Replies

...where do you draw the line?

I can't answer for Dave, but I hope you won't mind if I butt in and give my own opinion.

Unfortunately, I don't have a neat and clear line which separates when the government can regulate and when they can not. However, there are some general principals I refer to when thinking about these issues.

First, I think as a general rule it is better when the government is limited and individuals have liberty. This doesn't mean that individuals must never be restrained, nor that governments should never be empowered to act. It just means that it is usually better to let people make their own decisions and arrange their lives according to voluntary cooperation.

Governments are clumsy, inefficient, coercive, and have a tendency to be abusive. So if we really think the government should be involved in something, I think several conditions must be met -- as a minimum.

*First, there should be no reasonable alternative to the government solution.

*Second, any government intrusion should be as limited and minor as possible.

*Third, both the government solution and goal it is designed to achieve should be balanced against our core values like private property rights, free expression, privacy, etc.

Finally, whoever is promoting an increase in government power should have the burden of proving that it is the right thing to do.

Not very controversial requirements, at least not for a conservative. Don't you agree?

Since people who want to avoid smoke in restaurants can simply choose not to eat at smoky restaurants, I don't really see why the government should be involved. People can easily detect the danger and just as easily avoid it. With this in mind, why do you nevertheless believe that a government solution is required?

If government can regulate business about controlling behaviors which negatively influence other people, can then government tell gays they can’t get married? What about abortion?

First of all, I think we would both agree that governments shouldn't have the power to regulate behaviors which "negatively influence other people". This would be such a broad power that the government could regulate all advertising, menu choices, speech, etc. Certain specific "negative influences" perhaps, but a general power in this regard would be unwise.

Second, I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between the smoking ban issue and gay marriage and abortion. Gay marriage involves the granting of special government privileges...the government has to be involved in that matter, since it is a government ceremony that is at issue. As for abortion, this involves an act that is directly harmful to a non consenting person. It doesn't really have anything to do with customers who knowingly and voluntarily enter a smoke-filled restaurant, unless perhaps restaurants now grab people off the street and force them to sit in the smoking section.

Your posting is excellent. My answer, when asked where the line should be drawn is usually this: Since governments can only act through committing acts of violence, or threatening acts of violence, thereby restricting freedom, the proponents of any government action should be bearing the burden of proof that the action should be taken by the government. Instead, it seems that the opponents of a government action are forced to bear the burden proving a negative.

The intention of helping the poor, preserving the environment, or defeating some evil enemy, for example, is not enough. Questions would then need to be sufficiently answered before activities purporting to help the poor, preserve the environment, or defeat the evil enemy, should be instituted by the government, rather than by private organizations. Will the activities actually result in the poor being helped, the environment being preserved, or the evil enemy be defeated? How will the poor be helped, the environment be preserved, or evil enemy be defeated? Should the poor be helped, should the environment be preserved, or should the evil enemy be defeated? (These questions are not as stupid as modern conventional wisdom would seem to indicate.) Must the government help the poor, preserve the environment, or defeat the evil enemy, or can better results be obtained by private activities? Finally, are the peripheral or unintended results morally acceptable, and (not or) not too undesirable relative to the intended result? (for example, higher taxes, restriction of individual rights, interference in economic activity, destruction of property, injury or loss of life)?

If these answers cannot ALL be answered satisfactorily, then the activity should not be undertaken by the government, because, since freedom is such a high ideal, its restriction should be done with the greatest of care, and only for the most compelling of reasons.