The Nanny State
How much control should the government have over our lives? Liberalism, as a world view, began with the belief that individuals should be self-reliant and thus should be left alone by the government to achieve their goals to the best of their potential. Modern conservatives (classical liberals) still believe this and work to limit the influence of government on our lives. In essence, freedom means freedom from government control (this is called negative freedom). But liberalism is a flexible ideology, and, in the 20th century, it moved leftwards on the political/economic/social spectra and began to accept some aspects of collectivism into its values. Modern liberals argue that, while freedom remains the goal, the government has a role to play in helping to remove the obstacles that are often in our way as we work towards our goals, and which are often insurmountable without help (positive freedom).
Think of all the ways that our various levels of government regulate our lives in the name of the common good and to prevent us from harming ourselves and others. The wearing of seatbelts in motor vehicles was made mandatory in 1987. In 2011, the Alberta government made distracted driving a ticketable offence and, this year, increased punishments to include demerit points. In 2002, bike helmets were declared mandatory for Albertans under the age of 18. For the 2011-12 school year, Edmonton Public Schools banned junk food in vending machines located in all of its schools. In New York City, the mayor attempted to ban large-sized soft drink containers in order to act against the problem of obesity in his jurisdiction (although this was ruled to be beyond his power by the courts in 2014). And there are many, many more examples.
Each time such a rule was put into place it was highly controversial. Some argued that people should be left alone to live their lives and that each person should bear responsibility for their decisions. Others suggested that people need to be helped in order make good decisions.Sometimes the government forces us to do things, not to help ourselves, but to help others in the name of the common good. One such example is the government's ability to force its citizens to give up their property under certain circumstances. The City of Edmonton has, for example, appropriated the homes of citizens who live in the way of LRT development. The city will pay market rates, but the home-owners have no ability to refuse to sell.
Read the following article to see another example that is currently an issue in our province:
Alberta Transmission Lines
What do you think? Is it ok for our governments to limit our freedom in order to protect us from ourselves and our own bad decisions? Should they have the power to force us to act in the name of the common interest?
