Legislating ‘Unwanted’ Behavior: What Benefit? And at What Cost? (And who decides its ‘unwanted’?

The BBC posted an article yesterday entitled, “ ‘£10 licence to smoke’ proposed”. You can find it at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm

The basic premise is supposed to be that people will see even more taxes on smoking, and then decide that it is ‘not worth it’ and quit. However, wasn’t that the reason behind cigarette taxes…and why they continue to go up, up, up? Have they worked? And will this help people who have enough money that they are not concerned with their finances?

This reminds me of many similar articles discussing ‘unwanted’ behavior (termed so by politicians, at least as far as I can tell). But when have the people demanded these things, and how do we know other than we are told we want these things? And furthermore: Is it legal to make these laws? Are these restrictions even legal under current law?) Have you noticed these types of laws? They range from many areas including :

…..Proposed new taxes on driving (for example: to cut down on carbon dioxide, current tests are in place taxing drivers based on distance and time of day driven. For more information, check websites such as this one here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Jan/25/weekend-rush-hour-fees-proposed-to-unclog-i-70/

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2003/06/58616

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-20-roads_N.htm

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/25/scientists-test-pay-as-you-go-driving/

….Not allowing people termed by authorities as ‘overweight’ to be served at restaurants in Mississippi

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22997073/wid/11915773

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/wobese103.xml

House Bill 282 : http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2008/pdf/history/HB/HB0282.xml

(From the bill at the link and article listed above:

“Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.”

…..Charging ‘Rush Hour’ fees on busy flights

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DE1031F936A25751C1A967958260

……Charging extra carbon tax on tickets for ‘frequent fliers’ (What does that mean? Who decides that?)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/11/conservativeparty.greaterlondonauthority

….Not allowing people to control the thermostats in their own homes…..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203179021-RioZxx0c95dx8IE+GNCTMA

….to laws requiring motorists to use seatbelts, or motorcycle riders to wear helmets…..

http://www.kentuckyvotes.org/2006-HB-117

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D71630F936A2575BC0A965958260

What am I getting at? Could a case be made that there is a pattern here? Many have heard of stories or slogans which describes an age-old problem of how to get a mule to move. Perhaps you have heard of it…Many know it as using the ‘carrot or the stick’ method. The theory states that it is much more useful to get that mule to move if it has positive reinforcement which motivates that mule to move itself (thus accomplishing what the owner wanted all along). However, was the mule actually forced to do anything? The theory also discusses what happens when the Mule is given the ’stick’, or beaten into doing what its owner intended. In the end, the mule is negatively influenced, and does what it can to avoid another punishment or hit with the stick. However, the mule only does so in fear in the hopes of not being hurt again.

Does this in any way apply to current political situations around the world? Or not? And if it does: Who is the ‘owner’, and who is the ‘mule’? There is a lot of talk of improving society, whether it be by cutting out smoking habits linked to cancer, helping people eat correctly and employ healthy living habits, taking care of the environment, and so forth. In and of themselves, are these not good and positive things? Yet at the same time, we live in a free society, correct? Knowing what we know of the human condition, to people make mistakes? Do people make better decisions by being motivated to doing the right thing, or forced into doing the right thing? (And does this apply to how God treats our decision to follow him or not as well?). If politicians have our best interests at heart, can’t they find ways to positively motivate people into wanting to change, instead of simply forcing it down people’s throats whether they want it or not? While some may say that in the end, people sometimes refuse to act responsibly…But to that I wonder…in a free society…Do we not recognize that God made each of us free to fail or to succeed….to act wisely or foolishly? And even if we think we do know better than those around us: Are we living in a free society by forcing them to do the right thing? What gives us the right?

There is a lot of talk by popular ‘people’s parties’ about the growing financial gap between the richer and poorer classes. When we see policies like these which penalize people by tax for acting in certain ways: Does that really change the behavior? If it did, would it be worthwhile if it is forced? And if these things do not change behavior, why do we keep taxing and making more regulations trying to legislate people into living in a certain manner? Is this even allowed in a free society? And where are these supposed populist parties: Why are they not screaming for the rights of the common man to, for example, drive to work and daycare without being penalized because he needs to get to work at 8am instead of 7 9?

While I am all for making personal and societal improvements, I have to wonder how we can, in a free society, try to force or penalize people into living in a manner fitting to some, but not all, of us. Who gets to make these decisions? And who is forced to follow the will of someone else? Can a case be made that everything we do personally affects everyone else personally? And if that is the case….Do we all need to have collective global laws governing each of our own personal actions? And furthermore…if this is the case….Who gets to decide what is right and wrong…what can or cannot be done? And if policies like this persist in not stamping out behavior, but adding both penalty (tax) or control/oversight by a bureaucratic body: What is really happening? Are we improving our way of life, or setting up an invisible prison around us?

How might this apply to prophecy? Well, if these things are being done about general health….How far can these types of laws go? What is and is not off limits in legislating how people must live…or face penalty (whether by further taxation, forfeiture, or incarceration)? Speaking of health laws….How long until calls are made about mental and spiritual health? Perhaps you have already heard people who claim to not be religious who want a completely religious-free society, as they blame religion for the wars and problems throughout human history….Or you may have already heard people who are extremely religious discuss ‘better ways of government’ through a theocratic, or religious type of government. Do people really want either of these things? And whether we do or we do not: With this current trend of trying to penalize people into doing the right thing (remind you of a parent and a child relationship? If so, what does this say about our ‘free society’?)…..Can we see a coming global government who might want to use this type of total control to establish a strong one-world religion and governmental system?

Furthermore, I would ask Believers: Is this Biblically correct? What does the Bible teach will change our hearts? Can we really create a society which will make us want to be good? Does the Bible promote personal responsibility (with support from others)…or does it promote public responsibility over each individual…..Or does it promote something else entirely different? What does scripture say should show us how we live? And how should that be enforced…or not?

While I believe there are many people who want to improve society, I also believe many people do not think before they act. History is full of examples of peoples who did not think far enough before they acted…and many paid with their freedom, and their lives. Are we considering the consequences of our actions…whether secular…or spiritual? What do we see? Or does the ends really justify the means? Are we following Biblical values….Are we understanding our human condition, and taking into consideration Biblical examples and concepts to apply to our lives?

What do you think?