"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do these words sound familiar? Of course they do. They are from one of the founding documents here in America, the Declaration of Independence. This premise is the basis for our freedoms and later the Bill of Rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Showing posts with label tobacco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tobacco. Show all posts
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Friday, March 07, 2008
Column for March 6, 2008
So, the free market system actually works? Ya' think??
Just as expected, the free market system is thriving and beating out old, ineffective governmental regulation and subsidy. I read with interest the article in last week's paper about the increase in tobacco business for local farmers because the quota system has been abolished. Tobacco acreage in the county has increased 46%, according to the article. The headline said, "Quota gone means local farmers grow more tobacco". Upon reading that obvious line, I said, "Nooooo...ya' think???" It is not the writer I was questioning, but the obviousness of the outcome so stated.
There are a few things for which government regulation is appropriate and necessary. Primarily, these areas deal with business ethics. Make no mistake, the mantra "You can't legislate morality" is totally false. The same people who use this phrase or battle cry the most are the very ones who wish the government to regulate morality most. Quite often it is to protect their own aberrations, but the same government that protects the individual freedom is sometimes the one that protects from incursion. A great example are the Enron and WorldCom scandals. About the only protection that citizens have is government regulation in such cases.
The absence of regulation, however, has great effect when it comes to innovation. A great example is that the local cable company offers an alternative to the monopoly telephone company for home phone service. The service via cable is reliable, good quality, competitively priced, and a great value, considering the calling features and unlimited long distance plan that comes with the service. Had this been an even more heavily regulated concept, there may not be an alternative to the technology of the turn of the 20th Century.
The same free enterprise spirit allowed by governmental regulation is conversely hurting that same industry. All television signals must convert to a digital format rather than broadcast analog by the end of February 2009. That is less than a year away. A lot of telecom, cable, and broadcast companies will end up charging more money to accommodate the government regulations being imposed for a change to newer technology. The industry had thus far been driven by consumer demand and cost effectiveness. Now, millions of television viewers will be left without broadcast television because of a government regulation that in effect has made the televisions in millions of homes obsolete. Sure, television is a luxury, not a necessity. However, government power has been exercised to the chagrin and cost of many.
Had tobacco growers been allowed to simply grow all the tobacco they wanted and sell to whomever they wanted in years past, there would have been no reason for a quota system, much less a quota buy out. We as tax payers forked out millions of dollars to buy out the quota system only to see the tobacco business grow after the government control was scrapped, thus benefiting the farmers twice. The same should be done for all other crops in this nation. The free market system must be allowed to determine how much corn, soy, turnips, whatever, are grown, not government regulation and interference. We should never pay farmers to not grow crops or incentivize the growing of other produce.
It is precisely government regulation that has gotten us the boondoggle of ethanol use and implementation in this country and thus the created market and demand. Few people would voluntarily use ethanol as a fuel, considering the cost, the miles per gallon, and the scarcity of the product. A few pinheads thought that benefits would fit some Utopian plan and therefore we should all pay the price for the vision of a few charlatans. This is not to mention the idea that corn producers would benefit greatly and lobbied for the governmental interference. Without such interference, corn farmers would be forced to compete on the world market for their produce and/or change their crops. However, forcing the sword of government regulation is easier than actually competing and working harder at the expense of all others.
If people can not compete in a given field of endeavor, then they need to either change professions or learn to compete rather than get the government involved. Those who can compete should be unshackled in order to be able to partake of the free market system. That is, after all, what made us the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, most likely in all of history. We are actually committing national suicide slowly but surely in many ways.
Just as expected, the free market system is thriving and beating out old, ineffective governmental regulation and subsidy. I read with interest the article in last week's paper about the increase in tobacco business for local farmers because the quota system has been abolished. Tobacco acreage in the county has increased 46%, according to the article. The headline said, "Quota gone means local farmers grow more tobacco". Upon reading that obvious line, I said, "Nooooo...ya' think???" It is not the writer I was questioning, but the obviousness of the outcome so stated.
There are a few things for which government regulation is appropriate and necessary. Primarily, these areas deal with business ethics. Make no mistake, the mantra "You can't legislate morality" is totally false. The same people who use this phrase or battle cry the most are the very ones who wish the government to regulate morality most. Quite often it is to protect their own aberrations, but the same government that protects the individual freedom is sometimes the one that protects from incursion. A great example are the Enron and WorldCom scandals. About the only protection that citizens have is government regulation in such cases.
The absence of regulation, however, has great effect when it comes to innovation. A great example is that the local cable company offers an alternative to the monopoly telephone company for home phone service. The service via cable is reliable, good quality, competitively priced, and a great value, considering the calling features and unlimited long distance plan that comes with the service. Had this been an even more heavily regulated concept, there may not be an alternative to the technology of the turn of the 20th Century.
The same free enterprise spirit allowed by governmental regulation is conversely hurting that same industry. All television signals must convert to a digital format rather than broadcast analog by the end of February 2009. That is less than a year away. A lot of telecom, cable, and broadcast companies will end up charging more money to accommodate the government regulations being imposed for a change to newer technology. The industry had thus far been driven by consumer demand and cost effectiveness. Now, millions of television viewers will be left without broadcast television because of a government regulation that in effect has made the televisions in millions of homes obsolete. Sure, television is a luxury, not a necessity. However, government power has been exercised to the chagrin and cost of many.
Had tobacco growers been allowed to simply grow all the tobacco they wanted and sell to whomever they wanted in years past, there would have been no reason for a quota system, much less a quota buy out. We as tax payers forked out millions of dollars to buy out the quota system only to see the tobacco business grow after the government control was scrapped, thus benefiting the farmers twice. The same should be done for all other crops in this nation. The free market system must be allowed to determine how much corn, soy, turnips, whatever, are grown, not government regulation and interference. We should never pay farmers to not grow crops or incentivize the growing of other produce.
It is precisely government regulation that has gotten us the boondoggle of ethanol use and implementation in this country and thus the created market and demand. Few people would voluntarily use ethanol as a fuel, considering the cost, the miles per gallon, and the scarcity of the product. A few pinheads thought that benefits would fit some Utopian plan and therefore we should all pay the price for the vision of a few charlatans. This is not to mention the idea that corn producers would benefit greatly and lobbied for the governmental interference. Without such interference, corn farmers would be forced to compete on the world market for their produce and/or change their crops. However, forcing the sword of government regulation is easier than actually competing and working harder at the expense of all others.
If people can not compete in a given field of endeavor, then they need to either change professions or learn to compete rather than get the government involved. Those who can compete should be unshackled in order to be able to partake of the free market system. That is, after all, what made us the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, most likely in all of history. We are actually committing national suicide slowly but surely in many ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
