Self Control

“Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” - Helen Keller

"The health of a nation is inversely proportional to the number of laws needed to govern it." — Thomas Frey

In the classic treatise, “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mills tried to discover the proper limits for government jurisdiction. How does one determine if a law is tyranny? Mill’s solution was the concept of “Self-Regarding Acts.”

"As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interest of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding.)" - On Liberty

The youth of American culture has embraced this philosophy. Who hasn’t heard, “Hey man, back off! I’m not hurting anyone (but myself).” This principle pops up in many arenas – private sex between consenting adults, books or images you view at home, smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc.

I have to admit that while the theory sounds good, like many things, “the devil is in the details.” Over time some actions that used to be considered “self-regarding” have been discovered to ‘prejudicially [affect] the interest of others.” Take smoking for example. Everyone now knows about “second-hand smoke” which may in fact be more dangerous for others than for the smoker (who is inhaling through filters). Many state laws now prohibit smoking in restaurants and work places where the public is exposed.

Now another “Self-Regarding” activity, Alcohol Consumption, is coming under the microscope. England’s Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, wants the public to recognize the dangers of “passive drinking.”

"In his 2008 annual report, launched on 16 March and entitled On The State of Public Health, Donaldson lays bare the shocking toll from passive drinking in England. The list includes 125,000 instances of alcohol-fuelled domestic violence; 2 million victims of alcohol-related violence; 39,000 sexual assaults; 1.3 million children adversely affected by family drinking; 6000 babies born annually with fetal alcohol syndrome; 660 children killed or injured in alcohol-linked road crashes; 7000 non-drinkers injured by drink-drivers; and 560 fatalities due to drink-driving. There were also 1.25 million recorded instances of alcohol-related vandalism. Binge drinking has made city centres no-go areas for many. A survey of 30,000 adults in the north of England found that 45 per cent avoided town centres at night for fear of meeting drunks." – New Scientist.com

Very few so-called “self-regarding” acts are in fact limited to the self. Drug addicts rob banks and mug people to pay for their habit. Pornography increases rape and sexual attacks.

Bottom Line

Although I’m against “big government”, I’m not an anarchist either. There is a legitimate role for government as Mill’s notes, to protect against an act that “affects prejudicially the interest of others.” This includes the obvious like assault, theft, and murder. The government errs when it tries to protect people and companies from acts that harm themselves like over-extending oneself on a mortgage or selling loans to high-risk individuals. The boundaries become less clear where there is a cause and effect relationship to harm. Government becomes a nanny state when it tries to “protect us” from the cause our own excesses. To discourage drinking by heavily taxing alcohol is an attempt to enforce good behavior through the wallet and is a penalty applied to the just and the unjust. Instead I prefer the blood alcohol level method used for driving. A line is draw – below the line you are “self-regarding”, but above the line you become a danger to society and subject to fines and jail time.

Sadly too little social stigmata are assigned to being intoxicated. It should be recognized by all as a crime against society where you have exceeding the limits of self-control. Society exists because of self-imposed self-restraint. Those who refuse to restrain themselves have violated the social contract. How is it right to penalize everyone (including those who drink responsibly) through taxes instead of increasing efforts to apprehend the few who act irresponsibly? Could it be because taxes make money for the government bureaucracy while law enforcement costs money?