There has been a backlash against this proposal on the grounds that it encroaches upon freedom. The complaint runs that by banning 32 oz. soda, the government is limiting the freedom of citizens to buy 32 oz. soda, which violates the rights of citizens to make their own choices. To what extent is this a sound argument?
To take this from the beginning, we should first recognize that the government makes many bans that people do not object to on the grounds of freedom. One can't buy narcotics like crack cocaine, but that's considered acceptable because crack cocaine is very dangerous. Equally, one cannot drive above the speed limit. In effect, there is a ban against driving faster than 30 miles per hour in New York City. But we accept this because it makes pedestrians safer.
So, is the soda ban like either of these? Not really. Under Bloomberg's proposal, it's still possible to get 32 oz of soda, you'd just have to buy two 16 oz sodas. This ban is far less severe than a speed limit which says you can never go faster 30 miles an hour. Peculiarly, it's kind of like saying that you can go over 30 miles per hour, but first you have to travel 16 miles an hour, then speed up another 16 miles per hour.
 |
| I bet you never thought that cars (and the speed limit) and drinking soda could be so closely related to one another before. |
Many people express a desire to donate organs, but some countries donate more than others. In the UK it's less than 20% of the population, in Austria it's almost 100%. What explains the difference? In the UK, people have to 'opt in' to organ donation. It is presumed that they don't want to donate and people have to make an active effort to make their organs available for transplant. The opposite is true in Austria. By contrast, it is presumed that all people want to donate, and you have to make an active choice not to donate. The point (as summed up by Dan Ariely in the video below) is that people often 'go with the flow' and so the choices that people make are significantly influenced by what's available.
Is one of these countries more or less free because of their approach to organ donation? I don't think so. I think they're both equally free because people can donate their organs, or not. The only difference is that in one country, the presumption is that people do want to donate organs, and there are a lot more organs available for donation (which is good). In the other, the presumption is against donating organs, and there are fewer organs available (which is less desirable).
How does this link to the soda ban? It seems to me that the ban effectively makes 16 oz. the default maximum soda size. However, it doesn't stop people from drinking more if they really want to. They just have to buy a second 16 oz. soda. My guess is, however, that many people will not be thirsty after they have the first drink, so will end up drinking less than 32 oz. in total. The good thing about this is that they'll consume fewer calories through sugar, and might therefore be less prone to obesity and diabetes.
People often 'go with the flow' and so the choices that people make are significantly influenced by what's available. All the soda ban does is affect availability, by making 16 oz. the default large soda size. It doesn't prevent people from buying 32 oz of soda if they really want it, however, it just makes it slightly more time-consuming. So at the end of the day, the soda ban is not a question of freedom. The soda ban is a question of framing choices and options in a way that can lead to a desirable outcome.
The soda ban is far closer to an opt-out system of organ donation than a speed limit or drug ban, and because of this the 'freedom' objection to the soda ban loses much of its force.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2010/pr10_053.shtml
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/02/17/decision-making-and-the-options-were-offered/
