The Sociology of Paternalism
[C]onsider that if you drink 32 ounces of Coca-Cola, you’ll rack up 388 calories. A 20 ounce Iced White Chocolate Mocha from Starbucks has 500. Both aren’t good for you, but the Mocha’s worse. The difference is that the kinds of people who want to use government to save ignorant Americans from the harms of soft drinks are the kinds of people who prefer an Iced White Chocolate Mocha to a Coca-Cola.
More from Aaron Ross Powell. HT: Arnold Kling.
Why does everyone pick on Bloomberg? It’s obvious he knows best! (sarcasm)
I think the policy is obviously targeting people who drink cola but can’t afford $5 mocha that you are alluding to. That seems to be the undertone of the taxation on soft drinks.
The difference is that the kinds of people who drink Iced Mocha Choca Lattes are the same people who vote and donate to campaigns. I’d guess they are also more likely to lead active lifestyles.
Benedict brings up a good point, at the end of the day, it is politics.
The taxation on soft drinks just seems like the right elitist liberal thing to do, don’t you think? (Sarcasm)
You’re right — we’re drawing the line at where exactly the income disparity will begin coke vs. overpriced coffee drinkers.
The substantive part of the article was a little more interesting. Individual vs. social rights. No one should tell you what you can and can’t have unless your a child or mentally incapable of rational thought.
It’s unfortunate, but I’m afraid Aaron Ross is a little late. There’s already plenty of precedent set for neglecting Mill’s harm principal.
I wonder how many calories a cup of coffee spiked with a double-shot of bourbon has? And it’s probably better for you — at least it’s better for your attitude!
Oddly enough, the person walking into Starbucks and ordering a 500 calorie Iced White Chocolate Mocha likely has a better health destiny (for lack of a better word) than the person who walks into your local Shop & Rob and gets a 32-ounce Big Gulp full of Coke. I’m not sure whether Coke is any better (or worse) for you than iced chocolate mocha. But health status is positively correlated with income and social status. The person ordering the Coke may order “fries with that” or grab a bag of chips or a microwave burrito, whereas the person getting the iced white chocolate mocha will probably get a small sandwich or salad. Either way, taxing the soda will not change other detrimental behaviors.
A 20 ounce Iced White Chocolate Mocha from Starbucks has 500.
What’s the deal with people who like “white chocolate?” It’s just crap!!! Cocoa solids are what give chocolate its flavor. Cocoa butter is about half of the contents of cocoa. By extracting the cocoa butter, you are getting the fat without getting any of the good flavor of chocolate. There is no such thing as white chocolate; there is chocolate and there is basically a tasteless fat removed from chocolate. You would get the same caloric content and have a better flavor by just adding heavy cream if you’re ordering white chocolate.
Besides, the best kind of mocha made from a brewing chocolate that’s derived from ground cacao nibs that is brewed along side coffee.
Logic is not the foundation for most of these nanny state polices.
How on earth is the assertion here being made that the 500 calorie mocha is worse than the 388 calorie coke? Where is the evidence? Just because it has more calories, doesn’t mean it is worse. They both don’t sound like healthy choices to me, but I just found it silly the assertion was made that the Mocha was automatically worse.
I agree with Ron, I don’t think it is valid to say the White Chocolate Mocha is worse than the Coca Cola, but regardless of which is worse, I don’t think taxing any of them would make a segment of the population healthier.
In response to Bubba’s question:
Release 25 of the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference says that 1.5 fluid ounces of 86 proof distilled whiskey has 105 kcal.
Two standard shots would therefore be 210 kcal of nonfat beverage with only 0.04 g of sugar.
Sure looks like a health food to me.
Cheers!
Agreed, Linda.
Overall, this seems like a regressive tax, similar to the tax on tobacco.
“Stupidity is much the same all the world over”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty