PDA

View Full Version : Three Cheers for the Nanny State - New York Times




No Free Beer
03-27-2013, 06:03 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/three-cheers-for-the-nanny-state.html?pagewanted=1

WHY has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban, or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

Please, I beg all of you to read the article. It's rather short.

Anti Federalist
03-27-2013, 06:22 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/three-cheers-for-the-nanny-state.html?pagewanted=1

WHY has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban, or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

Please, I beg all of you to read the article. It's rather short.

Blarg blarg blarg...you are too stupid, to know you are too stupid, to make the "right" choices, as I define them. - Author

My response:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. Lewis

Its very simple, sugar britches, you see, in a free society Gauleiter Doomberg does not have the right to do anything about our soda sizes under color of law.

Lucille
03-27-2013, 06:28 PM
Reason's rebuttals:

3 Cheers for Coercive Paternalism - Or, Why Rich, Elected Officials Really are Better than You.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/25/3-cheers-for-coercive-paternalism-or-why

Of Soda Bans, Sodomy, Single Moms and Sycophants of the Nanny State
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/25/of-soda-bans-sodomy-single-moms-and-syco

Previously, she's even more of a control freak than Sunstein:

A Paternalist Worries About Paternalism
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/20/a-paternalist-worries-about-paternalism

MRK
03-27-2013, 06:45 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/three-cheers-for-the-nanny-state.html?pagewanted=1

WHY has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban, or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

Please, I beg all of you to read the article. It's rather short.

If people could get as much soda as they want without hassle under this new ban, then why would they ban it? To waste time? Practice writing legislation? This is an absurd premise.

This logic reminds me of when someone asks you to do something and says it would be really easy. When you refuse, they say, why not, it's easy! Well if it were so easy, then why didn't you do it already you scrub?

RonPaulFanInGA
03-27-2013, 06:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/three-cheers-for-the-nanny-state.html?pagewanted=1

WHY has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban, or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

Yeah, so why is it a big deal, if people can still get as much as they want? What's the point of Bloomberg's ban, other than incrementally getting people ready for more assaults on their freedoms?

amy31416
03-27-2013, 08:17 PM
Oh my god. What a screwed-up article.

She's applying all of her own faults to everyone else on this planet. And she thinks that the collective government is somehow superior to individual thinking.

Maybe I've had a bit of a revelation about the "educated" liberal mindset--they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, they can't handle making errors and they can't recover without blaming it on the system for not preventing them from doing whatever it is they did. Whether that's getting fat on soda, having children out of wedlock, getting into debt, etc. If only the gov't structure had been in place, they wouldn't have fucked up.

Go to North Korea, you insipid twit. I live with my mistakes and try to improve myself, not get someone else to pay the price in freedom for my own stupidity.

amy31416
03-27-2013, 08:22 PM
And, of course, she's a university professor. Promoting this rubbish and getting paid handsomely for it.

Get off your fat ass, Sarah, and get a real job where you actually produce something of value aside from bullshit. Hell, bullshit is even more valuable as it can be compost or fuel.

KrokHead
03-27-2013, 08:25 PM
I'm sure she chugged more than 16 oz of beer when she got pawed by raucous frat boys back in the day. People are allowed to be done. I'll never drink 32 oz of soda (other than in a state with Mr. Pibb) but God forbid I want to pay 20 cents for the bigger soda and share it to save money.

acptulsa
03-27-2013, 08:29 PM
A construction worker spending his whole afternoon creating the 87th floor of a future skyscraper does not go to a little more effort to get a refill. He goes to a lot more effort to get a refill, and maybe gets fired for it.

Why should he go thirsty? Because some idiot in City Hall figures the fat people are fat not because of a box and a half of Little Debbies per sitting and an evening on the couch, but because of a Big Gulp? Or more precisely, because a failed mayor wants to distract the nation from the ugly fact that his school system cannot teach more than twenty percent of its young inmates to read?

It's a big deal not because it's such a pity that those who can't handle responsibility are inconvenienced by their own choices in a free society, but because those who can handle responsibility are prevented from excelling in a totalitarian society. Does a large soda ban prevent someone from excelling? The mindset this lady is trying to sell does, and that's enough reason for me to oppose it.


...but God forbid I want to pay 20 cents for the bigger soda and share it to save money.

This. You and a friend want to save money? But, that's cheating the corporation that gave Bloomberg a brib--er, I mean campaign contribution. So, God doesn't have to forbit it. Bloomberg will do it for Him.

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 08:46 PM
I drink 50 oz sodas once, sometimes twice a week, and drink pretty much no soda other times. As a high school student with no job and little money, this is far more economical than buying a 16 oz on a daily basis. While I make no claim that this is the best health choice, I don't see it killing me, either. But even if it did, that's my business, not Doomberg's.

