|
Race to ban trans fat, smoking, light bulbs, and plastic bags
By Adam B. Summers
There is a domestic emergency, of sorts, in California
these days. Unlike the popular television shows, however, the nanny is the
problem, not the solution. No, California's problem is much worse than
a misbehaving toddler; it is the overzealous politician (and those nosy neighbors
who support them). Some might call these audacious au pairs petty tyrants,
but they are tyrants nonetheless.
Having failed to resolve such serious problems of the day as the state's
structural budget deficit, crumbling infrastructure, declining public education,
and public pension funding crises, impetuous politicians have taken it upon
themselves to decide for us what kind of light bulbs we should buy, what kind
of food we should eat, and even that ever-present grocery store conundrum:
paper or plastic?
Yes, today the State Legislature is rife with so-called "nanny bills." The
following are just some examples of the nanny measures that are currently working
their way through the legislative process in Sacramento:
- AB 722 -- Would "phase
out" the sale of incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient
fluorescent bulbs (despite the fact that harmful levels of mercury from fluorescent
bulbs can add up in landfills, contaminating the soil and making their way
into the food supply)
- SB 7 -- Would ban smoking in
a vehicle--moving or stationary--in which there is a minor
- AB 86/AB 90/AB 97/SB 490 -- Would
restrict the use of trans fats in restaurants and school cafeterias
- SB 120/SB 180 -- Would require
caloric, trans fat, saturated fat, and sodium content information to be printed
on restaurant menus
- AB 1634 -- Would require
dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their animals by four months of age
Then there is the recently-passed San Francisco ordinance that will require
the city's larger grocery stores to use recyclable paper bags (costing
3 to 5 cents apiece) or biodegradable plastic bags (4 to 10 cents apiece) instead
of the traditional plastic bags (about 1 cent apiece). Adding insult to injury,
Supervisor and ordinance author Ross Mirkarimi said it would be "mean-spirited" for
retailers to pass on these higher costs to consumers instead of dutifully licking
the hand that beats them and absorbing the losses.
At the state level, a new law that takes effect July 1 will require retailers
to provide plastic bag recycling containers, print a recycling message on bags,
and offer reusable bags for sale.
On their own, each of these bills might appear to be merely a minor trespass
on our liberty. As such, many might not lift a finger to fight them and instead
quietly acquiesce, but that is what makes them so dangerous. Those small transgressions
quickly add up. One day we may realize that all those minor violations of our
liberties amounted to a large loss of freedom. By then it will be too late.
As philosopher and economist David Hume said, "It is seldom that liberty
of any kind is lost all at once."
In short, government is turning into the homeowners association from hell.
It is time to ask ourselves again what the proper role of government should
be. Government, if it must exist at all, should exist to protect the lives
and property of its citizens against those who would violate these most basic
of individual rights. It is not to make every decision for its citizens and
dictate the course of their lives.
As Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines has astutely argued, "Could
you imagine the Founding Fathers dealing with--I don't know--wearing
a helmet when you're in the buggy? We all know you can't mandate
behavior; it just does not work. It creates criminals of people for things
that are not criminal behavior."
The point is not that recycling grocery bags or abstaining from smoking in
the presence of children or spaying/neutering your pets are bad ideas. It is
that we should not have the power to compel everyone else to live their lives
the way we think they should. We must be free to make our own decisions (even
the bad ones), so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. If
we turn over all our decision-making power to politicians and bureaucrats,
we have become nothing more than a bunch of sheep blindly following our shepherd
master. Then again, perhaps that is what those in power in government ultimately
want.
Adam B. Summers is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. An archive of his work is here. Reason's California research and commentary is here. This column was originally written for The Libertarian Perspective.
Streamlining San Diego: Achieving Taxpayer Savings and Government Reforms Through Managed Competition
» Full Text (.pdf)
» Press Release
Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives
» Full Study (.pdf)
» Policy Summary (.pdf)
» State-by-State Occupational Licensing List (.xls)
» Press Release with Complete Rankings
Sensible Policies for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Los Angeles
» Full Brief (.pdf)
No Choices Left Behind: Competitive Models to Restructure California's Lowest-Performing Schools
» Full Study (.pdf)
» Press Release
Undermining the Future: Problems with November's Bond Initiatives, and Alternatives
» Full Brief (.pdf)
More Studies
Not the Time for Tax Increases in California
» Full Text
Taco Wars in Los Angeles
» Full Text
Opening CalPERS to Private Accounts Is a Bad Investment
» Full Text
Mysterious Things Happening Behind CalPERS' Curtain of Secrecy
» Full Text
California Won't Fix Budget Until It Cuts Spending
» Full Text
California Focus: End Recurring Budget Deficits
» Full Text
Put a Lid On State Budget, Already
» Full Text
More Commentaries
|
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.