Inside November 16, 2004's Issue

The balloon, the bald dog and my peace of mind

Recycle Cartoon

Let the government be your daddy

There are many laws that are in place solely to protect us from ourselves.

Some examples are drug laws, helmet laws and seatbelt laws. All try to keep individuals from harming themselves.

Many people argue that our laws should not protect people from themselves, but protect people's property. We do not need laws to protect us from ourselves; we need information, education and awareness.

Some of these laws are designed to protect the insurance industries. Some protective standards go way overboard, removing the ability to use common sense in an attempt to protect an industry from being sued.

Shouldn't we be able to do whatever we want as long as we are not hurting someone else?

The state can interfere with individual liberties to prevent unwanted harm to others. This is the traditional standard for state intervention. Helmet laws and seat belt laws are justified by politicians because of the unwanted economic harm to society.

This brings up "paternalism," which begins when the state treats its citizens like they are children. The state attempts to mold their citizens' overall character. This is not intervention based on public safety or economic interests, but rather the enforcement of our politicians' values.

One example is laws that prohibit same sex marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in a recent action overturning the state's ban on gay marriage, said that the law against same sex marriages "is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

Parents should be paternal, not the state. Parents should use their moral judgment to decide what is best for their children. This is not the state's place to do so. Legitimate intervention that would promote the passing of a new law should end at the boundary of public safety and public economy.

However, this is not the case.

With the 2003 passing of a .37 cent "sin tax" on a pack of cigarettes, we can only hope the government doesn't continue this trend and decide to tax goofing off or eating cookies. Both of these could possibly lead to injury, lessened productivity or even death.

Front Page | News | Features | Editorials | Opinions | Entertainment | Sports | Poll | Travel | Archives | Our Staff | Application | History | F.A.Q.'s

"Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, nothing contained herein constitutes nor is inteded to constitute an offer, inducement, promise, or contract of any kind. The data contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not represented to be wholly accurate.