Infringement on freedoms?

Opinion: June 11, 2012 at 12:00a.m.

Philadelphia Daily News: We have problems with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban large-size sugary sodas. But like our beef with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s attempt to tax sugary drinks back in 2010, our objection is mostly based on practical considerations.

Bloomberg wants to ban the sale of sugary sodas over 16 ounces in restaurants, theaters and other outlets. But anyone wanting a bigger gulp in one sitting merely has to buy two cups of a lesser amount - and we’re betting manufacturers are already gearing up production of 15.5-ounce cups. Nutter’s proposal was also logistically problematic, since only the state, not the city, can impose an excise tax on a specific product; the mayor’s tax would have likely led to a price hike on all beverages, not just sugared ones.

But most of the objections to Bloomberg’s proposal are not based on logistics; they’re based on “freedoms” and the “nanny state.” Two comments on the New York Post website sums up much of the outcry: “This is about liberty. . Simply put, what Bloomberg is doing is un-American and freedom-loving people need to inundate the statist creep with protests.”

It’s fun to pretend that we live in a time unequaled in government interference, and even more fun to pretend that we remember a time the government was far less intrusive. To that, we have two words: Oliver Cromwell.

The 17th-century “Lord Protector” of the British Commonwealth, Cromwell was said to have banned mincemeat pies because they were, essentially, too tasty and led to louche lifestyles. That’s not the earliest incident of a “nanny state,” but only one point on a long timeline of government banning things it thinks are dangerous - like cigarettes, or cocaine, or beef from mad cows. The rationale is that government must bear the cost of the bad effects of these things.