This explains Nanny Bloomburg

Kevin Baker links to a post called Moral Communism, that explains how the Marxists first make a behavior immoral, then pass laws to ban it.

So finally I get back to the Moral Law. Moral Law in anglosphere societies has, in the past, been fairly limited in scope, addressing a limited range of “vices” generally inherited from the Christian moral code. There was remarkably little even of that prior to the nineteenth century- it was the Church’s job to look after our immortal souls, not the secular law’s job. Prostitution was generally legal, beer was unregulated, you could gamble as much as you like, and so on. Henry VIII introduced the Sodomy Law, inherited from canon law when he nationalised the Church, but that seems to have only been really used against egregious pederasts. Even Oscar Wilde was only persecuted because he was blatant, foolish, and The Marquess of Queensberry’s other son was being buggered by the Prime Minister Lord Rosebery, who was beyond the infuriated Queensberry’s grasp for obvious reasons.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Reformers and Progressives began expanding the Moral Law sphere. Temperance laws, obscenity laws, and so on. But in the past few decades we have found entire new spheres of human activity come under the Moralist system. Our interactions with other people; what we may say to them or about them, how we may generally treat them, the treatment of animals, the treatment of homosexuals (protected) and paedophiles (damned). Smoking, of course. And, in emulation of non-Christian religions, even the foods we eat or how fat we may be. And of course, that huge new moral sphere, “the environment”.

NYC bans Trans-fats, smoking in public, salty foods.  California bans smoking and a host of other things.  Taxes on tobacco.  "Soft drink" taxes.  How many things have been banned or taxed for "our own good"?

So instead, they go for a two stage process. First of all, they persuade people that some Damned Thing is immoral. Then they show that the free market allows or encourages that immoral thing. Then they can say, “well, we wish we didn’t have to do this, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to intervene in that part of the economy, to stop the Damned Thing, sorry”. This leaves the free marketeer floundering around having to try to justify the continuance of the Damned Thing in the name of some nebulous “liberty”. And then they say, “so your selfish desire for “liberty” means this Damned Thing must go on?” and you lose the argument in public, because most of the audience have been persuaded that there is a moral crisis that must be addressed, and you are a heartless asshole who just doesn’t care.

And Bingo.  I've had the "heartless capitalist" argument used against me more than once.  It was effective until I pretty much became heartless in the context of the "pore 'n starvin", having dealt with them far too often when I lived in Seattle and found out that they're poor and starving because they refuse to hold a job, or they're strung out on their drug of choice.

The only way I know of to counter this argument is to show the Marxist as a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the "damned thing" at all, he only wants more government control.  And that's not an easy thing to do.