Freedom First 01/24/2010
 
Picture
We are becoming a nation that no longer believes in the freedom to choose; there is really no other way to put it. In 2009 over 40,000 new laws were passed, many of which are nothing more than petty attempts by legislatures to micromanage our lives. Whether it’s the recent ban on trans fat in California or fish pedicures in Virginia, the notion that we ought to be able make decisions in our own lives is steadily losing ground. There are countless other examples but they all clash with the same principle. John Stuart Mill had it right when he stated, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” The modern busybody however has shattered this concept and is willing to use the power of the state to force their neighbor to do what they feel is right.

This nanny tendency often initially comes from the knee-jerk reaction that because something is bad or immoral, it ought to be banned. During a 1988 debate over tobacco law, William F. Buckley dispelled this myth, “I would hope that we emancipate ourselves from the superstition that, that which is legal is necessarily honorable… It’s perfectly legal to contract syphilis, but it doesn’t mean that society is in favor of syphilis. As a matter of fact it’s perfectly legal to vote for Jesse Jackson. But that doesn’t make it reputable does it?” What needs to be understood is that in a free society, people will not always exercise their freedom in ways the majority of the population particularly likes. As long as the rights of others are not being infringed upon, people should be able to live out their lives without arbitrary interference.

One of the more seemingly reasonable methods by which the nanny-state arguments are promoted is to suggest that we should be able to limit freedom due to the possible increase of the financial burden on society. This is often used to pass seatbelt, helmet, tanning, as well as food related health laws. The obvious problem with this line of reasoning is that if you make this your exception to freedom of choice, there is really no limit to its application. You could apply this to any high risk activity or whatever is deemed as unhealthy. It is virtually a blank check to regulate every facet of people’s personal lives.

Another source of the busybody mentality stems from what John Locke called the “natural bias” that leads us to believe we know what’s best for other people. It is this paternalistic attitude that views the common man as a child who is incapable of caring for himself. As Paul Rahe points out, “There is a nanny inside all of us.” This bias is often magnified many times among public intellectuals, which might explain why the majority of them favor socialist policy. It is the system that looks to them to make all the decisions rather than the uncouth masses.

The culminating difficulty with arguing against this modern fashion of tyranny is the way in which it is introduced. Again Rahe was right when he called it “soft despotism” because it truly is despotism under a benevolent banner. We are told that these laws are for our own good, or that they produce a more harmonic environment among members within the community; that we need protection from ourselves. Or that the average person is incapable of making many of the complex decisions inherent in a modern society. Well I say the community can go to hell; I’ll keep my freedom thank you. We need to remind our representatives of the words of Lord Acton that, "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." It’s about time we begin repealing these frivolous laws rather than creating new ones, and telling these legislators to mind their own business.

Picture
CNN: Laws covering texting, tanning beds, trans fat take effect in 2010
 


Comments

Brian

01/25/2010 11:20:45

Well-written. I agree.

 

Heather

01/28/2010 23:10:03

I agree that there are many frivolous laws on the books, and that people should generally be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves.

However, I will say that I've heard many Republicans say similar things in one statement, but in the next breath they warn against the dangers of allowing the "choice" that women have over their own reproductive rights. I'm not saying that Democrats don't contradict themselves, but this kind of double-speak makes it hard for me to trust Republicans when they speak about the value of freedom.

Either way, you put your point across nicely, even if I can't jump on board.

 

Daniel

01/29/2010 14:21:05

@ Heather

I would be one of those mentioned Republicans who you criticize as not being consistent.

I do not believe an individual has the right to murder their own child seeing as that would be violating the rights of another person.

 

Fred

01/29/2010 21:41:39

Awesome!! I'm so glad your group is taking this stance. So when can we expect the college republicans to come out with a statement calling for the legalization of all forms of narcotics? How about coming out against laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as solely occurring between a man and a woman? Since obviously these people are not infringing on anyone else's rights, correct? Or the policies forcing travelers to take off their shoes while going through the airport, or limiting the amount of liquid you can bring onto a plane? But... But... The terrorists, you say? The government is infringing my rights through these inane policies, all the while you are 225,000 times more likely to die in a car crash (and txting makes you 23 times more likely to crash than normal driving) than any act of terrorism, not just limited to those acts committed using planes. While you're at it you need to issue a statement against warrant-less wiretapping, data-mining and every other process the government uses to collect data on citizens without regard to our constitutional right to due process. Additionally, your statement should include a call for the end of extraordinary rendition, the immediate release of all prisoners from the "war on terrorism" that haven't been charged with a crime- or do inane laws only qualify as inane when they affect US citizens? Another issue you must take a stand against is the legislating of teaching "intelligent design" in science classes across the country.

