Jackson in the Age of Paternalism
Mississippi has taken another paternalistic step forward. This week, the City of Jackson voted to ban smoking in all restaurants. Reading through the comments on the article, and based on conversations I’ve heard, there appears to be a general concern for children underlying the support for such a measure. Says one commenter:
I am all for a total ban on smoking, but I think to be reasonable that the law should ban smoking anywhere that children may be present. It should be allowed in stand-alone bars, nightclubs, and casinos. It is fair that smokers have somewhere to go, but they should not be allowed to smoke around children. And I should not be forced to keep my child at home to avoid their smoke. It is time for smokers to have some responsibility.
This is a very interesting statement. It implies that tobacco smoke and children should not exist in the same place at the same time. Assuming for the moment that this is true, why prefer children over smoke in Red Lobster? If smoke is irritating, what about screaming, crying babies and poorly behaved children? It’s almost impossible to relax and enjoy a good cigar after dinner with all the annoying children carrying on. So again, why not pass a law prohibiting children from restaurants? Because it would be absurd, that’s why.
There once was a day when politicians and judges would refuse to hear these issues, preferring to let the market self-regulate. In this age of state paternalism, that seems to be an antiquated notion. In the old days, property owners had the right to allow or prohibit perfectly legal behavior on their premises. If you didn’t like smoke and a non-smoking section wasn’t good enough for you, you could register your displeasure and not come back. If enough people did the same, the restaurant would lose business and be forced to reassess its position.
Likewise, if a restaurant voluntarily prohibited smoking and you like to enjoy a cigar or pipe after dinner, you could register your displeasure and eat elsewhere. In either case, property owners were free from government intrusion and the market would regulate itself.
But not anymore. Now, if there’s something that annoys you, you don’t have to be content to merely utter “there oughta be a law…” Now, you can actually get one.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I heard something similar today. Senator Warner was on Fox News talking about how the Senate needed to adopt the national speed limit of 55 m.p.h. again so that families could deal with rising fuel costs. It came out sounding like: families aren’t capable of just driving slower to reduce fuel consumption so we need to mandate it for them.
There’s this notion that if change is happening too gradually or a certain class believes something to self-evidently correct that it’s okay to cut back on freedom to achieve the end that class desires. That’s a poor model of culture change and a good way to insert the state into decisions it has no business making.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Agreed. Although I can see an argument to be made for the speed limit. It’s more than just taking the choice from people. Around here, the speed limit is 70 (which means it’s actually 75). If I choose to drive 55, I cause a hazard to other motorists who are driving the speed limit.
That being said, I don’t think that’s a good enough reason for Uncle Sam to stick his nose in, but it seems he doesn’t need much provocation these days.
Your comment also reminds me of the irony in the fact that we have such long lines at airport security checkpoints and the PATRIOT Act because the government wants to protect our freedom. Ben Franklin once said, “he who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither.” The same might be said for the activists who seek to criminalize any behavior they personally dislike.
July 30th, 2008 at 8:59 am
“Meredith, J. dissenting.”
I thoroughly enjoyed this post. Because I could see your agitation while typing it, it made me laugh. Thank you, Chief Justice Meredith.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:01 am
You find my agitation amusing?
July 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Yes, sometimes.