Government exists for just two purposes: (1) to provide its citizens with the freedom to live their lives as they so choose, and (2) to protect us from those, both foreign and domestic, who would try to take away that freedom. Once government steps outside of those two purposes, it is itself taking away that freedom.
The definition of freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint in choice or action. Most North Americans claim to love freedom, yet I am constantly amazed at how easily we are willing to give it away for what government tells us is “your own good.”
Several months ago I wrote a column titled, “
The Dangers of Do-Gooders.” In that column I argued that the problem with do-gooders is that they rarely stop at just sharing information and encouraging people to do what’s good for them.
For example, the do-gooders who told us that wearing motorcycles helmets was a good idea didn’t stop with encouraging motorcyclists to wear helmets. Eventually the motorcycle helmet do-gooders took their “encouragement” to government, and before long, riding a motorcycle without a helmet was against the law.
Chalk up a victory for the do-gooders, but a defeat for freedom. Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not encouraging motorcyclists to ride without helmets. I’m saying that the choice should belong to the rider, not the government.
Later in that column I argued that if we allow government to take away our freedom in one area, they will take it away in others. My final example was an article published in the Washington Post titled, “A Modest—and Slimming—Proposal.” This article argues that government should regulate our eating habits the way it regulates corporate polluters.
This seemed a stretch to some readers at the time. “Come on,” people said to me. “The government isn’t going to regulate what I eat.” Oh really? Then let’s have a look at the current bad guy in the health wars: trans fats.
Trans fats are a by-product of the hydrogenation of plant oils. This process increases a product’s shelf life and turns liquid oil into a semi-solid, which is preferable in baking. Partially hydrogenated oils are less expensive and more readily available than animal fats, and can be consumed by those on a kosher, vegetarian, or vegan diet.
Trans fats have also been linked to higher cholesterol levels and coronary hart disease. Because of this, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization have recommended that trans fat consumption be kept to a minimum. The U.S. government has also required all manufacturers to list trans fat on the Nutrition Facts labels of the food they sell.
At this point the do-gooders are simply warning us of the dangers, making information available to us, and giving us recommendations that we can choose to follow or ignore. So far, so good.
But as always, that’s not where it stops. A couple of years ago, New York City banned the use of trans fat at restaurants. No more warnings or recommendations; now it’s the law. And amazingly, many in New York City are happy about it.
Let me quote you from an AP article by Jocelyn Noveck: “Toni Lewis, catching a quick dinner at McDonalds…acknowledged that, yes, it might be going too far for the city to tell people what they can and can't put into their stomachs. But, she added: ‘I welcome the intrusion…we need someone to make it a healthier proposition.’”
There are a couple of things about this quote that just blow my mind. To begin with, how does a person acknowledge that it’s going too far for government to tell people what they can and cannot eat, and yet
welcome the intrusion? How can a person with any understanding of freedom and liberty welcome such a thing? Would we say the same about who we can and cannot date? About where we can and cannot work? About the books we can and cannot read?
Second, and most importantly, Ms. Lewis reflects the biggest danger of government intrusion in our personal lives: the rise of the “nanny state” and the shrinking of personal responsibility. If Ms. Lewis wanted to eat healthier food, she could have chosen restaurants that serve healthier foods, or even packed her own lunch. But instead of taking responsibility for her own health, she expects the government to do it for her—as she sits eating at McDonald's.
Again, I’m not arguing that we should all go out and stuff our faces with trans fat. I’m arguing that we should have the
freedom to choose what to stuff our faces with.
Remember this line from the movie Demolition Man:
I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! … Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal?
Now, we may not all want to eat buckets of cheese or smoke cigars the size of Cincinnati, but shouldn’t we be able to make those decisions for ourselves?
Mike Jensen——
Bio and Archives
Mike Jensen is a freelance writer living in Colorado. He received his M.A. in Professional Writing from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, where he wrote his first book, Alaska’s Wilderness Highway. He has since published Skier’s Guide to Utah along with humor, travel, and political articles for various magazines and newspapers. He is married with five sons, and spends his free time at a remote cabin in the Colorado Rockies.
