“Freedoms” not worth defending
"While you weren't looking, your freedom went up in smoke" - a good headline for an opinion piece. Makes one expect an interesting argument about erosion of our freedoms. The freedoms that matter - such as the freedom from arbitrary arrest and lengthy detention without justifiable evidence, such as the freedom of information to enable us to make rational decisions, which is consistently undermined by governments, such as freedom from torture, which is being forgotten in the so-called war on terror.
But no, the author of the article - Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs - laments the loss of such freedoms as smoking whenever and wherever you chose and allowing junk food commercials aimed at children. Chris is unhappy about the "nanny state" which impinges our "freedom" by smoking bans or restrictions on ads for junk food. And what important freedoms they are - being free to ruin your health and kill yourself whenever you chose, and pay a small fortune to the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry for the privilege of being able to do so. Children having the liberty to be bombarded with ads for things that are bad for them, and enabling another multi-billion dollar industry to make more money.
The fact that Berg wants to argue against smoking or advertising bans is not objectionable per se - he's entitled to his opinion. What is objectionable is the use of the language of "freedom" in such an inappropriate way. Freedom is a powerful term. It has a history steeped in struggles against tyranny and oppression. It is associated with defending human dignity, civil liberties and economic opportunities.
While being able to smoke wherever one likes may be a "freedom", it is quite a different sort of freedom. It is a freedom only in a sense that we are all free to strip naked, paint our bodies indigo and jump head first off the nearest sky-scraper. We are "free" to do it, but it is a really bad idea. It is certainly not a right to be defended, it is not a freedom in the sense of civil liberties. It does not offend human dignity to prevent a person from behaving in such a manner.
Smoking or watching junk food ads is in the same category. The "freedom" that is infringed by bans on these activities is not any meaningful individual freedom.
But even if one were to adopt a very wide notion of freedom, where the freedom to smoke can be considered a legitimate right, Berg's argument would still be doomed to failure. Because if freedom to smoke is to be viewed widely, freedom not to smoke must have at least an equivalent breadth.
As the US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas put it "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin." A person's right to smoke can be unlimited only if it remains a strictly self-regarding activity. As soon as it becomes other-regarding action it must be limited so as not to impinge of the freedoms of others.
So the freedom of non-smoking bar or restaurant patrons not to inhale harmful second-hand smoke will limit the smoker's freedom to kill himself at that particular venue. I won't even go into more complex assessments of freedom (eg. one person's freedom not to contribute to or be otherwise impacted by the healthcare of someone who deliberately harms himself by smoking). The point is that if Berg wants to talk about freedom, he cannot take a one sided view. He must consider the interactions between different types of freedom.
Smoking is no more and no less than an addictive, harmful habit. Any person can choose to do it, but that does not mean that it can be legitimately elevated to the status of a freedom worth defending.
RSS
