We all know and expect liberals to promote an energetic government sticking its nose into every facet of American life. But liberals alone can’t bring down this republic. The true danger to this greatest experiment of individual liberty in human history comes from the Right. And the entire risk comes down to one central question: What is the proper role of government?
For the Left, that’s easy: Everything.
For the Right, things are much more complicated, as evidence by a conversation I had with a conservative friend in Las Vegas recently with regard to the government-imposed bans on smoking in privately-owned bars and taverns. According to my friend this is a perfectly appropriate use of the power of government because people who smoke are driving his health insurance rates up. But there are at least two glaring flaws in this argument:
(a) Banning people from smoking in taverns doesn’t stop them from smoking. They just step outside and light up. So they’re still smoking and they’re still, if you accept the premise, driving up the cost of health insurance. If you’re going to use government to ban smoking for health insurance reasons, then you need to ban it completely, not just in bars.
(b) There is no constitutional right to patronize another person’s private business. Smoking bans are, or should be, a property rights issue, not a health care issue. If the government wishes to ban smoking in government buildings, fine. But the government shouldn’t be setting the smoking policy for privately owned establishments. People who don’t like being in barrooms full of smoke can avoid them simply by avoiding them. This isn’t exactly rocket science.
That many of you who consider yourselves conservative are reading this and disagreeing with me makes my point. It’s conservatives, not liberals, who will eventually undermine the USA as we know it.
Government-enforced smoking bans – as well as new government over-regulation of tobacco - are easy to support because smoking, to the majority of the population, is such an unpopular and distasteful habit. And in a democracy the majority can vote to do anything. Which is why our Founders didn’t establish a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. For if the majority has the power to ban smoking under the argument that it’s a risky behavior which costs society money via higher insurance rates, then we’re just a slippery slope away from banning sky-diving, skiing, mountain-climbing or even taking a hike through the woods to Grandma’s house lest a big, bad wolf attack you and the rest of us have to pay your hospital bill.
In a speech at the recent 2007 Conservative Leadership Conference, Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes made a similar argument in discussing health insurance costs. As Dr. Keyes so rightly pointed out, if the objective is to bring health care costs down the best way to achieve that goal isn’t to nationalize the health care industry or even move from an employer-based insurance system to an individual-based system. No, the best way to keep health care costs down – and here’s a REAL inconvenient truth – is for Americans to start living healthier lives.
That means getting up off your lard-butt and exercising vigorously every day. That means putting down the potato chips and picking up the celery sticks. That means peas, not pizza. Broccoli, not brownies. That means three balanced healthy, nutritious meals a day and no more Big Macs. If everybody did that, there’s no question whatsoever that Americans’ health would improve dramatically and health care costs would drop precipitously.
But is it the proper role of government to MANDATE that each and every one of us live a healthier life? Is it appropriate for the government to REQUIRE that you to do 15 minutes of calisthenics every morning? If you answer “yes,” you’re part of the problem and are helping sow the seeds of our national demise. If you answer “no,” you’re part of a dwindling minority of Americans who are still worthy heirs to likes of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and Adams.
Taking a principled stand in defense of private business owners setting their own smoking policy in the face of such widespread public opposition to smoking itself is what separates the men from the boys and true conservatives from the fair-weathered kind. Choose wisely, folks. The fate of a nation could depend on your decision.
Now about those mandatory seatbelt laws…
Posted on October 31st, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
A recent property rights issue concerns employers who have banned guns from their premises. Some companies have gone so far as to ban guns from being on their property even if the guns are being stored in the trunks of employees’ cars that are parked in the company parking lot. The NRA supports legislation to prohibit companies from having these policies.
Based on your principle (b) above, would you agree with the following statement?
“There is no constitutional right to be employed in another person’s private business. Gun bans are, or should be, a property rights issue, not a public policy issue. The government shouldn’t be setting the gun policy for privately owned establishments. If certain employees don’t like working for employers who have banned guns from the workplace premises, even if the guns are in the trunks of the employees’ cars, then these employees can avoid these employers simply by not working for them. This isn’t exactly rocket science.”
