Liberty, the Government, and 'For Our Own Good'

On Wednesday, a group of doctors advised the government to pass a ban on smoking in one's car. There is no point even trying to argue against the negative effects of smoking, be they physical, financial or psychological. Put bluntly, smoking kills.

Similarly, I myself dislike and disagree with the idea of smoking. I am also personally against taking illegal drugs. But do I think that my own opinions and the fact that things are dangerous make sufficient grounds for making something illegal? No; not by any means. I don't ever think personal views on a certain area should ever be the basis of legislation which will affect the whole country. My distaste should not translate into infringements on others' liberty.

Take the smoking in the car debate as an example. Obviously, if there is someone in the car with you, particularly a non-smoker, then the situation changes. You shouldn't be allowed to smoke in a situation such as this where it infringes on another's health. However, should it still be banned if you are the only passenger? No. What right does the Government have to say what you can and can't do with your own body? Yes, it's dangerous, as are drugs. But then again, so are knives. So are painkillers. So is alcohol So are plastic bags, and hammers, and chocolate.We don't ban those things. These are clearly not the same things, but the principle is the same. Danger and ill-health, when caused with consent, should not be reasons for illegalisation in my mind.

I cannot reiterate enough that I am against smoking. But what I am against more are the patronising, arbitrary attacks on liberty. By all means, try and discourage people from smoking, and taking drugs, and drinking too much. The fewer people that do these things, the better. But ultimately, it is their choice. Someone may choose to smoke 40 cigarettes a day and send themselves to an early grave, and many would disapprove of this. I would. It would be heartless not to care. But if it were their decision, then so be it. It was their path, and it was the right of no-one else to forcibly move them. Your body may be a temple, but everyone should be able to worship in their own way.

It's for this reason as well that I agree with President Santos of Colombia as he pushes for the legalisation of drugs. Personal liberty is ultimately the strongest driving factor for me, but there are swathes of other reasons. A regulated, taxed drug industry cuts out the evils of dealers with their shady methods and tainted products. It would also bring in large amounts of revenue; vastly more than the costs to any nationalised healthcare.

To an extent, I also find myself agreeing with the UK Libertarian Party's idea to "repeal nanny-state legislation such as compulsory seatbelt and crash helmet use". Harsh in words, but ultimately sound in reasoning. Quite honestly, you'd be an idiot not to wear a seatbelt or a crash helmet. I see no reason why one wouldn't want to. But equally, I see no reason at all why 650 well-off, predominantly unrepresentative people should be allowed to smother liberty, that most precious of commodities, in such a patronising, demeaning manner.

I wouldn't smoke, or take drugs. Nor would many other people. But, as I said at the start, I am not everybody. And the opinions of one should not block the freedom of many.

Things Which Irk Me.

I like to think that, on the whole, I am a mellow, calm, slow to anger kind of chap. However, there are certain things which just make me irrepressibly furious. Learn them, and avoid them.

1) Shoddy use of the subjunctive case: "If I was...". No. Shut up. Move along. You're to be shot. Shut up.
2) Coventry.
3) People who pronounce <H> as 'haitch'. It's 'aitch'. Not complicated. Google Chrome, while still refusing to recognise 'radicchio', gives 'haitch' the red squiggle of doom. Good work, Google Chrome.
4) First Past The Post. Bah.
5) Laughing babies on adverts. It's my firm belief that children should never be happy to the point of excessive chortling. They must be planning something.
6) Communism.
7) People who label Obama as a Communist. Get educated. Socialised healthcare does not make him the offspring of Lenin and the Devil. Sort your life out.
8) People who barge into you in towns and cities without apologising. Oh, how I hate you.
9) People who insist the world will end in 2012 and moan about it all the time. We all know it will end; we've accepted that and have moved on. I suggest you do the same.
10) The social stigma attached to lists which don't have 10 items in them.

Yet Another Political Cow Thing

Yeah, they're as common as dirt. But, as far as I know, there's not a 'Cow Political Theory' dedicated to our chums on the extreme left, and, besides, Communism's always good for a chuckle. Alors, voila:

Communist Political and Economic Theory Explained Through Cows

Marxism: After an age-long struggle, the proletariat throw off the shackles of the bourgeoisie and milk the cows. The milk is distributed evenly ensuring everybody gets a millilitre or two. Everyone is equal: equally unhappy and equally short of milk. Get over unhappiness over cup of tea. Green tea, of course, because proper tea would be theft.

Soviet Communism: Despite there being plenty of milk for everyone, there are long queues and inevitably shortages. People discuss failures of the capitalist system while sipping glasses of milk imported from the US. Meanwhile, the government has sent the cows to the Gulag over fears of them mooing anti-Soviet Propaganda.

Cuban Communism: After eventually deciding they live in a Communist state, citizens are well educated enough to read instruction booklet on milking cows. There is an attempt to seize the milk by Americans and Cubans happier with the previous corrupt dictatorship. Meanwhile, cows turn out to be secret plot to assassinate Castro and are sent into exile.

East-German Communism: Watch West Germans milk cows while being told how they are living in milk-less squalor. East-German cows milked. Milk is ‘borrowed’ by big brother Russia, who promises to pay you back one day.

African Communism: The one cow is milked. Milk taken by government to distribute elsewhere. People get fair share of dirt. In the middle of the night, people are taken away for having too much dirt. Cow dies, sparking bloody war with neighbouring country.

Far- East Communism: People milk cows. The government seizes the milk while informing citizens how proud, strong and milky the country is. Nuclear missiles are primed after apparent insults over milk production by western scum. West is bemused.

Democratic Socialism: People milk the cows. The government takes the milk and holds a nationwide referendum to decide where the milk should go. By the time this has been decided, the milk has gone off. New Referendum is unanimously passed to begin production of more milk. Rinse and repeat.