Freedom has no "serving size".

I see that Mayor Bloomberg and his fellow enemies of individual rights, the food police, are at it again. Bloomberg and his cronies are preparing to ban the sale of certain servings sizes of drinks containing sugar.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces -- about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle -- would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

In this age of paternalism, and with the government running everything, the only surprise here is that such a ban hasn't already been put into place. Indeed, the article mentions a couple of other attempts by Bloomberg to achieve, by slightly different misuses of government, basically the same shortsighted, immoral, and impractical goal. That is, Bloomberg cannot resist using the poor judgment of some as an excuse to violate freedom for everyone.

But what really got my attention about the article is how grossly Bloomberg either insults or mischaracterizes his great city:

"Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, 'Oh, this is terrible,'" Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor's Room at City Hall.

"New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something," he said. "I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do."

Really? Then why, assuming that large, sugary drinks are so dangerous for their health, are so many New Yorkers continuing to consume them in excessive quantities? And at what point did "doing something" stop pertaining to individuals acting responsibly in the pursuit of happiness -- and start meaning, "following government orders"? Sure, Bloomberg is really just trying to pass off this measure a sort of "muscular" paternalism (and himself as a "real" New Yorker), but then he has been elected three times.

But maybe Bloomberg is right about his city being about "doing something", and one day, New Yorkers will get sick of being pushed around by sanctimonious do-gooders stripping them of their freedom one sip at a time and throw their lout mayor out of office -- and start doing the same with other nanny-state politicians like him.

But then again, if New Yorkers can't be trusted with freedom as this measure implies, it won't matter for long, at the rate they're losing it.

-- CAV