Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling has struck a victory for sanity (as well as individual choice) in striking down New York Mayor Bloomberg’s widely ridiculed ban on large sugary drinks. As we previously discussed, the law was a poorly drafted and poorly conceived ban that allowed a host of higher caloric drinks to be sold in bars and other establishments. Tingling found the law to be “arbitrary and capricious.” Bloomberg has appeared to have developed an insatiable appetite to dictating what others can eat, including a proposed crackdown on popcorn and milk. After the soda ban, a long list of items have been put forward to Bloomberg to ban before Judge Tingling put a halt to the feeding frenzy.
Tingling focused on the obvious “loopholes” in the law that barred sales for some establishments while allowed the drinks to be sold by other establishments “even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole.” The judge also found that the law created a an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of powers doctrine” by sweeping into areas of legislative authority with the city council.
As we discussed earlier, I have no problem with banning sodas in school as many district have done. However, Bloomberg has decided that educational programs and warnings are not enough because adults are not meeting the expectations of the government. Bloomberg is quoted as saying “I look across this country, and people are obese, and everybody wrings their hands, and nobody’s willing to do something about it.” The solution therefore is to take away choice and to dictate Dr. Bloomberg’s diet for all citizens.
Bloomberg insisted that when you are told that you cannot have that soda, “Nobody is taking away any of your rights. This way, we’re just telling you ‘That’s a lot of soda.’” Really? Sounds a lot like “you can’t have that soda.”
Honestly, if prohibition did not work for alcohol, it is likely to be even less successful for sodas. Then there are those other items like french fries, onion rings, and other unhealthy foods eaten in excessive quantities. How about requiring proof that a large stuffed pizza has no fewer than four persons willing to sign for it? I think people have a right to an unhealthy lifestyle. This is not like second-hand smoke that harms others. You can be around someone with a large soda and remain perfectly healthy. Then there are those high calorie alcoholic drinks being served with the loaded stuffed potatoes in bars around New York.
After the ruling, Bloomberg insisted “I’ve got to defend my children, and yours, and do what’s right to save lives.” Sixty percent of New Yorkers opposed the limit and clearly believe that they do not need Bloomberg making choices for them or their families. However, most parents feel that they can defend their own children and make choices for them. Moreover, Bloomberg did not ban sodas for school children, he dictated what adults can drink. The ban was facially absurd from the start since it would only force customers to buy multiple drinks if they wanted the same amount. Then there was the confusion of the lines of exemptions. The ban did not apply to pure fruit juice or fruit smoothies or drinks that are more than half milk. Starbucks yesterday vowed to continue to serve sweetened coffee drinks before the ruling, causing an outburst by Bloomberg.
Undeterred, Bloomberg has decided to spend more money in fighting the ruling and affirm his right to control the diets of people in the city. He rejects the widespread objections over individual choice and insists that New Yorkers must be required to comply with the dietary demands of his government. However, that Tingling feeling yesterday was the voice of reason.
Source: WSJ
Yeah, you ol’ Commie you.
However, in all seriousness, what Bob points to is a valid issue. Namely that there is a line and a balancing act between individual liberty and the common good. That is part of the crux of the social compact, limiting absolute freedoms in the state of nature to gain mutual benefit does not mean (at least it’s not supposed to mean in our particular system of government) that oppression of the one is always the appropriate solution to the desires of the many. Limiting freedoms, no matter how necessary under the rule of law, must be done with care, forethought and precision. Costs and benefits must be weighted objectively lest society succumb to the anarchy of pure individualism or to the tyranny of the majority. Free will is a factor (and should be) whether it is real or not.
Gene,
There are many doctors and researchers who believe that sugar is toxic. Should we allow smoking wherever foods with sugar and HFCS are served?
😉
C’mon, Swarthmore mom, it’s time you ‘fessed up about your true political philosophy.
Mike S, I think he was trying to “skewer” me as you say but I actually thought he was so over the top that he was humorous. My family had a good laugh. My husband said to tell him that the commie wobblies helped pay for his grandfather’s funeral.
Personally, I’m just enjoying the show.
Mike,
You must admit that your statement as ironic sarcasm was more than a bit dry. The hazards of a strictly verbal communications medium. I do agree with you though that both men (Freud and Jung) were largely unable to think outside of the boxes of their own constructions. Not that you care what I think. 😉
Mike S.
I got into a big discussion the other day with someone about the word “ilk.” That person was convinced it was a racist slur. The word is Middle English, and is still frequently heard in ordinary conversation in Scotland. It means, roughly, ‘from the same area,’ or ‘from that group or family.’
In the American southern states, you may hear the same sentiment expressed by the idiom, “y’all” or “all y’all.”
OS,
We know the meaning of ilk changes connotation, with context. In this context it clearly had a negative connotation.
Gene,
My humor is always tinder dry and as I’ve stated here on many an occasion that is why those who know me think me more serious abouy myself than I actually am. Also, knowing Bob don’t you reall think he was being tongue in cheek? He really is capable of more precise logic than he used on SwM.
SwM,
He was over the top and that annoyed me. It offended my sense of etics, but except for Rabbi Hillel, I don’t have the slightest idea of what philosophical structure I can use to quickly justify them as an appeal to authority. 🙂
Mike,
Your argument against Jung is ad hominem. Being egotistical does not ipso facto indicate Jung is wrong and I’m not sure what prolific has to do with it at all.
“Your argument against Jung is ad hominem. Being egotistical does not ipso facto indicate Jung is wrong and I’m not sure what prolific has to do with it at all.”
Bob and Gene,
Seriously……..you didn’t think I was aware of that, or have we reached the point where we must add smileys to our words to indicate irony? I’ve always like to deal with bullies by responding to them with a similar methodology (in logic) to what they’re using to justify their sadistic pleasure.
Shall we debate which of us here has a greater knowledge of Jung then the other? Then too, did you notice the title of the Jung book, which I put in in full, rather than cutting it off with the first two words. And seriously, I read Jung’s book way back then and it was opportunistic drivel looking to cash in on the “flying saucer” craze, which did not raise him in my estimation. My problems with both Freud’s “neurosis” and Jung conceptually in his “archetypes”, is the absolute certainty that his reading of the “archetypes” was the only valid one. Both he and Freud were great minds, but they both had overweening egos that detracted from the value of their work.
“Carl Jung wrote a book about the evils of the state swallowing the rights and integrity of the individual.
It’s called “The Undiscovered Self”
And I’m not red-baiting; I’m calling a spade a spade.”
And just what was that little missive supposed to mean? Karl Jung talks of the evils of the State swallowing individual rights and that leads directly to calling SwM a Communist? Explain to me the logic of this argument?
A: The state swallowing individual rights (undifferentiated) is evil.
B: SwM thinks the State has a right to regulate drink sizes and smoking (We know nothing whatsoever of her other views on the State and individual rights)
C: SWM is a communist.
Are we saying that state destruction of individual rights is “evil” and therefore Communism is “Evil” (Actually it could be Fascism, Absolute Monarchy or Theocracy…..a wide range of evils there)?
Are we saying SwM is in favor of regulating drink sizes and smoking, which in Bob’s estimation is destruction of individual rights, which is then “evil”, which is then “Communistic”?. Where is the famed Bob, esq. logic? Perhaps though I’m wrong by Bob’s logic and Obama is also a Communist?
“You and your ilk” (her ilk presumably being “evil”). This is what was really going on. Bob has a busy day today. Bob does get some pleasure our of sadistically skewering people. He decided to have some fun by typing out short attacks on his phone with someone he disagrees with. However, since he is busy he does not have the time to apply his usually faultless logic to his comments, so he takes the easy way out, rather than actually discussing the issues SwM raised and refuting them.
The problem with the kind of “high-minded” morality Bob sometimes spouts, is the personal assumption of his own purity, as opposed to other’s evil.
“But in the meantime, I’m keen to guess what Gene or Blouise has to say about your last post.”
Frankly, as much as I respect Gene and Blouise, I could care less about their opinions, I always make up my own mind. Got too much work today Bob? Looking for people to take the burden of your sadism off your shoulders? Resorting to authority? Frankly Bob, you might do the honorable thing and just admit you were having a little cruel fun at SwM’s expense. Don’t Kant and Locke have anything to say on honor and integrity. Some how though I doubt you are really ever able to admit mistake, so we could carry this on ad infinitum.
“God save us from the moralists of this world, because they’re the ones who get the rest of our backs broken!” James Garner to Julie Andrews in the “Americanization of Emily”.
Elaine,
You: “Non-smokers can’t get away from secondhand smoke in a restaurant or bar or an airplane, etc.”
