Consider, for example, the highly controversial decision in 2012, initiated by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to ban the sale (in certain locations) of soft drinks in containers larger than 470 mL.2 Mayor Bloomberg sought to reduce obesity and believed the ban would further this goal. Some people choose beverages in large containers, and Mayor Bloomberg's proposal would not only influence that choice, but would put it out of circulation. Much of the negative reaction to the proposal came from sectors that considered it paternalistic and, by the same token, unacceptable. Why, critics wondered, sometimes angrily, should Mayor Bloomberg, and not consumers themselves, decide the size of soft drink containers? His proposal was certainly taken as a form of paternalism. Note that it was a soft form of paternalism: people could drink as much as they wanted, they would just have to buy two bottles instead of one.