New York OKs nation's first ban on super-sized sugary drinks

My reasoning is flawed?

Yes. All of your arguments center around the government taking responsibility for parenting our children. So the government should handle the beverage oversight for our children ? What about sugary breakfast cereal? Should the government step in with oversight as well? After school snacks? Processed foods?

If we wanted to we could relinquish all of our parental repsonsibility to the government. Consider the technology we have on hand. Most people pay using a debit card at the grocery store. When a parent made a purchase at the store all of data (items that were purchased) could be sent to a government database. The parents grocery list could be analyised to determined the quality of the food. If the foods purchased were deemed unhealthy then CPS could been immediatley dispatched to the home to remove the children from an enviromnment that contained unhealthy foods.

Allowing the government to raise our children? Hmmm?

Perhaps the parents should raise their children.

<snip>Hypothetical situation. Would a parent (knowing that it was bad for you) continue to give soda to a child in large quantities even if they continued to ask for it? I would hope as a responsible parent you would say no. How is this any different?

FFS, we're not children.

No doubt! We are talking about ADULTS here. The government is NOT our mom and dad!

True and yet most adults act like children. Stubborn and uncaring of our actions no matter what the consequences. Think what you will but I don't believe its going to start riots.

Hello? Fascism is when the government dictates everything. Ever heard of WWII? Mussolini? It is complete totalitarianism - authoritarian regime. The absence of government is laissez faire, otherwise known as "freedom." Communism and free markets are not necessarily opposites. Communism can be authoritarian or it can be completely voluntary. In America, we had small pockets of voluntary communism back in the 1960s. So long as it's voluntary it's fine. Government use of force or coercion is wrong, just as individual use of force or coercion is wrong. It is the "force" part that makes it wrong. It is always wrong to initiate force against someone.

It seems you may have read too much economic theory of John Maynard Keynes.

WE, the PEOPLE, are the consumers. Consumers aren't "the other guy." Yes, if there are enough people who desire a product or service, the market CAN and WILL step up and provide that product or service.

As to your pollution example, that is the same as fraud. That is when the government steps in, when consumers get something other than what they request.

Facism is not simply a political ideology - it is also an economic ideology.

Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[6] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[7] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[8] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[9]

(link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism)

In short, society should pay for the failure of the unfettered market as I mentioned previously...

I don't really know what JMK's work really has to do with anything but with regard to your fraud example as being an instance where the government should step in, much like pollution, then surely obesity is, in your own words "when consumers get something other than what they request."?

Can someone explain to me, rationally, how a ban on selling excessive servings of soda will transform America from a free nation to one under the jackboot of communist oppression?

The slippery slope argument (it all starts from this one thing and will then mushroom into many other negative things) is fallacious at best and outright politics of fear at worst. Sheesh, I'm not American but even I have more confidence in the robustness of your democracy than that.

The market will do nothing to stop rising obesity levels - its function is to increase production and consumption. People it seems have difficulty limiting their own portion sizes so what is there left to do? It is all well and good saying people should exercise self control but what if they don't as is clearly the case? How is the social cost of obesity to be paid for then?

Well in America, the role of government is to protect our liberties. We are the only country that (at least used to) operates under that guiding principle. It isn't the market's responsibility to control demand, neither is it the role of government. Consumers want what they want. It is the role of the market to provide what consumers want, and it is the role of government to provide justice if there is fraud or a breech of contract.

^^^^Quoting you- "Consumers want what they want".

Yes, they do. That is why their happy, soda-loving selves can just buy two if that's what they really want. If they still don't believe in self-control after someone is basically slapping them in the face and telling them no, then they can walk around with two 16 oz cups. No hair off my as$

Can you not just buy 2 if you are that into your soda?