illegal

This week Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on super-sized soft drinks in New York City.  While his stated goal was portion control in an effort to reduce obesity, it was ironically amusing, as the announcement came 24 hours before National Donut Day, an observation the mayor’s office previously, publicly, and enthusiastically proclaimed.

 

Controlling soft drink size, however, is not the bottom line over which we should gulp.  After all, this is merely one law aspiring to control our behavior…

 

In West Virginia, only babies can ride in a baby carriage.

In Pennsylvania, it’s illegal to sleep in your refrigerator.

And in Flint, Michigan, we could each be arrested for donning those lovely, “saggy pants.”

 

The question is this:  how far should the government go to control individual behavior?  Does the government have that responsibility?  Is the government even capable of legislating that behavior?

 

Some legislation possesses greater credibility for legality consideration due to the targeted behavior having a proven, clear, and negative affect on another living being.  That’s the legitimacy in the legislation to curb indoor smoking; secondhand smoke causes health risks for those adjacent to the smoker.

 

That’s the legitimacy in the effort to ban abortion.  Aborting a fetus stops someone else’s heart.  The point is that individual acts such as smoking and/or abortion have a proven, clear, and negative impact on someone else.

 

The challenge then for any democracy is the extent to which behavior should be controlled when the negative impact on someone else is not proven and clear…

 

… such as soft drink gulping…

 

… such as homo or heterosexual activity…

 

… such as you-name-it.

 

Friends, I am not suggesting that all individual behavior is good and noble and right.  My question is more in regard to whether or not the government should legislate our isolated behavior.  When government attempts to control individual actions, government struggles to adhere to fluctuating standards of morality; government often overreaches; and government also inches toward policy more associated with Marxist and Communist thinking.

 

Allow me a rather relevant example…

 

One criminal activity has been especially glamorized with the evolution of society…

 

… in the name of love… in finding one’s soulmate… often veiled by celebrity…

 

Paul Newman, Julia Roberts, and Jerry Seinfeld — each of their marriages began via adultery.  Society has become numb to that behavior.  I speak not judgmentally, friends.  Many of us have been hurt or even engaged in such activity; we’re each capable of error.  My concern, however, is that society no longer sees adultery as not good, not noble, and not right.

 

The relative thinking here is that adultery has long been attempted to be legislated.  From early Roman law to the onset of American, adultery has been defined as criminal activity.  In many states still — from New York to North Dakota — adultery is illegal.  Government has attempted to curb this unhealthy, individual behavior.

 

(Dare the Intramuralist go out on a limb here, but…)  The legislation has been ineffective.

 

My point is this:  there are some behaviors that while currently viewed by as unhealthy or wrong, government is still incapable of stopping.  Government cannot supersede the spirit within the man.  Conviction comes via truth — not via government.  Also, we are motivated to find that truth when we are allowed to experience the consequences of our behavior.  When government removes the ability to experience the motivating consequences and repercussions of our individual actions and choices, we have moved further away from democracy and further still from wisdom.

 

Enough for now.  Pass the Diet Coke.

 

Respectfully,

AR