The point is, government is far too invasive, coercive

Sunday, August 5, 2001

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

­ George Washington

If I keep replying to Linda Woodbury's letters and commentaries, frequent readers of these pages may think I have nothing better to do than bully the poor woman! However, her most recent commentary makes a point with which I beg to differ.

Ms. Woodbury claims that the new ruling center of the Republican Party is out to destroy many of the citizen protections put in place by the government years ago.

As a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Libertarian, I have no doubt that the various protections the government has established for the people are anything but protective. If anything, they are coercive. And both parties are guilty of it.

The elites of both the Democratic and Republican parties seem to think the average American is too ignorant to make his or her own decisions and too incapable of supporting him or herself. Politicians of both parties pass laws dictating what we can and cannot do, or put through all kinds of social programs that do anything but promote social equality. And Americans end up paying more in taxes and experiencing a reduced quality of life.

Consider the ways government has tried to protect us, and where they led:

Recently I ordered a steak in a restaurant and was surprised to find out I could not have it cooked medium; a local ordinance required all beef served in restaurants to be cooked well done, no exceptions.

When the manager affirmed what the waitress had told me, I decided to go elsewhere for dinner. Because the restaurant was not allowed to satisfy a customer's wants, it lost a sale and the waitress lost a tip. In trying to protect me from E coli, local officials ended up hurting a restaurant owner and his employees instead.

About two years ago, my aunt ­ who owns a small grocery store ­ received a letter from some government agency, thanking her for her cooperation in not selling tobacco to minors.

Although this sounds like a nice thing, my aunt could not help but be disturbed at the possibility that government agents were checking on her store to make sure she complied with this law.

In a similar vein, my father ­ a liquor store owner ­ recently had to do away with his cigarette machines and start selling cigarettes behind the counter because of this tobacco law.

As a result, the lines my father's store are longer, and the employees are busier; and neither the employees nor the customers like it. All this because the government feels it needs to protect minors from the dangers of tobacco.

A lesbian couple living in the same building where I live are considering moving to Vermont because of its recognition of same-sex civil unions. In doing so, they would relocate their business, which currently employs about 15 people.

I'm not fond of their lifestyle ' and many readers are probably thinking Good! Marriage is only for a man and a woman! ' but it isn't rocket science to understand the implications of not letting this couple live freely.

Because politicians feel they need to protect a traditional definition of marriage, 15 Illinois residents stand to lose their jobs to Vermonters; and a couple that has been together longer than many husbands and wives has to relocate to a place that will allow them to make a public expression of their commitment to one another.

We need to realize that protection has a price. Each protection from the government results in a corresponding reduction in personal freedom. Compliance with regulation has economic costs ' higher prices and taxes ' which reduce prosperity.

And protection from minor, consensual situations (such as buying and selling tobacco) reduces resources that could be better used in protecting us from major, nonconsensual ones (such as rape, murder and armed robbery).

Why can't politicians just leave well enough alone?

Alex J. Caffarini
Schaumburg, formerly of Chicago Heights
Via e-mail