drinks and everybody will be better off.” To put it mildly, that is debatable.
When conservatives advocate for personal responsibility it isn’t only for philosophical reasons. When you start down the road of idiot-proofing society you should not be surprised when the result is a population explosion of idiots. Idiot-proofing society reduces the cost of idiocy. When you reduce the cost of something you invariably get more of it. The doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is not as callous as liberals think it is.
When the government sends us a message that it is assuming responsibility for our health and safety it’s telling us we don’t have to worry about it ourselves, so we don’t. Individuals have the best information and incentives for making the right decisions, even though they don’t always do so. The question is can the government do better?
Super-sized sugary soft drinks are only one of millions of potentially harmful choices available to us. There is no way the government can warn us and protect us from them all. Our objective should be maximize the amount of responsible behavior. Delegating responsibility to the government is the worst way to accomplish that.
Responsibility is one of those things that has a natural limit of 100 percent. When an entity like the government takes responsibility for a particular problem, peoples’ individual responsibility for that problem is necessarily diminished. Mayor Bloomberg’s assumption of responsibility for his citizens’ weight issues effectively takes them off the hook, at least in part. His presumably well-intentioned policy is training people to be irresponsible. That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
Another way to frame the issue is that it is about where in our society we are going to locate responsibility — at the center (government) or at the periphery (individuals). In other words, is responsibility going to be centralized or decentralized? An inseparable question related to that choice is do we want to depend on force or freedom?
Like liberals generally, the mayor is tone deaf when the issue is freedom. Freedom is well down their list of priorities and they assume that ought to be true for everyone. They always seem surprised when people bristle about being told what kinds of light bulbs or the maximum size of the toilet tanks they can buy. In their view society and the planet simply cannot afford to let individuals exercise their freedom. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Nathan Jessup role in A Few Good Men: “You want the freedom? You can’t handle the freedom!”
To pilfer a phrase from Barack Obama, “Yes, we can.”
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/12/mayor-bloombergs-lessons-in-li
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.12.12 @ 7:06AM
Soon, the Bloombergs of the world will pick out your skin color before you are born, all the while claiming, "It's for your own good!"
Crassus| 6.12.12 @ 8:54AM
If only they would quit being so good to us.
Occam's Tool| 6.12.12 @ 4:23PM
The most wonderful thing is that the American Jews of the future are going to be much more Orthodox and Conservative. 74% of the Jewish kids in NYC are Orthodox or Hassids. The Liberal Jews are dying out, and for Conservatives like me, that is a good thing.
Bloomberg, thank G-d, is part of a dying breed.
"Breaking News: [Support for Obama in New York among Jews] has dropped 22 percentage points in only a month, according to the results of a just released poll.
The poll, conducted by Siena College, finds that currently President Obama has the support of 51 percent of Jewish voters, while 43 percent are opposed to him. Five percent are undecided. That means, Obama’s lead among Jewish voters is at 8 percentage points.
Previously, in Siena’s May poll, Obama had the support 62 percent of Jewish New Yorkers, while 32 percent opposed him. " (Weekly Standard)
Amazing!
Cobalt| 6.12.12 @ 5:19PM
As far as support for Obama is concerned, it looks like some secular Jews are finally jumping ship.
Bob K| 6.12.12 @ 8:28PM
Bloomberg would run his businesses like a Feudal Overlord if he could get away with it. He would have every body buying from the company store like in Tennessee Ernie Ford's song "16 Tons."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU
Appleby| 6.12.12 @ 7:25AM
This is the outgrowth of shifting responsibility from Mom and Dad to The Government. Now Mom and Dad don't have to tell you to stop picking your nose, they can say "Well, WE would let you do it, but THE BAD OLD GOVERNMENT says you can't, so you have to stop it."
There are a very large number of people who dream at night of striding through the world screaming "NO NO!" and slapping legal products out of the hands of informed adults...and usually these people have the worst-behaved children in the entire village. The two things are wedded together and no man can rend them asunder.
Von Mises Jr| 6.12.12 @ 7:50AM
In the end, totalitarianism destroys all liberty and freedom and replaces it with bureaucratic dictates. This is what the liberal/progressive leaders understand so well, and the mind-numbed robots like OWS crowd, our stupid trolls and the liberal next door with the MoveOn talking points does not understand (yet).
