The threat of the paternalistic state

By Peter Schwartz
web posted April 26, 2004
 
A precondition of freedom is the recognition of the individual's
capacity to make decisions for himself. If man were viewed as
congenitally incapable of making rational choices, there would be
no basis for the very concept of rights. Yet that is increasingly
how our government views us. It is adopting the role of a
paternalistic nanny, zealously protecting the citizen against his
own actions. In the process, our freedom is disappearing.

Obvious examples of this attitude are laws mandating the use of
automobile seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Gambling is
another area in which the state believes it must keep the
individual from harming himself. New York State, for example,
has threatened to sue Citibank for allowing credit cards to be
used for Internet gambling and for "making profits off the
financial hardships of compulsive gamblers."

Now the food industry is being blamed for the "disease" of
obesity. There are proposals for special taxes on "junk food." A
George Washington University law professor, who pioneered the
lawsuits against the tobacco industry, says: "You could have
states saying that they have this billion-dollar public health
problem, and food companies are responsible for a certain
percentage of it. It's a reach, I admit. But they said the same
thing about tobacco lawsuits ten years ago."

The paternalistic "food police" will thus keep people from buying
cupcakes so that no one imposes upon the public the "social
cost" of extra poundage.

Instead of being morally outraged at this appalling violation of
rights, the food industry -- like the tobacco industry before it --
is appeasing its attackers. Coca-Cola, for example, is giving
schools exercise pedometers to show how social-minded it is
about obesity. And McDonald's has announced it will stop
"supersizing." The Wall St. Journal writes that food companies
"are contemplating advertisements that would discourage
consumers from overeating their products." What's next? Ads to
discourage banana buyers from eating before peeling?

But it is in regulating tobacco products, of course, that the
tentacles of paternalism grip most tightly. The government
maintains that, despite widespread knowledge about the dangers
of smoking, the sale of cigarettes must be curtailed. With this
approach, the government is making two declarations. The first is
that you are not responsible for your decisions, and that if you
are stricken by emphysema -- or are injured in a car accident or
become too fat, society will take care of you. The second is that,
as a consequence, you cannot be given the freedom to make
those decisions in the first place -- i.e., your freedom to smoke
cigarettes or to drive without a seat belt or to eat what you want
will be restricted. Once your life is deemed to be the
responsibility of the state, you are no longer permitted to incur
"social costs" by making undesirable choices.

Thus, the government tyrannizes companies for having the
audacity to make products that so many people willingly buy. In
a forced settlement that supposedly compensates state
governments for their health costs, tobacco manufacturers will
hand over about $250 billion across 25 years. To further prevent
people from electing to smoke, it is illegal to sell fewer than 20
cigarettes per pack, to dispense free samples or to award gifts to
frequent buyers of cigarettes.

Then there are the pervasive restrictions on freedom of speech.
To keep its "infantile" citizens from being persuaded to harm
themselves, the government forbids tobacco-company logos on
tee shirts. Industry advocacy groups, like the Council for
Tobacco Research, have been disbanded; only "disinterested"
parties -- which the tobacco industry is required to help finance
-- are now allowed to state their opinions about tobacco. To
compound the injustice, the industry had to characterize the
forced settlement as "voluntary" and had to waive its right to
invoke any First Amendment protections.

It is a rationalization to describe these measures as necessary to
safeguard children. While the sale of cigarettes to minors is
justifiably prohibited, it is the free choice of consenting *adults*
that is being controlled in virtually all these regulations. And if it is
proper to use preventive law to stop adults from buying
cigarettes for fear that children too may buy them and be harmed
by them, to what area of life would such reasoning *not* apply?
Candy or soda, for example?
 
If we want to preserve our freedom, we must defend the right of
companies to produce the goods that we voluntarily pay for --
and the right of each individual to decide how to conduct his life.

Mr. Schwartz is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn
Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged
and The Fountainhead. Send reactions to reaction@aynrand.org.
Copyright © 2004 Ayn Rand® Institute, 2121 Alton Parkway,
Suite 250, Irvine, CA, 92606. All rights reserved.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com