vote no to Measure 4 and the concept of legislated morality

This article is a response to Bryan LaBore’s letter to the editor voicing support of Measure 4, citing a variety of reasons, but primarily basing it on the belief that if government raises taxes on tobacco they can not only increase funding for veterans services but also achieve the goal of eventually ending the use of tobacco products among young Americans. Bryan’s article, however, starts from a flawed set of assumption that it is the role of the government to regulate behavior, that individuals are fundamentally incapable of making the right choices given their situations and that government has not only the right but the responsibility to control behaviors via methods of market manipulation.

Make no mistake, by increasing the tax on tobacco by 400 percent, they are attempting to control behaviors by pricing individuals out of the market, through the so called “sin tax” mechanism. This measure continues the dangerous precedent of the sin tax, the belief that the government can arbitrarily tax the sale of certain items at a significantly higher rate because these behaviors go against the collective morals of society. Such collectivism creates a slippery slope, which allows the majority to force its desires and societal beliefs on the minority.

One must ask; if we can increase the tax on tobacco use because we find it disturbing, than why could we not raise the taxes on food or other items which have a trend to make individuals more obese or give them the potential to become dangerous members of society, such as increasing the tax on soda, potato chips or of course firearms.

Such a proposal would sound impossible of course, if it had not already been tried in the state of New York, where it was met with widespread ridicule, but the fact that the government even considered this a viable option in the first place speaks volumes about the problems inherent with the “sin” tax.  The apparent disconnect here is as a lack of understanding about the concepts of precedent and governmental power. I never cease to be amazed by people who do not grasp a very simple concept, if you give government the power and authority to suppress or control any group no matter how small, you have invariably given them the power to suppress and control you in the future.

In short, if you give someone power over you to do something you like, you invariably give them the power to do something you don’t like.

The issue of Measure 4, as a result has nothing to do with where the money goes, how many lives we will save by reducing tobacco use or even if society will be better off without tobacco use.  The question is: do we as a country want to value collectivism or liberty? I personally choose to stand on the side of liberty, I believe that ultimately the most powerful force in the world is the individual and that the one size fits all policies of the collective will always fail more people than they help. I also believe that a threat to individual liberties anywhere in society no matter how small is a threat to all liberties eventually.

Throughout mankind, societies have followed a seemingly endless waltz with the three beats of democracy, collectivism and tyranny repeat eternally. As an example in the modern era, we can follow the transition of Germany, Spain, Russia and even Chile from democracies to differing forms of collectivism, to tyrannical states. These transitions always start with the noble goals of changing a perceived negative behavior in the name of productivity or the spirit of one group of undesirables pay more to benefit the rest of society.

I would ask you to stand by the same beliefs that our founders had, that nations have only three legitimate purposes; to provide defense of natural rights for their citizens (whether it be from internal or external threats), to provide the basic tools needed for society to function (roads, education) and to create a unified system of weights, measures and a uniform method of exchange for their citizens to partake in the economy (currency).  They also believed, that while revenues must be raised, that no particular group should be unequally targeted in order to provide these services. I would plead with you, to always ask with any new law whether it not only achieves the societal goals of the founders, but also does so in a method which their ideology, that of individualism and liberty, would have found acceptable.

As a result, I find it deeply concerning that so called conservatives, whom advocate for limited government would consider this measure for even one instant as it distorts the free market due to certain goods taxed at increased rates. In truth this displays everything wrong with the North Dakota republican, they hide behind the concepts of limited government when it is convenient to do so, while at the same time creating dangerous precedents to expand the overall power and role of government.

Republican leadership also claimed that they would be fiscally conservative, but now in a time of budget shortfalls, instead of following their principles of reigning in government, they have by proxy decided to endorse the idea of increasing revenue through taxation.

At least the liberal is honest with their intentions to both rapidly and dramatically alter and reshape a society, at least they never claim to support the concept of economic or personal liberty. As Joseph Conrad and countless others have opined, it is better to be an honest devil than a deceiving one, since at least the honest devil gives you a true choice, and the goal of this piece was to expose the real intentions of those in support of Measure 4, creation of a different society through gradual collectivist control.

I hope that everyone reading this will now realize what it really at stake in regards to Measure 4, and stand with liberty against this measure. I will leave you with a quote from Martin Niemöller on the dangers of allowing government power to expand

“First they came for the… and I did not speak out — Because I was not a… then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me”

Dave Owen is the opinion editor of The Dakota Student. He can be reached at [email protected]