Today I had an argument whether smoking should be prohibited in public spaces. I am totally against smoking and I stated that I think it should be outlawed altogether. The opposing argument was that this way I'm restricting individual freedom and the ability for everyone to choose for himself. And I realized my opinion is on this topic is quite strong. I'm pro freedom, but I'm still considering cutting some freedom might be good. I do have my reasons, and I'll try to clarify them now. My reasons are actually quite selfish, but I think the angle of view deserves some fresh discussion.
Do you remember the Demolition Man? Spoiler alert! It describes a future society where there's sort of no crime. There are a lot of rules and restrictions, but everyone you see is happy and OK with that. At the end basically we see some underground people that are not, but they were not part of that fictional society either. The main idea is that forcing healthy way of life at the expense of freedom is bad.
But is it really, and for whom? The problem with the fictional society was that in case of crisis, they are unprepared for a more chaotic future. I think that the limits of the society there were over exposed and unrealistic.
I don't want to cut freedom and leave no alternative, but I think that unhealthy living should be made much more tougher, so that no one would keep at it. One might say that the person makes a choice and takes the risk individually, but there are actually effects extending beyond the person. So you choose to smoke and have life expectancy of 50 years. But your demise will affect the society too. If you get cancer, you will no longer be able to work and add value to the society, but will only consume. The cost of the treatment will be on the everyone's social taxes. There are other, more weak negative effects: the percentage of young people that smoke will be proportional to the percentage of the smokers in the society. You cannot expect only 10% of 18-year-olds to smoke if you have 50% of the 28-year-olds. Person's poor health reflects on everyone around them. The poor health and life expectancy stats of the entire society make it undesirable.
I believe that people are obliged to the society. People are investment in the future, and that investment no longer done only by the immediate family. If you are born today, you carry the hopes for the future for the society. Everyone pays taxes, which in one way or another support the new members of society. Education, protection, health. We all want our kids to reach the stars and that is why we invest in them. Unfortunately, despite all the investment and the education, people do stupid things. The majority of mankind does not know what's best for them. I don't claim, that I know what's best for anyone (even myself), but I do know what is bad. There are two things I want everyone to do:
- try to improve their understanding - of the world and themselves
- try to live healthier
I'm certain that if everyone strives towards these two simple goals, the society will prosper, regardless of policy, social structure or even economy. Since we cannot expect everyone to understand the benefits and accept the cost of these, we should enforce them. We don't have good enough way to measure the adherence to the first goal, so we should enforce it indirectly - punish illiterate and spoiled people. Enforcing healthy way of life is possible to some extent, and I don't think it will be bad at all, even if that means limiting some freedoms.
