Some thoughts on a former congressman and the question of Freedom
Now, I was reading an article in my local newspaper that was written by a former congressman whose name rhymes with "Lob Farr" and whose initials are BB. He was writing about some company's new policy of firing anyone who is a smoker whether or not they smoke on the job. The point of his article was that this violates the rights of this hypothetical worker who is a smoker but doesn't smoke on the job, because it invades their privacy. The writer wanted congress to pass a law forbidding this company (and all others) to dismiss anyone for being a smoker; the passage of this law would protect the rights (freedoms) of these workers, so they could be free to smoke at home.
In reality, anyone can smoke at home if they want to, it's just that there may be consequences for that: lung cancer, emphysema, and now, dismissal from your job. But Mr. Farr (pseudonym) thinks that government should step in to prevent that last consequence from ever materializing. There can be some consequences for your actions, but gov forbid that any consequences be imposed by your employer. Employers are people too. At least, they are entities that should have some rights and some autonomy before the law under a constitutionally limited government.
So which freedom is more important: the freedom of smokers to keep their jobs, or the freedom of employers to fire them? The question is inherently flawed, because keeping your job is not a freedom, but rather a consensual arrangement between the employer and the employee. When either party's consent is made irrelevant by government action, that party's freedom is lost, and what the other party gains is not freedom. Freedom is an absence of government-imposed limits, slavery, and imprisonment. When government acts, it should first prove that the freedom it takes away is less important than the benefit or protection it provides. For instance, a prohibition on murder is considered more important in the life it protects than the freedom to act (on a desire to kill) that it takes away. When government imprisons a thief, it takes away his freedom of movement because that freedom is considered less important than the property rights of law-abiding citizens.
I'm not saying that I think firing smokers who smoke at home is a good idea. In fact, I think it's a pretty bad idea and would cost the company more than it could benefit the company. But I don't think it's my decision, or should be my decision, or the government's decision either. In this case, the freedom of employers to hire and fire whomsoever they please is far more important than the individual jobs of a few smokers or whether or not one company is making a good employment decision.
The sad thing is, U.S. companies are very limited in their employment freedom by a U.S. government that long ago gave up abiding by the constitution that is supposed to govern it. If a company breaks one of the many laws that govern it, it will face (almost) sure and swift and painful penalties brought by the government, but if government breaks the one simple-to-follow Law (the constitution) that governs it, who will bring consequences? Well, the problem is that no one does anymore. Used to be honest statesmen standing up for the old parchment, reminding people of their duty to the highest law in the land. Nowadays, no one stands up for the constitution unless it's a part that's particularly popular with their constituents or their most powerful special interest group.
I don't blame Mr. Farr (not his real name). He grew up (as did almost everyone else alive today) in an era of very little respect for the constitution, and most people have lost sight of what true freedom means. Too many think it means government protecting us from people (or corporations) doing things we don't like. Maybe we can turn the tide against this perverse idea of freedom, but it's going to take a lot of work, a lot of honesty, and a lot of patience.
SRS
Note: this blog entry used to be found at Backlog Bob's Blog. It no longer appears there.
In reality, anyone can smoke at home if they want to, it's just that there may be consequences for that: lung cancer, emphysema, and now, dismissal from your job. But Mr. Farr (pseudonym) thinks that government should step in to prevent that last consequence from ever materializing. There can be some consequences for your actions, but gov forbid that any consequences be imposed by your employer. Employers are people too. At least, they are entities that should have some rights and some autonomy before the law under a constitutionally limited government.
So which freedom is more important: the freedom of smokers to keep their jobs, or the freedom of employers to fire them? The question is inherently flawed, because keeping your job is not a freedom, but rather a consensual arrangement between the employer and the employee. When either party's consent is made irrelevant by government action, that party's freedom is lost, and what the other party gains is not freedom. Freedom is an absence of government-imposed limits, slavery, and imprisonment. When government acts, it should first prove that the freedom it takes away is less important than the benefit or protection it provides. For instance, a prohibition on murder is considered more important in the life it protects than the freedom to act (on a desire to kill) that it takes away. When government imprisons a thief, it takes away his freedom of movement because that freedom is considered less important than the property rights of law-abiding citizens.
I'm not saying that I think firing smokers who smoke at home is a good idea. In fact, I think it's a pretty bad idea and would cost the company more than it could benefit the company. But I don't think it's my decision, or should be my decision, or the government's decision either. In this case, the freedom of employers to hire and fire whomsoever they please is far more important than the individual jobs of a few smokers or whether or not one company is making a good employment decision.
The sad thing is, U.S. companies are very limited in their employment freedom by a U.S. government that long ago gave up abiding by the constitution that is supposed to govern it. If a company breaks one of the many laws that govern it, it will face (almost) sure and swift and painful penalties brought by the government, but if government breaks the one simple-to-follow Law (the constitution) that governs it, who will bring consequences? Well, the problem is that no one does anymore. Used to be honest statesmen standing up for the old parchment, reminding people of their duty to the highest law in the land. Nowadays, no one stands up for the constitution unless it's a part that's particularly popular with their constituents or their most powerful special interest group.
I don't blame Mr. Farr (not his real name). He grew up (as did almost everyone else alive today) in an era of very little respect for the constitution, and most people have lost sight of what true freedom means. Too many think it means government protecting us from people (or corporations) doing things we don't like. Maybe we can turn the tide against this perverse idea of freedom, but it's going to take a lot of work, a lot of honesty, and a lot of patience.
SRS
Note: this blog entry used to be found at Backlog Bob's Blog. It no longer appears there.
posted by weblogbob83 at 4:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home