“But liberals alone can’t bring down this republic. The true danger to this greatest experiment of individual liberty in human history comes from the Right. And the entire risk comes down to one central question: What is the proper role of government?”
The Nov/Dec issue of “Mother Jones” has an article about the hope for another 50 year run of progressivism starting in 2009 (President Clinton, filibuster proof majority in Senate, huge majority in House). The article states, “There’s a progressive strain of Republicanism that reaches back to Teddy Roosevelt and to Abraham Lincoln before him. It has been recessive for the last quarter century, but with the right sequence of events could express itself once more…..Goodbye gridlock — hello bipartisan cooperation?”
Mother Jones’ big hope for a return to the Republicanism of the 1933 to 1981 era should be every conservative’s biggest fear.
Chuck,
John, I agree with you.
If a business person does not agree to live by the laws established by the community then he can open his or her doors (after putting down hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital) and await the closing of their establishment (of course without a license they would be closed immediatley). But, and as they are only allowed to open a business when they get permission from the community, the community is allowed to also require other ‘conditions. No booze sales to those under 18. If you want video gambling machines there is a host of rules the business person has follow…
Chuck, again, what if i decide I want to walk into a business and swing my fist wherever I want? I’m 6 foot 4 inches and weigh 320 lbs and played line-backer at Notre Dame 77-79. I have a right to swing my fist don’t I? If you don’t appreciate my right to swing my fist, you should move out of the way!
Chuck, you’re argument, well, it sucks. A buisness in any community is regulated. If the buinessness person does not agree with the regulations, they can close their business or not open a business. For your agrument to be worth a sh&%, you would have to argue that a business person could sell known defective items; rotten food; or booze to any teenager.
As for your seatbelt issue, hey I am all for freedom of choice! Your insurer should have the right to insure only those who agree NOT to wear seatbelts (nice premium payment there, hey?!) or to deny payment those who submit a claim who were not wearing a seatbelt (contributory negligence I believe it is called).
Likewise, change the law and let insurers deny health coverage to those whose waistline is greater than XX inches! Or, who smoke. Or…..
…you know Chuck, you are a poster child for your own argument. You agreed to establish a charity and run it within the rules. But you told the licensing authority (IRS) that you (Citizen Outreach), would be a senior center. But you know you are not. You agreed, in exchange for a tax free status, not to engage in political behavior. But do you? A strong argument could be made that you do… You agreed, in exchange not to pay taxes, not to be a ‘disqualified person’. Yet, a strong agrument could be made that you recieve a lot of compensation and that as President of the Charity, you are indeed, a disqualified person.
If you are unwilling to agree to the rules established by the community, do not ask the community to authorize you to do business and not pay taxes. If you don’t like the rules of the community, go elesewhere. I don’t want to hear “oh, the tyranny of the majority over the minority” as a defense.
“It’s conservatives, not liberals, who will eventually undermine the USA as we know it.”
“It’s Republicans, not Democrats, who are already in the process of undermining the USA as we know it” would be a more accurate statement.
President Bush just vetoed a $23 billion water projects bill. According to today’s Wall Street Journal, “The measure authorizes projects for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but Congress treats it as another excuse for pork. The problem is excess and a lack of priorities. The Corps, which has a $38 billion projects backlog, identified $4.9 billion in necessary civil works for 2008. So the House passed a bill at $14 billion, and the Senate at $15 billion — and then they compromised with the $23 billion.” The Journal also reports that “A watchdog group called Taxpayers for Common Sense tabulated more than 900 special-interest earmarks” in the bill.
The bill passed the Senate by an 81-12 vote, which is well above the requirement for a veto override. I don’t have a breakdown of the vote, but if all 19 senators who voted no or didn’t vote were Republicans, then 30 Republican senators supported this bill. The House also approved this bill with a veto proof majority.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article The Tobacco Road to Freedom, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.