Where Did My Capitalism Go?

The last article generated a great response so I want to continue along the same general topic: whether or not the government should be charged with protecting the people from themselves, specifically pertaining to the recent tobacco legislation signed into law. The legislation places heavy restrictions on tobacco marketing, primarily to thwart the youth of America from becoming smokers, but also to raise general awareness about the hazards of smoking.

While in the past the tobacco lobby was a definitive wall against such legislation, this time around Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest tobacco company, turned the tables and seemingly supported the legislation outright. This drew heavy criticism from other cigarette makers with lesser market share that said this new legislation would hinder them from winning a greater portion of the consumer base. Honestly, I have to hand it to Philip Morris…they saw an opportunity and took it. Who needs marketing anyway when you already have the customer addicted to your product? But I digress…

The question is: Does the government really think that covering 50% of a cigerette package with warning labels will deter people from smoking? The health hazards of tobacco are quite well known among the American public. We know that nicotine is addictive, so if you get into the habit, it will be very hard to stop. We know that smoking often leads to cancer, and ultimately reduces one’s life expectancy. I don’t think it’s the label on a package of cigarettes that entices the buyer. The product is what people want (and in a lot of cases, need). I don’t see tobacco sales drastically declining due to this legislation, just for that reason. If the government wants to continue to protect its people from the harmful habit of smoking, they should expect a long term, generational fight; one that should base itself on a new way of thinking rather than reactionary deterrents to the industry.

The most effective thing that the American people (government included) can do to curb the habit of smoking is to educate the youth of the nation. This already happens to a certain extent, but obviously our country (among many others) still has an issue with underage smokers. Banning the sale of candy-flavored cigarettes is a lame solution. A better idea would incentivize good parenting practices; for instance, a program that would give a tax-break to parents that kept their kids from smoking for a set amount of time. Truthfully, I’m against anything like this idea or the new laws since I don’t believe parenting or the tobacco market are any of the government’s business. But if the government’s going to intrude anyway they should address the root of problem (lack of attention when parenting) and not punish tobacco companies for diversifying their product line by reducing their marketing capability.

Well I’m sure that most have already heard about the new regulations over the financial system the Obama administration is proposing. Increased programs for consumer protection, more power delegated to the Federal Reserve when they’re faced with institutions deemed “too big to fail”, and increased federal oversight on certain types of products within the financial system are some of the hallmarks. Don’t mind me if I get a little philosophical here but, what is the purpose of government? Is it to protect people from themselves? To protect them from ignorance? Do we need the government to tell us what the risks are when buying stock, or how much we can truly afford when we’re considering a home mortgage?

At what point did people stop thinking for themselves, and start relying on the government for protection from their own mistakes? I can understand a government that provides services and functions to the taxpayer like interstate highways, and civic education, and even a standing military, but do we really need our government in the business of determining financial risk? I’m sure that this whole idea of government as its brother’s keeper got its start with FDR in the Great Depression (talk about seizing a great opportunity).

Think about social security and the federal deficit at the exact same time: Do you really think the US government is better at managing your money than you are? I, for one, do not, and now we see that more of the money promised to the government by the taxpayer is being spent on further public and private oversight. Still, every working American is forced to contribute a portion of their earned money to a program that protects them from an ill-prepared retirement when in its essence social security defeats the forward-thinking mind by rewarding the poor financial planning of the non-saver. The more power we vest in the government, the weaker we become.

I believe this weakness is what drove us to where our economy and understanding of governmental purpose is now. Did we expect the person selling us a house to say, “Maybe you can’t afford this…”? Did the buyer expect a federal agency to verify that each of the loans delved out to first-time buyers were appropriate for their level of income? Maybe some people were expecting that kind of protection. Either way the “security” that some seek may soon become a reality. What we’re seeing proposed is a patchwork of reactionary oversight aimed at strengthening the federal government’s role as the central network through which business transactions are processed. The role of government is shifting further away from its purest purpose as a servant of the people, and becoming more like a savior. I hope I’m not the only one that doesn’t want to be saved.