Minding my own business...or not

[dilettante]

Amongst the ways of determining what sorts of actions should and shouldn't be subject to communal/state regulation, one popular approach has been "It's OK as long as it doesn't hurt/affect anyone else" or, to put it another way, "You should be able to do whatever you want as long as it only affects your own body and/or property" or even "Mind your own d-mn business!" It's an individualistic, liberty-oriented standard and it comes with much to recommend it, especially when one wants to ward off intrusive, overbearing governmental interference or privacy infringing, narrow-minded community norms.

However, a number of recent (and, I suppose, not so recent) issues raise significant problems with this system of determining what should and should not be regulated. On a number of fronts, we run up against the realization that even acts focused narrowly on ourselves and our own property tend to affect the lives of others, quite often without their consent. It seems that, if one wants to be picky, its rather difficult not to affect other people. And lately we've started to get quite picky.

I'm sure people can think of other (and possibly better) examples of changing standards in this regard, but I think this one from a recent thread here at DWF captures the point rather well:

Using cell phones in cars: There's considerable support for banning the use of cell-phones in cars, and perhaps rightly so. After all, without a doubt it makes driving less safe. However, the determination of whether or not I want to talk on my cellphone while I'm driving my car seems to be rather personal, especially since it only has a direct effect on me (making me less attentive).
Now, one can certainly argue that in affecting myself this way I am affecting the way in which I interact with those around me (making me more prone to run into them), and thus it becomes their business as well as mine. But we're certainly stretching the bounds of interaction here. Even the most private, secluded, personal acts and choices can be said to affect others in the sense that they affect me and, hence, the way I interact with those around me.

Use of any mind altering substances (from meth to marijuana to sugar and caffeine) could all naturally be included in the same fuzzy category. Publicly funded health-care means that a vast array of my private choices financially influences other tax-paying citizens (either in the long or short term). Similarly, welfare and unemployment can be said to make my educational and professional decisions other people's business.

A recent debate about casinos here in Philly (and a similar debate about gambling, prostitution, shopping-centers, etc in many places) raises a similar issue. A standard argument against casinos is that they will be detrimental to the neighborhood, thus affecting lives of neighboring residents without their consent. The casino's affects are indirect in that the owners of the casino may confine their actions to their own property, but nonetheless, the "private" choice to build a casino/brothel/Walmart/stadium on one's land unquestionably has affects on the lives of neighbors.

Even environmental laws fall into this category of ways in which we've become very sensitive to the small ways in which the seemingly "private" choices of others become everyone's business and subject to regulation.


All of these examples share a couple common traits:


They highlight ways in which seemingly very personal choices (e.g. my phone in my car, my drugs in my body, my clogging my arteries, my building a casino on my land, my killing my own spotted owls, etc) can have small affects on other people, either by affecting myself and hence the way I interact with others, or by slightly affecting the environment (adding one more car to the road, cutting down one more tree).
They highlight how we have become quite sensitive to the ways in which these little effects add up when we start talking about wide swaths of the population. If lots of people talk on cell phones while driving, deaths on the highway go up for us all. If lots of people get diabetes or heart-attacks, health-care costs rise for us all...etc.


I have no real argument or polemic thrust to start this thread off with, except perhaps to note that, at least legislatively, our society is becoming more and more convinced that "no man is an island," and that precious few choices are really private if one digs down deep enough and follows the lines of causality. There is, in truth, no perfect dichotomy between "my business" and everyone else's, but only a fuzzy gray zone in which connections are more or less direct, more or less serious.

Reading the news today, I get the sense that we are plunging deeper into that gray zone in defining what is the community's business. I can't really say whether this is a good or a bad thing; perhaps we need to be more aware of how we affect each other; perhaps its a harbinger of a threat to our rights. But it's something I want to try and be more aware of.

EDIT: My apologies for the rambling length of this post; but I'm really too tired to do any trimming tonight.

[The Drunk Guy]

I see that this is happening as well, but I completely disagree with the validity of these arguments. Too many of these topics are being stretched to include others' rights and it skews the idea of what is private. I do not believe that "Mind you own goddamn business" applies to all these topics, but I absolutely do not believe that a required level of involvement from a governmental level is the proper course of action.

For expedience's sake, I will list more favorable means for each of the points you've listed:

Cell Phones: Educate people. Push an initiative to educate kids and young adults about how destructive vehicles can be. I would love to put kids through some sort of "crash simulator" before they ever get their licenses. Sort of a Scared Straight for driving. I also endorse raising the driving age to 18 and more thorough education during the permit phase of licensing.

Most people have no problem talking on their phones while on the road. It's when you compound a phone with texting, internet, picture messaging, etc. that you run into problems. Banning their use is a typical response to new technology that changes our daily lives, but it is not a proper means to an end.

Business Development in Neighborhoods: It is the choice of a community to allow businesses to develop. If a community doesn't think a business would benefit their area, then they can deny it. That is part of the social contract. However, I believe that to be the choice of individual communities and not vast territories as decided by legislators from other areas.

Environment: This is why we have a government to begin with. In this area, the government should represent a unified front against an enemy. Our enemy here are the industrial and oil corporations that have tricked the nation into thinking that we all need coal-generated electricity and Hummers. We have the technology for alternative energy and our government should stand up and demand the situation be repaired.

Medicine: Another point where some education can go a long way. Rather than spending thousands of hours with specialists for common diseases like Heart Disease and Diabetes, those things simply get diagnosed and the patient gets educated so that the disease is manageable without the need to see a doctor more than once a year.

