From the cradle to the cradle

In my previous post I talked about my evolving political thought process and how I've come from a naive apparent conservative to an unknown via a flirtatious dalliance with liberalism.

Thinking back to some conversations I've had over the years with friends one of the things that I think has been consistent in my thinking is the notion that governments should supply services. Services such as roads, national defence, health care, fire departments, justice and the like.

The thing that has changed over that time is the amount of control that I think a government should have over the individual. It doesn't matter what level of government, be it local, provincial or federal, the government should do things for the people not dictate to the people needlessly.

Now of course as people come together to form a society there are certain things that get codified; most obvious are laws. Things such as killing, theft, rape and assault are proscribed within a society. However it is important to notice that these things aren't proscribed by a government, but rather the government is there to enforce proscriptions deemed appropriate by society. Humans have been living in societies of varying sizes for millenia and there are certain constants, such as murder being wrong.

The thing that I now can't seem to wrap my head around is why do people want their governments dictating to them what they can and can't do on ever increasingly minuscule levels of daily life?

An example from when I was younger.

I remember when I was a young teenager moving to a new home that my parents had purchased. It was a house built around the turn of the 20th century and was one of many of that style in the neighborhood. At some point though the Historical Society in the town had managed to convince the elected public officials that an entire portion of the town should be deemed historical. They then used this designation to push through by-laws that prohibited people from modifying their homes if they resided within this historical zone and were of a certain age or older. So when my father wanted to enclose the front porch he had to fight for nearly two years to gain the necessary permits.

I can understand people wanting their governments to set such a thing as a building code to ensure the public safety, but beyond this notion of public safety what business does the government have in dictating to a private property owner what he/she can or can't do with his/her private possession?

Too often giving a government more control over your life is a slippery slope. Now not all governments fall into chaos or genocide but that does not mean that they don't work to strip liberties from the individual.

A more recent example.

Smoking is a terrible vice. It not only impacts the individual but it also affects those around them through second hand smoke. Smoking was a vice that I indulged in for far too long and was lucky enough to quit 17 years ago. In Ontario restrictions on smoking have gone further and further over the years. It started with warnings on the cigarette packages themselves then moved on to smoking bans in government buildings. Soon you weren't allowed to even see a cigarette package in a store or smoke within 9 metres (roughly 28 feet for any imperial lovers out there) of a public doorway.

A couple years ago I noticed a petition at work. Following the same logic of trying to protect the individual or the helpless, the petition asked people to put their name behind a ban on smoking in cars that contained a child. If a person was found violating this ban they were to face monetary fines.

It struck me reading this petition that people were insane for wanting to grant government further powers to restrict the rights of the individual. Where would such powers be used next?

So over time I've come to the notion that governments are service providers, there to do the will of the people. They are not there to dictate to the people or restrict people so long as people are not harming others. Which is why the following news stories piqued my interest.

The first concerns a young girl of 13 who wished to sail around the world. If this was a hundred years ago nothing would have been said. Nobody probably would have known about it, but this is the 21st century and everything is everywhere.

From the article we learn that:

The social workers have argued that Dekker is too young to understand the dangers of the journey and some psychologists believe the two years of isolation could be damaging for her during an important period of her development.

As a result of these complaints "The Utrecht District Court ordered state child care authorities to take responsibility of Dekker Friday for two months while she undergoes an assessment by a child psychologist."

The girl who lives with her father has the support of both her father and mother, and they have abided by the ruling and believe that the voyage will be able to commence once the court issues its rulling in late October. "It supports the idea that "you are not a bad parent if you try to help your child fulfil her dream," said her father.

Now one may be thinking that what 13 year old in their right mind would think up such or thing or be capable of such a thing. However young Ms. Dekker is not your normal 13 year old:

Born on a yacht in New Zealand while her parents were on a round-the-world sailing trip, Dekker spent her first four years at sea. She started sailing solo at six and starting dreaming at age 10 of a solo trip around the world.

"I asked my parents if I could — please — start now," Dekker recently said on a Dutch children's television show.

"In the beginning, they asked if I was sure I really wanted to do it," she said. "They have sailed around the world so they know what could happen and that it's not always fun, but I realize that, too. But I really wanted to do it so my parents said, 'Good, we'll help you.'"

On the surface this looks like the government agency did the right thing doesn't it? Should the government be there to protect children from unneccesary risk and potential neglect? I of course want to know is who gets to decide what is too risky or too neglectful.

Once we begin allowing government agencies staffed by people unaccountable to the people but carrying the power and force of government such invasive powers over individuals and families do you think it likely that they will pull back in their exercise of power or do you think that they will ensure that they are 'demonstrably useful' in order to defend their budgets?

Then comes another example of what I believe to be unnecessary government interference in the lives and rights of the individual.

People in England and Wales who commit crimes or behave anti-socially while drunk could now face a Drinking Banning Order - or "booze Asbo".Under powers coming into force on Monday, police and councils can seek an order on anyone aged 16 and over.Magistrates can then ban them from pubs, bars, off-licences and certain areas for up to two years. Anyone who breaches the order faces a £2,500 fine.

The thing that I like in law is the that "anti-social" behavior is now punishable by law in England and Wales. Of course this is once again done in the interests of public safety but gives government powers an ambiguous mandate.

In my opinion this is an example of what I talked about previously concerning the false assumption that education is 'magic bullet' answer to social ills, however it isn't far behind.

Jeremy Beadles, the chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association which represents companies in the industry, said "tough enforcement" against offenders is "critical if we are to change the culture around problem drinking".

And

John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, said he was "not happy that it will work". He added: "We are not satisfied that these will work as effectively as perhaps some of the Asbos have. Clearly the issue is about tackling why it is these people have an alcohol dependency.Some offenders may be referred to a course to address their drinking, and if successfully completed, could see the length of the order reduced.The participant, not the government, is expected to cover the costs of the Positive Behaviour Intervention Courses, from £120 to £250.

Note though that it says that "some offenders may be referred to a course" not that it will be part and parcel of the punative fines and restrictions on their liberty.

I bring up these to recent examples knowing full well that they both occur in Europe. What bearing does that have on anything in Canada one might ask. Fair enough, but if one talks with many Canadians, reads what is written in Canada it is clear that Canadians are more apt to look to Europe as a model for how Canadian society should be or what it should move towards.

To me this is a scary prospect.

*****

Update: I had written this post several days ago and had forgotten to post it. Since that time the girls mother has come out opposed to the voyage:

Dekker's German mother, who lives in the Netherlands, divorced the girl's Dutch father, Dick, when Laura was six years old. The girl lives full time with her father.Until Saturday, it had appeared that both parents supported the girl's ambitions, but Muller said that is not the case.

Why?

Babs Muller told the Dutch daily newspaper Volkskrant that she had kept quiet on the issue until now because her daughter, Laura Dekker, had threatened not to see her again if she tried to foil the trip.

Now this is a thing for the courts to settle.

I have no knowlege of Dutch custody laws and what rights the mother has over the child given that the child lives full time with father. If, however, the mother has no legal right to stop the voyage thenI don't think that the state has any right to either.