While you are at it, why don't you attempt to repeal minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws, as well workplace and food and drink safety standards. These laws were all seen as infringing upon basic rights when they were first passed, but no electable candidate would even consider openly campaigning with the repeal of these as a part of their platform.

 

Daniel

01/29/2010 22:23:32

I can only speak for myself. The views on this blog are mine and mine alone. I will try my best to address your sarcastic little rant however.

I am in favor of legalizing narcotics. If someone wants to kill themselves by way of drugs, so be it.

Defining marriage is an issue for the states.

You're right we shouldn't hold the terrorists in prison camps. We should take them out, line them against a wall and have them all shot. (I am serious)

Curriculum in schools shouldn't be decided by legislation. We should also abolish the Department of Education.

Repeal the minimum wage - check
Repeal food and drink safety standards - check

Children are an exception.

I don't care what politicians are afraid to campaign for.



 

Fred

01/30/2010 00:31:07

I'm sorry. I became confused when I realized I was on the UAA College Republican website, reading a blog that I had to get to by clicking on a link labeled "Truth." Although I will give you credit for allowing dissenting views to post in response to your truthiness. Now on to your replies...

We agree on legalizing narcotics. That's a good start.

"Defining marriage is an issue for the states. "
This is exactly what I was talking about- your blog entry was talking about ridiculous, intrusive laws passed by states. Isn't trying to legislate a definition of marriage, even allowing the individual states to do so, just as ridiculous and intrusive?

"You're right we shouldn't hold the terrorists in prison camps. We should take them out, line them against a wall and have them all shot. (I am serious)"
My only problem with this statement (besides the fact that I never talked about actual terrorists- only those falsely accused) is actually a question. How do you decide who is a terrorist? And what safe guards do you have in place to make sure, for example, that a rival tribe doesn't turn a person in, in order to receive the $5,000 US reward offered for anyone with Al Qaeda or Taliban connections?

"Curriculum in schools shouldn't be decided by legislation."
Sweet!! We agree again!!

"We should also abolish the Department of Education."
Alright, while we're at it we should abolish the Department that was the biggest bureaucratic increase in the history of the US- the Department of Homeland Security, which just replicates the job already being done by numerous other governmental agencies. Actually lets take that even further and get rid of all federal government programs, although that would leave Alaska needing to make up almost half its budget, since it receives almost $2 for every dollar it sends out.

"Repeal the minimum wage - check
Repeal food and drink safety standards - check "
So you are willing to trust multi-national companies to do what is right, rather that what is cheap or makes them the most money? So, for example, you would be fine with stopping testing the amount of lead present in paint on toys imported from china? Or pesticide levels on fruits and vegetables? Or when people begin getting sick from eating tomatoes, or Jack-in-the-Box we just say that it must be a coincidence and move on?

"Children are an exception"
Why do children get a pass? We should teach them early that life is a competition. No use coddling them for the first 18 years, only to force them to fend for themselves after that.


"I don't care what politicians are afraid to campaign for. "
Then why are you a republican? Your policy beliefs seem more in line with that of the libertarian party, especially in some key areas such as drug law.

 

Daniel

01/30/2010 02:10:06

Marriage law isn't an intrusion, its a voluntary institution that is recognized by the state. There's no contradiction here. Two members of the same sex can do what they wish but they cannot currently get recognition of that relationship by the state.

Military tribunals I suppose would determine who is and isn't a terrorist.

I would agree with you that most federal agencies should be abolished save a few vital to national security. As for homeland security you may have a point about it being unnecessary. I would add that the CIA should be abolished and a new agency should take its place. Ever since the Carter administration the CIA has been completely neutered.

If companies produce goods and services that harm consumers we have the court system to retaliate. Not to mention the vast regulations on medicines can indirectly cause death as well. If a life-saving drug is created with current regulations it may be years before it is able to hit the market and save people's lives.

I am not a politician. I am just someone giving my opinion. I have no restraints. As for sounding like a libertarian, that may be because I have those leanings. If you knew about the history of the Republican party you would know it has included for over the past 60 years a coalition of traditionalists, libertarians, and anti-communists (now those with simply strong foreign policy positions in general). And I would rather work with a party that can actually produce viable candidates than waste my vote.

 

Daniel

01/30/2010 13:37:40

To further clarify my views, I consider myself a Goldwater conservative. Seeing as most all Republicans respect the great Ronald Reagan I'll leave you with a word from him. "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

 

Andrew

03/21/2010 02:46:08

It is very true that the nanny-state has been an ever increasing phenomenon in recent decades. From an overwhelmingly Republican supported Flag Desecration Amendment to 30 states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and all it's associated rights, however, it seems a bit hypocritical that a conservative movement can simultaneously advocate for the government (at any level) to stop controlling our lives and yet support laws that do just that.

 



Leave a Reply