Just say no to the Nanny State
Kudos to Governor Bryant
Printable View
Just say no to the Nanny State
Kudos to Governor Bryant
I have mixed feelings, and some of them will not be popular here.
I am persuaded by a psychiatrist's review of the Bloomberg legislation. Whereas a kneejerk reaction is to suggest that Bloomberg's legislation takes away a person's freedom of choice, his argument is exactly the opposite--it provides an avenue for us to exercise a freedom of choice.
When 32 ounces of soft drink require a conscious decision to refill a 16-ounce choice, it provides the brain with an "interrupt" so that a choice has to be made to imbibe an additional 16 ounces. When cigarettes cannot be displayed in the window case, the brain is forced to make a choice to seek them out. The product is still available, should we choose to exercise our freedom to consume an unhealthy product--that has not been taken away. Instead, it just requires a conscious choice to be made, rather than an unconscious one. I distinguish this from a "nanny state," because in a true "nanny state," the choice would not be allowed. Here, it is, but you have to decide to do it consciously.
I prefer Bloomberg's bill over the anti-Bloomberg bill. I believe that conscious choices should be made, rather than subconscious ones.
D,
I have no doubt that there is a deeper psychological context that I am unwilling (or more likely unable) to grasp, but I would play Devil's Advocate.
Doesn't this (Bloomberg bill) amount to a partial removal of freedom by forcing you to fill up twice? I can't believe I just typed that...
With or without, you get the same amount of soda. But with you are forced to change what you do as a reasonable adult. For example, I get a 44 ounce Powerade from Sonic on days I do distance runs. Not the healthies of choices, but it aids in hydration and makes running easier for me. Under the BBB (BloomBerg Bill), I would be limited to a 20 ouncer, have to buy 2 if the BBB didn't prohibit that, or do without if it didn't suit my needs.
Maybe I am totally missing the perspective of the "unreasonable" adult that will just take and take without regard for life and health? I hate to say it, but I see it as a modern day example of Darwinism.
I think your anecdote is a byproduct that no one option is perfect. On the other hand, I would estimate your situation is less than 0.1% of all those who get a 44 ounce Powerade from Sonic. While in your particular situation it creates what you believe is a lack of freedom, I believe it creates the freedom in 99.9% of those who do not use it for the reasons you so choose.
I started to add in my prior post a comment about the people who post here being strong-minded, intelligent, and likely to overcome external stimuli that others do not so do. For example, I can pass all the cigarette stands I want, and I will never buy or smoke a cigarette. Your example is another good one in that venue, but I don't believe it was necessary for my narrow point. On the whole, having a conscious choice, rather than a subsconscious one, I think benefits us all, whether we fall into a subcategory of persons least likely to be affected or not.
I have a whole 'nother set of arguments how we (the "reasonable" adults) are affected by poor choices from "they" (the "unreasonable" ones), but again, I don't think it is necessary for the narrow point.
Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say that synthetic methamphetamine is legal, over the counter (some synthetic drugs are, of course, until they catch up and become outlawed.) Let's also say that the company that produces the synthetic methamphetamine--a legal, but unhealthy product--produces an in-store advertisement that is hypnotic in nature. Strong-minded individuals can withstand the hypnotic advertisement, avoid it, or ignore it. Would legislation banning such hypnotic advertisements aid in us making choices, or remove our freedom? My position would be that it gives us more freedom, rather than less, in that it enables us to make a conscious choice to purchase the synthetic methamphetamine free from subsconscious stimuli.
As I said, I expect my opinion to not be popular. I've looked at both bills and thought about it a lot, and what it means to me, to the unreasonable adult, to the impulsive adult, and others. I think there's more freedom in a Bloomberg bill than an anti-Bloomberg bill.
Under the pre BBB the individual has the freedom of choice to purchase smaller drink sizes when they order the meal. The BBB takes away one of those choices.
The BBB does not take away that choice, Dan. They can purchase the smaller drink by itself, or they can refill, or purchase two smaller drinks. No freedom is lost, but it does require a conscious choice to be made.
