Jennifer Sweeney

Policy Paper

Mayor Bloomberg is well known for being an advocate of strict gun control, while

maintaining that the NYPD can survey every corner with cameras. He has stated that privacy is a

thing of the past and that domestic drones are inevitable and tells citizens to “get used to it”.

These are some of the platform issues that he is known for and that have caused extreme division

in public sentiment. Some people claim that surveillance only aids government in protecting

citizens and others point out that powers can be abused and considerable loss of privacy is

unsettling to brush off. Bloomberg is also an integral part of other agendas which are worth

analyzing. He has recently introduced many “public health policy” initiatives to New York that

have polarized many citizens who feel strongly about the effect this could have on civil liberties

if such legislation is passed. Many critics of Bloomberg refer to him as “nanny Bloomberg” and

believe that his path is one that will ultimately lead to a police state, comparing him to “Big

Brother”. The mayor is not an authoritarian with ill will, but he certainly is an authoritarian. Is

any authoritarianism justified? As a libertarian it is very difficult to not have a bias when it

comes to these issues. I read a half joking comment on a forum that said, “Bloomberg is the

quintessential villain of libertarianism. You couldn’t have written a better villain.” I can see the

reasoning behind the policies Bloomberg has come up with but as a libertarian it is difficult to

sympathize with them, he truly engenders the antithesis of core libertarian ideals. I recently saw

a political cartoon that said, “Welcome to New York” and there were two guys holding large

sodas behind their back because a drone spied on them from above, a hilarious and vivid

interpretation that satirically sums up what some people think of his policies. With that being

said, I hope to present the other side clearly and accurately without slinging mud.

Dunkin Donuts has some new regulations under Bloomberg that include a ban on the

employee adding flavor pumps or regular sugars to customers drinks, an initiative I find to be

somewhat ironic because of the damaging health effects of artificial sweeteners which many

argue are worse than sugar and may contribute to certain cancers while increasing appetites of

those hoping to thwart sugar cravings by deceiving the body. Now Dunkin Donuts customers

have to add their own sugar or flavor pumps, merely adding an extra step to those with a busy

schedule hoping to quickly grab a cup of Joe. Starbucks is currently refusing to change as a

response to the mandate and Bloomberg called their response “ridiculous”. Products containing

fifty percent or more milk are exempt from his policy (which is difficult to understand because

processed milk is not particularly healthy), but this gives Starbucks some grounds to stand on

because many of their drinks do contain that much milk or more. He has also legislated reducing

the amount of salt that products can contain (going to the extent of not allowing food donations

to homeless shelters unless the salt content could be analyzed). Most recently, the mayor has also

dictated that businesses cannot prominently display cigarettes in a case, but may continue to sell

them under the counter (one would think that the $11-$15 price per pack is deterrent enough…

smokers in New York are more likely to import cigarettes than to buy them in New York). He is

also on board with city councils efforts to increase the legal cigarette smoking age to twenty-one.

The intentions of the mayor may be honorable and he certainly has justifiable causes, I

would never argue otherwise. The obesity epidemic in America is not an issue to be taken lightly

and no intelligent person would argue that excessive consumption of fats, salts and cigarettes

would not have a damaging effect on the body. It is only reasonable that the government is trying

to combat health issues which are damaging to society as a whole, such as obesity, diabetes and

other conditions like stroke or heart disease. There is a certain appealing element to legislation

mandating healthier business ethics that seems to be common sense, especially on the surface.

There is no doubt that advertising glamorizes unhealthy things and business ethics are sometimes

sketchy at best, but at what point do business and consumer rights end? If drinking ridiculously

large soda causes citizens to gain weight and weight gain is an issue affecting the health of many

citizens, then some may claim that the only rational solution is to prevent corporations from

selling health-damaging products to consumers who may be naïve or addicted. Advocates of

Bloomberg turn to statistics to point out that life expectancy has increased since Bloomberg has

been mayor; whether this correlation is a direct result of the mayors policy would be very

difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Perhaps the life expectancy is increasing as a result of

Bloomberg policies, but is it coming at a cost… a threat of the loss of liberty? I would rather

enjoy my life and occasionally indulge in unhealthy “sins” (such as eating buttery, salty popcorn

at a movie theater and ordering a large soda) than live a couple extra years severely restricting

myself of pleasure. I know this is a personal perspective but I do not feel that Bloomberg or

others like him have the right to tell me what I can and cannot consume, it is my body after all.

