"Health zones" an infringement on freedom and choice
From the Los Angeles Times:
As America gets fatter, policymakers are seeking creative approaches to legislating health.As I mentioned before in a post by To Be Announced, there's nothing wrong with public awareness campaigns designed to inform us about how we can make healthier choices. Unfortunately, it is rare that "the advice" just stops there. Inevitably, through pressures from the political left, government starts to implement policies into law that will guarantee longer health, but in doing so, they take away choices from people who value these freedoms --- whether it be the freedom to smoke a cigar, eat two Big Macs on a sunday or indulge in a less than perfect lifestyle.
They may have entered the school cafeteria -- and now they're eyeing your neighborhood. Amid worries of an obesity epidemic and its related illnesses, including high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease, Los Angeles officials, among others around the country, are proposing to limit new fast-food restaurants -- a tactic that could be called health zoning.
The bottom line here is that it's not the governments job to legislate good health or encroach on somebody's rights, property and freedom, they're in charge of ensuring liberty, which most certainly includes the liberty to hold bad habits.
11 Comments:
The intent of the measure is ridiculous at its worst and laughable at its best. Yes, obesity is a growing problem in America and should be addressed, but the approach by council smacks of lifestyle zoning --- trying to enforce perfect choices on those who already know what is best for them and their family. That being, liberty and freedom of choice.
They should try protecting it sometime.
Big government better stay away from my Big Mac.
It's interesting how SOME things are 'not the governments job', yet things like making sure you can't smoke a natural plant, or can't freely assemble-those ARE considered 'the governments job'.
I've got news for you, the governments 'job' is to do what the voters want. If the voteres support such a plan, who are you to say no? In LA, like the rest of California, voters can challenge any legislation with citizen initiatives. So IF the city doesn't want more fast food restaurants, that pretty dictatorial to preach at them that even though they want something, 'its not their job'.
That's a big issue, but its pretty hard, in Canada, where the government runs the entire health sector, to claim that health isn't the governments job. In fact, if you look at government spending, its almost the governments ONLY job.
Most polls show the exact opposite, that people are VERY unhappy with the type and speed of growth in their cities. I highly doubt anybody in a residential area is going to want their local park turned into an A&W (something that could be next).
mikel, where did anyone on this blog say that marijuana prohibition or free speech curtailing is the government's job?
There's more I could say, but by your logic, if voters wanted to kill off all the Catholics, that would be "the government's job," so I think it's pretty safe to ignore you from here on out.
mikel said: So IF the city doesn't want more fast food restaurants, that pretty dictatorial to preach at them that even though they want something, 'its not their job'.
From the Cattle Network: "Los Angeles officials and city council members are considering issuing a two-year limitation on the number of quick-service restaurants that can be built in South L.A."
There has yet to be a vote so therefore the measure is open for criticism.
But even if there is a majority of citizens within the electorate that believe that "health zones" are good, it's still up to classical liberals and libertarians to make their case and fight against these kinds of measures, especially if it curtails liberty and freedom.
As you are well aware mikel, when leviathan style governments become too big and extremely powerful (and try to control the people within its borders), they don't always do what is best for the citizens they are supposed to represent. In other words, should we always capitulate to the fact that government always knows best, especially if they have the statist power to influence the outcome.
That's why it's always important to fight for freedom and liberty regardless of what the state is saying.
I think Edmund Burke said it best: "The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients."
The role government plays in this should increase in tandem with "food" provider's marketing budgets. We talk about always having a choice, but when one of the choices has been subject to multi-million dollar studies that have determined how to offer it to us in a manner that triggers our brain to react positively, then I question if we even have a choice at all. When one side is playing that game, I don't mind government pushing back a bit to level the playing field.
You are confusing the US with Canada. WE have no mechanism for challenging our government-THEY do. IF X number of people oppose this move then they can force a referendum where the people decide.
Your idea of 'liberty' is that the government does what YOU want, and nobody else, even the majority, doesn't get their wishes acted on. The fact is, lots of people WANT big government. They simply want a big government that acts in their best interest. This case can easily be one of them. Zoning laws are completely within the jurisdiction of municipal councils who are directly elected, and people have lots of opportunities to challenge it in a referendum.
What you are saying is that no matter what people want, businesses should be able to do what they want. Instead of people having SOME power, you advocate that they have NO power over what happens in their backyard. That is a VERY bizarre notion of 'liberty'. One small group has absolute freedom, while the majority has no power at all.
However, the former is called 'democracy'. And when ONE person, let alone the majority of people start talking about "killing catholics" then I'll rethink the matter. Til then, that's such a crazy thought that I'm quite happy to be ignored.
But nobody is saying you don't have the right to challenge them and state that you think they are stupid. I'm just presenting the other side of the story. I'm with Eugene, its far from the case that there aren't plenty of opportunities to eat fast food, in fact there are too many. It shows though just how far its gotten where one town simply denying a fast food license gets such international attention.
So people know, there have been numerous cities in the US who have done similar rezoning to ban more fast food places.
And again, to remind readers, the states has a tradition of grassroots democracy, which means THE PEOPLE make these decisions. In Canada its virtually the opposite, I read a textbook on municipal governance in Canada which stated matter of factly that developers RUN municipal government.