A caveat: Your position isn't unpopular with me, I am just trying to comprehend and trying to decide if the science behind it agrees with my belief strucutre. :winking0011:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
The only hard part for me to grasp is the restriction of (loosely) freedom of choice from those who are able to do so wisely, for the benefit of those who can't or won't. It's really the "won'ts" that bother me. I understand the "can'ts". I mean, by all means provide education and warning! But if some people just won't make smart choices, why change a single iota of the way I live to accomodate them when I am choosing smartly?
As to the hypnotic advertising for a harmful drug: that reminds me of the Camel "Camel". To me, that made no difference when I smoked many moons ago. I hated Camels. They tasted like Camel dung (or so I imagine). I chose, poorly, based on taste and not advertising to smoke something else. Also, I guess I just can't comprehend the "won'ts" since I became an adult and decided to take control of my life. NO amount of advertising can pull me back.
The only thing I see that faults my position is the children of the "won'ts". Forcing a conscious choice benefits them immensely, but then again as a child aren't they in the "can't" group?
That last post sounded elitist. I apologize. I am not at all unwilling to help the overall cause, even by altering my life. I just can't accept the government telling me to alter my life as opposed to me choosing to do so to help others.
Is the customer making an unconscious decision on drink size when they place their order?
(Hypothetical) Chevrolet makes pick up trucks with different size fuel tanks; 15 gallon, 20 gallon, and 25 gallon. Pre BBB one has the choice of which size tank they order in their new truck. Post BBB Chevrolet is only allowed to sell trucks with 15 gal and 20 gal tanks. Is my choice as a potential tuck buyer not limited by the BBB?
I just don't believe its the gov't job to encourage me to make a decision on size, whether the decision is conscious or not. IMO its not the gov't place to decide that if I want to be the mega-giant humongous gulp and split it between my wife and 2 kids that I can't, instead forcing me to purchase 4 "normal" gulps.
When Bloomberg started this thing, I thought of these scenes from an underrated movie from the 90s, "Demolition Man":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puM1eT15NYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pSEMNEqQJI
Darrell --
Pure psycho babble. :) (bet you didn't think I'd come along and disagree did ya? lol)
Most important, it misses the whole point that this isn't a question of the psychological nature of choice, but rather the limits of government relative to the rights of the individual and in this context the government's authority to even frame that choice as well as to determine that choice for us. Government doesn't even get the authority to frame our choices at this level, much less to rig them to a particular outcome. The difference between conscious and unconscious choice is not the same as individual liberty or liberty from the tyranny of the majority.
There are two people's liberties being violated in the Bloomberg law. One is the buyer, the other is the seller. He's not selling anything illegal, but this law limits him from selling it packaged in a way he clearly thinks is more desirable to his buyers. He wants to sell it that way, his buyers want to buy it that way (or they'd buy the 16 oz drink or some other size), but b/c Bloomberg doesn't like which transaction has resulted, for people to buy lots of 32 oz drinks, he wants to try to get a different transaction is as many cases as possible by restricting the range of transactions available to the buyer and seller.
So by definition a "choice" is eliminated. The buyer and seller could agree to transact 2 16 oz drinks, or 4 8 oz ones, or 1 32 oz one, but now they cannot transact that drink. That option is gone. The market restricted, a "choice" of buyer and seller eliminated. IMO it's sophistry to suggest choice has been expanded when the agreement between buyer and seller includes one less option that they could choose before.
So we introduce this highly fungible concept of "subconscious" choice, i.e. that choice we just eliminated wasn't really the buyer making the choice but the seller manipulating him into the choice, thus there was no "choice" thus no choice was eliminated and somehow since "choice" relates 1:1 with liberties (it doesn't) we've not reduced liberty b/c you never really made a choice as a consumer. You were in effect being duped by the sellers, the nasty producers in the market, and we're here to protect you from their manipulations. We've given you a choice by restraining their ability to prey on you (by giving you what you apparently want to buy based on the sales figures). We've expanded your liberty through our law banning something you bought last week and were happy to buy.
Sure sounding pretty nanny state to me thus far. Pretty Terry Gilliam "Brazil" too. Gotta admit, the "we've given you more choice (read "freedom") by limiting the things you can choose to consume the way you want" mantra is more fitting to the Ministry of Truth than the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association.