Some point to the issue of health care and claim that it does in fact impact them if others

are making unhealthy food choices that they have to help pay for through the healthcare system.

Commenting too extensively on that would derail my thesis and I think our health care system

needs significant reform as well. It is my position that inorganic illnesses should not be covered

under a universal health care mandate. However, perhaps businesses should provide health care

to their employees covering varying illnesses. It would be in the best interest of businesses to

provide adequate health care to their employees but the extensiveness of the coverage they

choose to provide would not be legislated.

The issue of public health policy mandates comes down to a question of the role of

government, which is a complex issue with a wide range of viewpoints. Those who detest being

told what they can eat, drink or smoke have a “laissez faire” attitude that takes offense to

dictatorial policies that they feel tread on their individual rights. It is my viewpoint that if you are

not violating the rights of others than you should be left alone. I think that it is an insult to the

reasoning ability of man to claim that we need laws to protect us from ourselves. Manipulative

advertising can only go so far when people have developed brains that give them the ability to

reason and moderate themselves. Addictions do exist which limit ones ability to reason and

maintain willpower, but those who have problems with addiction need to seek help elsewhere

and laws are not the solution. Legislation will not stop an addict from obtaining what they are

addicted to, especially with the easy commodity that exists in modern society called the internet

which makes an underground market as easy as a click of a button.

Bloomberg making corporations start displaying nutrition information about products for

consumers to see is something that I actually agree with. I do think that people should be

equipped with the right information and I think that this is a regulation that can help keep

businesses and consumers in line without being tyrannical in nature. If someone is made aware

of how unhealthy something is but chooses to partake anyway, then that is where I draw the line

on government intervention. It is disconcerting to me when government begins to slowly chip

away at the freedoms of their citizens to exercise their own abilities to make choices. Loss of

liberty is such a slow process that it is almost unapparent to the average eye and people may not

realize that they are being controlled until it is too late. It is not unthinkable that in the future our

right to speak out against government force will not be allowed as our constitutional rights slip

away from us, bit by bit and policy by policy. When government may appear benevolent to

others, I will remain skeptical if they supersede reasonable limitations on their powers. I believe

that a wise man is a skeptical one that does not blindly accept what society or political leaders

tell them to think. It seems that the mayor may be overstepping his authority by all of his

proposed policy changes that one could argue are not his to make (he is not even the governor

and mayors usually do not try to institute so many changes).

Some may not contextualize the issues at hand at all and may claim that people (i.e.

libertarians) are kooky to get so spun up; it is just soda after all. I do not think that the issue is

just soda though, as the issue is one of a slippery slope that makes me question what will come

next. Bloomberg may get his way with more and more policies and these effects may trickle to

other states, he is well known outside of New York so his policies can inspire other policies and

agendas in other states (or the federal government). These issues are ones of principal and there

is a bigger picture to all of it. We are not arguing soda, we are arguing free will.

One of my favorite political quotes comes from an apolitical source. In the novel “A

Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas” author Chuck Klosterman hits the nail on the

head with his comment in response to Super Size Me, “the biggest problem with America is not

faceless corporate forces; the biggest problem with America is people who blame faceless

corporate faces instead of accepting accountability for their own lives”. It comes across a little

bit condescending for government to play the role of parent to citizens. I could somewhat

understand if the government wanted to limit the soda size that children are buying (but even

then I would say that the parent should be parenting their kids and teaching them reasonable food

choices, that that is not the role of government). On the other hand, adults should be able to make

health decisions for themselves and I believe that is a resonsibility that comes with adulthood.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-calls-starbucks-ridiculous-2013-3

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-

the-homeless/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sidney-anne-stone/nyc-soda-ban_b_2857596.html

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/24/4141526/mayor-bloomberg-says-surveillance-drones-

inevitable-in-nyc