Recently there was an ordinance passed in Austin (read about it here) banning smoking from all public places including restaurants and bars. Now this ordinance doesn't ban smoking in public places, so far as public means owned by the public. Rather, it means public in the sense of not a private residence. So any place that's open to public business. This ban doesn't go into effect till September, but the point remains the same. That is, that there has been yet another law passed to regulate the personal behavior of people in the interest of protecting the "public good". In this case, the "public good" is disguised as the health of non-smokers. Nevermind that smokers are part of the "public".
This is the liberal fallacy that undermines democracy and the free choice of the human animal. I must contend that it is a liberal fallacy, though I'm sure some "conservatives" share the logic. That fallacy is that enough rules and regulations will minimize injustice and maximize freedom. If the behaviors of the individual can be regulated, then the direction of society to something more harmonious and equal can be set.
The years between 1945 and 1992 showed us nothing if not that massive state-run programs to control society through the individual are doomed for failure (ie socialism). But this fallacy has persisted in a watered-down variety in the West, where absolute state control of individual behavior hasn't been practiced, yet.
What these controlling measures aim to do however, can be accomplished by a completely free market system. That is, allowing the owners of private business to decide what will be done in their own businesses. If people don't like being around smoke when they go out, they will go to businesses where the owner has chosen to go smoke-free. If the great majority of people dislike smoking, then businesses that allow smoking will not attract enough customers, will cease to be profitable endeavors, and will either shut down or adapt to the market.
But the continued success of businesses that allowed smoking inside their walls shows that a great number of people liked smoking, or at least didn't dislike it enough to not visit and spend money at these places. So in the interest of protecting "public health" (really the preferences of some) a law has been passed regulating the behavior of anyone.
It might be argued that since this was a referendum, the greatest number of citizens voted for it and thus it is the will of the majority. This, while a laudable defense, for me at least falls under the "trick of democracy". That is, the notion that an election proves the will of the people. Note from the article above that only 16% of eligible voters went to the polls that day, meaning the desires of 84% of the population are not expressly contented. This is the same problem with all democratic offices. The will of the people (the only sovereing power, according to democracy) changes often, sometimes day to day, while the results of one-time elections may stand for years, or even permanently. This is the fallacy in any democracy, as supporters of one position may try to unduly influence public opinion near an election/referendum date, knowing that the result will stand for years regardless of change in public opinion.
I'm digressing. The point is that there should be no law regulating the smoking of tobacco in private establishments. The reason being that free choice by consumers will determine whether a business succeeds or fails, and businesses will cater to that choice to succeed. Regulation takes the time of our elected legislators, the time of our law enforcement officers, and the time and money of our prosecuting offices for offenses. In addition to the economic cost, it just plain old limits freedom of choice. Society as a whole (and definitely not the state, acting as the temporary proxy for the society) does not have a right to tell an individual he cannot pollute his own body, if it is the individual's express will to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment