The
Nanny Corporation
DIGG THIS
All libertarians
of whatever ilk are heartily sick and tired of the nanny state.
We have rightfully had it up to "here" with governmental
nagging about smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, using seat
belts, motorcycle helmets (in Canada, a more "progressive"
country than even ours, it is against the law to ride a bicycle
without wearing headgear).
Not only are we outright prohibited the use of substances such as
marijuana, we even need permission to use ordinary drugs (prescription
laws). Thanks to the government, Nurse
Ratched is out and about, butting her big nose into our businesses
and personal lives, hither, thither and yon. There are entire alphabet
soup agencies dedicated to forcing us at the point of a gun, to
proverbially drink our milk and brush our teeth.
But what
about private companies that sell us products with strong nannyistic
tendencies? A case in point is Toyota, which is gearing up in this
regard with its 2009 models. These cars will come to us replete
with steering wheel sensors that can discern, based on the sweat
of our hands, whether we have been boozing it up or not. If so,
forget about driving; the automobile will shut down forthwith.
Are such
products compatible with libertarianism? Of course they are. After
all, if we do not like these items, we can always give them the
old Edsel
treatment; that
is, refuse to purchase them. That will make Toyota sit up and take
notice. If customers spurn this product in great numbers, that automobile
company will lose vast amounts of money. If that does not convince
them to pull in their horns on this sort of paternalism, bankruptcy
is only around the corner. On the other hand, of course, if this
new product offering meets with consumer approval, well, then, a
new option will have been added to consumer choice, and our economic
welfare will have taken that one further tiny step in an upward
direction. Quite possibly, as with most new initiatives, some will
accept it, others not. Then, under free enterprise, we can each
please ourselves.
But this
type of analysis does not meet with the approval of all commentators.
For example, Gunter,
Lorne. 2007. "Toyota, lending a hand with the nanny
state." National Post, January 8, p. A13 is
very exercised about this phenomenon.
This author
objects to these new automobiles on the ground that they will anticipate
that drunken (and other) drivers may wear gloves, and thus will
come replete with "other sensors to detect excess swerving,
and kill the engine. They may even install cameras to check your
pupils. Not focusing properly on the road ahead? Same result –
an involuntary halt to your driving."
Gunter
objects on several grounds. A "false positive" in extreme
cold weather might lead to death. Or you swerve to avoid "junk
on the road," and the sensor interprets this as driving under
the influence. Or you take your eye off what is in front of you
to yell at your quarrelling kids in the back seat. Ditto for "chatting
with passengers, putting on makeup, drinking coffee or eating while
driving, changing CDs or tuning the radio, talking on a cellphone."
The response
here is easy. If the sensors cannot distinguish between these things
and driving while inebriated, it is back to the workshop with them.
No auto executive worth 1% of his salary would try to flog a dog
like that.
And then
comes this howler from Gunter: "But more troubling is the moral
dimension – the way Toyota is setting itself up as a better judge
of your competence than you. This blurs the line between corporations
and the nanny state and implies consumers will not do the right
thing for themselves and their fellow drivers. They need a big,
‘socially responsible’ corporation interfering in their lives in
the name of the public good… Even if Toyota's idea worked and made
us safer, that safety would come at the cost of less personally
responsibility. We already look to government too much to protect
us from ourselves and others. And with less responsibility comes
less freedom."
Nonsense
on stilts, say I.
The enemy
of freedom is not paternalism, maternalism, do-goodism, nannyism,
busy-bodiness, bossiness, bossism, or whatever you want to call
it. Rather, what affronts justice is when these things are done
in a coercive manner. When such intrusiveness stems from
voluntary agreement, it does not at all offend liberty. If we can
accept voluntary sado-masochism, the ultimate in the squelching
of the human spirit, as being compatible with the libertarian law,
we can certainly find room in our legal code for a few bossy cars.
Take another example, the orchestra. Wind instrument players (tuba,
clarinet) are told when to breathe. (This is not a
misprint). Such instructions are right there in the score. If he
gulps in air at a time incompatible with these directions, the conductor
will stop the entire practice, glare at the musician, and tell him
to shape up or ship out. No overseer was ever so intrusive as to
tell a slave when to breath. The key is not totalitarianism of this
sort. It all depends upon whether or not the intrusion is agreed
upon. Toyota is completely in the right on this matter.
Gunter
continues his attack on free enterprise: "How long will it
be before crusading politicians – with the backing of safety-obsessed
voters and the cooperation of PR-conscious manufacturers – use
Toyota's example to make such devices mandatory on all vehicles?"
Well, if
the government does this, then we are no longer within the realm
of free markets. It is no longer corporate nannyism. It is now,
once again, the coercive government variety, to be opposed by all
men of good will.
 Toyota
paternalism is only the tip of the iceberg of course. Into this
category we must include business firms that sell us organic food,
health aids (tooth paste, aspirin, etc.), salads, shoes, clothes,
indeed, anything that we in our roles as busybody nannies in our
own behalves would purchase for ourselves. The logical implication
of Gunter’s critique of Toyota is that no business firm should
be allowed to improve the health and safety of its products. A strange
position indeed.
January
26, 2007
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
