Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
A Funny Nanny State Observation
by Alex Birch
Milton Friedman argues against drug prohibition:
One of his more interesting arguments: If we ban drugs because they might harm people, why is it in principle wrong to ban overeating or smoking? The video producers then list a bunch of stuff that could become illegal in America. The funny part: most of it is already regulated or banned in Sweden.
Smoking restrictions: check.
Seatbelt laws: check.
Helmet laws: check.
Gambling laws: check.
Gun rights: check.
Trans fat ban: probably on its way via EU.
Driving restrictions: check.
Fluorescent bulbs: not banned, but regulated against.
Thermostat control: no idea.
Sobriety checkpoints: check.
Free speech: in effect, check.
Trackback:
http://www.corrupt.org/trackback/2867
Re: Somalia
You presented a straw man argument, which I think you're aware of, but just to point it out: just because a healthy society exercises free market principles (to varying degrees), it doesn't mean that the reverse is true (free market society = healthy society), or that no government at all is desirable. Not even the most radical of libertarians want to get rid of the government.
Re: the other comment, I agree with most your intentions (if you want to ban smoking because your clothes smell at pubs, why not ban perfumes too?) but the results of most of those laws and regulations have had the opposite effect. If the drug war in Sweden has been successful (lol), why is drug consumption *increasing* and more dangerous drugs becoming readily available?
http://svt.se/content/1/c6/68/02/18/bakgrundsfakta-faktumreportage-droge...
Response
1) It's not just my clothes smelling, but the *air itself* made much more unpleasant. I'd rather not smell someone else's tobacco, especially if it could damage my health or if I'm trying to enjoy the taste of a good ale/steak.
2) Perfume is much less unpleasant to smell than tobacco, is much less unhealthy than tobacco and there was/is much less of it in the air than tobacco. Again, apples and oranges.
3) And as a person living in the UK, I can tell you the ban's been highly successful in its most important aim: I've yet to see anyone smoke inside a pub or restaurant for over two years; it's had very much the intended effect! And heart attacks are down, which means less strain on the NHS: http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4131177.ece
Has the Swedish smoking ban had the opposite effect?
Regarding Swedish drug law, the source of my assertion was this ECAD pdf (over 9000 seconds on Google!):
http://www.ecad.net/svnet/etc/Swedish_drug_control_annex.pdf
(Council of Europe and Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs, ESPAD Report 2003) look at page 12 and feel patriotic!
which shows a good drop in every category from 2000-2005 and a teen use rate less than one-third of my own country (ah, the UK's patented 'Let's Not Punish Anything' crime policy!). That sounds like a pretty good result to me. I don't know Swedish, but if that link pwns me, then I concede defeat.
Regarding the other laws: evidence plz.
Does requiring seatbelt/helmet use by law lead to an increase in seatbelt/helmet neglect?
Are children gambling more because of age limits?
Are Californians fatter because trans fats were banned?
Are more idiots driving because licenses are required?
Another response
Some people come up with a liberal-influenced opinion and want to enforce it on everyone else. That makes him or her a liberal fascist, as they protest and hide their authoritarianism behind human rights concerns.
Alex might have something to do, but I have a lazy Monday:
1. If you ban something, that means you ban it for everyone. Unless you're a huge spoilsport, you don't want to apply such draconian action to a pastime many people enjoy (whilst realising that they may die at 80 instead of 90 years old). The key here is choice: some places can be smoke free, others can cater for smokers, some can do both. Everyone wins. If enough people don't want to share a place with smokers, the market will respond.
2. See #1.
3. Pubs are closing down quite regularly in England and the smoking ban didn't help. See #1. As to your next point, just read the news report: 'The Department of Health welcomed the figures as “good news” but added that it was too early to attribute falls in heart attack rates to the new legislation. '
Regardless, people have the right (to an extent) to engage in dangerous behaviour. That is why we are allowed to climb mountains, drink alcohol, drive cars and use power drills.
Nanny statist control freaks try to win arguments not with presenting a reasonable point of view, but by trying to present "hypocrisies" in another person's argument that only purport to exist due to their own misunderstanding of it.
Yet Another Response
I'm not in any way a liberal and couldn't care less about 'human rights'. I'm an environmentalist fascist in many ways, but not a liberal one. I don't see how you can conclude that from my posts. I never appealed to 'rights' at any point. Why do you oppose fascism anyway? I thought CORRUPT/ANUS basically endorses it, so the sudden championing of 'rights', as I've said already, is pretty weird. What's its philosophical basis?
