Look Ma, No Hands

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.