It Starts With a Cookie
by Max Raskin H.L. Mencken once said that Puritanism is the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Though this doctrine disappeared, it has been replaced by a secular, yet nonetheless pious doctrine of social liberalism, and thus it is pertinent to update the maxim to define liberalism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may not be eating no-fat, soy infused, whole wheat (chaff included) cardboard. Just like the zealots of old, modern day liberals seek to foist their morality upon us through the state with religious conviction. This intrusion is no more evident than in my high school, where I am no longer allowed, by law, to eat more than one cookie a day. That’s right, it is illegal for the school cafeteria to sell more than one delicious chocolate chip cookie to each student. Although my claim against the state may seem trivial, it is important to remember that even the most despotic regimes have to start somewhere, and for me, it begins with a cookie. Not only is it the cookie that will face the wrath of the state of New Jersey, but also a whole assortment of delectable treats will be subject to this draconian initiative. No longer will I be able to eat french fries, but I will have to consume french, baked rectangular potato prisms – those once sacrosanct complement to any burger (now made with lean meat) have been defiled by the evil oven. Good luck finding regular pizza dough, whole wheat is the new norm, and for good measure they are now topping them with skim-milk mozzarella cheese. Is nothing sacred to these food fascists? The Star Ledger reports "The state initiative bans food of minimal nutritional value, including soda, candy or any item listing sugar as its first ingredient." Mark those words well, for the road to tyranny begins. The first argument to consider against those cookie monsters who seek to deprive us, is that vices are not crimes, and should never be confused as such. A crime is a deliberate initiation of aggression against the body or property of another, whereas a vice constitutes a person harming his own person or property. The vice here in question is that of obesity. Never mind that some people will simply never be skinny, and others, like myself, can eat their own weight in SPAM, and never gain a pound, the issue here is the arbitrariness of the enforcement of such vice-preventing laws. The humans are not without fault should not prompt government action, but rather should spur each individual to better himself. It is natural for people to have done things in their lives that they regret, the 2004 Presidential Election being a prime example of this. Part of being an acting human is constantly learning from one’s mistakes. Having realized that we all have our vices and flaws, the problem comes in choosing which vices to punish and which not to. In making this decision of valuing one vice over another, or choosing one end over another, the government is, in essence, legislating our own morality for us. One cannot learn morality if they are not allowed to see the harms of immorality. Someone could speak for hours on why gambling is bad, but the day after you lose a thousand dollars playing poker, you have a firm understanding of the dangers of gambling. Government can impose its morality by fiat all it wants, but in the end, the individual will not be a better person, but will simply be that more eager to eat cookies until they overdose. Although the legislation of eating habits does not necessarily lead to the legislation of other aspects of our life, it does offer the justification and legal precedence for doing so. Today they are limiting what we can eat by claiming that it is bad for us, but if we allow that they are the ones who decide what "bad" really is, then tomorrow, they may outlaw video games is bad or prohibit physical exertion. Maybe the state decides that one’s health isn’t his most important quality, but rather that one’s intellectual background is just as significant, and decides that subversive literature should not be allowed. When we permit the state to even once legislate vices, we open up the floodgates to all sorts of grave abuses. So while cookie eating may not appear to be a big deal, it offers a solid justification for furthering state tyranny. The final argument against the cookimunists is the simple economics of prohibition, and why it simple cannot work. If the state is not willing to illegalize cookies totally, then they dismally fail in preventing obesity, as a child can simply go to a store of buy vast amounts of cookies. Being deprived makes him more likely to go on an eating binge, possibly shooting up, and ODing by CDing (cookie-doughing). But let us say that George W. Bush, in all his infinite wisdom, announces tomorrow that we have begun a "War on Nabiscoism." Whatever it is that prompts such a war, maybe someone stealing the cookies from the cookie jar, Bush illegalizes the distribution and ownership of any type of cookie. As the laws of supply and demand kick into effect, an incentive will be provided to produce more and more cookies. The government prohibition will make cookies more scarce, yet the quantity demanded would not decrease, thus making profits rise and providing a greater incentive for cookie production. To fight to war, one must fight it on the demand side, by curbing peoples’ desires for cookies. And thus, in conclusion, we find that this prohibition, like all others, is not only immoral, but also ineffectual. So long as people desire something, no amount of government intervention will prevent them from getting it, and, because no amount of government intervention will prevent people from having urges for cookies, the state cannot do what it seeks to do. Laws that force us to live a certain way are, and always will be, wrong. They are a usurpation of our liberty and must be looked at as such. For the sake of freedom and human dignity, leave me alone and let me eat my three cookies. September 19, 2006 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |