"Giving up a little liberty is something we agree to" in a nation of laws?

[alp227]

Sarah Conly, philosophy profesor at Bowdoin College, offers one of the NYT's provocative opinion articles in defense of NYC's ban on large soft drinks (currently suspended by court order) "Three Cheers for the Nanny State":

...such a ban suggests that sometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and this has become, in contemporary American politics, highly controversial, no matter how trivial the particular issue. (Large cups of soda as symbols of human dignity? Really?)

We have a vision of ourselves as free, rational beings who are totally capable of making all the decisions we need to in order to create a good life. Give us complete liberty, and, barring natural disasters, we’ll end up where we want to be. It’s a nice vision, one that makes us feel proud of ourselves. But it’s false.

John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859 that the only justifiable reason for interfering in someone’s freedom of action was to prevent harm to others. According to Mill’s “harm principle,” we should almost never stop people from behavior that affects only themselves, because people know best what they themselves want.

After citing Mill and then Daniel Kahneman's research about cognitive optimism bias Conly then argues

Is it always a mistake when someone does something imprudent, when, in this case, a person chooses to chug 32 ounces of soda? No. For some people, that’s the right choice. They don’t care that much about their health, or they won’t drink too many big sodas, or they just really love having a lot of soda at once.

But laws have to be sensitive to the needs of the majority. That doesn’t mean laws should trample the rights of the minority, but that public benefit is a legitimate concern, even when that may inconvenience some.

So do these laws mean that some people will be kept from doing what they really want to do? Probably — and yes, in many ways it hurts to be part of a society governed by laws, given that laws aren’t designed for each one of us individually. Some of us can drive safely at 90 miles per hour, but we’re bound by Banning a law on the grounds that it might lead to worse laws would mean we could have no laws whatsoever. the same laws as the people who can’t, because individual speeding laws aren’t practical. Giving up a little liberty is something we agree to when we agree to live in a democratic society that is governed by laws.

The freedom to buy a really large soda, all in one cup, is something we stand to lose here. For most people, given their desire for health, that results in a net gain. For some people, yes, it’s an absolute loss. It’s just not much of a loss.

Of course, what people fear is that this is just the beginning: today it’s soda, tomorrow it’s the guy standing behind you making you eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch “PBS NewsHour” every day...

And Conly had to compare the soda law with speed limits? So people who drink big sodas are as harmful as speeders? Sorry, bad analogy right there, unless there's a widespread phenomenon people holding others at gunpoint and force-feeding super-size sodas.

Most likely the Times published this for the web traffic and to get attention. But ultimately it's a weak argument. I generally believe in "my body, my choice" whether for reproduction, food, or personal conduct as long as the choice doesn't harm others. That means I would support banning smoking in environments with mostly non smokers such as workplaces or college or a car with a child inside but will defend others' right to smoke alone in their own places.

[alp227]

1. The previous day 3/24 econ professor/business writer Robert H Frank wrote this article

Mixing Freedoms in a 32-Ounce Soda

Being free to do something doesn’t just mean being legally permitted to do it. It also means having a reasonable prospect of being able to do it. Parents don’t want their children to become obese, or to suffer the grave consequences of diet-induced diabetes. Yet our current social environment encourages heavy consumption of sugary soft drinks, making such outcomes much more likely. So that environment clearly limits parents’ freedom to achieve an eminently laudable goal.

The mayor’s critics want to protect their own freedom to consume soft drinks in 32-ounce containers. But pro-freedom slogans provide no guidance about what to do when specific freedoms are in conflict, as they are here. Nor do they alert us to the possibility that taxes or other alternative policies often render such tough choices unnecessary. Sensible policy decisions spring less reliably from slogans than from careful assessment of the pros and cons of the relevant alternatives.

Imagine a society like the United States before 1964, where unregulated individual choices produced high percentages of smokers in the population — more than 50 percent among adult men. Not even the staunchest libertarians should deny that their children would be more likely to become smokers in such an environment.

Smokers harm not only themselves and those who inhale secondhand smoke but also those who simply want their children to grow up to be nonsmokers. People can urge their children to ignore peer influences, of course, but that’s often a losing battle.

So i wonder what it is about the right wingers' knee jerk reactions to the soda law. Maybe they've been brainwashed by commercials and don't want to let go and are acting on that instinct rather than a genuine political conviction.

[el_bryanto]

10. Maybe they just like soda

In a free society it should be hard for Government to tell people what they can't do. Shouldn't it?

Bryant

[Notafraidtoo]

2. Personal liberty ends when it harms the personal liberty of another.

I believe Liberty is limited when others liberty's are harmed, hence the purpose of laws relating to personal liberty, like a polluter for instance he/she has the liberty to form a enterprise but his/her liberty ends when the rest of us have to pay to clean his/hers mess or worse yet are harmed physically by his/hers actions.

I am torn on soda laws,on one hand id like to think i have a right to harm myself if i know i am harming myself,but the conflict arises in me when company's hire spoke persons like coke for instance who hired a scientist to go on news stations even npr to say soda was good for children cause it hydrates them. this is a harmful destructive lie that soda is good for you that some will believe,Tobacco company's were no different 50 years ago.