As for the whole "90MPH" crap, she's wrong there as well. Speed limits are somewhat paternalistic anyway, but there are obviously certain roads where driving 90 MPH, other than maybe rushing someone to a hospital, is always dangerous and reckless driving. On an interstate, on the other hand, I don't necessarily even see anything wrong with it.

That said, dictating how fast you can drive on a public road (Which the free market might do on some roads for safety reasons anyway) is not nearly the infringement on personal liberty that telling me what I can eat or drink is.

Philhelm
03-27-2013, 08:58 PM
A well-filled 32 ounce soda, being necessary to the security of a quenched thirst, the right to keep and bear 32 ounce sodas shall not be infringed.

DamianTV
03-27-2013, 09:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/three-cheers-for-the-nanny-state.html?pagewanted=1

WHY has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban, or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

Please, I beg all of you to read the article. It's rather short.

Um, PAYWALL

Philhelm
03-27-2013, 09:01 PM
After glancing at the article, I want to eat the author's soul.

TaftFan
03-27-2013, 09:07 PM
I want Alex Jones to lead thousands of people into the streets of New York without a permit and let chaos ensue.

Let them be thugs and be exposed for the dark side of the totalitarian state.

No Free Beer
03-27-2013, 09:11 PM
A construction worker spending his whole afternoon creating the 87th floor of a future skyscraper does not go to a little more effort to get a refill. He goes to a lot more effort to get a refill, and maybe gets fired for it.

Why should he go thirsty? Because some idiot in City Hall figures the fat people are fat not because of a box and a half of Little Debbies per sitting and an evening on the couch, but because of a Big Gulp? Or more precisely, because a failed mayor wants to distract the nation from the ugly fact that his school system cannot teach more than twenty percent of its young inmates to read?

It's a big deal not because it's such a pity that those who can't handle responsibility are inconvenienced by their own choices in a free society, but because those who can handle responsibility are prevented from excelling in a totalitarian society. Does a large soda ban prevent someone from excelling? The mindset this lady is trying to sell does, and that's enough reason for me to oppose it.



This. You and a friend want to save money? But, that's cheating the corporation that gave Bloomberg a brib--er, I mean campaign contribution. So, God doesn't have to forbit it. Bloomberg will do it for Him.

I love this.

Anti Federalist
03-27-2013, 09:12 PM
I want Alex Jones to lead thousands of people into the streets of New York without a permit and let chaos ensue.

Let them be thugs and be exposed for the dark side of the totalitarian state.

Was done.

2004 RNC convention.

Was there.

Hell was raised.

Got arrested. "detained".

Best time of my life.

;)

Philhelm
03-27-2013, 09:25 PM
Was done.

2004 RNC convention.

Was there.

Hell was raised.

Got arrested. "detained".

Best time of my life.

;)

Please papa, tell us a storwy.

Icymudpuppy
03-27-2013, 09:31 PM
I was just watching on the Portland, OR news that the state of Oregon is currently debating a ban on tanning beds in the state. The star witness is a woman with skin cancer blaming the machines instead of her own stupidity when it's pretty much common knowledge that overexposure to UV causes skin cancer.

Anti Federalist
03-27-2013, 09:34 PM
Please papa, tell us a storwy.

LOL - Gather round, youngsters...

Seriously, not much to tell, was part of that whole mob out in "general protest" in 2004.

Got "detained" for about four hours outside that shitty Port Authority bus shed on the Hudson river pier, after pushing past a barricade near the WTC site.

Guess what I was shouting there. ;)

Luckily, even though cops got my name and photo, nothing ever showed up as an arrest record.

Philhelm
03-27-2013, 09:37 PM
LOL - Gather round, youngsters...

Seriously, not much to tell, was part of that whole mob out in "general protest" in 2004.

Got "detained" for about four hours outside that shitty Port Authority bus shed on the Hudson river pier, after pushing past a barricade near the WTC site.

Guess what I was shouting there. ;)

Luckily, even though cops got my name and photo, nothing ever showed up as an arrest record.

I was in Iraq 2003 - 2004, so what is this general protest you speak of?

Anti Federalist
03-27-2013, 09:49 PM
I was in Iraq 2003 - 2004, so what is this general protest you speak of?

It was because of this, that I realized "street action" was useless.

Hundreds of thousands of people came out in all manner of protest at the 2004 RNC convention in August.

There was a large contingent of Alex Jones people as well, with Jones himself there for a couple of days.

The city was shut down by anti war, anti W protests of all sorts (Foul fucking hypocrites, 99 percent of them, btw).

