Meeting on Freedom versus consumer protection

Perspectives matter!

We had our meeting a couple of evenings ago on individual freedom versus consumer protection.

The recent court reversal in New York over mayor Bloomberg's proposed ban on super-sized sugary drinks provided the starting point.  Should government stop us from having too much sugar now that the statistics show sugar consumption as the cause of a lot of the developed worlds health problems?

The discussion continued with vaccinations and whether health workers should be mandated to take flu shots.

Dan said that he is thankful that there are health inspectors checking on the conditions of restaurants, temperature of their refrigeration and warning if items like raw oysters are not fit for consumption.  It will be practically impossible for him as an individual to determine the safety of food establishments otherwise.

Mano suggested that the regulatory authorities, knowledgeable in the area of expertise involved are the right mechanism to serve the public from a non-political environment.

Whether it is water safety, nutritional information, prohibition on drugs, the behavior of professionals, the average citizen rely on these regulatory agencies to monitor and notify the public of potential hazards and irregularities.

It is difficult to argue against the wisdom of having health inspection, fire prevention inspection and other forms of monitoring involving expertise and specialized knowledge.  How else can we benefit from prior experiences if we do not have these regulatory bodies to carry on the knowledge and experience from past failures and lessons learned?

If we agree on having regulatory agencies, then do we have a regulatory agency to regulate the regulatory agencies?  Citizens often fear government agencies expand and get into self preservation mode at the expense of tax payers, especially when these agencies claim specialty knowledge.

Dan said that we already have the auditor general reviewing the value for tax dollars spent in the various government department and agencies and that acts as monitoring for the various arms of the government.

Mano suggested that there is a "poisoning of the well" recently in the way government initiatives are seen as invasion to individual freedoms.

By casting the issue in this light, we are shifting the attention for what cooperation and collaboration is benefiting the public good to the discussion of whether individuals have the freedom to go against government's action to promote the public good.

Vaccination is a typical example of where the avocation of the individual's right to not get vaccination is cast as a freedom issue when in fact the non vaccinated individual is free riding on the rest of the people who get vaccinated and in turn improved the group immunity to an infectious epidemic.

Individual freedoms are always compromised when living with others.  However, we agree to participate in this social contract with others and compromise our freedom in order to get the benefits of cooperation when living in a social group.

We may call it spin but it really matters how the question is posed.  Whether it is an issue of big brother coming down on the individual,  or do the individual have the right to endanger or cost economic harm to the rest of the group.

The other aspect of this question is not that we should or should not have regulation, but that we should or should not have good regulation.  It is all too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater by objecting to the status quo and looking for a new start.

As in all matters, the answer is seldom a black and white yes or no.  It generally requires human intervention with careful balancing of the various considerations involved.

I am happy not to have to constantly test my water and food myself and have an auditor general to have oversight over government.

If only I can have some oversight of the auditor general, and oversight of the overseer..........