While 2012 may be the year of tyrannical legislation, such as a large soda ban,large coffee ban, and sugar ban, it may also be the year of the yearning for liberty. That’s what it seems like in New York, as residents and onlookers from other states negatively reacted to news today that Mayor Bloomberg intends to ban all sugary drinks above 16 ounces in size.
“I disagree with it, because it’s the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee,” said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma [Source]
And Jamie about sums up the only reason needed to see what is wrong with King Bloomberg’s dictate. But for the sake of putting content on this blog, I’ll continue my criticism.
The large soda coffee sugar ban seeks to prohibit private businesses and private individuals choosing to conduct commerce, specifically, the trade of a sugary drink larger than 16 ounces. From what I understand, no amount of sugar is specified, although diet-sodas will not be included.
So technically, a drink larger than 16 ounces AND considered sugary (no minimum was specified), is a more unwise choice than a drink 16 ounces and lower with 100 grams plus of sugar. I mean, in the “fight against obesity”, by which a gun is stuck to an individuals head when he is overcome with thirst or hunger, wouldn’t the more effective law specify a sugar amount, rather than the size of the container?
Not that I argue for the Statists, but my mind wanders on what the difference is between a drink that 15 ounces, 16 ounces, or 17 ounces, without considering the contents.
And if thinking like a statist, my mind still worries about the health of Bob, who is used to getting a 24 ounce cup of coffee everyday, because he needs to stay awake at his two jobs so he can to purchase inflated food with devalued Federal Reserve notes, and post large coffee ban, chooses to buy TWO (!!!) 12 ounce coffees instead.
Can Bob be trusted to take care of himself?
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” -Thomas Jefferson
I believe in the Paleo Diet, I have experienced success with my body when centering my eating pattern around meats, vegetables, and fruit, instead of sugar-loaded foods, grains, and carbohydrate-dense foods. But although I understand and see what a sugar-filled diet does to the body, I also understand and have seen the chaos and in-order that arises out of attempting to legislate morality, standards, happiness, and order.
I understand that without free choice, there is nothing to live for besides the quest for free choice. You cannot achieve health without choice and without the motivation to succeed. Health takes time, it takes work, and thus, it can only be attained by a free individual. Health encompasses more than just physical standards, and even if this law (with no respect for the Rule Of Law) could achieve physical improvements, a sick mind will not maintain a healthy body.
What mind can maintain health that is plagued by a dictate to eat or to not eat? What mind can maintain health that is plagued by a Security State in which the government has no respect for the Rule of Law, the Natural Rights of an individual, or the Prosperity and Peace of a Free Market? There is no health in a society absent of choice, because health itself is a choice.
I used to be fat. And I appreciate and love my freedom. I can assert that the solution to obesity is not legislation and the very legislation which pretends to create a solution in-fact attacks it, and that the solution is individual will, not the point of a gun.