Outside of the NY/NJ metro area, nobody heard shit.

HOLLYWOOD
03-27-2013, 10:15 PM
After glancing at the article, I want to eat the author's soul.Don't question the author's article/opinion... QUESTION the author's background.

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9781107024847

http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/24847/cover/9781107024847.jpg
Against Autonomy
Justifying Coercive Paternalism

http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/sconly/

Sarah O. Conly
Assistant Professor of Philosphy
Contact Information sconly@bowdoin.edu (sconly@bowdoin.edu)
Telephone: 207-721-5672
Philosophy
204 Edward Pols House

Spring 2013

Love (PHIL 018)



Moral Problems (PHIL 120)

http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/sconly/images/sarah-o-conly-bowdoin.jpg
Education

Ph.D. (Cornell)
M.A. (Cornell)
B.A. (Princeton)

I was on leave during the academic year 2010-2011, spending the fall at the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, the spring in Oaxaca, Mexico. During that time I wrote a book, Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, which will be published by Cambridge University Press in 2012. Against Autonomy is a defense of paternalistic laws; that is, laws that make you do things, or prevent you from doing things, for your own good. I argue that autonomy, or the freedom to act in accordance with your own decisions, is overrated—that the common high evaluation of the importance of autonomy is based on a belief that we are much more rational than we actually are. We now have lots of evidence from psychology and behavioral economics that we are often very bad at choosing effective means to our ends. In such cases, we need the help of others—and in particular, of government regulation—to keep us from going wrong.


Publications (http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/sconly/#tabs-1)

Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, forthcoming, Cambridge University Press.

Current Projects I’ve now started on my next book, tentatively titled One: Do We have a Right to More Children? We tend to think of regulating the number of children people may have as morally reprehensible. For one thing, the right to have a family is one we often think of as sacrosanct, articulated, among other places, in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. And, we think that women have the right to control their bodies, and while this right is mentioned often in the context of the right to abortion, it may also be held to include the right to have as many children as one wants. Lastly, we think of such policies as having sanctions that are unacceptable, including forced abortions of those who become pregnant with a second child. In One, I argue that opposition to population regulation is based on a number of mistakes: that the right to have a family doesn’t entail the right to have as many children as you may want; that the right to control one’s body is conditional on how much harm you are doing to others; and that nothing in population regulation entails that those who break the law can be forced to have abortions, or subject to any sort of punishment that is horrific. If population growth is sufficiently dangerous, it is fair for us to impose restrictions on how many children we can give birth to.

QuickZ06
03-27-2013, 10:26 PM
Giving up a little liberty is something we agree to when we agree to live in a democratic society that is governed by laws.

WTF??

Christian Liberty
03-27-2013, 10:34 PM
WTF??

Yeah, not all of us.

You have the right to do whatever the crap you want as long as you don't infringe on my right to do the same. Libertarians occasionally disagree on whether a given action is an infrigement of someone's rights or not, but we agree on this core principle, and we don't give a crap about democracy...

Anti Federalist
03-27-2013, 11:17 PM
Bowdoin College...should have known.

DamianTV
03-28-2013, 12:06 AM
Giving up a little liberty is something we agree to when we agree to live in a democratic society that is governed by laws.

WTF??

... and to the REPUBLIC. What fucking part of the US is a Republic, not a god damn fucking Democracy will these asshats not fail to get through their thick fucking skulls to their pea sized brains?

amy31416
03-28-2013, 04:19 AM
Bowdoin College...should have known.

I was not surprised either. It's one of the colleges I looked into in HS, thankfully I couldn't afford it.

Philhelm
03-28-2013, 06:05 AM
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1079851


She's very funny, but her values seem frighteningly off-key with her topic (ethics). She said she drives a Porsche, which doesn't strike me as meshing well with the utilitarianism to which she claims to subscribe.

Damned Porsche Liberals.

According to an Amazon.com review of her book, she believes that there should be a law to force people to have a certain portion of savings...and she drives a Porsche. So, what if someone becomes unemployed? What if an emergency requires tapping into that savings? Will non-compliance result in fines, thus further reducing the savings? A bullet into the back of the head and asset forfeiture to government?

Philhelm
03-28-2013, 06:33 AM
One reader on Amazon.com gave her book 5/5 stars:


Human beings are irrational. As Sarah Conly writes, "The truth is that we don't reason very well, and in many cases there is no justification for leaving us to struggle with our own inabilities and to suffer the consequences" (pg. 1).

Fortunately, however, while human beings don't reason well, government officials do. This is because they are able to be more objective than we are. Again, Conly explains this very well: "Since we do better at estimating efficacy when we are in a relatively objective position, government, insofar as those in it are not the ones who are at present tempted by the rewards of the poor decision, can help us do better to reach our own, individual goals better than we would do if left to our own devices" (pg. 10).