My first question, is that 32 oz purchase a "subconscious" choice, is also the most irrelevant question of all. It doesn't matter. Nothing in the ideology of individualism makes any distinction between choices the individual makes consciously or unconsciously. It doesn't even acknowledge the right of the majority or the State to intervene if the choice is patently wrong or harmful to the individual, much less if they are making it at a more or less conscious level of their thinking that day. In fact a key crux of the debate over individual liberty these days centers on whether the individual has the right to make choices the majority have determined are not in his best interests. From 32 oz sodas to seatbelt and helmet laws to gun ownership and everything in between, the battle of individual liberty is on the "you are making the wrong choice for yourself" front. Again, nanny state defined, and this one is right in the middle of that battlefield.
My second question is how do we determine if this is a subconscious choice? I choose the large sodas when I'm going to be in the car a while and won't be near another. I also know I will drink far more than 32 oz in a day so I get the big one and have to fool with getting fewer total drinks. Just b/c I don't stop every time I get a big drink and retrace the steps that got me to buying the 32 oz most of the time doesn't mean the choice is "subconscious". It means it is simply one where the variables to not vary often, so I can fall into a pattern of behavior. Me simplifying a choice based on its repeatability is not somehow giving up the choice or being manipulated into the choice. It's not subconscious, it's simply been pushed to a low priority point so I don't go through the matrix every time.
But let's assume this is both a subconscious (or otherwise involuntary) choice. One I'm not really making in some way so its elimination actually INCREASES my choices. So where is this authority given to the State to frame choices the majority thinks are not being given proper consideration? Why does it seem to only apply to outcomes the state doesn't like? We've decided in our majority that this cannot be a smart choice so we need to manipulate the situation to add barriers to making that choice and force them to take extra steps to pursue it. We then call this "providing them a conscious choice." As if we know what's best for them, assume they are making the choice without what we consider to be due consideration, and need us to make sure they consider it every time they order a drink from now till the end of time.
Has Bloomberg tinkered with situations where the "subconscious" (i.e. most often made) choice is one he sees as good for the consumer? If this notion of "conscious versus unconscious" choice were valid wouldn't we want to force more conscious choices regardless of whether the current outcome is harmful or good for the consumer?
Why is this authority being used in a case where the state has decided the choice being made currently is a bad one and not when the choices are good ones but also unconscious? This has been chosen b/c the state doesn't like the outcome, they see it as harmful to the consumer, so they want to intervene. that's the definition of the nanny state: the government intervening in the free market when they feel the consumer is not acting in their own best interests and need to be protected from their own decisions and actions.
If we accept this concept, the idea of individuals being able to make choices that the majority may seen as harmful to themselves loses all meaning and protection. So we put a 100 round per day purchase limit on ammo b/c we want people to think twice about having guns b/c the majority have decided that's not a good choice and maybe it's being made subconsciously and they need to force us to make a conscious decision to engage in this harmful activity. We've opened a floodgate, now anything the majority thinks may not be a considered enough choice is subject to tinkering.
So how does this standard work in the real world when we try to decide if a law is in fact treading on individual liberty? Do the courts have to determine if the choice is unconscious or not or to what degree to determine if the law is constitutional or not? If it's forcing a "conscious" choice then banning things is subsequently OK, but if the court decides 51% of the people do think about the choice then it can't be banned? I see no ideological or legal basis on which the system can operate effectively if we treat the Rights of Man and individual liberty in terms of whether people are desirous of making such a choice actively.
basically this guy is arguing that people aren't aware they are making a choice, are being deceived or manipulated into one in some way or it is somehow otherwise less valid a choice than some other arbitrary mix of choices that lead to the same consumptive outcome. Because of that the choice has less value, less protection as an individual liberty, than some choice he may acknowledge is not being manipulated or made in some involuntary way. So we can trample on those choices b/c we agree they aren't "really choices" at all, and before you know it he's got us saying that by preventing a person from doing something they're expanding their choices.
