Well, the Los Angeles City Council has done it. They’ve successfully and unanimously passed an ordinance that prohibits the building of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area. Over 500,000 low-income people live in this area. While it’s hard to deny the fact that eating fast food regularly is unhealthy, the LA City Council has crossed a dangerous line; they’ve actually banned selling fast food from new restaurants. Not only are they telling business owners how they should run their business, they’re telling consumers how to live their lives.

The ordinance hasn’t yet gone into effect since the mayor hasn’t yet signed it, but he is expected to. Fortunately, this ordinance doesn’t affect existing restaurants. It also only lasts for one year, but many members of the City Council hope to make it permanent. Essentially, the government is beginning to regular where certain types of businesses can and cannot run. They’ve already done this for liquor stores and now they’re doing this to fast food.

In a press release, Council member Jan Perry said, “This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives. Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community.”

Her argument is saying, essentially, that by prohibiting choice they’re bringing more choice. This is poor logic. No restriction on freedom can bring more freedom. Furthermore, it’s a restriction on free trade. If consumers don’t want to eat healthy, the government shouldn’t force them to do so.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this law. We have the increased regulation, which is particularly disturbing when coupled with a related ban on transfat elsewhere. There is also the problem of the increased fascist-like regulating of business. Why should the government, even a local government, tell business how to run their business? Just like with a smoking ban, it’s unnecessary and is an attack on freedom. Additionally, it infringes on the property rights of the business owner. However, none of these things that are wrong with this ordinance are as bad (or even as insulting) as the fact that the ban takes away the choice from the people. Not only does it take (or diminish, at least) the choice of locals to eat fast food when the please, it makes the assumption that the locals aren’t smart enough to make the right choice themselves. The government is effectively saying, “since you are eating fast food, you must be dumb. Don’t worry, we’ll manipulate the free market to take away what you want and give you something you don’t want. We’ll make you eat it anyway, even though you don’t want it, since we known what’s best for you better than you do.” This logic is very nearly insulting to the average citizen. Without choice, what are we?

One could present the argument that this ordinance is an attempt to regulate morality. Yes, the LA government thinks that eating fast food is immoral. If not, why the regulation? Why the destruction of freedom and personal liberty? Just what are they afraid of?