Big brother

Some of the lurkers on this blog will be happy to know that I don't like big government any more than the other guy - I just see a role for government and am willing to accept some authority for the benefits that an organized society provides.  For instance, I'm quite happy to have trash service and a sewer system to dispose of my waste.  But certainly there should be a line when it comes to personal decisions.  I don't want government dictating every aspect of my life - call it the American spirit. 

There are a couple of items working their way through the Missouri legislature that I believe cross that line, and they deal mainly with drug testing.  Some legislators believe that teachers and people who receive welfare payments should have to submit to drug screens.  Now, I understand the concept.  People who we trust with our kids, or those who don't have enough money to support themselves, shouldn't be engaging in illegal activity.  But that's the rub.  What's illegal?  Millions of Americans self-medicate in various ways - booze, marijuana, and even prescription drugs.  I think the legal status of marijuana is very much in debate, and could change in the next few years.  So why is it ok for government to exclude one based on how an individual chooses to balance their life? 

Is it ok for the well-to-do to use whatever substances they want, while only the poor are refused access to something that helps them maintain their sanity?  Or is it another attempt to control substances - so that only those who get their medication from a drug company are within the boundaries of the law? 

Here is a related post from the Contrary Farmer, who talks about government subsidies for organic farmers.  His point of view is that paying farmers is just another attempt to control the way those farmers choose to do business, and his case holds merit.  And yet while elected officials are making such attempts to control our lives, they have little desire to show constraint themselves, as we see wrangling over ethics reform take shape. 

I find it interesting - if those who are truly for limited government wish to stand on their ideals, shouldn't it apply to everything?  If you wish government to stay out of your business, shouldn't it also stay out of your living room? 

Comments

[The Sage]

Nice bait...

This post stands in contrast to your normally progressive, pro-government posts. As such, you'll forgive me if it seems largely disingenuous since the only libertarian principle you've espoused here pertains to drug laws.

On that basis you'll get no real argument from me. As a Constitution-revering conservative, I think government has no purvey in drug legislation, much as our Federal entity has no jurisdiction over healthcare, cap & tax, social programs, education or abortion. If anything, those are subjects that the Constitution explicitly leaves to the state (there's that pesky document again). However I do not equate alcohol with marijuana or any of the other substances manufactured in the last two centuries or so. Alcohol has been a part of developed societies for thousands of years, and it's chief purpose is not solely to intoxicate. Many a meal is enhanced with the addition of alcohol, and many that imbibe control their consumption in a reasonable manner. That very rarely can be said of marijuana or "hard" drug users. I've yet to encounter a hippy pot smoker who just wants one puff at lunch and then goes back to a productive day. In the same vein, I've yet to see a meth user who could maintain any semblance of a normal life. If you want to give these folks unfettered access to substances they abuse far more than they just use, they you've also got to accept that penalties need to be far harsher for abuse (ie. more prosecutions & prison time when something happens as a result). By the same token, no tax dollars should be allocated for any kind of health issue related to their use/abuse. I'd like nothing better to see this be a matter of individual choice, but that also means the rest of the population shouldn't be responsible for the health issues that arise from said choice.

Are you ready to go that far? If so, then let's take this principle and apply it to any of the other "social" programs that leftists love so much. If drugs are to be a matter of individual responsibility, than so too should issues such as mortgages, health care, and retirement. There is no place in the Constitution for other citizens to be held responsible for the poor choices of others. That's the role of charity, not government.

PS -- where do you live that your trash and sewer services are wholly provided by government? You sure you're not confusing the monopoly contract granted by your local government to a private entity? And are you positive you wouldn't want to shop/compare amongst other private service providers? Government, by definition and fact, is always the least efficient use of proceeds since there's so much "overhead" lost in each dollar collected. Government can only disburse wealth, not create it, but that's a subject for another post (or a quick econ refresher).

[Jax]

In 1928 some people thought alcohol should be banned from use in the United States. At that time people and our government respected the Constitution and realized the only way to make alcohol illegal was to amend the Constitution. We’ve came a long way from those days, haven’t we.

[JW]

Like I said, Sage, you've got me leaninng more libertarian everyday.
You're right about my sewer service - it's a contracted monopoly. I was merely suggesting examples.
My trash service, however, comes from one of two available providers. And I'm happy to use the cheaper, local business as my provider.

[uk dissertation writing]

it's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the link which i was looking for my research.