And indeed, our history proves Conly's claim, as objective government officials have acted with the reason and balance of experts who are not tempted by direct involvement in the questions being decided: the Sedition Act of 1798, which led to the imprisonment of newspaper editors who criticized government. Indian removal. The Fugitive Slave Act. The Dred Scott decision. The Wounded Knee massacre. Plessy v. Ferguson. Jim Crow laws. The firebombing of Tokyo. The mass internment of Japanese-Americans. The secret bombing of Cambodia. Drone attacks on Pakistani wedding parties. Indefinite military detention. The wisdom of government is virtually infinite, and has created a world of steady progress. When we act individually, we are irrational and reckless. When government officials act upon the human society from which they ascended, they do better to help us all reach our proper goals.

Indeed, this is but a partial list, as it omits the deep wisdom of, say, the European state. In Europe, too, government officials acting from relatively objective positions have been able to create clear examples of rational progress. Like miles of trenches cloaked in poison gas, say, or a uniquely efficient rail system in Poland.

For some final, powerful examples of Conly's argument at work in the real world, just read the very first sentence of her book, which explains the problems a paternalistic government could help us to solve: "We are too fat, we are too much in debt, and we save too little for the future."

See? Too much debt! No savings for the future!

We individuals and societies are reckless, but government would never behave like that.

KrokHead
03-28-2013, 06:38 AM
We individuals and societies are reckless, but government would never behave like that.

Sadly a government, since it is made up of people, is as uniformed, ignorant, and as irrational as a person. It took me a while to realize that. The people is power aren't gods, and they usually are in the end about as smart as one of us.

Philhelm
03-28-2013, 06:50 AM
The people is power aren't gods, and they usually are in the end about as smart as one of us.

Or less.

Philhelm
03-28-2013, 06:56 AM
You know, there is a link to her faculty email address...

moostraks
03-28-2013, 07:01 AM
Sadly a government, since it is made up of people, is as uniformed, ignorant, and as irrational as a person. It took me a while to realize that. The people is power aren't gods, and they usually are in the end about as smart as one of us.

Ah...you seem so optimistic. Call me a glass half empty sort but government seems to pander to the lowest denominator therefore I see it as smart as the least among us.

As for the article, been a while since I wanted to inflict physical violence upon someone who has penned an article. I have been selective in my choices of reading matter of late and refraining from antagonizing myself with this type of tripe.

PBS news hour? Not just no.

At some point the life that these arrogant do gooders lead has got to serve them some humble pie.

nobody's_hero
03-28-2013, 07:28 AM
That’s what the government is supposed to do, help us get where we want to go.

I've been trying to get somewhere that government doesn't exist. Can government help me get there?

(Sort of a dilemma I'm in, lol.)

jclay2
03-28-2013, 07:28 AM
I'm sure she chugged more than 16 oz of beer when she got pawed by raucous frat boys back in the day. People are allowed to be done. I'll never drink 32 oz of soda (other than in a state with Mr. Pibb) but God forbid I want to pay 20 cents for the bigger soda and share it to save money.

I come from a family with 7 sibllings and our family did this all the time! My mom would always get the monstrocity sized drinks over 44 ounces and share it with all of the kids who were in the car. In reallity, each person was probably getting max 6 ounces of soda each.

PaulConventionWV
03-28-2013, 09:19 AM
After glancing at the article, I want to eat the author's soul.

I don't imagine it would taste very good. I would stay away from statist souls if I were you. Too high in calories... and sugar.

Pericles
03-28-2013, 09:49 AM
Bowdoin College...should have known.

I conclude that logic is no longer one of the disciplines of the Philosophy Department.

jbauer
03-28-2013, 10:11 AM
I'm sure she chugged more than 16 oz of beer when she got pawed by raucous frat boys back in the day. People are allowed to be done. I'll never drink 32 oz of soda (other than in a state with Mr. Pibb) but God forbid I want to pay 20 cents for the bigger soda and share it to save money.

Good point on the sharing. My wife and I do that especially the few times we go to a movie.

nobody's_hero
03-28-2013, 06:53 PM
I don't imagine it would taste very good. I would stay away from statist souls if I were you. Too high in calories... and sugar.

I think it's a lack of sugar. Low blood sugar can lead to confusion and poor judgment.

Christian Liberty
03-28-2013, 06:55 PM
I don't imagine it would taste very good. I would stay away from statist souls if I were you. Too high in calories... and sugar.

Some libertarians make stupid choices too, the difference is we accept responsibility for those choices.