Just read Noah's opinion piece. I don't think Bloomberg gives a shit about soda size. I think he's addicted to the chemical bath on his brain from the rush of telling people what to do and getting his way.

Years ago they made a movie about a group of friends who killed a bad person. Then they did it again, to someone who wasn't quite as bad. Can't remember the title or much about it except that at least one of them got hooked on being an executioner, and they started finding lamer and lamer reasons to kill someone. Like going from a murderer, to a rapist, to a thief, to a cheater, to someone in the group who thought they were going too far...

That's what these pissant laws remind me of. Not just Bloomberg, of course. They all have that "What can we go after next?" attitude, and can justify it as being in our best interest.

I am Independent and mosy definitely the intrusiveness of government in our lives. However, specifically in the case of illegal drugs (not sure if you were referring ONLY to smoking pot), the problem arises that individuals are unpredictable and they will do things like bath salts (legal in 11 states) and then go find some homeless guy to snack on.

As for obesity, smoking-related illnesses, and helmet-less motorcycle riders....I feel you there. Personal accountability is the right way. How come we take sole credit for our successes, but force society to bear the cost of one person's failure?

Just read my post and wow....

*most definitely against...

The problem with being a personal responsibility advocate can be summed up thus: Your right to abuse your body becomes my burden in taxes and insurance premiums.

(Now, watch. I'll get jumped on for supporting big government that intrudes in everyone's lives, even though I said nothing about big government, nor did I even commit myself to any particular side of the argument. I merely presented a counterargument for letting people do whatever they want or dump whatever chemicals they want into their bodies, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

All done merely for the purpose of trying to see both sides of the argument.)

"Liberals support restrictions on harmful things individuals do to their bodies...Conservatives support restrictions on actions they deem harmful to the soul..."

I'm not buying it. You frequently have occasion to blog about some poor soul who ran afoul of PC speech codes or committed some sort of thought crime on campus, and needs to be rescued by FIRE dot org. These people aren't being persecuted by conservatives. And who is pushing hardest for laws restricting what they deem to be hate speech? The body/soul distinction seems to be mostly a figment of Noah's imagination.

@Pricklypear - movie was called "Last Supper". Good flick.

I am ideologically libertarian, but the problem is that our government and society are currently set to consistently reward people for choosing to behave badly. Go get pregnant at 15? No problem! We have WIC! Make retarded choices about your college major? It's ok! Go ahead and default on those student loans!
Have a good job, maintain a healthy lifestyle, life within your means...and the government comes to take even MORE from you to support those who make poor choices.
I'm all for allowing people to make their own choices, but I shouldn't be expected to pay for them. You wanna do drugs? Pay for your own damn rehab. Wanna screw a hooker? Go buy your own condoms.
Stay away from my bank account!

Just in case you had the mistaken idea that we live in a country full of libertarian-leaning people who value liberty, here's a cut 'n paste from elsewhere on the net. Try not to puke - these people live among us, and they are legion:

>>>>>

"Maybe I'm just extra sensitive because I'm a woman and consider myself to be a feminist, but I'm so annoyed right now. There was a news story posted on the Facebook page of one of our local news channels about Mayor Bloomberg trying to limit NYC to only being able to sell 16 oz. and smaller portions of sugary drinks, including soda and Starbucks. This post called for opinions on the matter. You would think that by most of the responses listed, the story was about Bloomberg coming to murder these people's family members - they were so upset and outraged over the smallest limitation on the ability of citizens in a city far from here to buy drinks that are bad for them, and are strong contributors to obesity and numerous health problems as a result.

I attempted to inject some reason into the conversation (this never seems to work in the area where I live, where there are always a bunch of uneducated, angry people commenting in forums and on posts, but I keep trying), saying that if any of the people commenting had seen the recent HBO documentary, The Weight of a Nation, they might rethink their opinion on the matter and actually take a look at their own consumption of junk like soda. Someone said that it's not about consumption, but it's about taking away rights and government interference. At that point, I commented that it really amuses me that so many get so upset over this particular brand of "government interference," when it actually is something that the government is trying to do to slow down our growing obesity rate (whether it helps or not remains to be seen), when not that many seem to care about interference with things like women's reproductive rights, or telling gay people that they're not allowed to be married. Some idiot male responded sarcastically about the "non-existent war on women" being "so april 2012" (no, of course he didn't' capitalize April), and so I said that the "war on women" does exist, but since he seemed like a sexist, he was too blind to see it. Some other woman chimed in saying, "I'm a woman, and I don't see a war on women."

