University of Virginia Library

Taz Daughtrey

How Free Are We?

The Congress of the United
States has now enacted legislation
to prohibit all television and radio
advertisement of cigarettes after
January 1, 1971. Should this be
regarded as a triumph of our
enlightened, governmental process,
another promotion of the general
welfare? Hardly. Rather, it should
be viewed with regret as an
additional needless restriction of
our freedoms. It is a victory for
those who would gladly save us
from ourselves.

I say this not as any champion
of cigarettes or of tobacco-growing
interests. Medical studies have indicated
the health hazard, and nothing
would please me more than
the withering away of such a habit.
But I would not see it done as the
Congress has decided. The course of
more and more impositions on
those who sell and buy will not aid
the common good but hinder it.

Worthier Goals

The national government should
instead be engaged in projects to
raise the standard and spirit of
living, those of a scale only it can
accomplish, such as educational aid
or the much-maligned space program.
These are goals worthy of
government; telling someone what
he may or may not watch on
television is not.

Unfortunately though, we are in
the midst of a crusade - or rather,
many crusades - for what is called
consumer protection. So many
self-proclaimed friends of the people
are rushing hither and you to
watch out for the common man
that they are quite literally stumbling
over each other. With proposals
to have government protect us all
from unwanted credit cards, nonstandardized
package sizes, and
apparently our neglecting to buckle
our own car seat belts, they vi for
the loudest shouts of praise from a
thankful citizenry.

Inhibiting Research

Should we cheer? The Food and
Drug Administration now has the
courts' backing to prohibit the sale
of not only harmful, but inefficient
drugs as well. One expert asserts
that under present restrictions a
cancer cure, if found, would require
seven years to be accepted for
general use. Even such a discovery
is probably years further away now
due to the inhibiting effects on
research of bureaucratic meddling.

The fallacy of the misguided
crusaders is evident. As Milton
Friedmann expresses it, we are
asked to believe that, as voters, we
are competent to select others to
make for us decisions in directly
which we are incompetent, as
consumers, to make for ourselves
directly. It is the fallacy that
eventually catches up with any
scheme of economic central planning.

History has shown freedom the
best policy. We should be free, as
individuals and voluntary associations,
to offer and accept goods and
services as we please, with government
only insuring everyone advertise
truly and live up to their
contracts. If we produce unwanted
products or choose poorly, we have
no one to blame but ourselves.
Government is instituted to protect
us from violence and fraud, not our
own stupidity or poor tastes.

Structure For Morals

Of course I do not present this
dictum as an absolute, for society
does not - and cannot - be so
tolerant of every commodity. Some
it must reject if it is to survive.
Addictive drugs, for instance. We
should not seek to legislate manners,
but we must preserve a
structure in which one may practice
morals.

Here lies the great difficulty.
Where shall the line of permissiveness
by drawn? The dangers of the
two extremes are quite grave: too
much freedom and society disintegrates,
too little and it becomes no
more than a prison. Somewhere
between these poles exists the
optimum condition since neither
anarchy nor tyranny is a perfect
human order.

I would say: draw the line to
include a minimum of restrictions,
but do indeed draw the line.
Choose to be as free as possible
within a basic framework of law
meant for the preservation of
community. And I would assert
that the dynamics of a democratic,
capitalistic system offer the best -
and perhaps only - way to insure a
proper determination of how free
we shall be.