Topic: Government Regulation
Ban "Fat" Restaurants? Ban Fatheads Instead. Government uses a sledgehammer to drive in a tack to protect us from ourselves and our choices.by Dan Steward
(libertarian)
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
In the name of "what's good for us" the Los Angeles City Council banned new restaurant construction in an area where the the poor live in East Los Angeles, California. It took their choices away yet, because they are government, they did much worse.
Government on any level should never be trusted to ever protect us from ourselves. Statists among us will undoubtedly disagree and mention that it has our best interests at heart and we must comply regardless if the responsibility for acting unwisely by those in power, goes unpunished. Those who have lived long enough with their eyes sufficiently wide open already know without the tiniest iota of a doubt, that we must be protected from government as the potential always exists for abuse of their power. If that said potential exists, it will be abused in the name of "our own good".
When we grant any power to our leaders we do so out of laziness. We foolishly delegate the personal power to see to our own individual wants and desires. So what is truly best for us, is abandoned and handed over to others. Our own self needs then unnecessarily take a back seat to a dangerous one-size-fits-all mentality that ends up "fitting" nobody at all. It can't fit precisely because it ignores those same individual wants and desires, in favor of the group.
The real kicker is that the LA City Council was able to use "helping the poor" as it's vile excuse to steal the power to act as our collective keeper while it's true motive has probably been more sinister. There were likely established restaurants in East LA that compensated the council for their efforts.
There will also always be "unforeseen consequences" of government meddling in human choice. There will surely be new restaurants that want to open in that area. Eateries that may offer more "healthy" choices will be prevented from being built simply because bad law tends to work on the failed notion that government paints all those subject to it with very broad brush.
In a land where law is created in reference to all it's inhabitants deemed to be hereby known as "doggies", a squirrel comes along and is mercilessly kicked around in a legal hell because it can't prove to Leviathan's satisfaction, that it is indeed a squirrel. Into the doggie pen it goes as it has lost it's recourse in a maze of bad law.
We don't need to ban "fat people producing" restaurants, we need to instead ban fatheads that cowardly hide behind "our best interests". Ban them from creating any law that interferes with our own responsibility for ruling our lives and the choices we make.
Ayn Rand once said that some of the worst atrocities against man have been in the name of our own good.
With Liberty,
Dan Steward
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Steward only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Steward is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
What I don't understand is the "Helping the poor" part of LA's agrument. That is a B.S. argument. The fast food industry actually helps the poor more than what the government can do. Where else can a homeless person with no car and no assets get a decent warm meal for about $1 or $2? A poor person can easily survive on the value meals of fast food restaurants and not get fat. He can ask for money from the generosity of other Americans to pay for their meals, or they can work odd jobs to eat and still have some money left over. Now if you order 7 or 8 items from the value meal every time you go ther, that is a different story; that is your choice and your problem. But if you are really poor you can eat 1 value meal item in the morning, 2 at lunch at 1 for dinner. Your total for the entire day: $4 and change and you will not get fat. It may not be the best food but better than dumpster diving at the grocery store's trash. That's if you are really poor. So if you ban such restaurants, you are actually screwing the poor rather than helping them.
Bottom line: It should be the individual's responsibility and choice, not the government's
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