Sure, this "war" has been politicized, but I don't see how any woman can think that the growing trend of government intrusion into personal matters, like our reproductive choices, access to birth control, etc. (trans-vaginal ultrasound anyone?), isn't a war on women. These people, who are so outraged over a limitation on the amount of soda one can purchase at one time (this is not saying that they won't go back and purchase more later, since they're limited to only 16 ounces), don't seem to have any problem with true government intrusion. Another female poster said that the government shouldn't focus on "small" issues like sugary drinks, and instead should focus on outlawing abortions. I can't see how these people don't see the irony of their outrage over such a silly thing. I also tried to make the point that as more and more people become obese, they will cause our healthcare costs to rise one way or another, because they end up having many health problems as a result of their obesity. I just can't imagine how the very same people who think we have too much government can think that it's OK for everyone to just keep getting fatter and fatter without any measures being taken to try to slow it down, because these are the people who don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare but their own."

The problem with being a personal responsibility advocate can be summed up thus: Your right to abuse your body becomes my burden in taxes and insurance premiums.

I appreciate that you're playing devil's advocate. But that really is not the problem with being a personal responsibility advocate - that is merely the kind of silly argument you hear if you are a personal responsibility advocate.

Because as a personal responsibility advocate, I do not believe your abuse of your body should ever become my burden in taxes or insurance premiums.

You can't just take one side of the coin and not the other.

A) If you let people do as they like, you can't force the cost of those decisions upon others.

As a corollary,

B) If you force the cost os one person's bad decisions upon others, you're actually pretty justified in forcibly controlling their behavior.

(If you work for the government, you want to be the "you" described in B, where you get to control everyone, instead of no one, like in A.)

To follow up on Pirate Jo, the irony is that the argument for more paternalistic government is based on the reality of an already paternalistic government.

Take health insurance. Without government meddling, my policy would be determined by my lifestyle and I could pick a policy specifically for me.

However, the government first starting mandating that insurance companies had to cover certain things and that list simply grew large. A few months ago, I counted 17 mandates at the state and federal level, all of which are expensive and most of which I don't need and will never need (like certain maternity benefits.)

So when someone says they don't want to pay for the actions of someone else (who, say, eats like a pig and has a child once a year) this is a problem only because the government has made it a problem. In a free market, I could buy a policy which excluded such people.

Car insurance has stayed more reasonable precisely because of this.

Joe, if the government guaranteed everyone an IPad, there is no question that iPads would cost at least $20,000.

It has already happened with:

1) houses
2) college education
3) health care

This situation isn't going to get fixed because a bunch of bright people suddenly get elected by a population that wakes up and starts caring about doing the right thing. But so what?

Charles Hugh Smith explains:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune12/solution-is-collapse6-12.html

When the big dead tree finally falls, the grass on the ground can get some sunlight. So take heart.

This is why I am hoping for a plauge, not one has time for regulations and bureacrats when half the population dies.

A little bit of anarchy can kill off the dead weight

What I find interesting is the notion of government "discouraging" something. One could argue that when something is made illegal, it doesn't actually discourage it (drugs, underage drinking, immigration w/o proper documentation, just to give a few examples).

So, does government discouraging "bad" (however it's defined) habits/activities mean something other than using law? Would that be like saying, "the FDA recommends against taking ibuprofen when the moon is full" (to make a silly example)? Government does discourage a lot of things in this sense (too much salt, too much alcohol, swimming after eating, travel to certain countries).

I haven't thought about this, but I'm leaning toward concluding that's "not government's job." If the American Academy of Pediatrics decides to offer up advice/suggestions, I suppose NHS or something might collect it (along with similar stuff from other medical groups, etc) and publish it all together to help people make better choices. But, that's just passing on the advice of non-government people who are experts (supposedly) in a certain area and compiling it so it's all in one place and easy to access.

Beyond that, I'm thinking government is supposed to negotiate treaties, protect the boarders, and resolve disputes (say, between states, counties, neighbors, depending on which government we're talking about).

Any other thoughts?

Shannon M. Howell,

My thoughts: We really don't need the government to discourage "bad" behavior. The consequences of bad behavior (meaning, behavior that really IS bad) would do well enough to discourage it, if the damn government would just allow the consequences of "bad" behavior to manifest themselves.

For example, welfare programs provide incentives for people to hit every branch of the bad decision tree on the way down and not face economic consequences.

Some of these bad decisions are the very same things the government deems illegal.

Here's a thought: If you squander your meager paycheck on crack, you don't have enough money to buy food at the end of the month, and there won't be a food stamps program out there to help you.

If it's between lunch and crack, well, I don't know what any given individual will decide, but it's up to them. There's going to be some dumbass out there who chooses crack over food, but ... oh well!

My proposed Amendment:

No law, act, regulation or department, that is not an amendment, will be in effect for more than ten years without a re-approval by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. Any law, act, regulation or department existing at the enactment of this amendment has to be re-approved by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress within ten years from the effective date of implementation.

That would cover the Social Security Administration, the EPA, the FCC, Obamacare, and most of the the gobbley gook of syllables that are in the government. That would also require them to re-justify any governments existence. If it does work -- then you would have to have a majority for it's continued existence.

Timothy Noah: Conservatives support restrictions on actions they deem harmful to the soul, like having abortions ..."

Abortions, harmful only to the "soul"?

Nothing like a liberal for smug, preening, morally empty posturing.