An Anecdote for the Hypocritical Left!
At a Long Island, New York bar on Friday night I had the opportunity to discuss what I happen to view to be the lunacy of New York City Mayor Bloomberg's attack on large sugary drinks.
My conversation partner was a Liberal who felt that this type of ban, for the good of the people, was way overdue.
What about parental and personal responsibility I asked?
How about parents leading by example or the dangers to our freedoms that are inherent in the overreach of government into our person lives?
Where I asked, will it all end if people merely follow along like sheep when the government tells them what is and what is not right for them in their own lives?
The answer was as predictable as it was disturbing.
'Have you ever seen 'these' people where both parent and child can't fit through the door because they are so obese? Are you aware of the problem of childhood and adult-onset diabetes? This law is exactly what is needed in order to protect those who either cannot or will not protect themselves.'
What about potato chips, ice cream, fast food and every other food that tastes great that's high in fat and calories but possess few other redeeming characteristics?
'Lose them all' he said!
Okay, but what would this Liberal think about the following made-up law that could hypothetically be enacted some day directly affecting him and others like him?
For the good of ALL of the people, how's this for government intervention the elites would have a huge problem with?
Theoretical (for now) New York Law: The Fine Dining Liquor Limitation Law
Hypothetical research has determined the following: In New York dining establishments that possess liquor licenses and that generate an average check amount per person greater than $20, the consumption of alcohol has been estimated to have at times been excessive leading to the potential for patrons to hurt both themselves and others.
The rationale for this supposition is that said potential excessive consumption could lead to blood alcohol content (BAC) of patrons reaching a level greater than the legal limit for driving (.08).
Although only some of the restaurants within the city limits have been determined to be in locations that absolutely require the use of a car in order to have access to them, the city council has decided the following, 'for the good of the people':
Consumption of alcohol by ANY establishment patron of legal drinking age will be limited in ALL of the restaurants that fall under the average per person check amount guidelines regardless of any other mitigating factors:
Patrons below 150 lbs. as determined by the bartender or server, will be limited on a per night basis to one of the following:
Wine: 4 ounces
Beer: 12 ounces
Spirits: 1 ounce
Patrons above 150 lbs. as determined by the bartender or server, will be limited on a per night basis to any combination of the following not to exceed a total of three:
Wine: 4 ounces
Beer: 12 ounces
Spirits: 1 ounces
For restaurant management, either the table server or bartender must be tasked with looking at the back of patrons hands each time a drink is ordered to determine whether there is a marking indicating that they have already been served an alcoholic beverage either at the current establishment or some other establishment within the legal boundaries of the town or city.
For patrons at either the bar or seated at a table who qualify under the law to be served a drink, upon receipt of a serving of an alcoholic beverage the bartender or server will be responsible to make a mark on that patron's hand in indelible ink.
Going forward and depending on the weight of that patron, it is then up to employee discretion to either take the alcohol order or deny it due to the alcohol limit deemed to have been reached.
If an employee is proven to have been incorrect in the assessment of a patrons weight leading to over-serving of alcohol or with having served a drink in error for any other reason, violations of this law by the establishment can result in fine, loss of liquor license or both.
Conclusion: Economic and societal!
A law like this would be devastating to the business model of restaurant owners who rely on the sale of alcohol for a great deal of their revenue.
This type of law would also likely result in people going to each others homes instead of restaurants where they would have the ability to make their own alcohol consumption decisions. This would lead to an even greater loss of business for the restaurants, likely forcing some to close and /or layoff workers.
This in turn would result in a loss of tax revenues for the town or city.
This law would reduce the business efficiencies of the restaurant due to the increased oversight required and would likely increase overhead costs including that of insurance due to greater liability.
It would penalize those businesses who have some or all of their patrons within walking distance and would be unnecessary governmental control over those groups of people who drive together and have designated a driver who will not drink.
Finally, it would represent a huge overreach of government, telling people who should be responsible for themselves that they are not capable of being so.
The government in all of its 'wisdom', would most likely consider all of the above ramifications and impacts of the law and then likely decide to implement it anyway 'for the good of the people', businesses be damned!
In this particular scenario, however, how do you suppose a law like this would be tolerated by the people who would be most affected by it, namely the elites who can actually afford to go to a restaurant to eat and drink?
This law would not affect the people who the elites say need a law limiting the consumption of big sugary drinks because they are incapable of deciding for themselves what is best.
No, this would directly affect the elites themselves who, in this case of government overreach attempting to limit their alcohol consumption, would fight tooth and nail for the right to assume responsibility for their own actions.
Of course a law like this would never come about because of the impact it would have on the reelection prospects of the politicians involved.
If it did, however, rest assured that it would show the incredible hypocrisy of the Left who can tell you what is good for others, but who don't take kindly to others deciding what is good for them.
***Subscribe to TPC below and share this article with your friends on Twitter, Facebook and Google +1!***
Subscribe to The Political Commentator by Email
Subscribe in a reader