More Conversation On Huckabee And A Smoking Ban

My last post drew a comment that was insistent about the illegitimacy of a national smoking ban of any sort. After my response became somewhat expensive, I decided to post it. Here is the comment, followed by my response:

----------------------------------------

No matter how we dress it, endorsing a national ban on smoking is still the nanny state interfering with [some] business' ability to operate.

For non-smokers, a smoking ban may seem like a reasonable restriction on liberty. However, others also think Christmas traditions should be banned... and smoking bans in private homes (maybe eventually christmas celebrations too?) aren't far behind.

I am a non-smoker who supports Huckabee, but I think it's foolish for us to try to disguise his bigger government leanings as "having the government do good". The soul of conservatism is the recognition that while the government can do good, it rarely does so better than the free market and liberty for people of conscience.

-----------------------------------------------

You're absolutely correct: the federal government not only constitutionally shouldn't, it practically CAN'T do a better job than a free-market approach. I’m a lifelong conservative and a constitutionalist.

But, I don't see at all that Huckabee has "bigger government leanings.” He is very explicit that the federal government doesn't need more money, but just needs to control the way it spends it. He has signed the “no new taxes” pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. And he’s very cognizant of the enumerated federal powers and the appropriate realm of state and popular powers, as per the 10^th Amendment. And, he favors an overhaul of the tax system to return control over expenditures back to individuals and their localities; put the thousands of bribing federal lobbyist into another line of work. The critics are eithe4r misinformed or disingenuous. The percentage of tax burden actually declined over Huckabbe’s ten years as governor, unlike in Massachusetts under whom it increased over his four years. And of course, Romney has been a most vociferous critic. But as a competitor, it’s understandable for Romney: not so much among many others, who are disingenuous with another agenda or have just failed to do their homework.

As I said, public places that are open only to those 21 and over are exempted in the Arkansas law, as are places with 3 or fewer employees. I argued (futilely, mind you) with a web site of constitutionalists with a guru blogger. It was like trying to fight off a swarm of bees.

I conceded what is patently obvious: that there is no constitutional license for federal intervention into private commerce. But, I also pointed to what is equally obvious: that, constitutionally or not, Congress has for many decades imposed libraries of unconstitutional law, such that most people can no longer distinguish that fact. So that focus on complaining about it at any single point is something like standing up to one's neck in a swimming pool and grousing about a light shower. This acknowledgment of facts, only got me accused of self-contradiction: conceding what was unconstitutional while defending it, anyway.

But what I said was that in the course of this unconstitutional freer-wheeling, the federal government has taken on a huge liability in present and future medical expenses. With respect to that liability, constitutionality is irrelevant. So, what? It is a liability, nevertheless. As I said in a previous discussion, if a spouse wrongly runs up a huge credit card debt, can we ignore the debt because it was accrued wrongly? Try it and see what happens.

As a quite stark example of of our unconstitutional disposition, and my reverence of The Constitution: can you not say that the entire enterprise of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Social Security, ever-expanding Medicare, and Medicaid) are unconstitutional intrusions into the private realm? To me, it’s rather a trick to try to get around that one. But, perhaps only a percent or two of Americans, and fewer politicians, are prepared to even entertain such a question.

But, my question to you is: if we acknowledge that the imposition of the Social Security system was unconstitutional in addition to being foolish (not entirely coincidental), can we therefore default on the commitments that have been made to pay benefits” I hope you are like even most all of those who concede that the system must be modified, who say that The United States CAN NOT unilaterally default on the commitments that it has made to those who are vested in the system and want to retain their promised benefits.

In similar fashion, those medical liabilities are an inevitable fact. And the discouragement of unhealthy and disease-inviting behavior on the front end is bare fiscal prudence. Huckabee points to smoking as just one formerly widespread behavior, that social disapprobation has modified in our lifetimes. I was so resentful of government presumption that I resisted another such government action: what business is it of government’s to require at pain of penalty that I wear a seatbelt in my own car?! None I thought, and still do. But, marriage cured me of that. My new wife would not allow the car to move before everyone was buckled in. Today, I don’t even think about it, and most people seem not to. But at 50, I’m more keenly aware that we are all safer with our seat belts fastened, than I was in my 20’s. I can still let it bother me that the law has the gall to presume upon my personal conduct. I’m enough of a libertarian to feel I have a right to be a fool. But, the seat belt etiquette probably has preserved many live fools.