"Progressively" Making Life Better for All of Us

Nov 9, 2010 at 11:45 AM

By Ryan Gilroy

One law at a time, statism strips away the liberty to which we are all naturally entitled, and our "forward thinking" government is at it again: San Francisco has banned giving away toys with any meal containing more than 600 calories -- meals like McDonald's Happy Meal. Though the intentions behind this attempt to curb the expansion of children's waistlines may be good, this is ultimately little more than an expansion of the state into our personal lives.

I'd sugest that if we want to curb childhood obesity, there are definitely better ways to do so -- and they focus on parental responsibility, not government intervention. Bring your child to a park, play on the swings, the slide, and the see-saw. Teach your kid how to climb a tree. Invest in a trampoline; sign up for recreational sports in your town. Teach your kid how to play soccer, baseball, basketball, or whatever sport you loved as a child.

But don't think legislation will make us all get in shape.

I personally hope McDonald's moves out of San Francisco to show the bureaucrats there what happens when we try to "fix" everyone's personal problems with laws rather than responsibility and liberty.

Posted in:

Blog Policy
Login or register to post comments

"...and they focus on parental responsibility, not government intervention."

This...

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on November 9, 2010.

But how does this hurt efforts to curb childhood obesity? Legislating a minor inconvenience to the way that corporations can market their products is not much of an 'expansion of the state into our personal lives,' especially when it has the good of the whole in mind. What's the harm?

And if McDonald's were to follow your suggestion and boycott San Francisco over this, they'd just be losing out on a considerable share of the market. What's the benefit in such an action?

Also, how do we spur the parental responsibility? Incentive programs? Educational ad campaigns? Sounds like more government intervention to me...

There's no solution offered here, so what is this piece other than a complaint? Where's the practical alternative?

Submitted by Tom (not verified) on November 9, 2010.

Government's role isn't to play social engineer and not to make us better people, the role and function of the government is make certain that we are free from force. I would love a government that doesn't think it knows how to properly run a life, or even assume how to run a business.

I think there's plenty of parental responsibility, but realize that government force and co-opting doesn't make us better people, it makes us chattel to the whims of a faceless bureaucratic state.

Submitted by Ryan Gilroy on November 10, 2010.

Fair, but isn't the point of the republican process to give the state a face and hold it accountable?

Additionally, you say the function of government is to keep us free from force. But what about the forces of corporate encroachment in our lives? In your estimation, is government's role limited to keeping us safe from foreign powers, or should play some role in keeping citizens safe from corporations?

Corporations are beholden only to shareholders and the profit margin, and I guess to regulation as well. The scopes of their interests are limited, and the individual has no guaranteed mechanism for holding them accountable. Take externalities, or workplace safety. Or, to return to the original point, deliberately marketing unhealthy products to children and attempting to engender brand loyalty from a young age. Max Barry compares corporations to lawnmowers, that can't be blamed for doing exactly what they are designed to do. If people/toys left in the yard get in the way, the corporation/lawnmower can't be expected to stop on its own. That's why we need a mechanism to keep corporations accountable. As far as I can tell, responsible, practical regulation is the only way to do that. If you can think of another way, please let me know!

I would say that the average American's liberties are infringed upon by corporations far more often and egregiously than by government. Although far from perfect, and often horridly incompetent, at least an elected government is (ostensibly) held accountable to the common interest.

Lastly, interesting word choice by use of 'chattel.' If that's the reality we face, being no more than goods that can be devalued, I'll take the 'owner' that I and my countrymen have a say in governing (however small) over several faceless corporations any day. Wouldn't you?

If you've got the time:

http://maxbarry.com/2010/01/22/news.html

Submitted by Tom (not verified) on November 11, 2010.