New York City wants to ban the sale of 16 oz sodas. The Gravel Kraken writes:
This is tyranny. Obesity may be a nationwide problem, but it is not a government problem. Even accepting the premise that “too much sugar is bad for people, and a free people cannot be trusted to regulate their own sugar intake” the proposed regulation doesn’t make sense. Free refills will still be allowed, there is no limit on number of 16 ounce drinks that can be sold at one, and grocery stores will still be allowed to sell sugary drinks at whatever size they please. Keep in mind that the standard, single-serving soda bottle contains 20 ounces of soda.
This is just insulting and a waste of everybody’s time.
I agree that this ban is a dumb idea. I agree that it’s insulting and a waste of everyone’s time. I agree that it’s pointless, and I agree it shouldn’t be enacted. But it is not tyranny. Governments can do a lot of terrible things, and many of them do. Tyranny is very real and causes a lot of harm and suffering to a lot of people around the world. Making it slightly less convenient to drink 16 oz of Cherry Coke is not tyranny, it’s just annoying. The word tyranny is thrown around so much by libertarians that I’m beginning to think really it’s stopped describing actual tyranny and instead just means “things the government does that I think it shouldn’t”.
When we see tyranny, we should point it out. And we should combat it. But this is not tyranny. This is a dumb, pointless regulation. And we should combat it too, but lets try to stop crying wolf.
520 Chestnut 
http://gravelkraken.com/2012/05/arbitrary-and-unrestrained/
You think that tyranny, these days, now means ‘things I do not like.’ From your perspective, how is that any different from previous eras? After all, a minute tax on stamps (that could be easily bought tax-free) in the late 1770s became the catalyst for quite a few calls to ‘end tyranny;’ even by individuals who had no problem with a hereditary monarch. Moreover, what do you consider the distinguishable line between tyranny and government-backed annoyance?
It is important to remember that the issue with the tax stamp was less the tax itself than the fact that the colonists had absolutely no say in whether or not the tax should be imposed on them. As Jastonite mentioned in his followup post, which he linked to in the first comment here Mayor Bloomberg intends to pass the regulation via a committee as opposed to city council, so I can somewhat see the argument that New Yorkers have no say in it. But the reality is that New Yorkers are represented by their city councilmen who, if they so chose, and if they were so persuaded by their constituents, could introduce measures aimed at overturning or blocking the regulation. So the analogy falls apart.
Regarding the “distinguishable line” I won’t go so far as to actually propose a clear cut line in the sand, but I will say this. True tyranny, to me, is brutality and oppression. It is immiseration. I suppose I’m saying that, at least in part, policy outcomes are important. If a policy serves to oppress citizens and causes undue suffering, I would be comfortable with the word choice. But reduced convenience of soda access does neither, at least not in any meaningful way.
Allowing, for a moment, the notion that the colonists were powerless to have it “imposed on them” I think you’ll meet with a few raised eyebrows from actual New Yorkers when you assert that councilmembers can be easily ‘persuaded’ by something other than donations of compliant voters or several decimal points. I’m sure I don’t need to explain how tenuous the claim that the city council (quite literally, aside from Chicago, *the* example of big-city machine politics) is a democratic outlet beyond reproach. It’s not quite like being represented by an out of touch parliament that you don’t vote for, but one can easily see that the analogy isn’t going to go away with some handwaving.
Seriously, talk to some New Yorkers.
But just as importantly, tyranny has been used fast and loose for every bit of political posturing one group of people haven’t liked. There are, quite literally, thousands of editorial lamenting the ‘monarchism and tyranny’ of every President starting with George Washington to the current one. Lamenting the fact that it has been overused is something close to over a century-and-a-half too late.
Oh I certainly agree that persuading city council will not be the simplest of tasks but, corruption or not, it remains a representative democracy. One of my first posts on this blog highlighted the story of a very successful Philadelphia business that was able to get off the ground in part due to political organizing at the local level by its founder:
https://520chestnut.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/gin/
I don’t claim that NYC City Council is perfect or above reproach, far from it, but they are also far from a monarchy.
My lamentation may be quite late, sure, but it doesn’t change the fact that I think the phrase is over-used. And I myself am guilty here too! I can think of at least two of my posts off the top of my head where I have used “tyranny” in the title, albeit one of them somewhat sarcastically.
[…] his reply to my post, Jastonite points out the differences in our usage of the word tyranny, I use it to refer to […]