Gads...

Interesting article from Reason:

Coercive Paternalism


Please notice in the article this particular paragraph:

"The most prominent examples are in California, which was once synonymous with freedom. City officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles intend to ensure that individuals are free to do what they want, if what they want is good for them."

I find that sort of thing interesting. There should be a footnote or a comment that, individuals are free to do what they want, as long as what they want to do is decided for them by Big Brother.

Then this bit of foolishness:

"Councilwoman Jan Perry believes the measure will assure the locals "greater food options." The Los Angeles Times reports she "said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them."

That woman needs to have some lessons in economics. As the article goes on to point out, if "healthier choices" (ie. vegetarian and seafood) didn't see the area as being profitable this law sure won't change their outlook.

And just where did she get any information that South LA "desperately wants more of them [healthy choices]"? Has she been out on the streets interviewing the denizens of the south side? I rather doubt it. I suspect that this statement is based on nothing more than her desire to do what, to her, is the right thing. This begs the question of her having the right to tell anyone else what the "right thing" is for them to do.

"Libertarian paternalists may think they know better than you how you should live, but generally they limit themselves to promoting informed choices. Coercive paternalists have a simpler approach: telling us what to do."

I posted a while back about all the stupid, needless, warnings on things and this is just more of the same type of idiocy.