The Soda Ban: Some Creative Solutions

Moral busybody that he is, New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has taken it upon himself now to restrict the sales of sugary soft drinks. The restriction will mean “no more than 16 ounces a cup in city restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums and arenas….” There will not however be a ban on soft drink sales in gas stations or grocery stores, so at least this madness is not universal applied.

In the interest of helping New York City restaurants better serve their patrons, I am listing some creative ways the industry might find around this ridiculous ban. According to the New York Times, restaurants will be allowed to sell multiple drinks and offer free refills, so those are already covered. The free refills would cover dine-in patrons, but the challenge is to serve drive-thru or to-go customers who wont have access to refills.

• Restaurants could offer discounts on multiple drinks to-go, such that two 16oz. drinks would be priced equal to one 32oz. drink.

• Restaurants could allow customers to bring reusable cups that were greater than 16oz. and fill drinks that way. Presumably this would avoid the restriction on the business handing out the cup. Pricing would be be determined by the size of any clearly marked cup.

•  Privately owned restaurants could require a membership – which would be free and incredibly easy to get – in order to skirt the requirements. This may not work in New York, but I understand some businesses have used this method to avoid anti-smoking ordinances in certain cities.

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. The market has a remarkable ability to overcome barriers put in place by the state, so there’s no doubt some enterprising businesses will come up with even better ways to offer products sought by willing consumers. Please leave any other suggestions you can think of in the comments.

Thoughts on Memorial Day

As a veteran of the war in Iraq, I ask this Memorial Day that you take a moment to reflect on all of those now in harm’s way. Between relaxing on your day off, cooking out with friends and relatives, or soaking up the rays by the pool, please keep in mind the families separated by war. Most of all, keep those who’ve lost their lives in your prayers.

I do not however mean that you ought to only reflect on the troops, their families, or those among them who’ve been killed over the years. Also pray for the families who live in war zones. Keep in your hearts and minds the father who lies awake at night, fearful that he and his family may be killed in an airstrike. Reflect on the mother who must bury her sons when they are killed by invading armies while defending their homes. And do not forget the children, who lose their fathers, mothers, and siblings; remember they live amongst mine fields, and grow up surrounded by death and destruction.

Do something different this year. Instead of donating to military charities such as the Wounded Warrior Project or Disabled American Veterans, give to those organizations dedicated to providing aid to the people of war-torn countries. Organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross or Samaritan’s Purse are two such examples.

Heritage and Militarism: A Rebuttal

Last week Arizona Senator Jon Kyl delivered the Heritage Foundation’s Jesse Helms Lecture, appealling to conservatives to support a “strong naitonal defense.” For commentary on the speech and a rebuttal of Heritage’s infatuation with war and militarism, see my latest piece at the Tenth Amendment Center.

To hear an audio version of the essay, read by TAC founder Michael Bolden, click here.

That Wasn’t Even the Worst of It

Yesterday Tom Woods posted a comment from a reader who was upset about Woods’ commentary on the $17,000 drip pans the army bought recently. The reader, Greg, made a big deal about the criticism and wrote: “If that drip pan can be gotten for cheaper then either someone in the army made an honest mistake or that drip pan is really needed.” He went on to argue that “[I] think its (sic) best if you leave it to the command structure (who know a thing or two about helicopters) to decide what the army needs or doesn’t.”

As it happened, and as Woods noted, Greg got Marshall McLuhaned by another reader. After providing a robust enough resume in aircraft maintenance, he noted that a drip pan is “a large pan you slide under an aircraft while it’s parked to keep oil or hydraulic fluid from ‘dripping’ on the hangar floor.”

However, the biggest problem with Greg’s statement was his admonition to “leave it to the command structure.” Like a good sheep, Greg is perfectly content to let someone else make all the decisions, and pays no mind to what is done with his money. Not only that, but he instinctively jumps to defend the planners without even understanding the subject matter.

As a veteran of the latest chapter in the war on Iraq, I can say that almost without exception, the “command structure” is probably the last group of people who should be consulted about what “the army needs or doesn’t.” These guys have no idea what goes on in the army, what works, what doesn’t. The military is perhaps the single greatest bureaucratic nightmare that any central planning board could ever devise.

There is so much waste in the military it’s hard to explain it to someone lacking firsthand experience. Just looking at a soldier’s personal equipment and the bureaucratic regulations that go along with it is bewildering enough, let alone getting into weapon systems development and equipment procurement.

For my first deployment we were all issued plain black fleece jackets, clearly meant for outerwear. But, because the uniform regulations hadn’t been updated to prescribe proper wear of a jacket, we weren’t allowed to wear them, except as “undergarments.” They were required items on the packing list, we had to take them with us, wash them, and bring them home, but we were never allowed to wear them.

By the time of my second deployment the army had updated the uniform regulations and soldiers who were issued green fleece jackets could wear them. The thing was, only the new soldiers were issued green jackets, and all the older soldiers had to take their black fleece, again, but could not wear them, again. It’s completely insane.

And this is the group Greg wants to be in charge of everything, and you’d better not dare to question them.

Oh, Come on Penn

As a guest on Sean Hannity’s show last night, Penn Jillette missed the key argument for a stateless society when asked about the issue of morality and law. During the segment Hannity objected to libertarianism, essentially making the “what about bad people?” argument. He then paraphrased Thomas Paine, saying: “were the guides and dictates of conscience irresistibly obeyed there’d be no need for any lawmaker.”

Jillette countered by saying that he thought most people were good, and therefore the state was more evil than necessary. The problem with this argument is that if most people aren’t inherently good, or you can’t convince enough of the others to reject statism and embrace liberty, then what?

A much better argument is to accept that at least some people are bad, or even admit that all people have at least some bad qualities, and then decide how best to counter what theologians refer to as this “sin nature.” The statist will often invoke James Madison who, in Federalist 51, wrote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The libertarian recognizes this, but takes the argument further, explaining that it is because men are not angels that they shouldn’t be granted monopoly powers on violence. The answer then, is to let market anarchy regulate individual behavior through the non-aggression principle.

Advocates of the state, even a night watchman state, will brush this concept off as naive or utopian. They might entertain the idea as an interesting thought experiment, and perhaps admit that it might sound good on paper, but ultimately they will decide it would be disastrous if applied to real-world situations. However, as Murray Rothbard explained, it is they who are utopian: “the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.”

So, hopefully Jillette will refine his argument for the next time he’s asked about the merits of individual freedom, as opposed to letting moral busybodies, like Hannity, regulate our behavior according to their understanding of virtue.

Overall though, the interview was pretty good, and one important point he made about the state was that “[politicians'] personal beliefs don’t matter if they have a real strong theory of government.” The example Jillette used was that he and Ron Paul disagree on creationism and evolution but, were Paul elected president, this wouldn’t concern Jillette because of the strict boundaries that Paul recognizes are in place.