They don't think that the citizens who elected them are capable of making good decisions for themselves...

It's about what you don't need, says the Health Committee chairman in the UK.

Link

From the article - "The former GP called for a direct ban on “supersized” foods and drinks, so that manufacturers would be restricted to producing chocolate bars, junk food meals and fizzy drinks in standard sizes."

"The Conservative member for Totnes suggested the Government was too fearful of being accused of “nanny state” tactics, and said the public would be likely to adjust quickly to changes to protect their children’s health."

There are always people who say they know better than you in some area - and if they are real experts they probably do. No problems there.

The issue is when these experts or people claiming to be so decide that they shouldn't just provide information and advice, but they must force you to do their version or the right thing because people are too stupid to do it on their own, and this is so wrong it must be legislated to make people do what they suggest. 

While I don't mind a small amount of government paternalism to protect people (for instance, road signs and street lights, seatbelt laws that are not revenue raising, banning dumping chemicals into dams etc) I draw the line at whether people should be banned from choosing what portion size they have - at that point, what isn't in their scope of regulation? How much shampoo you use at night? How often you mow your lawn? It seems silly, but these people think you are that dumb that you can't say 'No' when someone offers to upsize your food beyond you need and desire, and sit there without agency, shovelling food into your mouth, costing the taxpayers billions. And then they blame 'Big Food' or whomever for doing it to you. Sure.

I should be able to work out whether this is good for me or not, and how often I should have it. Or rather I shouldn't be forced into not eating it.

Tim Worstall on the Adam Smith blog sums one of the core issues here :

Link 2

"And there’s an interesting legal point here as well. Clearly she thinks that we’re all too damn stupid to be allowed to decide what to put into our own bodies. Despite their being, you know, ours? OK, so she obviously does think that. But she’s an elected politician: one, clearly, elected by people too stupid to know what they’d like to eat. At which point she’s not really got all that much authority, does she?"

Remember rhis the next time one of our elected representatives decides that they know so much better than us that they need to control how much we eat, drink or watch TV etc. There is a natural contempt for the views of the voters who elect these officials - even though they are the source of their legitimacy. Don't let them get away with it - because it never stops at sugary drinks, or portion sizes. We are adults living in a free society- be informed about your choices, but don't have those choices dictated by you by the well intentioned scolds who run the public policy debates.

It never stops.