In
1967 I was inducted into the Air Force. The base to which I was to
report was in Texas, so in August of that year we drove west. We had
a Checker station wagon which had a vast capacity, and we set up a
playpen in the rear. Our oldest (then our only) son rode, and
played, in the playpen during our ride. We now know that we were
abusing him and he should have been in a certified car seat for
eight-month-olds. Nor did he have any form of seat belt. Perhaps he
would have enjoyed the ride less – we would have – but he would
have been safer.
I
taught the kids to ride bicycles also. There were three altogether.
And all succeeded, with the usual falls and scrapes that go with the
territory. No helmets or other forms of protection apart from the
clothes they were wearing. And driving. That also went reasonably
well, although they took no separate defensive driving course and
there was no seat mandatory wearing of belts at the time – at least
not when I started with the oldest (and even later, when they were
new, they were viewed more as an inconvenience than a help). Just
practice. And no accidents. They all passed their driving tests and
lived to tell the story. (All three are alive and well with families
of their own.)
So
why am I wasting your time with these unexciting reminiscences?
Because they were unexciting. None of my practices would be
acceptable at present, but they all went smoothly then. We didn't
know better. Perhaps I'd do things differently now but that's only
in part because of the risks of the procedures, and in part because
of the public reaction to them, and because of the more recent laws.
I'm inclined to believe that we're overdoing what we view as our
mandate to take care of everyone.
The
Constitution calls for us to “promote the general Welfare,” but
that directive comes right after we're instructed to “provide for
the common defence [sic].” The same words appear in Article 1,
Section 8, with common Defense [sic – here the noun is
capitalized] again linked to general Welfare. Nonetheless, it's hard
to ignore the fact that the government's largess is a good way to
garner votes. So give-aways of benefits are likely to continue.
Leaving that issue aside, however, it's hard to understand the
linkage between the “general Welfare” and government mandates.
Our officials seem to be committed to protecting us – whether we
want it or not. And while they may be justified in taking steps that
limit our ability to harm our fellows – they may protect others –
it's difficult to interpret the constitutional mandate as authorizing
Congress – or anyone else – to protect us from ourselves.
I
don't mean to suggest that we should not take reasonable steps to do
so, and to protect our children as well from harm, but we
should do it. (We're all responsible for every one – but our
first responsibility is to ourselves and our families. Others may
have a responsibility to us, but before we look to them we should
consider our own responsibility.) And we should do it because of the
wisdom of doing so, just as we get insurance for those situations
that warrant it. It's reasonable for there to be a requirement that
we have liability insurance, so that we can pay for any damage to
someone else's health or property that we cause – the protection of
others – but if we are prepared to pay the costs for injury to
ourselves, an argument can be made that we should not be forced to
pay for that insurance – nor health insurance in general.
Societies
were formed to provide protection for individuals otherwise at the
mercy of others. For that we are willing to sacrifice some of our
liberty. But neither our sacrifice of liberty nor the guarantee of
safety is absolute. We undertake major construction projects knowing
that the loss of life is inevitable in their execution; we build
motor vehicles although we are aware that motor vehicle deaths will
ensue; we regulate, but we do not forbid, the use of toxic drinks,
foods, and drugs because of public demand for them – including some
that were once illegal – and because of the revenue they generate.
We're willing to take some risks in life – especially with the
lives of others – when we consider the benefits to outweigh them.
But
not all. The government has taken over the responsibility to care
for us from the cradle to the grave. At our own expense. In
addition to the money (of ours) that it distributes to those who are
“needy,” it regulates those who provide services for us (eg OSHA
makes sure they are safe) as well as those who provide products for
us. To be sure, we benefit from such services – or at least some
of them. It has also, notwithstanding the First Amendment, assumed
responsibility for making sure we speak to everyone politely. We
must not say what might be offensive to a member of a “minority”
group (what the government doesn't proscribe, like
“microaggressions,” will be forbidden by some other group), and
any crime we might commit against them is a “hate crime.” No
aspect of our lives is considered off-limits by regulators.
There
are risk-takers among us (whom we often view as the “accident-prone”)
and we will not change that, no matter how hard we try. It often
results from the stage of frontal lobe development or associated
problems. Or it may be linked to hormonal levels, or to
psychological issues. It's hard to argue that it's society's
responsibility to protect us from our own physiology or
pathophysiology. Perhaps it is reasonable to modify the penalties we
impose on those who commit crimes which we attribute to psychiatric
causes (or to family or social situations) but most people believe
that some punishment is justified. Whatever the cause, most people
are responsible for their actions.
Similarly,
people should be expected to take responsibility for their own
actions, unless they impinge on the safety of others. The
Constitution calls for us to protect ourselves from threats by other
citizens or by other nations. We have police and a military, as well
as firefighters and the like. And regulation of industry isn't
unreasonable, since individuals can't really defend themselves
against the large companies that set prices and control our actions –
and sometimes cause danger to us. Unfortunately, however, first we
have to stop letting those industries make the rules and author those
regulations. Congress, getting its funds from lobbyists, is happy to
let them do so. And they're the ones who make and sell the car
seats, bike helmets, and the like that their servants, members of
Congress, impose on us. That's not to suggest that much of what they
sell isn't useful, but its obligatory nature is something that needs
rethinking.
Adults
should be treated as such – not just as children in need of
governmental protection. And society should demonstrate an
expectation that individuals take care of themselves and their
families, and of others. Charity is laudatory, in fact it is
everyone's responsibility. But it should be voluntary, not
mandatory. Otherwise it's not charity. And it's not up to our
government to protect and support everyone, especially industry, at
our expense. If our representatives represented us, they would
demonstrate an expectation – and require – that industry respond
to our needs, rather than bribe private enterprise to care for us.
And,
of course, Congress should not be paying us to vote for them. If
they act in our interests, and allow us to do so as well, they'll
have our support. If they restore our rights and our liberty to us,
we'll reward them. If they don't, we'll know whom to blame.