For an example of that just look at New Brunswick. In the case of mining rights NB landowners have NO rights, no 'liberty' if you prefer. They have the right for government to act as arbiter to make sure they get a good deal is all. Saint John is so pro-development they are building another massively polluting refinery with not even a word of whether it should be there. The gas terminal got put in with a huge tax break even. Liberty isn't just liberty TO do something, its also liberty FROM something, and you can be tyrannized by a private developer as easily as your government-as the people who live by the refinery on by a gas pipeline know only too well.
So IF conditions were equal and canadians actually had the right to vote on these measures it would be a far different scenario. Even New Hampshire, that bastion of libertarianism, has a tradition of referenda-in other words, the voters make many of those decisions. And I haven't seen any citizens initiatives calling for "killing" anybody.
We talk about always having a choice, but when one of the choices has been subject to multi-million dollar studies that have determined how to offer it to us in a manner that triggers our brain to react positively, then I question if we even have a choice at all.
Unfortunately, "leveling the playing field" always means telling us how to live our lives.
Moreover, why have government intervene when there is a growing demand out there in the market for healthy alternatives. If people made the choice to frequent healthier establishments, then the demand or pressure for fast-food joints to reform would be greater. In other words, the market (not the government) would dictate the amount of healthier choices on the menu.
For example, just look at the explosion of Omega 3 products, health drinks, vitamins and Goji juice just to name a few. These products have become globally marketable because people have chosen to buy them (demand) and lead a healthier lifestyle.
However, just because people are starting to consider healthier alternatives, doesn't mean we should take the choice away from others who want to indulge in a less than perfect lifestyle.
Again, it's not up to government to make choices for us so as to compensate for bad choices, it is up to government to ensure that we are free to make the choices we want.
I guess that's where we disagree since you are suggesting it's the government's role to intervene anytime certain choices are made by society. I guess you believe that multi-billion dollar food companies have rendered us helpless to stay fit. As I've said a thousand times before, no one is forcing this stuff down the throats of North Americans. It's a choice.
If I were to believe that this were the case, then I should go out and sue MacDonalds because I have heart desease or have developed diabetes. Like the parents of this young lad. How preposterous.
I guess taking that mentality, every traditional Italian family should sue their culture for promoting meat sauce, meatballs, pasta and cutlets. All which are quite high in fat content. And let me tell you, I know, because my brother married an Italian and he now weighs much more than when he ran up and down the Beaverbrook gym for the UNB Red Raiders. Was this the government's fault? Even though I know my brother wants an easy excuse, I'll have to say "no".
He had the choice.
And when ONE person, let alone the majority of people start talking about "killing catholics" then I'll rethink the matter. Til then, that's such a crazy thought that I'm quite happy to be ignored.
It may be obsurd, but so is your arguement mikel. Furthermore, you could argue that it is just as obsurd as your belief that states with initiative powers advocate big government and nanny statism.
It is a proven fact that since Prop 13 in California went down, state and local expenditures are lower in states that have ballot initiatives and direct democracy than they are in non-initiative states.
Nobody is stopping you from eating fast food, that argument would be applicable IF they were shutting down all the fast food restaurants-they aren't, nobody is even contemplating it.
However, WE pay taxes and part of that cost is to pay for the health care treatment of people who DON"T drink omega juices and don't stay healthy, so it certainly isn't a case of "mind your own business". When YOU pay for all your own health care then you can tell people they have no say in how you live your life.
This is a zoning issue. THe city wants it rezoned so that no more fast food places can go up. That's no different than any other zoning issue that city's take all the time. Of course we know what you are talking about, because that was one of the policies in the Multinational Agreement on Investment, which wanted to pass legislation so that city's COULDN"T decide how to zone land.
And it was the public's outcry that killed that, so you definitely are not on the 'libertarian' or democratic side when stating that if I want to set up a strip club next to a church I'll damn well do so.
If that's 'absurd' you might want to tell americans how 'absurd' they are with their political system. Something tells me that when they look at what they got for their LNG terminal in Maine which was decided on by referendum (or those absurd voters in Levis), and compare it to how much New Brunswickers have to pay to get an LNG terminal in Saint John that that complaint will fall pretty short.
Finally, I didn't say that states with CI and referendum advocate 'big government'. That makes no sense, a state doesn't 'advocate' anything. However, you are wrong about your statement. The state of Missouri has a far larger capital budget than Iowa, and Missouri has state referenda, and Iowa does not. Half of the states have CI and referenda, and half don't. Furthermore, counties and municipalities within different states have different grassroots democracy tools, and there is no evidence of your claim.
In Canada, the only city we have that has citizens initiatives is Rossland, British Columbia, and one of the first votes they made was to INCREASE taxes.
That's what democracy means, and because people are different, different areas will have different laws and budgets. You can go look at all the various state referenda and see that they run the gamut-some have issues that aren't big issues in other states, and some states vote for issues that others vote against. And at the local level its even more true and varied. In Nova Scotia, locals USED to have the right to decide whether to have sunday shopping, and that was finally taken away.
In other words, they lost their 'liberty' to decide whether to have sunday shopping, something local governments in NB have NEVER had. So in many states you will still find 'dry counties' because the people who live there have voted to ban the sale of alcohol. So again, thats a 'communal right' to vote that takes precedence over an individuals right to buy booze (there). BOTH are 'liberty'. Again, YOU may think its absurd, but I don't recommend going down to South Carolina and telling those people down there how absurd they are.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home