Category: Stupidity

D.C.’s transition to its recently enacted smoking ban is having a little difficulty. That would be worth pointing out on its own, but I’m not surprised by that. Anything enforced by the Department of Health’s Bureau of Community Hygiene is bound to be a mess. Instead, I found this to be the most telling example of how liberty is diminished by laws like this:

Then some restaurateurs in Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan complained to the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington that at least one police officer came into their establishments and “confiscated ashtrays and matchbooks from restaurant bar areas, incorrectly declaring them ‘smoking paraphernalia’ according to the mandatory smoking ban law, which they are not,” according to a letter the restaurant association sent to members.

Remember that the police aren’t tasked with enforcing the ban. Who could’ve guessed that they’d overstep their duties as a result of vague laws? However, they confiscated ashtrays and matchbooks as “smoking paraphernalia”? Just because something can be used for a task doesn’t mean it will. It’s possible that the ashtrays could be used as decoration or as trash receptacles for the tables. It’s not likely, but it’s possible. Surely, though, it’s a smaller stretch to think that a matchbook could be used for something other smoking. Perhaps to light candles?

Writing laws that accept only the most obvious assumptions, to the extent that they must then protect everyone at the expense of all other still-acceptable uses, will serve only to further reduce liberty beyond the nefarious intent of the law. D.C. is on that slippery slope already. Food seems to be next in line for the behavior police, so we’d better stock up on plates now, because bowls can be used for ice cream.

I can’t tell if this editorial by David Broder is supportive of what the Economist calls “soft paternalism”. Perhaps it’s from over-exertion yesterday in putting together lots of adult furniture to replace the dorm-like furniture that someone seems to believe has outlived its useful life, but I’m just not getting it. I suspect that he’s ridiculing it, but being unsure, perhaps a government-provided summary would be appropriate. No matter, though, I can still comment on a few of his points. First, this setup:

The subject of the issue’s lead editorial and a three-page special report is the threat to individual freedom the editors discern in a new movement gaining support among some politicians and academics on both sides of the Atlantic.

They call it “soft paternalism.” Its practitioners “are paternalists, because they want to help you make the choices you would make for yourself — if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike ‘hard’ paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aim only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.”

That should come as no surprise, given all the government-mandated “responsible” behavior. Whether it’s public Social Security, smoking bans, or broadcast decency enforcement, it’s clear that politicians don’t trust us to lead effective lives. I don’t see this trend slowing down until we retire these meddling politicians, and I don’t see us reversing many of the current encroachment’s, no matter what we say or do. But it’s worth trying.

The first example Mr. Broder provides is worth highlighting.

An example of soft paternalism can be found in Missouri. According to the Economist, the state has passed a statute barring some residents from setting foot in any of the 11 riverboat casinos it has licensed. Those who are caught violating the law can be arrested for trespassing and see their winnings confiscated by the cops.

That sounds pretty harsh, but the ban applies only to those who have voluntarily placed their own names on the list, in order to break their addiction to gambling. The magazine says that about 10,000 gamblers have taken that step in Missouri, seeking help for a problem in their lives.

I’m happy that 10,000 problem gamblers in Missouri have recognized that they need help. But Mr. Broder is mistaken if he think the ban only applies to those who voluntarily placed their names on the list. A quick look into how that list is enforced is enough to disprove that nonsense. Everyone who wishes to gamble at a riverboat casino in Missouri must now be screened ahead of time before being allowed in. We wouldn’t want anyone getting in who doesn’t want to get in. Yet, to achieve that allegedly worthwhile goal, every responsible gambler is, at a minimum, inconvenienced so that the state may use everyone’s tax dollars to baby-sit an adult. The ban may only apply to those who volunteer, but the enforcement applies to everyone.

On all these proposals, the Economist’s editors have one nagging concern: Will these soft paternalism schemes gradually, over time, erode individual freedom? Will soft paternalism simply be a way station on the road to a more authoritarian state, one where smoking is banned entirely or saving is required from every paycheck?

That’s a joke, right? Such is the outcome of all government paternalism. As mentioned above, look at the sweeping trend of public smoking bans, with the word “public” being defined in a broader manner with each new ban. (Not to mention that “public” bans are really bans on individual conduct on private property in which the property owner has consented.) As for Mr. Broder’s second point, I hope that he’s not serious paternalism might lead to forced savings. I’m sure he’s heard of Social Security, but I’m not sure he understands how it works (only in the mechanical sense, for I hope no one thinks it works functionally).