Me: “The only place I have issue with a smoking ban is in bar. In a place where toxins are served for pleasure, it seems a bit hypocritical to ban another toxin used for pleasure.”
Emphasis added. And some of what Bron said. Being in a bar is a voluntary action even if you’re an employee – bars are neither critical infrastructure nor compulsory. Schools, hospitals, government building etc. where you may have no choice but to be there? Even office buildings as a matter of individual owner policy? No problem with a smoking ban. Restaurants? I’m okay with it personally, but if they serve alcohol? Just as hypocritical as a ban in a bar.
You should also know I’m against helmet laws. I wear one every time I ride a motorcycle, but I’m against the helmet laws. Why? It is the individuals choice to wear appropriate safety gear. Same with ticketing for seatbelts. Ridiculous revenue generation that improperly imposes upon individual choice. It’s prudent to wear them, especially at any kind of speed, but you shouldn’t be penalized for not wearing them. It’s your choice.
“Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.”
That’s a fact.
Mike,
I gotta step out for a bit.
But in the meantime, I’m keen to guess what Gene or Blouise has to say about your last post.
SWM,
Congratulations; you’ve managed to type out yet another totally irrelevant response.
Bob Esq:
“Well sister, care to guess how quickly I can use your philosophy to outlaw abortion entirely?”
Bingo!
Bob, Congratulations. The last time I was called a “commie pinko” was when I protested the Vietnam War.
off
Hey Bron,
When I left the state of nature, I didn’t plan on having to sue each and every company that harmed me by polluting; especially since they might disappear before the damage ever shows up.
Accordingly, keep your filthy greedy hands of my EPA.
Carl Jung wrote a book about the evils of the state swallowing the rights and integrity of the individual.
It’s called “The Undiscovered Self”
And I’m not red-baiting; I’m calling a spade a spade.
“Carl Jung wrote a book about the evils of the state swallowing the rights and integrity of the individual.
It’s called “The Undiscovered Self”
And I’m not red-baiting; I’m calling a spade a spade.”
Bob,
Jung also wrote: “Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies”. He was a prolific writers, but also far too hung up on his own ego driven view of things.
“SWM,
Your political philosophy completely ignores the value and rights of the individual; subsuming it within an ideal of a collective. That is the essence of communism.”
First of all Bob, based on what SWM’s written here you have no real sense of her entire political philosophy except what you care to project on to it. Secondly, for someone as philosophically erudite as yourself, you have a serious problem with logic. To extend from a discussion of a ridiculous piece of legislation overturned, to then a discussion of the merits of banning cigarette smoke and wind up supposing that anyone who would propose either of these is a Communist, lacks both logic and merit. It seems to me that you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and in your grumpiness haven’t really put your fine mind to use to understand the silly implications of your name calling.
BTW:
1. I was against the soft drink law and an intrusion on civil liberties.
2. The cigarette ban that was implemented was far too stringent because it
didn’t allow for individual choice at private establishments.
3. I have no problem in calling out Communists, I done so frequently in my
own comments but on the evidence you’re using for SWM you have no
case, except of the type used by people who are professional “red baiters”
like Cruz from Texas, or the “tea baggers” regarding Obama. Get a grip.
using
Smom:
Does the EPA do good? It may do some good. Should companies pollute wells? No. If they do should there be some sort of relief for the aggrieved party? Yes, absolutely if the well’s owner has been harmed.
Does the EPA use science to determine if a chemical is deleterious to humans? Or does it give 100 lbs of xenugooberin to a rat in 30 days and then says, because the rat died, xenugooberin is bad for humans?
If I drink too much water at one time it will kill me, if I take a small amount of arsenic it will cure the clap.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm09sy.html
To the extent it uses actual science for regulation, that is good but it should be eliminated as a department of government. If people want clean air and water it is in their best interest to fund an organization which will provide real data about what is good and bad for them.
I am betting your beloved EPA has made many decisions which are not in the best interest of average citizens of this country.
Bob, esq. Quit red baiting. You are too young to be a McCarthyite.
SWM,
Your political philosophy completely ignores the value and rights of the individual; subsuming it within an ideal of a collective.
That is the essence of communism.
“Bob, Esq. I am not a communist but I definitely have socialist leanings.”
Well sister, care to guess how quickly I can use your philosophy to outlaw abortion entirely?