I'm only a 'nanny statist control freak' inasmuch as I'd rather not live in a UK with 90 million idiots in it and no trees. While CORRUPT criticises bureaucratic methods of environmental protection, I can't see it presenting much of an alternative (do you think that privatising nature will save it, like libertarians argue?). It's also contemptuous of environmentalists and oddly ambiguous on climate change. Your argument of 'well, this winter was pretty cold' was super-retarded, and took (again) one Google search to refute:
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm
It's disappointing, because CORRUPT is mostly a good source of accurate and interesting science.
I haven't presented hypocrisies in Alex Birch's arguments. I don't think there are any. I'm just asking him to provide evidence for his assertion that many of the listed regulations have had the opposite effect of their intentions.
Somalia = free market utopia, no government, no prohibition
Go there Alex and Mr. Friedman, have your free market utopia! There is no government that can do anything in Somalia and lots of people, so the free market must produce the best outcome, but has it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4017147.stm
Statist/Devil's Advocate
The US War on Drugs has been a spectacular failure (though the Swedish one has been highly successful, albeit at considerable cost), but you're making a lot of apple-to-orange comparison there. Frankly, it seems to me that many of the laws you list are good ideas. I don't see what negative effect they would have and - prove me wrong here, I'm no expert - they wouldn't cost much to enforce?
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke
1. Smoking should be banned in many public areas because, unlike many other unhealthy habits, it negatively affects *other people* too. So even a total libertarian should see the coercion in it. Why should my clothes smell or my lungs suffer your stupid habit, especially when I'm trying to enjoy a nice restaurant meal? It might be OK if restaus kept separated zones for the purpose, but many establishments didn't before the ban (like pubs).
Honestly, why care much about the right of people to do retarded things, unless it serves a clearly eugenic purpose? (Which smoking doesn't - it only kills off pensioners and damages the health of some nonsmokers in the meantime. Or do you resent the existence of pensioners, since they drain the Swedish healthcare system? You could be enough of a dickhead for that, I suppose. No doubt you'll be generously committing suicide at the age of 65 so I won't have to pay for you.)
Or are you objecting to taxes on smoking, which is just more easy money for the state and penalises cretins who smoke - why not? I agree that the prominent warnings on packets are nannyish, but the thing is, if it's cigarettes, who cares about them? Do you work for a tobacco company or something?
2. You have a point on seatbelt laws; if a person is too dumb to put on their belt, perhaps their resulting flight through the windscreen serves a eugenic purpose too! Plus, seatbelt laws are hard to enforce.
3. Ditto helmet laws. Only a moron (or a teenager; same thing) would ride without a helmet.
4. Gambling laws, well, I'm not sure which ones you object to. If you think age limits are bad, children shouldn't waste their money gambling and while parents have the first responsibility to stop their kids gambling, well, *why not* also legally prevent companies from letting them? Does it cost a lot, or impact anyone's freedom much? I do think the ban on internet gambling is dumb though.
5. I lean towards opposing gun restrictions too though... sorta. The thing is, gun laws would be pointless in the USA, but they have succeeded in eliminating gun crime in Japan, for example. Depends what the country/situation is here.
6. Ban trans fat - hell yeah! That should certainly be done. If ever-more Europeans get fat, it means you have to pay for their resulting operations via govcare, etc; so you have a monetary interest in the health of you fellow citizens. (And is money the only thing you care about?) I can assure you that the loss of trans fats won't stop you from eating your favourite food at all - the only negative effect on society is a slight loss of money to restaurants, which is frankly a small price to pay. Artificial sugars in general have had a bad effect on the health of first worlders. Or do you again think that idiot have a 'right' to eat trans fats?
7. Driving restrictions: I'm not sure if you object to specific ones, but the basic idea of driving restrictions is a very good idea. A car in the hands of an incompetent could easily run over a superior person; it makes sense that only people who can drive should drive.
http://www.corrupt.org/data/vision/#day1
Cars also pollute a lot and look ugly; our countryside is paved over for them. They're a terrible invention. Why the sudden enthusiasm for cars?
etc, etc... Why is CORRUPT completely capitalist and libertarian nowadays? Do you think that nothing matters other than saving money and being 'free'? Do you even oppose environmental laws? How are you going to implement e.g. eugenics without using some coercion? It would seem to contradict your previous stated opinions on the matter:
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/alexis/fascism/
Since you don't think 'freedom' of speech exists anywhere at all and couldn't care less about 'freedom' before, why all the yearning for it now?