The only restriction that a government should place on its citizens is one that prevents one individual from suppressing the freedom of another. That is the spirit of democracy. Yet America, the gem of all democracies, is becoming a society increasingly riddled by restrictions, many of which reflect the moral values of a section of society. The following are four examples of what constitute unnecessary restriction of our freedom. In all of these cases, the main aim of the lawmaker appears to be the upholding of a moral value rather than the protection of citizens.
- Abusing Drugs. The government has made a value judgment in deciding that drug abuse is not good for me. It has made this value judgment into a law which prevents me from using drugs not prescribed by a doctor. Who is this law intended to protect? The drug user, or the rest of society?
If this law was created to protect the drug user, then I vehemently oppose it. My government does not get to decide what is good for me. I get to decide that. On the other hand, if this law was created with the goal of shielding society from the threat of someone under the influence of drugs, then at least the lawmaker's heart was in the right place. But if the rights of the drug-user were considered on par with that of others -- as should be done in a democratic society -- then we would have reached a different solution that would protect the interests of the drug-user, as well as those of the rest of society.
One solution would be to allow organizations to administer drugs to users, who will then be placed under supervision until the effects of the drugs wear off, in order to make sure that the drug-user does not infringe on anyone else's rights while he is under the influence of drugs. But the lawmaker gives no weight to the interest of the drug-user because he has made the moral decision that drug use is morally reprehensible. This is a suppression of freedom.
-
Wearing Seat-belts. In many states, the government has taken away our rights to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of wearing a seat-belt and to decide for ourselves whether we will or will not wear it. This is clearly an act of the government in the role of big daddy, benevolently deciding what is good and what isn't for his little children who can't think for themselves. The government does not get to decide what is good for me and make laws about it. It only decides whether or not my act is an infringement of the freedom of others. And if it turns out to be an infringement of the freedom of others, the government should try to find a solution while taking into account the interests of all parties involved.
-
Smoking. There is a proposed law in some states that would restrict smoking to bars. This is clearly a suppression of the right of the restaurant owner to decide whether or not he will let people smoke in his restaurant. Then, what about the rights of non-smokers? The restaurant owner should have to put up a sign saying 'This is a smoking restaurant'. The non-smokers can then go to some other restaurant which caters to their needs. We have in our midst anti-smoking lobbyists who, instead of approaching the smoking issue with a sane attitude and a democratic spirit, approach it with the ardor of missionaries whose single aim is to grind out the cigarette from between every man's fingers.
-
Prostitution. The government has decided that I cannot engage in sex with another individual in exchange for money. The reason? I haven't the foggiest idea. Some confused souls seem to think that the risk of AIDS has something to do with it. But considering the fact that the government hasn't banned sex altogether, I don't think that AIDS is the culprit here. Is there an infringement of someone's rights? I don't see any. A wants sex and has money to offer. B wants money and has sex to offer. A and B strike a deal. I see nothing here which might infringe upon the freedom of a third person. The only conclusion is that the law banning prostitution is nothing more than a reflection of the moral values of a certain section of society.
In the cases mentioned above, there is the question of the morality of some of the acts. But the point here is that the morality of an act has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not. As for me, I find the abuse of drugs foolish; I will wear my seat-belt even if I don't have to; I don't smoke; and I find prostitution disgusting. But all of this is irrelevant. I have no right to prevent other people from doing what I don't do unless it suppresses my freedom. The legality of an act should depend on whether or not, and to what extent, it infringes on the freedom of others. There is no other criterion.
