By Chris Basten

  One of the things that frightens me the most about life is the consuming presence of absolutism in a person's thinking. It's unsettling to be with a person who is so certain of that which is highly speculative when scrutinized. I'm just as guilty of being an absolutist about specific issues as the next person. Some of us are unchangeable in our opinions whether we readily identify it or not. Being certain about our opinions when life's gray areas come up is not the kind of absolutism I'm referring to. Stubbornness in one's resolve is part of being human. The kind of rigid thinking that strikes fear in me is the kind that fails to consider any other options other than one and one alone. Once someone is fixated on that one kernel of truth, it grows into an absolute truth that oozes into a worldview that one obsesses over constantly. As part of our lot in life as human beings, we are all vulnerable to such thinking.

One of the chronic complaints about libertarians is that they do not budge on their stance about government; that being that it doesn't work and never will work no matter how much money or good intentions are shoved into it. To the layperson unfamiliar with politics, this most certainly sounds like a case of absolutism. Surely something good comes out of government programs and interventions?! There are definitely some government projects that are handled reasonably and are efficacious to society. However, research and libertarian think-tanks like Cato Institute find that working toward a common good does not make an initiative worth keeping especially if force is applied to maintain it. Libertarian philosophy purports that the instant force and aggression are applied to serve "a greater good," individual rights are eroded. You can't please all of the people all of the time and using guns and other forms of force to try and fit a cylindrical peg into a square hole will not better anyone because it won't work, regardless of our good intentions. Appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority is not a moral force. It is simply just a force.

Reflect on something that you really want for yourself despite knowing the costs and dangers of obtaining it. Consider how long it would take you to save up for it, how much time you would be willing to spend on researching all of the hazards involved, and what the consequences would be if you did indulge in one of life's many risks. Chances are that if this pursuit truly would make you happy and would not endanger anyone else or their property, you would most likely invest in this precarious venture. Because you are well-informed ahead of time and able to make your own choices, you decide that you will take a chance and enjoy something you long for. The benefits appear to outweigh the costs of partaking in this risk. No one is sticking a gun to your head and mandating that you go through with this gamble. It is completely up to you because it is your life and your life alone.

What if your desire to take a risk was illegal? Would you still partake in the activity anyway? Ephedra was legal one day and was outlawed the next because a certain number of people ended up dead with it in their systems. Ephredra has been a proven substance that aids in the removal of excess weight and when used properly, it works for many people. But because some people used excessive amounts, didn't follow directions, or were genetically predisposed toward having complications with such substances, the federal government says that businesses can no longer manufacture or distribute products that contain ephedra. Now, like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, ephedra is bound to become another racketeering front for those who truly want it. Products containing ephedra were big business for many companies but now they will be forced out of existence or will have to continue their activities underground. We will no longer be able to have something like ephedra if we want it because the government says it is unsafe.

When the government outlaws a product or service that consumers legitimately want, it does not force it out of existence. The nanny state merely pushes it underground where it no longer can be researched carefully, labeled properly, and manufactured safely. The risk is therefore increased when the government says you can't have what you want. We all recall what Prohibition did to our nation. When the morality police forced alcohol from store shelves, it merely became a racket for bootleggers and mobsters. When this happened, unsafe forms of alcohol were distributed without certain standards and crime increased immensely because people wanted alcohol despite all of the risks they faced in obtaining it. The same is true for other "immoralities" like steroids, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, ephedra, prostitution, or gay sex.

Each choice that a human makes carries a certain level of risk with it. This is what we call life. When we are well-informed of the risks involved in partaking of our choices, we can more readily decide what is best for our own person and property. When we know the exact concentration of alcohol in a bottle, we are free to decide how much we will ingest. When we know how much ephedra is in each capsule, we are free to moderate that percentage as we wish. When we know that medications have side effects, we know what to watch out for when we take them. We can't do this when the government has the absolutist's mentality that says "all or nothing." We can't consume our substances or services in moderation, if we choose to, because we don't know what we're getting ourselves into. The drugs and services that have been forced underground have no warnings, concentration labels, research literature to read from respected organizations, or customer service hotlines to complain if something goes wrong. If a drug is full of junk or a prostitute is raped, usually nothing will be reported because the inherent "immorality" of these things is considered worse than the actually crime of exploiting or harming others.

If legal heroin businesses were erected, they could be regulated for pureness, clear labeling, and could offer treatment options if abused. Consider something like the accidental entry of a cleaning solution into one's eye. Because labels clearly tell us what to do in case of such an occurrence, we can follow directions and go to the hospital if we need to without fear of being stigmatized for it. No one is going to scathe us for using cleaning products. We will simply be treated for the risk that occurred from using them. This is not the case for things like prostitution. Because society deems it immoral, people have to go to the darkest corners of the earth to enjoy sex with another consenting adult. Prostitution is not regulated for checking customers or prostitutes for disease, does not offer legal protection to those who are treated wrongly for abuse of the services (like rape or refusal to pay), and does not offer customer service to those who are dissatisfied.

Think what you want to about drug trading or prostitution. Regardless of moral insinuations, they are part of free-market like any other services that customers have a demand for. If they are not controlled for all to see, they will be shrouded underground where no one has any idea how good these services or products are. Making drugs illegal has not stopped people from obtaining them, using them, or requiring treatment for abusing them. It has only created a black market where people kill each other incessantly for profit and pleasure while overflowing our prison systems in the process. Making prostitution illegal has not stopped consensual adults from participating in it. It has only created a trade where women don't have the right to report abuse if it occurs because they are marked as the criminals for simply providing a service that people want but society deems unacceptable. To me, these are the moral outrages, not the products or services themselves.

So the next time government absolutists tell us they are doing something for our own good, consider all of the individual persons, properties, and rights that will be destroyed to obtain this "common good." Government aggression that protects us from ourselves for our own good is a deplorable oxymoron. We are sheep led to slaughter when we are no longer informed of or allowed to have legitimate products and services that the market can provide ethically and safely when we are made aware of the risks involved in them. If businesses with profit margins on the line were allowed to provide what consumers want, regardless of what the morality police tell us about them, they would want to keep customers safe and keep them alive so that they can stay in business. Sick, dissatisfied, dead customers are not good for business. Businesses don't offer something to the public for our own good. They provide products and services that people desire and keep customers happy when they give them what they want and notify them of potential risks to keep them happy should something go wrong. The government, on the other hand, storms in with federal agents who draw their guns, if necessary, and tell us they are protecting us. If only the federal government required itself to come attached with warning labels for our own good...