Why I Am (Will Be) a Libertarian (2): "Should NOT Do" vs. "Should NOT BE ALLOWED to Do"

Having already addressed one issue which I feel defines my frustration with those on the political right, I thought I would continue the trend and discuss another.  This subject can best be described as the difference between "what we should not do" and "what we should not be allowed to do."

Many Republicans and those that lean to the right argue that the Democrats try to take away our freedom with regards to guns, talk radio/free speech, and economics.  In fact, much of the current debate about the justness and constitutionality of the health care law is centered on the mandate.  Those on the right argue that it violates our freedom and that it is none of the government's business whether or not we have health insurance.  If we want to foolishly take the risk of living without insurance it is no one's business but our own.

I absolutely agree with these points, which underlines the very purpose of freedom: to allow us to do those things that are stupid and foolhardy, so long as it does not harm another.  We ought not to risk financial ruin by living without health insurance, but we ought to be allowed to do so.  We ought not to drink too much soda, but we ought to be allowed to do so.  This same line of reasoning can be argued for inappropriate language, rudeness, sloppiness, wasteful spending (of our money), watching too much TV, eating too much junk food, and even things like adultery and fornication.  We ought not to do these things, but that is not to say that we need the power of law (criminal law, in this case) to make sure that we are living upstanding lives.  In other words, we ought to be allowed to do these horrible and unwise actions.

Now that I have set up my arguments, many might be wondering what exactly has got me going on this.  The answer is a poll done by Parenting Magazine that asked whether or not it should be illegal to smoke in the house or car when children are present.  An amazing 78% of respondents said that it SHOULD be illegal to do so.  (As my wife pointed out, this magazine attracts mothers and likely those overly cautious, so it is not necessarily representative.  Nevertheless, this case is often being made by others.)  THIS ABSOLUTELY FLOORS ME! 

Now, many are reading my last statement and saying:  "Aaron, I like liberty, but this harms the child."  "This is not a matter of freedom, it is a matter of public health."  "Should we sit by and do nothing while children are put in harm's way?"  The responses to these remarks are as follows: "Yes, it does,and...?"  "No, it is not."  and "We should only do nothing with the law."

First of all, while I tend to agree that there is likely harm that comes from second-hand smoking, this theory is not without opposition.  Nevertheless, as a rhetorical technique, I will assume that the arguments about the dangers are correct.  (Thus, if I still manage to prove my point, I truly win because I win on my points about my opponent's facts.)  So, assuming that second-hand smoke kills, people argue that allowing a parent to smoke in the car or house with a child will harm the kid.  I agree.  But, what if a parent were to take their kids to McDonald's every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and allow them and allow them to watch R-rated movies every night?  This is undoubtedly physically and psychologically damaging to a child, but is it necessarily illegal?  Should it be?  If you say no, I agree and point out that this proves my argument that simply saying the parent's actions harm the child is NOT a justification for criminalization of that activity.

If you say that the actions of the parent I described above should be illegal, I ask a follow-up question.  What if the parent only takes the kids to McDonald's twice a day and only allows for R-rated movies every other day?  What about once a day and once a week, respectively?  See the problem?  There is no rational basis for delineating between types of harm unless you are willing to give power to the government to determine how much harm we are allowed to do to our children before we are criminals.  (Child abuse is different in that the harm is direct, immediate, and indisputable, though what constitutes it is disputable.  If anyone cannot differentiate between feeding fast food and beating a child with a bat, I don't know what to tell you.)


The next argument is that it is a public health matter.  It is not anymore than salty, sugary, caffeinated, or greasy foods are.  We can do many things to harm both our own health and that of our children, so what makes cigarettes so different than french fries?  If it is quantity, then why would one cigarette a week be illegal under this proposal, but french fries daily would not?


Finally, the argument that we cannot sit by and allow children to be harmed is a strong emotional one, but I think that arguments like this completely miss the point.  Should we sit by and do nothing?  Of course not!  But why does the "something" that we do have to be criminalization?  I am against criminalization of some arguably harmful activities because there is literally no end to the number of things that government can criminalize.  Rather, churches, individuals, neighbors, family members, non-profit organizations, ad campaigns and media are all excellent ways that such harmful behaviors can be preached against.  Kindly warning those around us can effective and does not involve government growth.