Bloomberg: good for the libertarians?

Rather oddly, Matt Yglesias seems to think so:

"...it seems to me that a Bloomberg Administration is likely to be substantially more libertarian than either a Democratic or a Republican one would be. Bloomberg, however, is specifically identified with a brand of trivial nanny-stating -- indoor smoking ban, trans fat ban -- that seems to be to aggravate libertarians in a manner that's out of proportion to the actual significance of the policy issues."

This seems unconvincing. To begin with, episodes such as the smoking ban are not trivial to libertarians. But nor are they actually all that insignificant in terms of policy issues either. These sorts of illiberal policies demonstrate that  there's  almost no area of human activity Bloomberg doesn't believe could (and worse, should) not be improved by the all-knowing, well-meaning state. (To remind you: the smoking ban is offensive not merely because it inconveniences people but because it's an assault upon business and a publican's right to run his affairs as he sees fit.)

It's hard, then, to think that a President Bloomberg is going to be any friendlier to libertarian preoccupations than his rivals, none of whom, it surely does not need to be said, offer much more encouragement to libertarian-minded folk.

Even if, however, you do think smoking and trans fat bans are insignificant policy issues, you might pause to consider if it is significant that the state should choose to involve itself in these issues. I can see why American liberals might be untroubled by this, but it seems a bit much to ask libertarians to agree with this proposition.