Galloping paternalism

Steve Chapman looks at the growing urge on the part of governments to force people to do things "for their own good":

Until he brings about complete prohibition [of tobacco products], the ban will have perverse consequences. The most obvious is to deprive one type of retail establishment of revenue and divert the dollars to other businesses. Marginal neighborhoods will become less attractive sites for pharmacies but more appealing to liquor stores, which is a novel approach to urban renewal.

In Los Angeles, driving out certain businesses is not a potential side effect—it's a conscious policy. The city council recently prohibited the opening of fast-food outlets in the poor, 32-square-mile area known as South Los Angeles. If you're a global corporation selling inexpensive meals to go, Los Angeles has a message for you: Invest anywhere but here. Apparently a vacant lot is better than a Burger King.

Councilwoman Jan Perry believes the measure will assure the locals "greater food options." The Los Angeles Times reports she "said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them."

This is one of the oddest things about the new paternalism: the proponents of nanny state measure "A" may even acknowledge that there are other ways to accomplish their stated goals, but that people can't be trusted to do the right thing, so the government must force them to do it. For example, it's not that long a step from passing measures that (in theory) will encourage people to get more exercise to mandating exercise sessions.

Who could object? It's for everyone's health, right?