“Consumer protection” vs. thinking for yourself
by Brian T. Schwartz | 5:04 pm, September 4, 2010 | 1 Comment
From an article by Linn and Ari Armstrong:
We have nothing against restaurants posting calorie notices, so long as they do it voluntarily in accordance with their customers’ shopping preferences. But mandatory postings violate the rights of property and voluntary association.
Moreover, mandatory calorie postings insult the intelligence of shoppers. Do we really need some bureaucrat to tell us that deep fried sugar is bad for you? Consumers can make wise decisions without the “help” of meddlesome politicians.
Indeed, by encouraging people to depend on politicians and bureaucrats for their health and safety, Nanny State laws ultimately stunt people’s independent thinking. Nothing is more dangerous than that, whether for people’s health or the health of the republic.
Read the whole article, which starts of describing New York’s Cabaret Laws, which restricts dancing in most clubs and bars: Under Nanny State, we don’t feel like dancing.
For more on nanny state restrictions, see Radley Balko‘s What’s the Matter With Chicago?
Comments
Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"
- "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow
Featured Posts
- Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
It takes courage to stand up against the onslaught. I hope this young man from Oklahoma knows what’s coming and is ready for it.
- Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
- Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
- The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience
- Rich Americans Are Fleeing the Country
- ObamaCare Advisers Predict Death of Health Insurance Companies
- Housing: Prices and Ownership Still Correcting





September 4th, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
“…by encouraging people to depend on politicians and bureaucrats for their health and safety, Nanny State laws ultimately stunt people’s independent thinking.”
And now we know the real WHY of nannystatism.