No, you're forcing a series of choices upon them that can be more readily proven to be voluntary b/c it incurs additional costs and actions for the buyer to take those steps to get to the given consumptive outcome. It doesn't mean the first choice was involuntary or manipulated or in any way NOT DESIRED by the buyer, and that is the key part. It's what the buyer desires, and the idea that what he desires must not be what he's getting b/c we've decided in the third person it's bad for him so we had better make him go to even greater lengths to get there in hopes he "wises up" or "wakes up" or at least proves to the satisfaction of the State he really is making this choice of his own volition is refined essence of "Nanny State".
PS - I'm tired, this may have rambled and not connected in some places, but I think it covers the basics. There is no world (not living on the head of a pin) where the government removes one or more possible transactions between buyer and seller in the market and has increased the buyer's "choices", subconscious or otherwise. 4 minus 1 does not equal 5.
I don't think it rambled (well, maybe just a little due to length, but that could just be my eyes getting crossed ;)), but I remain unpersuaded. There is a line. Everybody will acknowledge that, and if one doesn't, there's not much point to debate. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Of course, most believe the line is far from the Bloomberg legislation.
I gave what I believed to be an absurd line with the "hypnotic" advertisement of a legal, yet dangerous product, and one that I believe the vast majority of people would agree. I don't find it "psycho" babble; as a student of human behavior (my own, sometimes peculiarly so), I think the "interrupt" factor is one that creates the choice, rather than takes it away. I'm pretty simplistic in many views, and this is one such case.
And hey, just remember--on all those tests that I always take online, it finds me being a "Libertarian." I am very much for freedom of choice and freedom from governmental intrusion. My view is that this falls inside the line in assisting that, rather than outside as an obstacle to it.
Yeah, you're a Libertarian on the internet tests. you know the internet, where it must be true. :tongue08:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Nah, we're all good. I know we're coming at this from basically the same viewpoint. Every now and again you stray, like when you think the WNBA is more popular than college basketball, but I'm here for you bro. ;)
I see it as kind of my job. To offset your reasonableness and generosity and obviously fine raising of contributing children with sloth, cynicism and a dislike of any compromise or group of people too large to fit around my dining room table. Evil twins rule!
I will make this point, and it goes to yours and does agree with the general direction: there is a role of the state in these decisions, but it is not to interfere with them through these manipulations of the market. It's by addressing information asymmetry. If we feel an asymmetry of information exists in the market that is skewing the outcomes it is legitimate to address it through government action. In this case the tobacco analogy is a great one b/c we addressed it with warning labels and advertising to explain the risks of smoking. that is perfectly legitimate in that it corrects a possible gap in the market's ability to operate in balance between producer and consumer.
The same applies here. I'd have no objection if Bloomberg required warning labels on the drinks to explain consuming lots of them could be bad for you. That is however the limit of the government's authority. It's fine to inform buyers to help them make a choice that is not manipulated by info the producer has but the consumer does not that gives the producer a non-market advantage, but it's not fine to go the next step when that doesn't work and start limiting buyer choices at the point at which they've considered that information and still made a choice with which we may not agree.
A great example of that locally is health inspection of restaurants. Lexington has gone to a system where every restaurant/gas station has to post their score sheet prominently in the window. That is a Libertarian's dream scenario to handle such things. Restaurants could create an asymmetry by having bad food standards and the patrons not know it, creating risk to them. The government steps in to inspect such things and make sure that information is then provided to patrons, then they can choose for themselves based on that information.
He can require they put up a warning sign, put a label on the cups, but not determine the size of the cup. Just like they can inspect the kitchen and require the meat be at X temperature. THey can't regulate how big a burger you make from that meat to serve to someone.
I think there's a couple of things in play here, one of which we're discussing, the other which has not been discussed, or that I've seen.
The first item is the "control" factor that Bloomberg wants. The 2nd item that I have not seen mentioned is the backlash from some people who will buy that 2nd soda in spite of idiot Bloomberg but who will be playing right into the hands of the control freaks because, by having purchased that 2nd soda they will have to pay that additional tax levied on such items, so the city of New York will be increasing their tax revenues.
Now, call me a conspiracy theorist, but besides wanting the control the city government Nazis seek, they're also getting additional revenue with each additional soda purchases.
Just makes me dislike New York & New Yorker's that much more.
Doesn't NY have a bunch of rats to kill and urine odor to get rid of?
