The Voice of the People

I recently had a discussion with a friend in which she accused me of inconsistency. The accusation stemmed from a discussion we'd had on the "voice of the people," a term so overly-exploited that black-market brothels might start hanging it above their entryways as a covert signal to potential johns. The discussion was on governmentally-instituted smoking bans. She was in favor, and I was against. I had said that people should decide on their own whether smoking should be allowed in public places by voting with their dollars and feet, making decisions freely. She asked if I would accept a smoking ban if it was voted on and approved by a majority of the people. I said no. Thence came the accusation of inconsistency, saying that if I was in favor of people working things out, then I should be okay with the majority of the people deciding that smoking should be banned.

The astute substantive rhetorician will know, as I did and do, that I was not being inconsistent. For the less-astute, allow me to explain below wherein I was being consistent, when to the uninitiated (but we are initiated, aren't we, Mr. Wayne?) it may seem like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth in blind allegiance to my radical ideology.

Let me lay some groundwork here by asking you this question:  if somebody came to you and proposed a trade, on what conditions would you accept it? The correct answer, and the one people everywhere unconsciously give every day, is that they would only execute the trade if they felt that they were better off from it. This principle is true for everybody--including the person who initiated the trade. In other words, everybody is better off when people are allowed to trade freely without coercive interference. I only fill my tank with gasoline because I perceive it to be the best use of that $50 it takes, whatever I may mumble under my breath at the pump at the time notwithstanding.

If coercion becomes a part of the formula, people will be forced to make decisions that aren't mutually beneficial. The use of coercion during exchanges is the principle behind bank robberies, rapes, and pretty much every criminal and evil thing there is. Coercion is bad on an individual and societal level. People, as individuals and as a whole, are worse off because of it, and their liberties are violated--their right to life is menaced, their right to liberty is compromised, and their right to private property and the management thereof is trampled.

TLDR:  coercion is bad in two ways, in that it violates people's liberties, and that they engage in exchanges that aren't mutually beneficial, and causes an increase in overall poverty.

This begs the question:  what is the tie between coercion and the disagreement I had with my friend?

The answer lies in the nature of government. Government is little more than legalized coercion. For example:  the police are the only people allowed to use physical force in our society. Another example:  if I don't pay my bill from McDonald's (which, I reassure you, I always do promptly--fast food workers have saliva glands for the food of their bad customers), then I get sent to collections, and there's a civil suit against me, but I will not get put into prison. If, however, I do not pay my taxes, the IRS will slap my butt in prison in a heartbeat if they feel like it that day. Get the picture? The reason the government is feared in a way Wal-Mart or Esmeralda's Exotic Massages is not is because the government reserves the privilege to use force against you, whereas all Wal-Mart can do is send their octogenarian door-greeters scuttling after you, throwing salt shakers and buckets of generic ice cream at your retreating back. The government can send a SWAT team or, even worse, IRS agents after your little heinie. (I'll warn you, though, a lobbed half-gallon of Rocky Road is nothing to sneeze at.)

TLDR:  the government can use force against you, but nobody else can, so when the government is involved it's an entirely different ball of wax. And something about octogenarians and flying ice cream.

In my ideal situation, there is no coercion involved. Restaurants and bars and casinos decide for themselves whether or not they will allow smoking, and customers will decide for themselves whether they wish to frequent establishments that permit smoking or those that do not permit smoking. No one is being forced against their will. Nobody's liberty is being violated. All exchanges (of time, money, food, etc) are mutually beneficial.

My friend, however, advocated for government intrusion in the matter. This introduces an element of coercion and rights-deprivation. If a restaurant decides to ban smoking, it faces no penalty, but if the bar down the street decides that society's greatest economic marginal benefit is derived from permitting smoking, it is hit with pecuniary fines, and, if the owner fails to pay those, could potentially be threatened with some time in the slammer. All exchanges are not mutual--thus there is less well-being, or economic surplus (to use the technical term, and no, economic surplus does not refer exclusively to financial surplus) in the latter scenario, than in the first.

A restaurant is the property of its owners, and its owners dictate the policies of said restaurant. Anything less amounts to government intrusion and a small but harmful slice of totalitarianism. Of course, totalitarianism is wonderful phenomenon and its entry is applauded as long as it's something the mob likes. After all, literal democracy is the ideal, isn't it? 50.1% of everybody should be able to do whatever they want, right?

Wrong. A constitutional democratic republic is a far superior form of government--for in a constitutional society, certain inalienable rights can be recognized (such as the right to life, liberty, and property--notice that I said recognized, not accorded) that might not be recognized by the 50.1%. Tyranny is wrong in all its forms. Never cheer for the legal codification of your moral standard, for the codification of its antithesis is not far off.