The only redeeming quality of the nanny state is that it purports itself to care for the poor. But what if it did not have that mind? What if, in some hellish utilitarian scheme, it required the poor to suffer for the greater good? To New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, such a scheme seems to be the solution. In an effort to limit prescription drug addiction, Mayor Bloomberg has limited the number of painkillers that local hospitals can prescribe. Under the new law, patients can only obtain three days worth of painkillers, and some of the more powerful painkillers will be banned altogether. The poor should thank the benevolence of Mayor Bloomberg. Thanks to his ban on large sodas, they no longer have to worry about their weight. And now, thanks to his painkiller measure, they no longer have to worry about addiction. Of course, a few of them, the poor, may suffer on occasion, but they can take great comfort in the fact that they are suffering for the greater good. For the health of the city. For the state… The problem with the utilitarian approaches to government, aside from the obvious fact that they necessarily devolve into materialism, is that they strip any notion of personal right. There can be no personal or individual right when the individual is a number subject to the greater good. When people are reduced from a moral equality, to a numerical equality, then it shouldn’t be surprising when our leaders solve problems by saying, “A few poor people will suffer. So what?” However, if people have a moral equality, then central planning becomes a lot more difficult. If people have a moral equality, then it no longer possible to pass sweeping reforms that will apply to all regardless of personal situation. The moral equality requires you to recognize that men are different. Yes, this equality will recognize difference. Because it is only through such differences that you can make moral decisions based on a personal level, and not at a national numerical level. There is no difference in numerical equality, and therefore no reason why some should arbitrarily be chosen to suffer instead of others. It is a bastardization of the ideal of civil society and the common good to suggest that a class of people should suffer because it is the most efficient solution.Brian Miller is a student at George Mason Univ. in VA. Read the full piece at the link above.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
On Bloomberg's ever-expanding Nanny-State
LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT FOR THE DAY! There can be no personal or individual right when the individual is a number subject to the greater good. Excerpted, TheCollegeConservative, "Bloomberg’s Ever Expanding Nanny State":