The function of government, in a free society, is to do things for its citizens that they cannot do for themselves. Most modern democracies began that way and functioned as planned for a time. Inevitably, all such governments eventually succumb to the built-in weakness of representative government—those who govern. At some point, those empowered to enact laws will tire of the ordinary and expand their power to include changing society for “its own good,” in the opinion of those in power, and protecting people from themselves whether they like it or not. The result is sometimes called “The Nanny state.”  

 The idea of the federal government interfering with the freedom of Americans isn’t new. Probably the first instance began back in 1791 with the imposition of the first “sin tax.” Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton convinced Congress to approve taxes on distilled spirits. Hamilton's main reason for the tax was that he wanted to pay down the national debt, but he justified the tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue,” his word for sin taxes. This tax was the cause of what came to be known as the “Whiskey Rebellion.”  One of the things that caused the most trouble was that the distribution of the tax wasn’t equal; in part because the urbane sophisticated easterners drank mostly wine, while those on the frontier drank whiskey. The easterners were quite happy with the arrangement.

Back in 1920, the government, giving in to teetotalers and other anti-alcohol zealots, enacted Prohibition. What began as a do-gooder’s dream turned out to be a national nightmare—so much so that it was repealed in 1933?  After such a fiasco, one would think that the government had learned its lesson in trying to legislate the public moral, but there will always be those who believe it is their mission in life to make others do things their way under threat of the law.

Those who wrote the Constitution had the idea that people in this new country would be free to do as they pleased without interference from the government. Indeed, the federal government had no say-so over the lives of its citizens. It wasn’t until the federal government assumed the states’ debt for the revolution that it decided to meddle with the freedom of the people and make money off of them to boot.

In modern times, the government, from the federal down to City Hall, has increased its interference into peoples’ lives to a disturbing level. Perhaps the greatest example has been the attack on smokers. Apart from crushing taxes on tobacco, governments have limited the places where smoking is allowed. City councils or mayors have shut down smoking in restaurants and even bars. Some cities have imposed restrictions on smoking in peoples’ own homes and cars. Most people no longer smoke and there is no group more militant against the habit than former smokers. Predictably, they are in favor of all the taxes the government wants to levy.

Lately, following researchers reports, governments are going after fat—obesity. New York Mayor Bloomberg has banned cooking with trans-fat in restaurants within his jurisdiction. A free person ought to be able to eat whatever he wants without having a zealot down at city hall mandating the menu.

In San Francisco, the Supervisors passed a law just recently, decreed which types of water bowls "pet guardians" should use and the proper amount of food to feed your dog. This law was enacted at the behest of San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. They say that the law will make it easier prosecute cases of neglect. It is also a big pain in the rear for citizens that don’t neglect Fido. I would argue that the dog’s water bowl is none of the city’s business.

Again in California recently was the proposal to give a government agency the power and authority to remotely control thermostats in private buildings. In the name of power conservation, should we stand still for some “energy czar” somewhere deciding how much electricity we can use—power we are paying dearly for?

This being a presidential election year, a good question to ask yourself is “which candidate is most likely to butt into my business by imposing more and more of these kinds of nanny state outrages?”