Basically, we need more of a feeling that we should be responsible for ourselves.

When someone dies in an accident while texting, their families cry, "We should ban cell phones!" No, he should have known better than to be using his phone like that.

When someone dies from Congestive Heart Failure, their families will cry, "State funded medicine wasn't effective enough to save him!" No, he smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, drank four cups of coffee a day, ate poorly and exercised minimally. Also, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, so fucking get over it.

When someone gambles their life-savings away, people will cry, "This wouldn't have happened if there was no casino across the street!" Maybe, but his poor money management was his own fault. Some people need to learn moderation. That's their problem, not mine.

When the seas begin to rise, people will cry, "We should have done more to save the environment!" And they'll be goddamned right. Our elected officials should have stood up for us and our children. We should all stand up and demand the use of cleaner forms of energy, our government included. And not just the lame-ass 35 mpg and Cash for Clunkers shit Obama pulled out this year. We need real demands and real consequences to revolutionize the way we live our lives on this planet.

In summation, we are all in this together, but helping each other out is an option of the people, not a requirement of government. The government should only step in when it truly is for a common good.

[Michael]

Using cell phones in cars: There's considerable support for banning the use of cell-phones in cars, and perhaps rightly so. After all, without a doubt it makes driving less safe. However, the determination of whether or not I want to talk on my cellphone while I'm driving my car seems to be rather personal, especially since it only has a direct effect on me (making me less attentive).
Now, one can certainly argue that in affecting myself this way I am affecting the way in which I interact with those around me (making me more prone to run into them), and thus it becomes their business as well as mine. But we're certainly stretching the bounds of interaction here. Even the most private, secluded, personal acts and choices can be said to affect others in the sense that they affect me and, hence, the way I interact with those around me.
Usage of a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle causes a material increase in the danger of catastrophic injury or death to all other persons on the road or near it.

Thus, the action of using a cell phone is not a singular act that affects only one's self. You may choose to kill yourself, that's your business, but you do not have the right to engage in reckless behavior that massively endangers other people.

Ergo, regulating of cell phone usage in automobiles is a justified matter of public concern.

Use of any mind altering substances (from meth to marijuana to sugar and caffeine) could all naturally be included in the same fuzzy category. Publicly funded health-care means that a vast array of my private choices financially influences other tax-paying citizens (either in the long or short term). Similarly, welfare and unemployment can be said to make my educational and professional decisions other people's business.
These connections are extremely tenuous bordering on pure flights of fancy.

Unless a private act has a significant material impact upon the larger social group, there is no grounds for regulating/limiting that private act.

With the examples given, there is no significant material impact upon the larger social group.

Ergo, these are not matters that can be justified for government regulation.

A recent debate about casinos here in Philly (and a similar debate about gambling, prostitution, shopping-centers, etc in many places) raises a similar issue. A standard argument against casinos is that they will be detrimental to the neighborhood, thus affecting lives of neighboring residents without their consent. The casino's affects are indirect in that the owners of the casino may confine their actions to their own property, but nonetheless, the "private" choice to build a casino/brothel/Walmart/stadium on one's land unquestionably has affects on the lives of neighbors.
Statistics show that gambling is extremely harmful to those who engage in it.

There is no substantial body of evidence that shows that gambling as commerce poses substantial harm on public society.

The assertion of increased prostitution and petty theft is not fully borne out with the statistics and thus does not constitute substantial evidence of public harm.

Ergo, I see no justification for government regulation of gambling. That's just moral posturing without hard data showing harm to OTHERS.

Harm to individuals themselves is not sufficient justification for government regulation in my book.

Even environmental laws fall into this category of ways in which we've become very sensitive to the small ways in which the seemingly "private" choices of others become everyone's business and subject to regulation.
Got any actual examples of this to illustrate your point?

All of these examples share a couple common traits:


They highlight ways in which seemingly very personal choices (e.g. my phone in my car, my drugs in my body, my clogging my arteries, my building a casino on my land, my killing my own spotted owls, etc) can have small affects on other people, either by affecting myself and hence the way I interact with others, or by slightly affecting the environment (adding one more car to the road, cutting down one more tree).
They highlight how we have become quite sensitive to the ways in which these little effects add up when we start talking about wide swaths of the population. If lots of people talk on cell phones while driving, deaths on the highway go up for us all. If lots of people get diabetes or heart-attacks, health-care costs rise for us all...etc.


I have no real argument or polemic thrust to start this thread off with, except perhaps to note that, at least legislatively, our society is becoming more and more convinced that "no man is an island," and that precious few choices are really private if one digs down deep enough and follows the lines of causality. There is, in truth, no perfect dichotomy between "my business" and everyone else's, but only a fuzzy gray zone in which connections are more or less direct, more or less serious.
I think this interpretation is incorrect.

I see a HUGE wave of moralizing here. People are becoming more aggressive about demanding that laws be made to force people to do what some other people decide is best for them.

And yes, our governments have been increasingly pandering to these moral authoritarians. Anti-democracy has been rising throughout the 20th century and apparently picking up speed in the 21st. USA leads the trend here, but they are not unique.

Reading the news today, I get the sense that we are plunging deeper into that gray zone in defining what is the community's business. I can't really say whether this is a good or a bad thing; perhaps we need to be more aware of how we affect each other; perhaps its a harbinger of a threat to our rights. But it's something I want to try and be more aware of.
Well, if it means that our laws might be determined by moral crusaders instead of self-serving corporate plutocrats?

Gosh - I doubt if I could tell the difference (or care) - both are the same game. Both seek to control the acts of others for their own interest.