Well, if it's not that, then it's gotta be the people of New York City that are the urine smelling rats for having elected this POS as Mayor.Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
They elected him. They're getting exactly what they deserve.
Suncat you beat me to the sales tax revenue which may be more of the actual point than the health benefit that Bloomfield wants everyone to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
I watched "Meet the Press" today, Bloomberg and Wayne LaPierre of the NRA were the featured guests.
Listening to Bloomberg talk about the large size soda ban, he clearly stated that "if" somone wanted more than one soda, and they choose to buy another one, that they would be free to do so. He additionally stated that if a person wanted one, two, three or four sodas of an equal amount to the original large size that could buy them.
Without coming out and saying it directly he affirmed my suspicion that this really IS NOT about the amount of soda a person drinks, it is about how many they buy. He said he also hoped that if that person just drank one soda, that perhaps they'd be satisfied and not purchase another. But it still comes down to making them buy more than one soda if that is what they want, which means the amount of taxes charged for the individual drinks fills up the coffers of New York City.
Besides being about control, it's about money, and how to seperate the citizens of New York City from theirs.
The people of New York City, and the state of New York in general deserve every bit of what they're getting from these undercover Nazis!
Typical liberal/fascist response. they pass a law restricting private action, then when questioned try to make it seem like it will have no real impact by saying "you can still have X", in this case if you want the 32 oz soda you can still have it by buying two of them. Isn't it funny how many such laws get passed when their defense is their easy ability to be made useless? Do we really think these laws are passed by people who think they are so ineffective or isn't it really just a trite defense of what is a long term plan to chisel away at these "issues" (I would call it "our rights")?
Those supporting the law on the basis of health clearly think a lot of people will now limit themselves to the one drink, but there is another truth here: they are FINE serially reducing the rights of individuals for what they themselves think will be marginal gains at best. Their threshold for government interference is so low they support action even when there is almost no chance of abating any of the supposed problem in question. The "save one life" maxim is a good example. They constantly reduce things to that simple view b/c there is often NO evidence it will do any good or save any measurable number of people, so they use this fallacy to make their 0.001% chance of helping anyone seem like enough to violate the rights of millions, or 100s of millions.
Seriously, how many lives will be extended by how many years in New York through this law that by definition impacts the choices of every single person living in or visiting the city? So the city gets to pass a law when there is almost no chance it will really help anyone in any meaningful way b/c we value the rights of individuals to live their own lives and make their own choices so little?
IMO any law in the name of "public safety" should have to show it can in some way measurably improve public safety or its impact on the rights of free individuals should not be tolerated. This law can't point to anything to make us think it is going to improve public safety enough to justify wasting the paper it was written on, much less reducing the choices of free men and women, both sellers and buyers.
No freedom lost sounds like the 'we aren't taking anyone's guns' mantra the left is currently peddling. Both may be true technically, but not as practical matters. Sure someone can buy two 16 oz drinks instead of one 32 oz drink, but you will pay much more for the 32 oz drink purchased via two 16 oz drinks than to purchase a 32 oz drink to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Not to mention how you carry them. You don't order 32 oz drinks in restaurants where you sit around for 2 hours. You order them to have in cars and, esp in New York, to have in your hand as you walk. Clearly having to carry 2 is a non-option for most situations, so it will in reality limit people to a smaller drink unless they choose to make a 2nd stop in a 2nd location to buy another one. So it's not just "give me 2 16 oz. drinks" but "give me one 16 oz drink" then another such purchase at another place later in the day. I'm betting a sizable percentage are sold over lunch and such when they wouldn't be able to leave work again to get a 2nd one, limiting them to 1 or having to carry 2 of them. I know lots of people who get the largest coffee at the quickie mart on the way to work and drink on it for hours once there. Same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
All meaningless to me as the law is unacceptable whether it is an inconvenience to people or not on purely a question of liberty, but it's far from as innocuous as Bloomberg is claiming in terms of convenience. It's also less "green", as we can expect the amount of solid waste produced in paper cups and straws to increase unless everyone just settles for 16 oz, which means of course the inconvenience and cost factors have a lot of impact and people all stop at 16 ozs.
Not to mention that the restrictions are class bias, as the middle and lower income people are going to be impacted by the laws at a disproportionate rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN