So I just finished reading this op ed piece
by one Sarah Conly who decided to step up to the plate and defend
busybody mayor Bloomberg and his attempt to ban the sale of large size
soft drinks in New York City. She is obviously a well educated person
and makes a fairly well thought out argument over why certain freedoms
should be curtailed. Well educated, however, does not necessarily mean
free thinking, nor does it necessarily translate into wisdom. In fact,
after reading Ms. Conly's op/ed piece I would say that she was decidedly
against free thought, unless of course that free thought leads one into
the arms of the ever coddling state.
There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Conly is a very loving soul who is
quite concerned about her fellow human beings. Her op/ed piece shows
that she is quite concerned with the well being of the rest of us who dwell
upon the planet with her. Like most defenders of the nanny state she is
quick to point out that government laws are there to protect you, and
she does so in an eloquent and convincing manner. She also manages to
verbally dance around one of the most important aspects of the debate,
as do most apologists for government intrusion on your life, and that is
the aspect of the morality of using force to change people's behavior.
Force and coercion are the tools government has to get people to comply
with their mandates. With that in mind the claim can be made that all
laws have the potential to carry with it the death penalty. It would
work as an escalation. Man sells large sugary drink. Man is ticketed.
Man refuses to pay ticket. A warrant is issued for the man's arrest. Man
refuses to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction over him. Police try to
force compliance. Man resists. Police kill the man. Whenever a law is
passed the question should be asked, "Is this law worth killing people
over?"
Some might say this is an extreme example, and they'd be right. Such
people would find it very difficult to argue, however, that even though
this scenario is extremely unlikely, it is not impossible. Because of
its extreme nature, if such an event were to happen the man killed by
the police would not be portrayed as someone trying to defend his right
to engage in voluntary transactions between two consenting parties, he'd
be portrayed as a crazy extremist. But perhaps they're right and I
shouldn't use such extreme examples. Perhaps I should take a page from
Ms. Conly's book and use examples like comparing banning certain sizes
of sugary drinks with preventing someone from crossing a derelict bridge
because, you know, those two situations are so similar.
In all fairness the example is not her own. Ms. Conly uses an example
proffered by John Stuart Mill way back in 1859, then proceeds to
disagree with him. I think the point that Ms. Conly was making, though
in not so many words, is that the government creates law to keep you
safe. They make laws to protect you from yourself. But this hardly
works. One needs to ask the question, when does it become necessary for
someone to protect us from the protectors? Let's examine the example of
the bridge a little closer. She states earlier in the article that we
need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff, and apparently she thinks
the way to do this is to pass laws against doing foolish stuff. With
this in mind I ask, what would be the purpose of passing a law making it
illegal to cross the bridge?
Ah, this would be an easy question to answer. The purpose would be to
prevent people from trying to cross the bridge so that they don't fall
into the river and perhaps injure or kill themselves. How do we make
certain people adhere to this law? Well, let's hire men to guard or
patrol the bridge and if someone tries to cross they'll tell them, "No,
you can't cross this bridge." We can even arm these men so they look
official and intimidating. What if, for some strange reason, the people
don't want listen and decide to cross anyway? Perhaps its the best way
to get to the other side despite the danger. Then those people will get
citations with court dates and fines. What if they throw the citations
away and still decide to try to cross despite all that? Even though it
remains dangerous to do so? Well, then the guards can shoot them. After
all, we have to keep people safe from their own foolish actions.
Did this law accomplish its purpose? Was its purpose truly to stop the
people from crossing, or was something else at work here? Were those
passing the laws maybe more interested in collecting money? Were they
more interested in controlling people's behavior? Is there a better way
to stop people from crossing dangerous bridges than using the force and
coercion of the state?
I didn't even bother to talk about how that law doesn't prevent people
from going down the embankment and trying to ford the river, even though
that might be more dangerous due to strong currents, nor did I examine the various reasons one might want to cross the river. The point
I'm trying to make is that force and coercion aren't always the best
ways to prevent people from doing something they might want to do. In
the case of crossing the bridge a sign making people aware of the danger
and pointing out safer areas to cross should be sufficient. In the case
of large servings of soda, perhaps some kind of public service
announcement or education effort paid for by concerned citizens, such as
Ms. Conly, could be a better solution than an outright ban on certain
sizes of soft drinks. Perhaps the mayor himself could afford to pay for
such a campaign, I understand he is quite wealthy. If he is so
concerned, perhaps he should show it by voluntarily contributing his own
money to such a worthy cause rather than using tax dollars to enforce a
law. In either case, I do believe the individual should be left to
determine for himself the level of risk he wants to take.
Ms. Conly goes on to cite studies on cognitive bias and then seems to
fail to understand that she suffers from the same malady as the rest of
us. I understand that my cognitive bias causes me to believe that
freedom is the answer no matter the question. It seems to me that Ms.
Conly has a cognitive bias that favors one size fits all state solutions
known as laws. She mentions the status quo bias and then supports the
status quo of political power. It also seems to me that perhaps she
suffers from something I would call a propaganda bias in that she
accepts the statist propaganda (i.e. for the greater good, majority
rules, for the public welfare) without question. She cites cost/benefit
analyses and the fact that government has the resources to use such
methods as a justification for using force to get us to behave in
certain manners. I say such methods have been abused in the past, are
being abused in the present and will continue to be abused into the
future so long as people in power can benefit from such abuse.
Going back to the beginning of her article, Ms. Conly asks "So, why is
this (the ban on large sized "sugary drinks") such a big deal?" Because
it should be a big deal. There needs to be a line drawn where people
start to say that we need to be protected against those who wish to be
the protectors. Apparently this is that line. A more appropriate
question in my mind is "Why are people like Ms. Conly making such a big
deal about the blowback this has caused?" Also, why is it that
collectivists will happily use the ideas of democracy and majority rule
when most everyone agrees with their policy proposals, but will suddenly
balk at those concepts and claim to know better than the rest of us
when their policy proposals are challenged by the majority or sometimes
even a significant minority?
Ms. Conly is an associate professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, a
prestigious private college located in Maine. She wrote a book entitled
"Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism." She is not only for
the daddy state, she wrote a book on it. I don't know why so many
academics seem to favor state solutions to societal problems, solutions
that have so often failed throughout all of history. I can only put
forth conjecture. Perhaps they've lost faith in humanity. Perhaps they
honestly believe that an academic, scientific elite should make the
decisions for everyone. Perhaps they see themselves as part of this
ruling elite class and don't want to lose the power and privileges they
perceive they have. Perhaps they don't see their education as just a
higher level of training, but believe that because they are so educated
they are indeed more intelligent and better than the rest of us. Perhaps
it has something to do with how the institutions that pay their
salaries are funded. I'm really not sure. I'm just kind of thinking out
loud and giving anyone who cares to chew on it food for thought.
Ms. Conly does have one thing right, this is not about soda. And it's
not about health. It's not even about public welfare or the greater
good. It's about control. It always has been. It's about freedom versus
tyranny. It's about a small cadre of elitists pushing the envelope and
always trying to see just how far they can go, just how much they can
micromanage our lives. It's my hope that not only did they find that
limit, but that common folk realize this is what the elitists have been
doing all along and begin to take back their freedoms by forcing the
repeal of other prohibitions and restrictions that have stifled our
ability to produce for ourselves and enjoy the fruits of our labor.
There's an even larger question at stake here. Mostly, this is about who
owns whom. Do I own my own body, or does the state? Do I have the right
to do with my body as I please, or does the state have some claim on it
as if I'm their property? It's ironic that Ms. Conly is associated with
an historical college that has a reputation for its anti slavery past
and yet writes opinions in favor of a more subtle form of slavery to the
state. When I speak of freedom, I am being an abolitionist. When she
speaks about coercive paternalism she is being an enslaving
authoritarian, no matter how eloquently she might make her arguments and
how reasonable they may sound.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com
to make a donation. While Ms. Conly has an institution to support her
and her work, I do not. I can only humbly ask for your voluntary
donations as I try to respond to statist propaganda.
Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help
me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews
if you like them so that others might also find and enjoy them.
Caged in America: A Collection of Essays Celebrating Freedom. By Szandor Blestman
Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman
Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti
The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti
No comments:
Post a Comment