Someone needs to remind New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg what type of country he is living in. He’s been on such an autocratic rampage recently, that apparently he believes that he resides in a dictatorship, and he’s the dictator.
Let’s start with his ill-fated attempt to ban the sale of large, sugary drinks (for the sake of simplicity I will from here on refer to them as “sodas”). Mr. Bloomberg was troubled by the obesity epidemic in the U.S., and he correctly identified sodas as being one of the main culprits behind its prevalence. But instead of using his vast monetary resources to further educate the public on the hazards of drinking sodas, he decided it would just be better if he took large sodas away from the public. So, with the support of his hand-picked Board of Health, Mr. Bloomberg put for an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of any large soda over 16 ounces in size. At least that was his intent. As with most laws, there were plenty of loopholes and work-arounds so that large sodas wouldn’t have been prohibited completely, but the ordinance would have greatly curtailed the sale of them within the city limits. I am sorry Mr. Bloomberg, but you do not have the authority to prohibit the sale of legal goods simply because they are unhealthy when consumed in excess. What the Mayor attempted to do was rule by fiat, never putting the issue to a vote by the citizens of New York or even the City Council that was elected to represent the people. Unsurprisingly, a local judge ruled that Mayor had overstepped his authority and went further to declare the proposed ordinance “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Indeed it was. Why 16 ounces? Why not 20? The Mayor simply decided on a number that fit his idea of a healthy portion and set out to impose his view on the public. I admit, his intentions were good, and I completely agree with the Mayor that sodas are a scourge on society. Personally, I don’t think any amount of regular soda should be consumed, but the decision to do so is left to the individual. Until the people decide the issue by voting on it, the sale of sodas cannot have size restrictions imposed upon them.
This of course brings up an earlier ordinance issued by Mayor Bloomberg that banned the sale of food made with trans-fats. Restaurants and food dutifully complied, and most people weren’t even aware that any change took place. Consumption of trans-fats in New York is negligible, and the ban spurred the entire food industry to reformulate many of products that are sold nationwide. Everyone is healthier, but everyone had the rule shoved down their throat. Again, let me be clear, trans-fats are unhealthy and should not be consumed by anyone, but the Mayor and his trusty Board of Health were acting beyond their authority when they imposed the ban. It is unclear why the Mayor thought that the people would be unable to pass a ban on trans-fats by voting on it, but he seems to have a deep-seated distrust of the people’s ability to take care of themselves.
For the Mayor, people can’t even be trusted to avoid making rash, impulse-driven decisions to buy things that are simply on display in a store. I am referring of course to Mr. Bloomberg’s recent attempt to ban the public display of cigarettes. Essentially it prohibits stores from showing tobacco products in the open, including behind or over the counter, and requires sellers to keep these products in discrete, concealed spots. The theory “out of sight, out of mind” comes to hand, but it is questionable if this ordinance would achieve its stated goal of discouraging young people from smoking. Under this logic, all smoking should be censored from movies and people who smoke should only be allowed to do so if they are not visible by anyone under the age of 18. But whatever the reasoning or intent, this ordinance is in violation of the manufacturer’s rights to sell a legal product. Unlike pornography, there is no immediate harm if a child sees a pack of cigarettes. Banning the display of tobacco products would however immediately harm the manufacturer’s and seller’s ability to earn a profit. Of course, I am all for reducing smoking rates, but I am not for government officials implementing decrees with no public oversight.
The most recent instance of New York’s Mayor forcing his will upon the people is entirely within the law, unfortunately. Mr. Bloomberg has just launched a $12 million campaign, financed entirely with his own money, to influence senatorial elections in 13 states. His goal is to promote candidates who favor gun-control measures, and persuade incumbent senators to support the same issue. The Supreme Court ruled that private campaigns like Mayor Bloomberg’s are allowed. While legal, they are nonetheless antithetical to democracy. Now, I am not naive; I know that money and politics are inseparable. However, Mr. Bloomberg crosses a line by trying to influence elections entirely outside of his area of residence. His money has bought him undue control of affairs that are not his to decide. Once again, his intentions are noble. There is an absolute need of stricter gun laws, and senators everywhere would be wise to support this issue. However, kowtowing to a rich bureaucrat should not be condoned. The is simply another instance of the wealthy ruling over the masses, and it disempowers the citizen vote.
Michael Bloomberg envisions a utopia of his own design, and is determined to trample the democratic process to achieve. What he seeks to create is a country lost to the people, and it is up to the people to cry foul when an autocratic Mayor oversteps the bounds of his authority.
Hitler!
ReplyDelete