‘We don’t need a nanny state’

Een columniste in de Amerikaanse SUN ziet een beweging van de maatschappij richting steeds meer overheidsbemoeienis. De overheid bepaalt steeds meer wat goed voor je is….

Welcome to the Nanny State, where you’re well taken care of by hordes of bureaucrats and their ideas of what’s best for you. No longer will you have to take personal responsibility for your actions, because your choices will be limited. So, if something goes awry, don’t blame yourself. It wasn’t your fault.

We’re not that far away from this state of limited choices. Pierce County’s smoking ban was an example. So was the Kitsap County Health District’s recommendation for mandatory usage of bike helmets last year.

To what was Mr. Hayfield referring? Smoking. His restaurant had instituted a smoking ban, which resulted in a drop in bar sales, an increase in “food customers” — and an overall reduction in business.

The “they” to which he refers are the elected government officials and now, un-elected advisory boards. As of this January, smoking was banned in all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and nightclubs in Pierce County. But it wasn’t elected officials regulating smoking. It was the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, an un-elected advisory body.

As an ex-smoker, I no longer enjoy smoke-filled rooms while I’m eating. But neither do I welcome the heavy hand of government control exercised when its not needed, especially when it comes from an agency not elected by the voters. Over 65 percent of restaurants in both Pierce and Kitsap counties ban smoking. Only about 20 percent of Washington residents currently smoke. The imposed smoking ban was overkill.

A group calling itself the Entertainment Industry Coalition successfully challenged Pierce County’s smoking ban. Pierce County Superior Court Judge Ronald Culpepper ruled the health department didn’t have the authority to order the ban. The ban also was in conflict with Washington’s Clean Indoor Air Act, which exempts bars, bowling alleys, casinos and restaurants. But overturning the smoking ban won’t stop these types of assaults on individual freedom of choice by those who think they know what’s best for us all.

“If you believe that individuals are the best judges of their own welfare, giving them choices does more to enhance collective welfare than any universally imposed government program could.” So said Barry Schwartz, psychology professor at Swarthmore College, in a recent New York Times editorial.

At first glance, this thought seems quite reasonable until you realize he’s really questioning whether “individuals are the best judges of their own welfare.”

He goes on to say, “… increased choice forces people to take personal responsibility for all choices that turn out to be less than perfect. … While a life without any freedom of choice would not be worth living, it appears not to be true that more choice inevitably leads to more freedom and greater happiness … there may be a point when choice tyrannizes people more than it liberates them. The implication … is that sound social policy simply cannot consist of throwing an ever-greater menu of options at the American people.”

So, where does the supposed dilemma of “too many choices” lead us? The logical conclusion would be to a limitation on individual freedom of choice and a “sound social policy” promulgated by those enlightened, well-meaning governmental entities like the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.

Welcome to the Nanny State, where you’re well taken care of by hordes of bureaucrats and their ideas of what’s best for you. No longer will you have to take personal responsibility for your actions, because your choices will be limited. So, if something goes awry, don’t blame yourself. It wasn’t your fault.

We’re not that far away from this state of limited choices. Pierce County’s smoking ban was an example. So was the Kitsap County Health District’s recommendation for mandatory usage of bike helmets last year.

Commissioner Jan Angel got it right when she said, “Everyone agrees on the safety issue, but no one agrees that this is government’s place to do this.”

Not everything that makes good sense needs to be enforced by ordinances and regulations, unless of course you believe people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.

Proponents of Smart Growth talk about governmental bodies deciding where people will live as opposed to individuals making those choices for themselves. The health police constantly inform us of the dangers of various foods, from Twinkies to red meat. Many laud Canada for its cheaper drugs, but those prices are only possible because the state decides which drugs you can buy.

Professor Schwartz’s notion that too many choices create pressure on the populace ultimately leaving individuals frustrated and unhappy is typical liberal, academic poppycock. The fact that too many people don’t take personal responsibility for their behavior is the real problem. Blaming others and seeing yourself as a victim diminishes the options you have.

The Nanny State can only exist when we shirk our responsibility and expect others to make decisions for us.

I’m afraid Mr. Hayfield may be right when he fears government could end up dictating what we can do. But it doesn’t have to be that way if we remain vigilant against whatever politically correct governmental scheme is currently in vogue.