There are times when regulations and restrictions drastically reduce the negative effects of business practices and individual actions. This can be immensely beneficial in certain circumstances (i.e. the risky derivatives market). It is difficult, however, to draw the distinctive separation between what is inherently democratic and what is totalitarian.

Regulatory means should always seek to diminish the unnecessary and exceeding acts posing a clear danger to the health of society. For instance, pollution often leads to horrible consequences, where societal needs, such as food, water and the preservation of natural surroundings, are all at risk. In response, the communities at large can request the interventional powers of the government.

The solidarity of a free political body seems to know that some things should never be “regulated.” There are acts and behaviors that are personal and subject to human error yet are not substantial enough to negatively affect the welfare and freedoms of other citizens. The regulations of our private affairs, when we don’t interact with other citizens, has its limitations. As citizens, we don’t need to be told by the government when to sleep, what to eat and what to watch on television (though its influence upon the media can be quite manipulative, might I add).

This brings me to the propositions put forth by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City. In a string of aggressive anti-obesity regulations, the Bloomberg administration is now proposing to ban the sale of any drink, mainly soda, that is sold in a container over 16 ounces, with the exception of diet soda. Alcohol, fruit-juice and other non-soda beverages can be bought and sold at their regular sizes.

Other health related regulations made by the Bloomberg administration include bans on smoking in parks and in restaurants and a prohibition against artificial trans-fat in restaurant food. While I can understand how secondhand smoke may pose as an adverse effect upon non-smokers, the justification implies that the administration is concerned for the smoker. And artificial trans-fat prohibition? I am pretty sure we all know what we’re going to eat when we order from a restaurant.

One can only imagine the outrage in response to these acts. So, a government official is limiting the freedom of choice because he and his band of cronies are concerned for the health of the represented. He feels they must alter the decision-making because the citizens can’t make the right decisions on their own. The people labeling this man “Nanny Bloomberg” do not surprise me. He fully deserves the title.

Though obesity is a problem, banning soda is most definitely not the solution. One could simply keep the public aware of the bad consequences resulting from smoking and eating habits. This awareness can involve programs that seek to explain the negative side of poor eating habits. Health awareness is already achieved in parenting and in the media. It seems, especially here at Iowa State, health awareness is prevalent, which is confirmed by the consistent presence of students at our recreation centers. If we, mere students, are well-informed, then it seems, on a much larger scale, New York City could easily have the same results.

There is something rather Orwellian about Bloomberg’s actions. As Bloomberg stated: “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something. I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.” He poses as if he was an effective representative, merely echoing the will of the people. While his efforts may be sincere and well intentioned, it appears that Bloomberg does not see the implications of his actions.

Bloomberg’s proposal only requires the approval of the New York City Board of Health. Luckily for him, he appointed the entire board. In addition, the director of the board is the city’s health commissioner, a supporter of Bloomberg. The proposition should pass without too much opposition, unless, of course, the public can act out and express their concern. The public can exercise its political power, and rise up to challenge its representative.

The frivolity of banning large soda bottles merely reflects the inefficiency of some public officials and their inability to positively effect change in the body they represent. It seems public officials no longer represent but express their personal concerns. This reveals the parenting form politics has taken. Why not let the citizens of New York City choose to drink the amount they’d like to drink and instead combat obesity by raising awareness? At least with this revision you would allow citizens their freedom of selection.

It is regulations such as these that inch us closer and closer to totality. Restricting the freedom to “pick your poison” creates pseudo-concern, appearing well intentioned but gravely misapprehended. I only hope that Bloomberg, and others like him, find alternative solutions to the problems, rather than nanny-ing frivolous actions. To the citizens of New York City: Don’t allow this to progress. Show that you can make healthy decisions on your own, without the assistance of trivial regulations.