My worry list is not short, but this trend to paternalism increases it by one.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is not changing my opinion of the recent mandatory health insurance law with his editorial in today’s Opinion Journal. There are many reasons, as every argument contradicts at least one other argument within the piece, but I want to highlight a few of the stupider justifications. First, this:

Another 40% of the uninsured were earning enough to buy insurance but had chosen not to do so. Why? Because it is expensive, and because they know that if they become seriously ill, they will get free or subsidized treatment at the hospital. By law, emergency care cannot be withheld. Why pay for something you can get free?

Okay, so logic tells us that Gov. Romney’s equation makes sense. But why draw the conclusion that we should then force health insurance? Why not reform free care? It’s not the politically nice think to do, but if someone earns enough and is irresponsible, why should we be nice. If the uninsured becomes seriously ill, treat them. Then bill them for the portion of the expense that they can afford. Admittedly, that’s a very rough sketch of what would be a large reform, but I only spent thirty seconds coming up with the basic idea. Imagine what we could all do if we thought it out further.

Gov. Romney continues, proving that he’s more willing to wield government’s coercive power than to adhere to limited government principles. He may be the successor to President Bush. Consider:

Of course, while it may be free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either in higher insurance premiums or taxes. The solution we came up with was to make private health insurance much more affordable. Insurance reforms now permit policies with higher deductibles, higher copayments, coinsurance, provider networks and fewer mandated benefits like in vitro fertilization–and our insurers have committed to offer products nearly 50% less expensive. With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It’s a personal responsibility principle.

Working to get government out of health insurance is good. Mandating that everyone purchase insurance is not following a personal responsibility principle. Such a principle would imply that the person acts on his own to make a wise choice for himself. Imposing such a requirement is simply infantilizing him. He should do this, but we know he won’t if we let him choose, so we’re going to make him. Ladies and gentleman, government philosophy circa 2006. It only gets worse from here.

Gov. Romney does address the libertarian argument.

Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.

Government coercion isn’t libertarian, either, but I don’t expect Gov. Romney to understand that. Regardless, I’m a libertarian, and I’ve offered a solution to the free ride conundrum, however underdeveloped it is right now. I’m sure there are smarter libertarians who can give an answer that’s more fully formed. Gov. Romney should seek them out, unless he’s afraid of their limited government answer.

Another group of uninsured citizens in Massachusetts consisted of working people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford health-care insurance. Here the answer is to provide a subsidy so they can purchase a private policy. The premium is based on ability to pay: One pays a higher amount, along a sliding scale, as one’s income is higher. The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn’t want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments.

What part of that doesn’t involve receiving a free ride from the government? Please, enlighten me.

I could go on, but I’m going to smash my head into my keyboard to dull the pain. It’s okay, I have health insurance.

I’m sure Congress is quaking in its collective boots at President Bush’s latest threat:

President Bush said Friday he would use his power to veto spending bills if Congress does not cut the federal budget as he has asked.

In over five years in office, Bush has never vetoed any bill. But he said that restraining spending was crucial to cutting the deficit in half by 2009 as he has promised. “If necessary, I will enforce spending restraint through the exercise of the veto,” the president said.

Whew, that lightened my mood, washing the filth of warrantless wiretapping out of my immediate concern. Thankfully, the gut-busting continues:

“Our economy grows when the American people make the decisions about how to save, spend and invest their money,” he said. “To keep our economy creating jobs and opportunity, Congress needs to show its trust in the American people and make the tax relief permanent.”

Maybe President Bush should encourage the Congress to trust the American people in various endeavors where it not disobeys the Constitution treats citizens as immoral, incompetent children. It’s quaint, I know, but I think I’ll bring this quote back as the election year heats up and the Federal Marriage Amendment inevitably returns.

I feel better about Justice Scalia’s respect for the Constitution. I just can’t imagine how much better off we’d be had President Bush urged Congress to elevate Scalia to Chief Justice instead of John Roberts. President Bush could’ve pushed it through Congress by threatening another veto. I know it, so I blame him for this horrible injustice.

Update:

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

Bravo to them, so this is directed elsewhere (*cough*Justice Scalia*cough*): Duh.