Freedom isn't Free

In the past decade of American politics, I've seen a great upsurge in legislation attempting to curb and control legal acts of American citizens. The federal government is currently clamoring for increased taxes on the upper echelons of income earners, thereby punishing American citizens for being too productive and/or innovative; Governor Romney introduced state government interference in Massachusetts with "Romneycare"; many city governments want a piece of the pie and pass legislation banning smoking in "public" places which are actually privately-owned entities, regardless of owners' desires.
These are not the only efforts of this genre being pushed in governments all over America and the West, but these and all the others have one thing in common:  they are an attempt to control the indirect consequences of citizens' legal actions.
(Incidentally, there is one type of entity that already does this and has done it for decades, to almost universal hatred:  homeowners' associations, also known as Those Guys that Threaten you with Jail Time if you don't Lay your Sod Fast Enough. Somehow Americans seem to think HAs are the spawn of Satan, but continually elect politicians who promise to act likewise. But I digress. It is not for me to fume about election results. I do anyway though.)
I suppose this recent wave is the result of a collective realization that, when you let people do what they want, there's a risk they'll do something you don't like that may affect you indirectly. This is no secret and never has been. The question remains, however... is it moral to legally curb acts that are perfectly legal because you don't like the indirect consequences thereof?
The anti-smoking crowd here cries "YES! I have the right not to have my lungs infected!" Yes, you're right, you have the right not to be forced to have your lungs infected. Any citizen that duct tapes you to the chair and forces you to light up should be punished (and needs to get a life if that's their bizarre hobby).
If someone lights up in your house and you ask him to stop or leave, you are within your rights as well. It's your house, and individuals cannot behave however they want in an establishment you own. But what if you go to a restaurant where the owner happens to permit smoking? What then? Can you insist that it be banned? Isn't that like saying your friend should rearrange the furniture in his house just because you don't like where things are?
"No, it's not," you cry, "because furniture arrangements don't put my health at risk!" (Ask Kevin for his opinion on that one.) OK, you make a point that sounds good, although it doesn't invalidate mine. Let's take another example though:  what about driving a large SUV? If you're a believer in global warming, you think that driving a large SUV puts the entire planet at risk, not just a few measly individuals. Not only that, but if you were to get into a car accident, you would be more likely to survive it if it was with a smaller vehicle, not a larger one. On top of that, there is a finite amount of gasoline in this world, and for every SUV driven the price goes up that much more, which also affects everybody. Driving an SUV seems downright menacing for society all things considered.
I could find other examples too, but I think I've made my point, which is that the rationale for banning smoking in privately-owned institutions open to the public is devilishly applicable to many other things and opens up a whole new pathway for legislative control. (Healthcare, anyone? Two words:  ration ing.) And before I leave this subject, you have the right to lungs as clean as you can keep them. Just leave the bloody restaurant or complain to the manager or use any of the other dozens of possibilities left to you before going to the state.
I'd be tempted to stop and leave it there, but there's still more to be done for this post. You see, up to now I've been dancing around the issue. All the above words are largely a bloviation and you just wasted your time. Now I wish to cut into the heart of the matter.
In a free society, there are great risks, brought on by the fact that there are many other individuals all making choices, all with the potential to indirectly affect you either positively or negatively. They are far outweighed by greater rewards, but the risks are greater nonetheless. Anybody who has read 1984 can see that Winston and his compatriots didn't have much chance of dying from anything but oppression and boredom (until the rottenness of the institution eventually spreads to the agricultural sector and people starve to death, but I'm trying to keep things simple here). There's a trade-off here. A trade-off of what?
Of liberty and security.
Does that phrase sound familiar to you? (If you said yes, you get a gold star sticker.) Ever a thorn in the side of Bush's Patriot Act, Obama's NDAA, and countless other dictatorial measures, this phrase stands as a sober reminder. It is rightly and often quoted, and although there are those who claim it has been taken out of context, whether the present version is garbled or not it contains a nugget of truth to be treasured and examined. In a free society, individuals have a wider array of choices to make, and these choices all have the potential of indirectly affecting someone else. In a truly free society (which status is ideal), individuals are free to make choices regardless of indirect consequences on themselves or others.
So keep all this in mind the next time somebody does something you don't like, like smoking, or driving a big car, or getting a mammogram, or whatever. I'm sure you do things that bug the rest of us too.
I could go on and on about this, but I feel like this post is big enough as it is, though the subject begs further discussion. Maybe in a later post.

In closing, I've always found it agonizingly, ironically painful that people cry "Freedom isn't free!" when soldiers lose their lives, but when they are inconvenienced in a relatively minor way, freedom is the first thing to go. I guess they thought freedom is free for everybody but soldiers, which unfortunate souls are required to pay the ultimate sacrifice while the rest of us pass laws to control others in order to ensure our comfort. If that IS how the system's supposed to be run, I apologize that the memo never reached me.