Why Should the Government Protect Us From Ourselves?
- Print print this page
- Discuss 12 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
As a libertarian, I am obviously skeptical of all government activities.
The state, at its core, is a violent entity and should be limited as much as possible. Any argument for greater government power gives me pause.
That being said, it does make a difference how government programs are justified. Government programs that exist to protect people from others' aggression are rational.
It makes sense to have an army and police force, because individual citizens do not necessarily have the strength or skill to fend off murderers, rapists and thieves, and certainly cannot fend off a foreign army. Greater government power in this area allows ordinary citizens to live their lives in peace and safety.
This justification can be extended to environmental regulation. Pollution, climate change and other threats to the environment harm everyone in society (or, in some cases, everyone on the planet), regardless of what they personally have done. Regardless of how much I personally have or have not contributed to global warming, it still threatens my health and welfare. Thus government environmental regulations protect me from the excesses of others.
Government intervention does not make sense, however, to protect people from themselves.
Whenever the state regulates food or pharmaceuticals, it is denying us the right to decide for ourselves what to consume. When it regulates marriage and sexuality, it usurps our control over our own bodies and social relationships. When it regulates labor, it prevents us from negotiating with our employers.
In all of these cases, the common people are not being trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Take labor regulations. On the surface, these exist to help the common people, but ultimately they restrict their options. The government says, for example, that workers cannot work overtime without being paid extra. As a result, companies generally do not employ their workers overtime unless it is absolutely necessary.
But what if those workers want to work overtime, even at ordinary wages, in order to earn more money? Personally, I would many times have been happy to work more than 40 hours a week, but because of government regulations, I cannot.
The tacit assumption behind these laws, of course, is that workers are better off working less. However much I might want the extra money, I am better off working no more than 40 hours a week. But what gives the government the right to tell me how long I should work? Since I am the only one harmed if I work too long, shouldn't I be able to make the decision for myself?
Ultimately, these laws teach that the common people are stupid. If we are left to make decisions for ourselves, we will inevitably make the wrong decisions, so we need the government to guide us toward more fulfilling lives.
Some, of course, will argue that the public is indeed stupid, and truly cannot be trusted. The average person frequently eats unhealthy foods, makes foolish decisions about marriage and sex, and agrees to work too long for too little. Why shouldn't the government protect us from these poor choices?
The fallacy here is the assumption that the government knows how to make these decisions better than the common people do. Yes, human beings make stupid choices, but the government is staffed with human beings; any flaws present in human nature are present in the government.
Furthermore, in the United States, the common people elect government officials. If the common people are idiots, the officials they elect must either be idiots like them or opportunists who are good at manipulating idiots. Why should we entrust our decision-making to either type of person?
Finally, if the public is indeed bad at making decisions, is it possible to change this? I would argue that the best way to teach people how to make decisions is to give them the opportunity to make some. As long as the people can expect bureaucrats to think for them, they will never learn to make decisions. Only when the bureaucrats are taken away will the people have an incentive to learn critical thinking.
We don't need the government to protect us; we need the opportunity to think for ourselves.
Andrew Soboeiro, a graduate of Pinecrest High School, is a sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
emb6683 4 months, 2 weeks ago
"the officials they elect must either be idiots like them or opportunists who are good at manipulating idiots"
True dat!
packwilleat 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew ~ it still sounds as though you are skating around the shades of min-archism. While I whole heartedly agree that freedom rest in the individuals right to make stupid decisions. Your argument contradicts itself in many ways. To call people stupid and the state is a collection of people, why should we expect they are capable of a monopoly on the protection of our country or our environment? Everything you advocate as a governmental role can be provided through the private sector. Please, please tell me you are not stuck on "who whould build the roads?".
ProudYankee 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, you make sweeping statements that do not make "real world sense" in many ways. Lets take your ideas on labor. While you think they are overbearing, some regulations are needed to protect people from bad decisions made by others. Do you really want to be on an airliner operated by a pilot working on only 2 or 3 hours of rest, being guided in to the airport by a controller working the last couple hours of a double shift he volunteered for, to make "a little extra money"?
Regulations do need some limits, but should not be eliminated entirely.
DaveyNC 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Nicely done, Andrew. I don't know why people think we need government to intercede in even the smallest annoyances in our lives. For instance, it was recently made illegal for TV broadcasters to increase the volume when running commercials. Really? We elected people to do that?
Your points on labor laws will be lost on many here, but they are good points.
OldPilot 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Overall pretty sophmoric but then again the writer is in fact a sophmore so we shouldn't expect different. If Andrew had ever spent time in the parts of the world that lack food and drug regulation and seen the illness and disease that runs rampant he might understand the need for food and drug regulation. As proudyankee points out some industries by their nature should be regulated as a matter of public safety. I suspect if Andrew were old enough to have had the experience of flying as an airline passenger before deregulation he might better understand what lack of regulation means. Governments, federal, state, county & municipal, are not an abstract nor an enemy, they are the collectively method by which "we the people" have chosen to operate our country, and since 310 million+ Americans can not all do so individually we elect from among ourselves people to do so. Again if Andrew had ever spent time in parts of the world that lack the institutions and protections we as Americans enjoy he might understand that while the American system of government is sometimes messy and appears to be chaos it works, and we generally get to the correct answers, even if we have to make a bunch of mistakes first.
DaveyNC 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Let's see, I will step gingerly into the area of your expertise, OldPilot. The Airline Deregulation Act was enacted in 1978. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_...
What happened with respect to airline accidents in the years immediately following the Act? (And now, I will attempt to insert a graph, but I can never seem to get it to work here, so go to this link and have a look at the ACRO air accidents chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_... )
I also recall that back then, air travel was terribly expensive. Not that it's cheap now, but it was almost prohibitively expensive back then. True, planes were more comfortable, but not many could afford to fly, either.
Deregulation of the airlines has been, overall, a pretty good deal for the American people. Same thing can be said for the telecommunications industry as well, and that is an area where I have more experience.
packwilleat 4 months, 2 weeks ago
If you ever want to put a hult to ingenuity and increase prices, let government over see the operation. Here is how self regulation works..... if you f'up, your business and product is toast..... period! If you want to see regulation in the airline business, take a portion of airfare and hire a 3rd party to oversee the areas of safety and control. If they f'up, stop paying them for failure to perform. When the government f's up for performance failures, they ask for more money to fix what they broke. If you wish to stop paying them for their collective failure, you are approached by a man with a gun and sentenced to prison. Just remember, the government points a gun at your head for your own "safety". Isn't it grand!!
skylinefirepest 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Good comment OP, as long as we don't turn common sense over to the government, which has none! As someone said earlier, the seat belt issue...my wife was written by the Aberdeen PD by a young policemen who wrote the ticket even though she had fastened her belt by the time she was stopped. Is that good enforcement of a "protecting from ourselves" law or is that just tax collecting??
AndrewSoboeiro 4 months, 2 weeks ago
@packwilleat:
I'm not a minarchist, but I would rather dilute my ideas and be published than write openly anarchist pieces and not have them read. I feel I can do more good, at least at the moment, by attacking individual aspects of the state than by immediately demanding its abolition. Perhaps you'll argue this makes me a hypocrite; I respectfully disagree :)
packwilleat 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew ~ I fully understand your dilemma from my own personal experience when trying to explain the merits of Libertarianism to others. Sadly the message, regardless of how it is received, will still leave you and I as a clan of "kooks" by the majority of indoctrinated voters. I spent years sugar coating the message for limited government only to find out that the masses will inevitably rebuild it to the point of uncontrollable growth in due time. Too many these days associate government with civilization. Nothing about the state is a natural function of humanity or peaceful coexistence. I'm still trying to prove my point that no body of people voluntarily engage in warfare, that only the state/leaders drive them into such engagements. Maybe you could help me with this idea of mine? Sorry for y'alls loss last night, still a long season ahead of us all.
Middleman522 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Government actions do have consequences. And guns are our biggest problem? Charlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer The Washington Examiner Planned Parenthood reports record year for abortions
In its latest annual report for fiscal year 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood reveals that it performed 333,964 abortions in 2011 – a record year for the organization.
According to annual reports, the organization performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, 329,445 in 2010, making the total number of abortions in three years to 995,687.
Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 million in taxpayer funding, according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. The amount is 45 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.
JimRussell44 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Middleman522, Planned Parenthood receives taxpayer funding to operate the many services they offer. By Federal Law, that funding is not used to perform abortions, which, by the way, account for only 3% of all the services provided. Since a woman's choice to have or not have an abortion seems very high on your list of concerns, let me ask this question: Have you ever used birth control? Have you ever aborted the process of having the sperm fertilize the egg during sexual intercourse? You do realize that you may have prevented the birth of the person who will find a cure for cancer, or become the leader that causes peace to break out worldwide. Or maybe you prevented the sweetest little kid from calling you daddy. You will, I'm sure come up with many reasons why you didn't want a baby at the time, but guess what, you prevented a life from happening. So please spare us your holier than thou attitude. You are no better or any different than a woman who chooses to end a pregnancy prior to fetal viability ( about 21 to 22 weeks into the pregnancy).