Internet Doodlings - Another taste of Enviros using "We know what is best for you" to mask totalitarianism - Granite Grok

Internet Doodlings – Another taste of Enviros using “We know what is best for you” to mask totalitarianism

Heh!  But again, not so heh!  We laugh, but they mean it.  Over at TreeHugger (they have become such a source of sport!), they were discussing the righteousness of NYC-Nanny-Chieftain Mayor Bloomberg’s (whose own dietary predilections do not match his public policy for the rest of his “citizens”) declaration that he would solve the obesity problem of his haunts be making certain sizes of soda sold by NYC establishments off limits.  In a post entitled “More than Reasonable:

Last week, New York City showed the nation once again what it means to be on the cutting edge of public health policy. The city announced a bold plan to limit the size of sugary beverages sold at restaurants and other food establishments. Predictably, much of the media went crazy, and numerous outlets have already proclaimed that this time, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has just gone too far. Banning trans fats was fine, but don’t take away my right to guzzle a gallon of Coke is the lazy reaction of some pundits.

But let’s take a more rational look at what New York is proposing. From both a policy-making and political strategy standpoint, it makes perfect sense. No one is banning anything or restricting anyone’s freedoms. The city is simply placing a reasonable limit on how much soda (or other sugary beverage) can be served in a single container.

Cutting edge?  Bloomberg already went after salt (which he himself uses with wild abandon in a “fine for me but not for thee fashion”). Now, there is a study out that says cutting salt intake to such a level promulgated by the Feds could actually be dangerous.  There also is no definitive study on soda usage either.

The post also tried to slyly slip in what Goverment is doing is just what private business has done with serving sizes in the past (thus, trying to rationalize Bloomy’s actions):

According to Coca-Cola, in the 1950?s, the “traditional” bottle size was 6.5 ounces. New York’s proposed 16-ounce limit is roughly 2.5 times higher. Seems more than reasonable.

One of the commenters made it quite clear – we who have the Gold get to make the rules for the rest of you to follow.  And then makes a second mistake as well:

We pay for healthcare for too many of those who can’t stop gulping gallons of soda. May as well put some measures ensuring we pay just a tiny little bit less.

BTW, what you call Nana is actually all of us. That’s how democracy works.

The first line is the totalitarian line, and as I have pointed out, they are just following the same tired (and Road to Serfdom pathway):

  • We have to help others in need
  • We have to get the healthcare when they need it
  • We have to get someone else to pay if they can’t
  • We’ll start with Medicare, with a dash of EMLATA (which forces hospitals to help people with other peoples’ money for free), add in Medicaid, and finish up with CHIPS)
  • Oops, our charity with your money is costing us BILLIONS!
  • You people aren’t grateful for our help (using other peoples’ money)!
  • You are costing us too much – we need to change your behavior because now, WE have to spend more of our money to save you (ungrateful wretches with your Big Gulps)!

In a free society, that line of argument is enough for me to wish to bring the Puritan stocks back (rotten tomatoes extra) – not for the consumer but for the commenter!  I keep hearing from the Left that there is too much money in politics, that it has to be removed (especially now where Obama is not raising ANYwhere the amount of $$ he did last time).  This is just the reverse of that argument simply because they believe that the public’s money is theirs. And that this “public $$” that they have deigned to care for you with is more important than your freedom (hmm, they seem to have no problem in extracting that $$ via higher taxes, eh?)

As to that second line?

No, that’s once again someone making the big mistake of conflating Government with Society and making them one in /and the same.  They are not and it was never intended to be such.

This is nothing more than an instance of “Strong Man Rule”.  Progressive thought decided that more and more healthcare extended to more and more – and with that extra cost, Progressives / Nanny Staters believe that they have the full right  to tell others how they WILL live their lives (“He has who has the Gold makes the Rules”) so as to conserve that $$.

Funny, that – they seemed to have plenty in the beginning when it was such a “bright idea” – but now, it is just so durned expensive!

THere are 2 disparate solutions – either we give up the idea that we are the “Land of the Free”, or less “free” healthcare.  Our Freedom used to, seemingly, seemed to be a Right and healthcare an entitlement; that seems to have been swapped (not a good thing).

>