We have problems with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to ban large-size sugary sodas. But like our beef with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s attempt to tax sugary drinks back in 2010, our objection is mostly based on practical considerations.

Bloomberg wants to ban the sale of sugary sodas over 16 ounces in restaurants, theaters and other outlets. But anyone wanting a bigger gulp in one sitting merely has to buy two cups of a lesser amount — and we’re betting manufacturers are already gearing up production of 15.5-ounce cups. Nutter’s proposal was also logistically problematic, since only the state, not the city, can impose an excise tax on a specific product; the mayor’s tax would have likely led to a price hike on all beverages, not just sugared ones.

But most of the objections to Bloomberg’s proposal are not based on logistics; they’re based on “freedoms” and the “nanny state.”

This battle isn’t about Bloomberg and freedom-loving Americans. It’s really a battle between the marketplace and government. You may think the marketplace is a benign provider of only good things that should be free of government interference. You may think you want a giant soda because you’re “free,” and not because Coke’s advertising might have manipulated you to consume as much of their addictive product as possible.

In which case, you are not crying over the loss of your human rights. You’re crying because someone is taking your bottle away. In which case, you may need a nanny, after all.