Third Place:
"You've come a long way, baby."
In 1968, Philip Morris used this slogan to introduce a new brand of cigarettes, marketed specifically toward young, professional women: Virginia Slims. Those six words, now immortalized in the catalog of American idiom, were a very clever nod to their target group, recognizing the great strides that had been made, as women were finally taking their rightful place in the world, on a level field of intellectual equality with men.
In the context of this essay, however, those six words are intended to convey a very different meaning.
On December 16, 1773, Samuel Adams led a group of 50 men, known as The Sons of Liberty, to Griffin's Wharf in Boston, MA, whereupon they seized and destroyed 342 crates of tea owned by the British East India Tea Company. This was in protest to the enactment of a law that exempted the East India Company from all duties and taxes, in order to help them establish a government-enforced monopoly on tea trade with the colonies.
Many Americans today would view this as trivial and largely insignificant. Moreover, tea consumption is not as popular as it once was in America, but this one night in Boston helped to start a revolution.
Individual rights (in this case, rights to a fair, unregulated marketplace) were so important to Americans, that a war was fought to preserve them; a war in which roughly 130,000 people were killed. This is a far cry from the general apathy affecting most Americans' view of government regulations today.
"You've come a long way, baby."
I came up with that while sitting on the hood of my car, which was parked on the street in front of my apartment, as I was smoking a cigarette. Is that particularly relevant? Yes, because I chose to do it, and that's the point. It is my right, my inalienable right to sit on the hood of my car and smoke a cigarette if that's what I choose to do. The attacks on "vices", such as the public smoking bans, and other attempts to legislate provisions for personal behavior as such, are attacks on human beings as such, on the ability of the sovereign individual to run his own life.
So, what is a right? A right is an action that is guaranteed, as an option, to a rational individual, in a social context. All rights are guaranteed to all rational individuals, which means that, to be a right, an action may not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, in order to preserve rights, one must accept and, in fact, revel in, responsibility for one's own actions.
Unfortunately, irresponsibility has spread like an unstoppable virus. As evidence, I submit that the following question would never have been considered by The Sons of Liberty, to whom personal responsibility was an unquestioned ethos.
Should government intervene in our lives to prevent us from making choices that make us sick, injure us, or even kill us?
No.
It's that simple. To even consider the notion, one has to accept the premise that the individual is a ward of the state and is, therefore, incapable of making responsible choices and any deviation from predetermined courses of action are inadmissible.
In order to determine the value, the "good," of any choice or action, there must first be a standard; "to whom" and "for what." As a fully functioning, rational adult human being, I take pride in understanding the consequences of my actions, and what's "good" for me is determined by continual reference to a very long list of hierarchical values comprised of long and short-range goals. When the government acts as a nanny state and begins to prescribe actions by fiat, my power of volition, my most precious ability as a human being, is effectively taken away. I am no longer allowed to make choices against a "very long list of hierarchical values," therefore, why should I have any?
How do we strike a balance between public health and individual liberty?
We don't.
It's that simple. There is no balance to be struck. Only death awaits where food and poison meet halfway. In the first place, there is no such thing as "the public health," it is a myth. There is only individual health: my health, your health, his health, her health. If the goal is to enable individual Americans to achieve a greater level of health and well-being, the only way possible is through education and the preservation of individual liberty, allowing individuals to make all manner of choices, good and bad, so that, bit by bit, each of us can learn from the mistakes and successes of ourselves and each other.
The rise of statist policies (in particular, government controls enacted to affect individual behavior) such as public smoking bans, lead us down a slippery slope to all manner of disastrous consequences, intended and not. The grotesquely brilliant example of this can be seen in recent history with Prohibition; where there is no choice, evil fills the void.
The American system of government and law is one that works off of established precedent. Meaning: whatever implications are made in a particular legal decision will be carried further (as an extension of necessary, logical consequences) the next time a similar issue is addressed. In other words, if Americans are willing to give up the right to smoke in public now, on the premise that it's "bad for the public health," who will be able to stop legislation down the road that makes eating red meat in public illegal because it's "bad for the public health?" What about coffee?
Some say that the public smoking bans are necessary to protect the "rights of non-smokers." In the first place, there is no such thing as "rights" of a non-anything. Secondly, there are only individual rights; there can be no specialized rights for select groups. Not only does that reek of aristocracy and feudalism, it is morally wrong; all rights apply equally to all human beings. The issue then, is to precisely define whose rights are being violated. And in fact, it is the private business owners who are primarily violated. It is unconstitutional, as well as morally wrong, for state and federal government to determine for private citizens how to run their business.
When an individual decides to go into business for himself, his entire livelihood is stake. He has every right to make whatever decisions he deems necessary in order to run his business the way he sees fit. Only a totalitarian mentality would think it okay for the government to step in and tell him to do otherwise.
If the owner of a local pub wants people to be able to smoke in his establishment, so be it. If a non-smoker does not want to be subjected to the smoke, then he should not patronize the establishment.
When policy-makers begin to think that they "know what's best" and ought to make decisions for Americans, and Americans start believing them, the road to despotism is a short one. The "public health" has a very familiar ring to it. Does the "public interest" or the "will of the people" sound familiar? These have always been the favorite justifications of statist regimes and proponents, from Nazi Germany to the former Soviet Union, where individual rights are abrogated in the name of some nebulous, undefined (and undefinable) "greater good."
The answer is to allow individuals to make their own choices regarding how to live their lives and seek their happiness, the way our founding fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I look out at the world and see very few of his brothers-in-spirit, and that is sad.
Somewhere along the way, the men at the helm steered America away from the values that made her great. But, reality is the great arbiter of justice, and rights will survive because they are right. However, if you and I want to enjoy them, we must recognize when they are being attacked, and take responsibility for ourselves.
In the words of Dean Alfange:
I do not choose to be a common man or woman. It is my right to be uncommon, if I can.
I seek opportunity - not security. I do not wish to a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk - to dream and build - to fail and succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence - the thrill of fulfillment to the calm state of Utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence - nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master - nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid - to think and act for myself - enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say -
This I have done.
The overall tone of this poem is one of accepting and cherishing personal responsibility, a sentiment I know our founding fathers understood, but I doubt many Americans currently do. The proof lies in the lack of outrage over government controls like the public smoking ban. It seems as though many Americans today actually believe that they are incapable of making proper choices, while many others simply refuse to accept responsibility for their own lives, clearing the road for the nanny state.
"You've come a long way, baby."
How long before we've gone too far?
