What’s the big deal?

A question you often get when arguing against some small, specific infringement on personal liberty through government regulation is this: What’s the big deal? Russell Roberts gives his reason why it is a big deal here:

Going without trans-fats is no big deal. But a ban by the Montgomery County Council is a big deal and this paradox is why the politics and strategic aspect of the issue is so tricky.

I don’t smoke. Never have. So a ban on smoking, in public or private places, is if anything, good for me. I don’t like second-hand smoke.

I wear my seat belt when I ride in my car. Requiring people to wear seat belts doesn’t affect me. I won’t be getting a ticket any time soon.

I’ve been on a motorcycle once in my life. It scared me. So I don’t care if people riding a motorcycle have to wear a helmet. If anything, the requirement supposedly keeps my taxes down.

I don’t really care about the mouth-feel of pastry or whether it’s a little more expensive. Using trans-fats supposedly leads to better mouth feel and a longer shelf life. Come on, would you go to the barricades over mouth feel?

Nope. Not worth it. None of these things are really worth fighting for, are they? Are you going to picket a politician for making some other folks stop smoking or wear their seat belt? Not worth it.

Of course, that’s how the nanny state grows. It’s just not worth fighting any one infringement of liberty. So no, I’m not going to fight for the right to buy a locally-baked pastry with good mouth feel.

But I will fight against the idea that the Montgomery County Council has the right to ban trans-fats. That’s why I’m writing this post. That’s why I mention it to my neighbors. It requires a bit of schizophrenia. But it’s healthy. I don’t care about trans-fats, but I care about the ban. I care about the principle.

The principle is tricky. It’s not the right to eat trans-fats. The principle is that I don’t want powerful people to decide what I do with my body or my life. Those are my responsibility.

I agree 100 %.

A thought that occured to me also is this: When discussing a specific issue, a lot of Danes do understand the principle as well and adhere to it. This is when discussing freedom of speech. Many Danes understand very well that it’s a bad idea to let government decide what you are allowed to say and what not to say, and that there can be very few exceptions, if any, to this rule. Why do many Danes fail to generalize the argument and the principle they apply when discussing freedom of speech?