This week Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on super-sized soft drinks in New York City.\u00a0 While his stated goal was portion control in an effort to reduce obesity, it was ironically amusing, as the announcement came 24 hours before National Donut Day, an observation the mayor\u2019s office previously, publicly, and enthusiastically proclaimed.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Controlling soft drink size, however, is not the bottom line over which we should gulp.\u00a0 After all, this is merely one law aspiring to control our behavior…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In West Virginia, only babies can ride in a baby carriage.<\/em><\/p>\n In Pennsylvania, it\u2019s illegal to sleep in your refrigerator.<\/em><\/p>\n And in Flint, Michigan, we could each be arrested for donning those lovely, \u201csaggy pants.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The question is this:\u00a0 how far should the government go to control individual behavior?\u00a0 Does the government have that responsibility?\u00a0 Is the government even capable<\/em><\/strong> of legislating that behavior?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some legislation possesses greater credibility for legality consideration due to the targeted behavior having a proven, clear, and negative affect on another living being.\u00a0 That\u2019s the legitimacy in the legislation to curb indoor smoking; secondhand smoke causes health risks for those adjacent to the smoker.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That\u2019s the legitimacy in the effort to ban abortion.\u00a0 Aborting a fetus stops someone else\u2019s heart.\u00a0 The point is that individual acts such as smoking and\/or abortion have a proven, clear, and negative impact on someone else.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The challenge then for any democracy is the extent to which behavior should be controlled when the negative impact on someone else is not<\/em><\/strong> proven and clear…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n … such as soft drink gulping…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n … such as homo or heterosexual activity…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n … such as you-name-it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Friends, I am not suggesting that all individual behavior is good and noble and right.\u00a0 My question is more in regard to whether or not the government should legislate our isolated behavior.\u00a0 When government attempts to control individual actions, government struggles to adhere to fluctuating standards of morality; government often overreaches; and government also inches toward policy more associated with Marxist and Communist thinking.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Allow me a rather relevant example…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One criminal activity has been especially glamorized with the evolution of society…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n … in the name of love… in finding one\u2019s soulmate… often veiled by celebrity…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Paul Newman, Julia Roberts, and Jerry Seinfeld \u2014 each of their marriages began via adultery.\u00a0 Society has become numb to that behavior.\u00a0 I speak not judgmentally, friends.\u00a0 Many of us have been hurt or even engaged in such activity; we\u2019re each capable of error.\u00a0 My concern, however, is that society no longer sees adultery as not<\/strong><\/em> good, not<\/strong><\/em> noble, and not<\/strong><\/em> right.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The relative thinking here is that adultery has long been attempted to be legislated.\u00a0 From early Roman law to the onset of American, adultery has been defined as criminal activity.\u00a0 In many states still \u2014 from New York to North Dakota \u2014 adultery is illegal.\u00a0 Government has attempted to curb this unhealthy, individual behavior.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n (Dare the Intramuralist go out on a limb here, but…)<\/em>\u00a0 The legislation has been ineffective.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n My point is this:\u00a0 there are some behaviors that while currently viewed by as unhealthy or wrong, government is still incapable of stopping.\u00a0 Government cannot supersede the spirit within the man.\u00a0 Conviction comes via truth \u2014 not via government.\u00a0 Also, we are motivated to find that truth when we are allowed to experience the consequences of our behavior.\u00a0 When government removes the ability to experience the motivating consequences and repercussions of our individual actions and choices, we have moved further away from democracy and further still from wisdom.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Enough for now.\u00a0 Pass the Diet Coke.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n AR<\/p>\n This week Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on super-sized soft drinks in New York City.\u00a0 While his stated goal was portion control in an effort to reduce obesity, it was ironically amusing, as the announcement came 24 hours before National Donut Day, an observation the mayor\u2019s office previously, publicly, and enthusiastically proclaimed. Controlling … <\/p>\n