If Nanny Bloomberg is going to hassle you for having a big cup with soda, and if he will fine you for smoking a cigarette in the park; what do the liberal followers think will happen when the IPAB board controls your health care?
Note to gays: when the government is paying for STD's and AIDS, do you think that they may look unfavorably on male homosexual activity?
Note to druggies: when the government has to pay for your drug treatments, diseases and lack of productivity in the "Brave New World," do you think you get a pass and get to skip work to party?
Note to the average Joe that likes to stop for a few beers after work: Now that the government has access to your bank records from your debit card, do you think too many charges at the local pub might result in a beer tax or perhaps even denial of treatment for related illnesses?
Wake up America!
JD| 6.12.12 @ 4:15PM
In 2012 they accuse conservatives of policing bedrooms because they don't support forced public embracing of homosexuality. In 2032 they'll require you to get a permit before having any form of sex so that they can ensure that you don't suffer negative health consequences. They will see no contradiction.
Frekki| 6.12.12 @ 8:30AM
Liberals want to improve mankind, and they will imprison you to do it.
fmm| 6.12.12 @ 11:26AM
In actuality liberals only want to improve their own lot in life. They don't guve a hoot about anyone else. There are no good intentions in liberalism.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 3:58PM
Don't say that. Let them be the liars - we should tell the truth. They do have good intentions. They're just really stupid.
Cobalt| 6.12.12 @ 9:32AM
The Left would even like to control the temperature inside your home, the number of calories you consume a day and your movement from point A to point B. It is about total control of the individual.
JMM | 6.12.12 @ 9:51AM
If you think Bloombergs soft drink laws are stringent try negotiating California's gun laws.
Skippy| 6.12.12 @ 4:42PM
I find it best to simply ignore them.
Big Govt wants my guns?
Come 'n get 'em!
JD| 6.12.12 @ 5:33PM
You haven't read Atlas Shrugged. The entire moral of that story is that people who think they can ignore collectivism and thrive in spite of it are fools who enable collectivists to gain power.
Kwan| 6.12.12 @ 11:31AM
Freedom is an anathema to the left. Freedom creates inequality which is the opposite of the Marxist egalitarian society that they are trying to create. They seek to implement a controlled Borg-like society that they can social-engineer 24 hours a day. While collectivism works fine for certain insects like termites, ants, and bees it has proven to be a massive failure when tried with human beings. Millions of murdered citizens of these collectivist utopias support this accusation. In reality it's all about power and control which is what the left is actually seeking to achieve as they could care less about the citizens who they inevitably strip of their wealth and freedom.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 4:13PM
No, the Left simply believes that freedom is an illusion. Just consider their insistence that we can't oppose homosexuality because it might be hereditary. No word yet on how they'll respond when we find a genetic predisposition to pedophilia.
Their constant mantra regarding the poor is that they had no chance, no choice, and no opportunity - that is, no real freedom - to change their lot in life. Thus, since freedom never existed to begin with, it is rational and even noble to confer upon these people the benefits they might have had if freedom did exist. Thus do liberals consider themselves the creators of freedom.
RichTex| 6.12.12 @ 12:00PM
I’ve always looked down on New Yorkers, but had thought that this attitude was mostly due to regional prejudice. Now, I know better. People in New York really are stupid, too stupid to live their own lives without the government telling them how to do so.
Albertus Magnus| 6.12.12 @ 12:27PM
Careful, New Yorkers THINK they rule the World! If they find out the truth, it will not be pretty.
Petronius| 6.12.12 @ 12:27PM
When the scion of the house of Pulitzer turned 100, that paper which I call the Post Diaper Liner, ran a manifestic screed about how "they" were going to "perfect the human person" whether he wants it or not. Liberals pursue and arrogate to themselves the powers of state expressly for that reason and prove P.J. O'Rourke right. We will soon have federal regulation of bed time.