When they lie and say to the public that harmful items are good for you i think regulation may be in order.

[JVS]

3. It's a sad commentary on the state of academia that such an authoritarian fuddy duddy is...

given a position at such a prestigious school.

[NaturalHigh]

4. I wonder what liberties Professor Conly is willing to give up.

Is she willing to give up her car (assuming she has one)? It's bad for the environment, and the carbon monoxide emissions can't be good for people with asthma.

What about chocolate (assuming she eats it)? The cocoa industry uses a lot of child labor, after all.

Such examples can obviously be taken to the absurd. I'm not about to riot, or protest, or write letters to the editor, about Bloomberg's soda ban, but this seems like little more than a vanity article to get in the paper.

[morningfog]

7. She uses public transit and only eats fair trade

chocolate.

[Arcanetrance]

5. The obesity issue especially when it comes to soda isn't one that'll be solved by banning 16oz sodas

A lot of people point to the drop in smoking related to the limitations put on them. But here's my opinion I think the drop off had less to do with the limitations and more to do with how society really changed its view on smoking especially related to the rising prices versus dwindling finances. If we want to get a handle on the sugar related obesity crisis we have to get back to establishing proper serving sizes (8oz is considered a proper liquid serving size) mixed with education of kids and families as to what these drinks do to their health over time and getting children to want to make proper food choices from a younger age. . I wouldn't personally object to labels on soda like we currently have alcohol and cigarettes that would put the health warnings right there in print.

Please excuse my rambling post

[DanTex]

8. I think the smoking laws had an impact.

I think it was a combination of social change and laws. And they feed each other. Social change makes anti-smoking laws more acceptable. And anti-smoking laws make smoking less prevalent and less visible, thereby contributing to the social change.

Banning smoking in bars and restaurants was pretty controversial in a lot of places, and people were saying the same kinds of things that they are now saying about the large soda ban. That bar owners should have the right to make their own rules. If people didn't want smoke, they could go to or work at a non-smoking bar. It's not the government's role to force the hand of private businesses. Etc.

But, looking back, I think most people who live in places where smoking is banned in bars in restaurants think it is much better now and wouldn't want to go back.

[Arcanetrance]

12. Personally I have never seen an issue with getting rid of sodas over 16oz

I mean a proper serving is 8oz so still being allowed to get 16oz of soda is double the proper serving. Personally I would like to encourage more people to look at drinking only 8oz of soda if they must drink it.

[DanTex]

6. She is right.

Yes, speeding might be a bad analogy, but that doesn't mean the argument is wrong. There are hundreds of good analogies that you can come up with, that people don't seem to complain about. For example, in NYC, restaurants are prevented from using trans-fats in their foods -- which prevents diners from choosing a tasty trans-fat-enhanced restaurant meal and deciding for themselves whether the health risks are worth it.

Somehow the supersize sugary drink thing seems to have angered a lot of people, drawing absurd analogies and slippery slope fears. As the article points out, the principle of the government protecting people from their own bad choices is already well-established, particularly when the damage of the bad choices is partially socialized, in the form of increased health care costs that affect everyone, via medicare, medicaid, or higher insurance premiums.

So, each case should be decided on its own merits, rather than hyperbole about the creeping nanny state. What the NYC law does is prevent companies from profiting from the well-documented tendency of people to overconsume when sugary foods are presented in large portions.


Other examples off the top of my head:
Credit card regulations. You are only allowed to enter into credit card agreements that the government approves of. If you want a credit card that has a lower APR but bunch of hidden fees, because you think you are smart enough to avoid the hidden fees, you can't.

Lead paint. If you want to paint your house with lead, because you think the benefits of lead paint outweigh the harms to your family, you aren't allowed to. The government says no.

Medical licensing. If I want to save money by getting surgery from a person who hasn't been to medical school, I'm not allowed to. I can only get my surgery from people who the government says are qualified.

Product safety. Pretty much any product safety law comes under the "nanny state" umbrella.

Motorcycle helmets. Any law requiring people to wear motorcycle helmets obviously infringes on people's liberty, for the sake of their safety. OK, some people do complain about these, but nothing like the sugary drink thing.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Partisan Authoritarian Underground in full effect

It is a cool place that can be both to the left and the right of Free Republic at all times.

If you don't trust a motherfucker to decide how much soda to drink at a time then you don't trust them to vote, thank God it is all a show and "the adults" will be in charge either way, right?

[DanTex]

11. I think you have the left/right reversed here: you are on the side of Sarah Palin.

While there are libertarians on both sides, libertarianism today is more associated with Republicans than Democrats. And, historically, it has been the right that was opposed to consumer protections and public health measures. Think smoking, pollution, consumer protections in financial services, etc.

Keep in mind, this is a regulation on business. It doesn't stop people from drinking a lot of sodas, it stops businesses from selling sodas in large containers.