Whose business is it?

Jewish World Review | August 21, 2002 | Walter Williams

[upier]

Whose business is it?

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | My health and other aspects of my well-being are the business of whom?

You say, "What's it now, Williams?"

I'm simply asking whose business is it if I don't adequately plan for retirement or save money for my child's education? If I don't wear a seatbelt while driving or a helmet while biking, whose business is it? What if I don't get enough sleep or don't exercise enough for good health -- should government force me to, under the pain of punishment? In other words, should Congress have the power to force people to do what's in their own health, safety and welfare interests?

I'm afraid that most Americans believe that government should be able to force people to do what's in their health, safety and welfare interests. Their reasoning might be that if I don't wear a helmet while biking or a seatbelt while driving, I might have an accident, become a vegetable and become a burden on other Americans as taxpayers.

That reasoning fueled much of the anti-tobacco zealotry, confiscatory cigarette taxes, and federal, state and local government lawsuits against tobacco companies in the name of recouping tobacco-related healthcare costs. Emboldened by their dramatic success in their war against smokers, America's neo-Nazis have now turned their attention to the food industry, with lawsuits against the McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC, alleging that they have created an addiction to fatty foods.

Fast-food chains are alleged to have contributed to obesity-related health problems and increased healthcare costs. Like the tobacco Nazis, the food Nazis are calling for government regulation and taxes on foods they deem non-nutritious. Already timid CEOs of fast-food chains, like their tobacco-industry counterparts, are beginning to cave to legal hustlers. Caving is easy for these cowardly executives because they simply raise prices and pass the costs on to their buying public.

Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. There is absolutely no moral case for government's taking another American's earnings, through taxes, to care for me for any reason whatsoever. Doing so is simply a slightly less offensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.

Allowing government to be in the business of caring for people for any reason moves us farther down the road to serfdom. After all, if government is going to take care of us, it will assume it has a right to dictate how we live. Right now, the government has successfully attacked cigarette smokers. They are well on their way, with the help of crooked lawyers and judges, to doing the same thing to fast-food companies, soda manufacturers, candy-makers and other producers of foods deemed fattening or non-nutritious.

When these people finish with food producers, what might be next on their agenda? Numerous health studies have shown that sedentary lifestyles and lack of exercise also contribute to healthcare costs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if America's neo-Nazis call for government mandates requiring morning exercises, biking, jogging and fitness facility memberships.

You say, "Williams, that's stretching it!" That's exactly what an American who might have died in 1950 would have said about the attack on smokers and fast-food restaurants.

[Gorzaloon]

That's exactly what an American who might have died in 1950 would have said about the attack on smokers and fast-food restaurants.

We can turn on smokers and fast food eaters now, because smoking has raised billions for cancer research and is just about milked for all it is worth, hence the rapacious taxes.

Now, billions are being made with Lipitor and other statins, even though they do NOT produce longer lifespans..one merely dies of something else. So getting fat and raising serum cholesterol has now been milked for all it is worth, and can be safely plundered and looted.

Watch: One year the Helsinki Study will be debunked, then we will learn the statins are liver carcinogens, and we will have class actions that will make the tobacco settlements look like pocket change.

[Dudoight]

Walter Williams is such a bright common sense guy! His academic cv is outstanding. AND he achieved it all WITHOUT affirmative action! In other words he did it all by his own brains and hard work!

[Publius6961]

You say, "Williams, that's stretching it!" That's exactly what an American who might have died in 1950 would have said about the attack on smokers and fast-food restaurants.

It all started innocently enough with seat belts.

Anyone else remember that?

I wish I could find the editorial in either Road & Track or Car and Driver which with uncanny accuracy, predicted all that followed.

But AIDS is OK.
Who'd have thunk.

We live in interesting times...

[tahiti]

Walter Williams states:

"In other words, should Congress have the power to force people to do what's in their own health, safety and welfare interests?"

Mr. Williams asked the correct question?

The correct answer is, Congress does not have that power.

Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE others retained by the people."

What we do with our bodies is an essential right, "retained by the people," that shall not be denied or disparaged by our Congress, even if the citizens authorize their government to initiate a socialistic medical care compensation plan, funded by taxation of the citizens, in which citizens are making enormous claims against that compensation plan to pay for the medical care they demand due to exertion of their Amendment IX protected rights, which are highly destructive to their bodies.

The proper role of government is to "secure" our rights, not deny them.

Government largesse is for all citizens and shall not be denied from all citizens per the equal protection clause of the Amendment XIV.

If the cost of the medical compensation program becomes too high then eliminate the socialistic compensation program, do not deny a citizen their rights.