Always be wary of benevolent-sounding politicians who want to control people’s behavior yet claim it’s for their own good. The paternalistic policies these politicians create together form what is called a “nanny state.” Any policy created under this rationale must be based on one jarring assumption: Politicians know how to live your life better than you do.
Among the 2020 Democratic candidates, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stands out as the biggest proponent of the nanny state.
In a 2018 interview, Bloomberg asserted that taxing the poor helps them live longer and “deal with themselves.” In addition to believing that poor people cannot be trusted with the little money they do have, Bloomberg also believes that everyday people cannot be trusted to eat correctly. One example was his proposed “soda ban,” which would have barred restaurants, movie theaters, food carts, and other businesses from selling sodas and other sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces.
Thankfully, Bloomberg’s war on Coca-Cola was deemed unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals. However, the mayor was successful in banning artificial trans fats from all of the city’s restaurants.
Similar policies include his administration’s measure to force chain restaurants to display calorie information on their menus and his anti-salt initiative, which translated into a ban on food donations to homeless shelters because the government could not assess the donated foods’ sodium levels. What a success! Sure, New York City’s homeless had their access to food limited by Bloomberg’s policies, but at least they won’t get too much salt in their diet.
Bloomberg also waged war on tobacco, supposedly to save New Yorkers from themselves.
New York City banned smoking in commercial establishments such as bars and restaurants in 2003, even if those establishments allowed it. In 2011, NYC banned smoking in city parks, on beaches, on boardwalks, and in pedestrian plazas. Citing the danger of “second-hand smoke,” Bloomberg argued that these laws were necessary to improve public health.
Ironically, in 2013, Bloomberg supported a law to extend the Smoke-Free Air Act to include e-cigarettes. The use of e-cigarettes is now forbidden in indoor and outdoor locations wherever smoking is banned. E-cigarettes do not release any second-hand smoke, revealing Bloomberg’s prior justifications to be surface-level excuses.
Tobacco products being visible also poses a major threat, according to the mayor.
In 2013, Bloomberg called for legislation to make New York City the first U.S. city to require stores to conceal tobacco products. This legislation would require that tobacco products be kept in cabinets, under the counter, behind a curtain, or somewhere else concealed from consumers’ unsuspecting, innocent eyes.
Finally, Bloomberg implemented a citywide ban on cellphones in New York City public schools in 2006. Overall, parents were infuriated by the ban, “insisting they need to stay in touch with their children in case of another crisis like Sept. 11.”
In the face of all of this anger, Bloomberg refused to drop the ban, claiming that cellphones are distractions used to cheat, take inappropriate photos in the bathroom, and organize gang rendezvous. Despite Bloomberg’s suspicions, most students are probably just using their phones to scroll through their social media feeds. Most schools now take an “out of sight, out of trouble” approach, but, for Bloomberg, such an approach is unthinkable.
Our government exists to protect us from each other, not ourselves. A small group of politicians in Washington or even a city council, for that matter, has no business deciding how life should be lived by the masses.
People should decide how they want to live their lives and reap the benefits or consequences of those decisions. The idea that the government should become an intermediary between your decisions and the subsequent effects makes null our value in responsibility and accountability.
It is not the government’s job to dictate need nor mandate our priorities. Bloomberg’s violations of human autonomy were objectionable when done in New York City. Yet, on the national level, his support for nanny-state policies would devastate freedom.
Isabelle Morales is a communications associate at Americans for Tax Reform.
