Several months ago, I wrote an article regarding how we should have the ability to opt out of needless government intervention. In that article, I make the case that rules and safety nets go hand-in-hand, and hence if one was willing to play full contact (that is, forego the safety nets and assume 100% of the risk), then one should be allowed to bypass the rules. “Well Dan, have you softened your Libertarian stances as of late?” a misguided reader will ask. Fuck no, I haven’t done that in the slightest. So, in today’s installment of Opt Out Government, we’ll take a look at health and safety laws that we should bypass or outright repeal. To set the record straight; by bypassing the law, I mean that one would not follow the law and assume all of the risks (physically and financially) of their decision, and that decision won’t be criminally prosecuted.
Admittedly, much of my argument is going to depend on the current reality that the United States lacks a universal health care system like many other developed nations. Despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of Americans would favor such a system, no such safety net exists. Building off of my previous Opt Out article, if no such safety net exists, then we should forego the rules by default (disclaimer: obey the damn law, even if it’s dumb). Personally, I feel that there is an implied social contract (how philosophical of me!) when the government passes an onerous law; here are the rules, and in exchange you receive a safety net. Simply put; the government has opted out of providing a safety net; therefore, we should opt out of these laws.
Smoking and the use of other similar tobacco products (looking at you, vape users!) should have laws restricting their advertisement, use, sale, and distribution repealed. Why does the government care if Americans start dropping dead of lung cancer? Due to the lack of universal health care, they aren’t on the hook financially for the cost of the care. Because there is no social safety net in this realm, then (in my view) there should be no rules either. “But Dan, what about those on Medicare/Medicaid?”; smoking and using other tobacco products will simply void the coverage requirements of these taxpayer-funded programs to cover the cost of treatment of diseases caused by tobacco. After all, in my ideal vision, everyone bypassing the rules will bear 100% of the risks of their actions, so that means nobody is coming to save you from the consequences. Whether we get universal health care in the future or keep the status quo, we can add one sentence to the Surgeon General’s warning on these products; diseases borne from using these products will be treated at your own expense as a healthy compromise between Big Tobacco and Americans. Boom, done. Besides, the argument of some people will smoke, so let’s pass tough laws on the entire population is a weak one and, in my opinion, isn’t enough to warrant the demonization tobacco currently gets. After all, we let Budweiser advertise during the Super Bowl every year, and their product shortens their user’s lives by 26 years while tobacco use only shaves a decade off of their user’s lives.
Recreational drug use is another topic where we should jettison all of our laws restricting their use. Again, the American druggie is left to financially fend for themselves, so why put up with rules if there is no safety net present? Furthermore, the average (grr) cost of an inpatient drug rehab is $6000 per month while offering no guarantees of taxpayer assistance. Therefore, I advocate that we simply drop the facades; no laws restricting the use of drugs whatsoever, and hence we’d save a ton of money, prevent needless use of force by police, and save prison cells for scumbags who deserve them. However, the user assumes all of the financial risks of their treatment and rehab.
Seatbelts are another area in which we shouldn’t be required to follow laws without a safety net. The typical American receives no financial relief when the hospital bill arrives in the mail following a trip to the emergency room, therefore the government has no right to require drivers to wear seatbelts. If the driver wants to go without, fully knowing their odds of being forcibly ejected from a vehicle are astronomically higher because of their choice, then so be it; this choice shouldn’t constitute a crime. However, don’t expect your fellow citizen to foot the bill (hint: we currently don’t anyways). Under a magical situation in which America somehow installs universal health care, the government could just refuse to cover injuries suffered as a result of not wearing the seatbelt. Simple, right?
“But Dan, the government, and society as a whole benefit in numerous ways with a healthy population! Think of all of the wasted human capital in terms of future tax revenue, intellectual property creation, along with the scientific and technological breakthroughs that we would miss out on if citizens needlessly died young.” an opponent of mine will say. This hypothetical opponent will use this line as a justification for why the laws need to exist. I’m not saying they’re wrong, they aren’t; they are absolutely right. Yes, you read that right and yes, I’m serious. Though, that same argument has been used time and again in various attempts to legislate universal health care into reality, and it has failed every time. Since we’ve consistently chosen (remember: actions speak louder than words) to not heed this logic in terms of safety nets, then I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t heed this logic regarding laws. After all, I’m all about consistency, and the norms being applied evenly.
Don’t direct if you won’t protect…
Home Page 