I think Bloomberg sees himself as unencumbered by political ambition, so he pushes a lot of social policy that he thinks will make people's lives better without regard to popular support (and without regard to the fact that a lot of it is pretty paternalistic). I know the policy shocked a lot of people outside of NYC, but he has a record of enacting what one might call freedom-limiting policies for the sake of health.
I don't think that it was any more asinine or stupid than open container laws or the ban on that red dye from the 80s, for instance, or labeling requirements or the warning message on packs of cigarettes. Some of these policies arguably restrict freedom, but most simply push the consumer to consider the health implications of purchasing decisions. The question would be whether the law in fact led to people drink less soda.
The dye (faux-Amaranth basically) was replace with another type of red dye because there was an actual period of scientific investigation into the potential health effects of the dye; there was a question and comment period as well; etc. All the stuff one expects in a liberal society.
The main problem with Bloomberg's absurd action was that it did an end run around all the processes we expect to see in a liberal society when it comes to actions by the state like this. The judge in this case found the actions of city arbitrary and capricious (amongst other things) because the health authority assumed a sort of emergency power which was normally reserved to it for issues like cholera. Indeed, the normal bodies associated with making legal restraints like this took up this idea and rejected it. In other words, the basic problem with Bloomberg's law is more than its attack on food freedom it is its attack on the rule of law itself.
Perhaps the procedure was improper (it sounds as though there's a case that it was), but I don't think that's actually what's at question or why the issue has so stirred the public imagination. This reminds me of outrage at California voters' banning horse meat in the late 90s, or outrage that some merchants express about recent laws banning plastic bags. These laws have been duly enacted by the proper authorities. Would you be OK with a restriction on soda sizes that was enacted by the New York legislature and signed by the governor?
Actually, that is exactly the question. That's one of the main reasons this law was overturned; elements of the city government gave to themselves power that they did not have. Procedure is much of what protects one from asinine laws in fact.
"Would you be OK with a restriction on soda sizes that was enacted by the New York legislature and signed by the governor?"
At that point you get into a liberty vs. license analysis. Then again, I defend the concept of liberty of contract.
In other words, the actions were quite illiberal and there illiberality could not be justified in the sorts of ways that liberal societies normally justify very rare breaches of liberality (namely epidemics and the like).
Not even a day!
ReplyDeleteI think Bloomberg sees himself as unencumbered by political ambition, so he pushes a lot of social policy that he thinks will make people's lives better without regard to popular support (and without regard to the fact that a lot of it is pretty paternalistic). I know the policy shocked a lot of people outside of NYC, but he has a record of enacting what one might call freedom-limiting policies for the sake of health.
You know enough Pavlovian psychology to call the law stupid?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/judge-halts-bloombergs-soda-ban
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it was any more asinine or stupid than open container laws or the ban on that red dye from the 80s, for instance, or labeling requirements or the warning message on packs of cigarettes. Some of these policies arguably restrict freedom, but most simply push the consumer to consider the health implications of purchasing decisions. The question would be whether the law in fact led to people drink less soda.
ReplyDeleteThe dye (faux-Amaranth basically) was replace with another type of red dye because there was an actual period of scientific investigation into the potential health effects of the dye; there was a question and comment period as well; etc. All the stuff one expects in a liberal society.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with Bloomberg's absurd action was that it did an end run around all the processes we expect to see in a liberal society when it comes to actions by the state like this. The judge in this case found the actions of city arbitrary and capricious (amongst other things) because the health authority assumed a sort of emergency power which was normally reserved to it for issues like cholera. Indeed, the normal bodies associated with making legal restraints like this took up this idea and rejected it. In other words, the basic problem with Bloomberg's law is more than its attack on food freedom it is its attack on the rule of law itself.
Perhaps the procedure was improper (it sounds as though there's a case that it was), but I don't think that's actually what's at question or why the issue has so stirred the public imagination. This reminds me of outrage at California voters' banning horse meat in the late 90s, or outrage that some merchants express about recent laws banning plastic bags. These laws have been duly enacted by the proper authorities. Would you be OK with a restriction on soda sizes that was enacted by the New York legislature and signed by the governor?
DeleteActually, that is exactly the question. That's one of the main reasons this law was overturned; elements of the city government gave to themselves power that they did not have. Procedure is much of what protects one from asinine laws in fact.
Delete"Would you be OK with a restriction on soda sizes that was enacted by the New York legislature and signed by the governor?"
At that point you get into a liberty vs. license analysis. Then again, I defend the concept of liberty of contract.
In other words, the actions were quite illiberal and there illiberality could not be justified in the sorts of ways that liberal societies normally justify very rare breaches of liberality (namely epidemics and the like).
ReplyDelete