I have previously reported on my
efforts to determine the proper political nomenclature for me. I thought I might be a libertarian, a term
that has many definitions, but found I did not really fit into any of them
exactly. I finally decided I am a
fiscal, political and moral conservative with libertarian leanings. I believe the less government intrusion, the
better. Government should take the
minimum required actions “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the
blessings of liberty” for all of us.
The tension I feel concerns the
beliefs I hold regarding morality and the convictions I have regarding
freedom. I believe there are some very
specific behaviors that are acceptable to God and some that are abhorrent to
him. Yet, short of a theocracy, I believe
everyone in our democratic republic should have the right to be stupid. So, any behavior not adversely affecting
others should be allowed, as long as the resulting consequences are allowed as
well. If a motorcycle rider wants to
crash without benefit of a helmet, or an automobile driver/rider decides to
tempt fate by not wearing a seat belt, so be it. But don’t expect me to pay for medical care
and years of rehabilitation. You take the
risk, you pay the price.
My biggest area of tension has
been in the area of drug use. But, I’ve
decided that if a person wants to waste his/her life for some short-lived
ecstasy, let them. However, I have no
problem outlawing drug use that is likely to result in behavior that will
adversely affect others. For instance,
the so-called “bath salts” drugs, meth, LSD and similar drugs are known to
alter a person’s state of mind in such a way as to make them dangerous to the
rest of us. The recent face-eating, drug-crazed naked, growling Florida man is a prime example of how these drugs are dangerous to all of us. So, we the people should
intrude into those people’s lives and prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase
and use of those kinds of drugs.
Otherwise, let stupidity take its course. When stupid actions result in danger for
others, we should deal with it swiftly and surely.
The issue that has prompted this
reflection is the proposed ban of all sweetened soft drinks over 16 ounces in
New York City. Mayor Bloomberg believes
he should take this action in order to protect his constituency from themselves. The percentage of obese Americans has risen
some in the past five years, but still remains at about 25%. So, the mayor wants to inconvenience 100% of
the residents of New York City in order to force the 25% to find the inevitable
loopholes in the law. A person who wants
to drink 32 ounces of soda will simply get a refill for the 16 ounce one he/she
just purchased. The bigger issue,
however, is the intrusion of government into our private lives. How can anyone who has even the most
elementary understanding of the word “freedom,” as used by our founding
fathers, think this is acceptable?
It seems to me there is a basic
belief by those who desire laws like this one, that we are all incapable of
making the “right” decisions; decisions that are determined by the government nannies. Happy Meals were targeted by the city of San
Francisco, which outlawed the toys that come with the meal. Teachers in some schools have taken it on
themselves to decide if students have brought acceptable food from home, and
have confiscated items they deem unhealthy.
Los Angeles County has aggressively tried to prevent the consumption of
raw milk. All of these examples are
predicated on the assumption that we the people are too stupid to make these
decisions for ourselves. If Mayor
Bloomberg can now outlaw a particular size of soda, other restrictions can’t be
far behind. While about 26% of Americans
are obese, 20% of Americans will have skin cancer some time in their
lives. Can the law forcing us to wear
sunscreen and hats be far away?
Many states have banned smoking
from just about every indoor space. I am
thankful for the clean air, as I have always detested the smell of cigarette
smoke, but I am not convinced that the government should be involved in
regulating private businesses in this manner.
If I don’t like cigarette smoke, I won’t patronize places that allow
smokers. I won’t apply for a job at a
place that permits smoking. If there are
enough people like me, private business owners will court my dollars by
providing a non-smoking environment. If
a business wants my expertise, they will provide a smoke-free environment for
me to work.
The people of California will
get to decide whether or not smokers should pay another dollar per pack for
their cigarettes. The money will
supposedly be used to research cancer.
Many non-smokers will vote for this tax because it won’t affect
them. Well, that’s not exactly
true. This time it won’t affect them,
but what will the next issue be? Will
there be an onerous tax on sugar and edibles containing sugar? After all, there is an obesity epidemic. Someday, will there be an extraordinary tax
on meat? It is supposedly bad for us,
and it requires the cruel killing of animals.
I find smoking rather repulsive, but if it doesn’t affect me, why should
I have the power to tell smokers they can’t smoke or that they have to be
punished for their poor health choice?
There was another government
that imposed taxes on its people for items like paper, glass, sugar and
tea. The people took it for a while, and
then decided to throw off that oppressive government. But, alas, the new government formed as a
result of that conflict has forgotten its roots, and is becoming its former
enemy.
