Trans fats, cold medicines, and real freedom
Jeff Tucker’s cold medicine post got me thinking. As the government’s creeping power to regulate all sorts of things continues to expand, for each new regulation you always hear the same argument: “But it’s really not a big deal!” There are always people ready to argue that it is not really a big inconvenience or a great restriction on your freedom for the government to restrict the amount of cold medicine you can buy, prevent a restaurant from serving you trans fats, require you to wear a seatbelt, etc. These things are simple. You hardly miss them. Why do they matter at all? Don't you have bigger problems?
And, of course, this is always followed by the observation that getting pissed off about these “little” restrictions is just more proof that libertarians are all nutjobs. But the people who defend this chipping away at their freedom miss the larger, vital point. When you say “it’s not a big deal”, you’re saying that giving someone else control over what you can and cannot do with your own body is something so small it’s not worth bothering with. Essentially, you are giving away the most fundamental freedom of all as though it is meaningless. I hope that the individuals in the it’s-not-a-big-deal-quit-your-whining crowd never come to the point where they realize exactly why it matters so much. If you’ve ever watched seriously ill people pack a hotel ballroom to beg the government for a drug that can help them, and watched government appointed “experts” deliberate over whether these people, whom they don’t know at all, deserve access to a drug they are completely willing to take, you realize just how unjust the system is and how much people are suffering because of it. I’ve seen it myself. But that system exists and is given legitimacy because we’ve already conceded the fundamental principle- that the government, not you, is entitled to decide what you can and cannot put in your own body. Maybe you think it’s just about cold medicine or trans fats, but someday it could be about your life. Because when it comes to the right to control your own body, you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.
Comments (7)
N. Joseph Potts
The right to put stuff into your body is a natural (inalienable) right that could have been specified in the US Constitution, but doesn't need to be, since it obviously falls squarely in the middle of "pursuit of happiness."
Happiness, of course, includes staying alive, and maybe even maintaining a crack at a meaningful life. Usurpation of a natural right (here the property right in one's person) is ALWAYS a big deal.
Published: December 23, 2006 6:36 PM
Saturdaynightspecial
By controlling us they transfer power from us to them, making them the powers that be. To the socialist government we now exist under, it's not about controlling trans fat (or what we eat) it's about being able to control us so that they can enrich tnemselves. And it's more difficult when we have guns, less difficult after they take them away.
Governments do not want us to do anything involving individuality, self-reliance or independence - that would be opposed to their belief in the concept of promoting the common good. They don't really believe in the concept the common good, they support it to empower themselves to enrich themselves; socialists are crooks, con-artists and thieves. Listen to their arguments on guns - it never makes sense and always involves lies. Did you ever find anything honorable or good about the most famous fascist Hitler ?
And gun control really is not about removing the guns, it's about keeping the power with government (police.) If we have guns then we have the power to protect ourselves, but if we are prohibited from possessing guns then the police (government) must have the power to protect us even when it really does not protect us.
This is why Anthony Gregory's essay 'Law-Enforcement Socialism is so illuminating. It exposes socialist government.
Published: December 23, 2006 11:09 PM
D. Saul Weiner
I am really glad to read this post, as I agree that it is critical that we uphold the principle that it is up to the individual to decide which substances to ingest or not ingest.
I would only add that in many cases where we may believe that certain restrictions are minor or unimportant, that we may not be aware of how truly catastrophic these limitations have been.
For example, review the link below for a good overview of how the FDA has interfered with our access to lifesaving nutritional approaches to healing. It boggles the mind to consider how many lives have been unnecessarily lost or compromised due to infection, psychiatric disorder, and cancer as a result of these limitations. These effects are, as Bastiat said, part of "the unseen".
http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/whatweknew.html
Published: December 24, 2006 10:02 AM
Michael A. Clem
Excellent points, and ones that cannot be brought up enough. Nobody's going to lay their fortunes, their honor, and their lives on the line for the convenience of purchasing cold medicine or not wearing their seat belt. But realizing the transference of control by such regulations may help people understand the loss of freedom inherent in them.
Published: December 24, 2006 11:20 AM
Jason
It is my inalienable right to be fat if I choose to be.
Published: December 28, 2006 2:29 PM
Airborne Cold Medicine
It seem that the government is removing the freedom of choice. We as people need to use our comment sense to select the right choices for our selfs not always relying on the government to make all our choices.
Published: March 12, 2007 1:32 AM
delinetciler
thieves. Listen to their arguments on guns - it never makes sense and always involves lies. Did you ever find anything honorable or good about the most famous fascist Hitler ?
Published: April 24, 2007 10:32 AM