Prior to the French Revolution one of the heroes of the Jacobins, a group today that would be considered hardcore socialists, was a statist by the name of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The philosophies of Rousseau were among the catalysts that brought about the French Revolution. As a supporter of big government, Rousseau championed the concept of The General Will.
The General Will was designed to ensure the public good. Nationalists believed that the people were unable to properly maintain society. A central government power was required, according to their belief system, and a ruling elite was needed to ensure society ran smoothly, and operated in the best interest of the people. The political power was trusted by the people to serve The General Will, not their own individual interests.
The propaganda behind The General Will convinced the people that the existence of The General Will was not only real, but existed in such a manner that it was not necessarily expressed by the general public. However, The General Will was presumed to be known by the ruling elite. According to Rousseau, "no aspect of human life is excluded from the control of the general will," and "whosoever refuses to obey the general will must in that instance be restrained by the body politic, which actually means that he is forced to be free."
Supporters of The General Will wished to dissolve the people into a homogeneous mass, abolish decentralization, and remove representative institutions. The Founding Fathers hated and feared the concept of The General Will, for if the concept were to invade the American System, then all voluntary associations would wind up becoming subjected to government regulation in the name of "the people," their "will," and for the "good of society." These mandates would be argued to be in The General Will, as interpreted by the ruling elite, and would enable the beginning of the end of individual liberty.
Big Government liberals believe in the existence of the public interest, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual. These policies tend to benefit small, but powerful, special interests at the expense of the rest of the society, but are put into place by the ruling elite because the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.
"We've got to do something. Everybody is wringing their hands saying we've got to do something. Well, here is a concrete thing. You can still buy large bottles in stores. But in a restaurant, 16 ounces is the maximum that they would be able to serve in one cup. If you want to order two cups of the same time, that's fine. It's your choice. We're not taking away anybody's right to do things. We're simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup," NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said about his proposal to ban sugary drinks 16oz or larger.
In New York City it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks. “That’s a good idea. A lot of obese people are in New York,” a resident said.
Bloomberg's proposal of an amendment to the city's health code to prohibit food service outlets from selling sugary soft drinks larger than 16 ounces would apply to restaurants, mobile food carts, delicatessens and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas, where sales of fountain drinks are common. It would not apply to convenience stores, grocery stores or drug stores, which mostly sell beverages in bottles and cans. This is being said to be a part of a larger national push to fight obesity, which allegedly places a burden on health care. Opponents of the national health care law would see this as a preview of the dictates that will be placed on the public by Obamacare in an effort to cut back expenses in the name of protecting the taxpayer.
The push to alter the public's consumption behavior in the past has focused on additional taxes that they say would curb consumption and raise billions of dollars nationally. A number of studies have shown that higher taxes on sugary beverages may reduce consumption, but critics say the taxes are an unfair way to close budget gaps and hurt consumers. The idea of increased taxes to alter behavior has also proven to be unpopular with the general public.
Now that Bloomberg has taken the effort to alter the public's consumption behavior to new heights, companies like McDonald's and Coca-Cola are striking back with strong comments against the ban. One wonders if they will be willing to pull their products from New York City completely.
Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him.
Bloomberg is no stranger to heavy regulations regarding health. He has pushed a series of aggressive regulations as mayor, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.
The Mayor of New York would have made a great Jacobin, following Rousseau's philosophy of The General Will to a tee. With his policy, he claims he is trying to ensure the public good through draconian policies designed to force the people's behavior to alter into a manner in line with what the ruling elite desires. The people, as far as Bloomberg is concerned, does not understand what is good for them, and they must be "forced to understand." If they refuse to obey the general will, the body politic called New York City's local government will restrain that person, forcing him to understand by making him buy two drinks to achieve the desired number of ounces.
People like Bloomberg wish to dissolve the people into a homogeneous mass, and eliminate their volutnary choices for the good of the community.
Big Government liberals believe in the existence of the public interest, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual. These policies are being put into place by people that believe they are the ruling elite, and Bloomberg is doing this because he believes the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.
And then people wonder why New York as a State has lost 3.4 million residents in 10 years. Could it be the high taxes, heavy regulations, and the nanny-state attitude of the leadership?
The people are voting with their feet.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008), pgs. 20-23
Bloomberg on Soda Ban: We're Simply Forcing Your to Understand - Real Clear Politics
Here He Goes Again: New York City Mayor Bloomberg Set To Ban All Sugary Drinks Over 16 Ounces - CBS New York
Companies Fire Back at Proposed NYC Big Soda Ban - Yahoo! News Canada
Bloomberg Plans a Ban on Large Sugared Drinks - New York Times
Escape From New York? High-Taxing Empire State Loses 3.4 Million Residents in 10 Years - CNS News
The Mayor of New York would have made a great Jacobin, following Rousseau's philosophy of The General Will to a tee. With his policy, he claims he is trying to ensure the public good through draconian policies designed to force the people's behavior to alter into a manner in line with what the ruling elite desires. The people, as far as Bloomberg is concerned, does not understand what is good for them, and they must be "forced to understand." If they refuse to obey the general will, the body politic called New York City's local government will restrain that person, forcing him to understand by making him buy two drinks to achieve the desired number of ounces.
People like Bloomberg wish to dissolve the people into a homogeneous mass, and eliminate their volutnary choices for the good of the community.
Big Government liberals believe in the existence of the public interest, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual. These policies are being put into place by people that believe they are the ruling elite, and Bloomberg is doing this because he believes the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.
And then people wonder why New York as a State has lost 3.4 million residents in 10 years. Could it be the high taxes, heavy regulations, and the nanny-state attitude of the leadership?
The people are voting with their feet.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008), pgs. 20-23
Bloomberg on Soda Ban: We're Simply Forcing Your to Understand - Real Clear Politics
Here He Goes Again: New York City Mayor Bloomberg Set To Ban All Sugary Drinks Over 16 Ounces - CBS New York
Companies Fire Back at Proposed NYC Big Soda Ban - Yahoo! News Canada
Bloomberg Plans a Ban on Large Sugared Drinks - New York Times
Escape From New York? High-Taxing Empire State Loses 3.4 Million Residents in 10 Years - CNS News
No comments:
Post a Comment