Judge halts mayor's soda ban, calls it 'arbitrary and capricious'

[badrose]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...plT88TyLQInuoI

Tingling permanently stopped the city from enforcing the ban.

“[The city] is enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled.

The judge said Bloomberg and the Board of Health overstepped their bounds, to enforce rules that should be established by the legislative bodies.

“The rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it,” Tingling wrote. “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened drinks.”

Tingling sided with a coalition of store keepers, unions, theater owners and beverage sellers who have been fighting Bloomberg’s ban that was set to go into effect tomorrow.

“It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule,” Tingling wrote.

[suncat05]

Wow, a judge with some sense and who knows his responsibility to the citizens of New York. Maybe he should give that traitor on the SCOTUS a call and remind him of HIS RESPONSIBILITIES to the American people.

[CitizenBBN]

Talked to a guy I work with about it just tonight. It was depressing. He thinks the government has a right to control my health b/c it costs him health insurance wise if I'm not healthy. So the state forces health care upon me that I didn't ask for and that then gives them the right to force their rules about how I have to live in order to maintain my health b/c it costs the majority that violated my rights to force health care on me in the first place.

So now any externality that costs anyone in any way is justification to regulate their lives. The funniest part is he's as overweight as I am.

One role of government is to address externalities. Things that Person A might do that would impact Person B unfairly. The environment is a classic example. If "A" dumps waste in the river from which "B" drinks A has created an externality that impacts B. In this case the externality exists b/c of poorly arranged property rights, i.e. neither A nor B owns the river. If A owned it he could charge B for water and would have an incentive to not pollute it and if B owned it he could charge A or otherwise prevent him from polluting.

But with the river a "common" resource we have an externality. The only way to address it is to a) define the property rights differently, or b) have the government intervene to create a restriction to address the externality in some way. Maybe it bans the pollution, maybe it minimizes it to "safe levels", etc.

This ban was justified based on the externality of health care costs. "A" doesn't take care of himself and "B" ends up paying extra in insurance or taxes b/c of it.

Here's the problem: the "externality" exists only due to government intervention to create the externality. Further the externality created is a violation of the liberties of both A and B. "A" is violated b/c he didn't ask for government health insurance or that the government require hospitals to treat people who cannot pay. "B" is violated b/c he is being forced to pay for "A" if "A" can't/won't do it himself.

So we have something that LOOKS like an externality but in fact is what is better described as an "inequity". The state created the "externality" through use of force and then uses it to justify even further use of force.

Of all the threats this nation's liberty faces, this is the most insidious. We have an intuition that government is there to address externalities even if we don't know what they are exactly, but we don't stop to consider if we're looking at a true externality, a failure of the market to properly manage an issue of property rights, or one inflicted on us by the state and then used as pseudo-justification for even more inflicted state restrictions on our liberty.

The response of "B" should not be "we have the right to tell you what to drink b/c it costs me" but "I refuse to pay for your decision to drink unhealthy drinks". If "B" supports paying for other people's health care that doesn't create the power to deny another right to "A" b/c of his choice. In effect you've now created an unfair externality in reverse, or the "inequity".



We must rail against this kind of thinking. This is quite simply a case of two wrongs not making a right.

[CitizenBBN]

On another note, would have liked something more sweeping but the judge tore this apart in enough ways I'm happy. Hope Bloomberg is so mad he drops his drink all over his $5,000 suit and $50,000 Persian rug. Controlling, condescending fascist SOB.

[bigsky]

On another note, would have liked something more sweeping but the judge tore this apart in enough ways I'm happy. Hope Bloomberg is so mad he drops his drink all over his $5,000 suit and $50,000 Persian rug. Controlling, condescending fascist SOB.

Yeah. He was fairly libertarian but the power went to his head.

[CitizenBBN]

Yeah. He was fairly libertarian but the power went to his head.

Power corrupts. You'd think that would be such an accepted maxim we'd all agree to diffuse it and leave as little of it over our lives as possible.

[jazyd]

I think he knew it would go this way or he has some dumbass lawyers. He made a show, made the extreme liberal base happy, that is what they do.

If a city could enforce this, they could do anything. Why didnt he outlaw the sale of tobacco? Oh wait they get a ton of tax on that. Why not outlaw Big Macs, ribeyes,fried chicken, Xl candy bars?

And yes I am glad this judge ruled per the law

[CitizenBBN]

Jazy, Chicago did ban foie gras (sp? I hate it), in their case b/c they just didn't like the way the ducks were raised.

Some days I feel so alone. I just need to curl up with a beautiful, sensual model or 3 for a weekend and try to imagine it'll all be libertarianism and unicorns when I come back.

[dan_bgblue]

I am saddened that the judge did not just say the idea was STOOPID

[UKHistory]

It is a fine line, but one worth walking, for the first lady, and USDA, etc to encourage healthy eating and living. This is especially children.

Key word is encourage or promote.

To regulate or to legislate the size of my beverage or slice of pizze or whatever because of the need for universal health care, I have a real problem.

If affordable health care for all reduces or limits individual freedom, keep the health insurance.

I don't drink and I don't smoke. I think everyone would be better off living that way. It is not my right to force people to live that way and it is not the government's place to do so either.

[jazyd]

History, we totally agree. Promote fine, regulate no. And like you I don't smoke nor drink but everyone has the right to do what they want in that regard. I also dont' totally agree in forcing insurance companies to insure someone with a preexisting condition. Makes it way too easy to get insurance AFTEr you have a major problem which means each of us are going to ahve to pay for it.
Like the smokers who use it for years, come donw with lung cancer and then want an insurance company to pay hundreds of thousands in benefits that will cost each of us in premiums.

It is a fine line, but one worth walking, for the first lady, and USDA, etc to encourage healthy eating and living. This is especially children.

Key word is encourage or promote.

To regulate or to legislate the size of my beverage or slice of pizze or whatever because of the need for universal health care, I have a real problem.

If affordable health care for all reduces or limits individual freedom, keep the health insurance.

I don't drink and I don't smoke. I think everyone would be better off living that way. It is not my right to force people to live that way and it is not the government's place to do so either.