WhatFinger


The government is a do-gooder’s Shangri-la

The Dangers of Do-Gooders



It’s easy in today’s politically charged climate to see those with whom we disagree as despicable monsters intent on the destruction of everything we hold dear. Liberals paint conservatives as selfish fat cats who want to take advantage of the poor and defenseless. Conservatives see liberals as power-hungry despots constantly searching for new ways to enhance the size and scope of government.

Support Canada Free Press


For me, the greatest danger that free people face doesn’t come from the fat cat or the despot. The greatest danger comes from the do-gooder. The frustrating thing about being a do-gooder is that sometimes people won’t do what’s good for them. Sometimes you have great ideas that, if implemented, would greatly improve people’s lives, but people won’t listen. For example, I’ve ridden motorcycles my whole life. I have also always worn a helmet, mostly because I don’t like picking bugs out of my teeth. Helmets can protect a rider from serious brain injury in an accident. The reflective surface of helmets also helps other motorists to see the motorcyclist. Most people agree that wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea. But I have plenty of buddies who hate wearing helmets. In addition to being safe, helmets are also hot and heavy and dorky looking, and some riders simply prefer the freedom of an uncovered head, despite the risks. Enter the do-gooder. He sees something that would greatly improve people’s lives, and decides that he needs to let the world know about it. He has the best of intentions. He only wants what’s best for you. So the do-gooder shouts, “Wear a helmet! It might save your life!” But not enough people listen. So he takes out some TV and radio ads warning about the dangers of riding without a helmet. But many still don’t listen. At this point maybe the do-gooder visits motorcycle manufacturers and tries to get them to help spread the word. But it’s still not enough. “What is wrong with people?” the do-gooder asks. “Can’t they see that I’m trying to do what’s best for them?” Finally, in desperation, the do-gooder turns to the one place where he knows he can get results: the government. The government is a do-gooder’s Shangri-la, because government has power that nobody else has: the power of coercion. Think of all the good a do-gooder can do (try saying that ten times fast) by forcing people to do the right thing! Pretty soon the do-gooder has convinced a significant number of lawmakers of the wisdom of wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Eventually, the government passes mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. Hooray for the do-gooder, and the government monolith enforcing the do-gooder’s morality! Now, you may or may not agree with helmet laws. But what I hope you see is the danger in using government to compel behavior simply because “it would greatly improve people’s lives,” or even worse, “it’s for your own good.” Coercion is a dangerous thing. It means the loss of your right to choose, which is the basis of freedom. In most cases, if someone tries to coerce you, you can simply walk away. If your church requires you to do something you’re not comfortable with, you can join a different church. If your work expects things of you that you’re unwilling to give, you can find another job. But when your government coerces you, you either comply or you pay a price—usually incarceration. That’s why do-gooders end up pushing for legislation compelling behavior. The question we must ask, then, is this: even if an idea is a good one, should the government compel us to do it? At what point should the government take away our right to make decisions—even dumb ones—whether it’s riding a motorcycle without a helmet or smoking or overeating or driving big, expensive SUVs? What happens when some do-gooder convinces the government that it’s a smart idea to only drive small, fuel-efficient cars? Are you ready to be compelled to buy one, even if you don’t like small, fuel-efficient cars? It’s happening in Europe. How about when the government decides that eating healthy and exercising is a good idea? Are you ready to be compelled to do that? You think I’m being silly? You think no do-gooder would ever consider regulating what we eat? Think again. Read “A Modest—and Slimming—Proposal” by John Sotos in the April 7, 2006 issue of the Washington Post. Then let’s talk. I’m glad that there are people out there who want to improve the lives of others. But all people should have the right to choose to follow or not to follow the advice of the do-gooders. I side with G. K. Chesterton when he said:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”


View Comments

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.


Sponsored