Tom Kyba| 6.12.12 @ 1:22PM
Mayor dumbass has forced me to understand that he deserves a kick in the groin, and I'm talking about with the full NFL kickoff 10 yard run-up. Seriously, these people are caricatures of themselves. I thought NY was the type of city that would tell a nanny like Mayor Dumbass to SHADDAP!! Apparently not.
Occam's Tool| 6.12.12 @ 2:00PM
What about the negative green effects of buying more plastic containers, hmmm, Mayor Bloomberg? Did you THINK about that? :-)
mike 3/505| 6.12.12 @ 2:14PM
No problem....a "plastic" surcharge. Or maybe he will make everyone use reusable cups.
C'mon Man!| 6.12.12 @ 7:33PM
The Solo Cup Company will be happy...
The Bruce| 6.13.12 @ 12:22AM
Remember, when it comes to liberals, we're not allowed to evaluate their bad results, only admire their so-called "good intentions."
Jack London| 6.12.12 @ 2:30PM
At some point we have to look at harms that are immensely destructive to society and take steps to reduce them as we all lose. Wearing seatbelts is one. Given our obesity epidemic, something that is low cost and that could work over time is another.
Truth to Power| 6.12.12 @ 2:45PM
"At some point we have to look at harms that are immensely destructive to society and take steps to reduce them as we all lose."
It is not legal to kill liberals even though they do great harm and are unsustainable.
Skippy| 6.12.12 @ 4:44PM
Soon it will be.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 4:08PM
Removing incentive to think for oneself is more destructive than the things such policy seeks to combat.
Warrior| 6.12.12 @ 6:06PM
Is there nothing that you true believers will not rationalize? Wearing seatbelts is a joke. Violators get handed a ticket while helmet less motorcycle riders pass laughing. Sodas over 16oz will be illegal while you can get a large coffee with twice the sugar content at the same counter along with glazed and jelly donuts. What business is it of yours if someone is obese? If you liberals would leave health care insurance alone and let hospitals treat only those with insurance or have cash, the obese would not be able to buy coverage or get care and die quickly. Obesity problem solved. Let this fall to personal responsibility, which I know you liberals hate.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 4:00PM
The importance of this article's point cannot be overstated. When government starts "protecting" us from things, people stop doing due diligence themselves. That is a recurring theme in our society.
It's also pretty much the sole cause of the Great Recession. Government assumed responsibility for vetting mortgages, and promised to back even subprime ones. We see the results.
Joellen| 6.12.12 @ 5:19PM
What always gets me is the liberal 'picks and chooses" whats good for you and whats not. Me, abortion is murder, destroying a child in the womb. Now, the liberals will rave and scream at me - "it's a woman's choice. You have no right to deny them - it's in the constitution......" Gosh, they are so blindly hypocritical and dictatorial. The battle between good and evil, never forget it.
JD| 6.12.12 @ 5:32PM
Many modern people - mostly liberals, but also some on the right - have developed such an incredible combination of hubris and stupidity that they no longer merely fail to grasp an opposing perspective. Rather, they fail to comprehend the possibility of the existence of opposing perspectives. They don't think that other perspectives can exist, at all! They think EVERYONE has their perspective, and the only reasons for opposing positions are "stupidity" and "evil". Of course, they believe that everyone who disagrees with them is thus either stupid, evil, or both.
Ironically, it is their own mental incapacity that leads them to see this supposed stupidity in others.
Jobe| 6.12.12 @ 6:48PM
The liberal desire to make decisions for the "ignorant masses" has been well documented over the years. I recognized it when they first wanted to put warning labels on cigarette packages. There wasn't a person who did not already know that "cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health", however, this label was "all they wanted". That put us out on that old slippery slope. Now, restaurant owners, bar and tavern owners, and other business people cannot decide whether their places of business is to be smoke free or not. Every day liberals engineer the loss of another freedom. Are we too far down the road to stop it?
Cpm| 6.12.12 @ 7:56PM
New Yorkers pride themselves on their worldliness and sophistication yet they elected this bozo.
The Bruce| 6.13.12 @ 12:36AM
Well, if you've ever seen a segment of Jay Leno's Jaywalking you'd understand that the average New Yorker is neither worldly or sophisticated.
The Bruce| 6.13.12 @ 12:37AM
Sorry, I meant "nor."