We can all agree that it is a good idea for all of us, to eat healthful, wholesome foods. Another good idea is to exercise several times per week, perhaps by lifting weights and walking or cycling a few miles. There is ample medical evidence that eating nutritious meals, combined with regular exercise is to our personal benefit. It is also to the benefit of society as we would incur lower healthcare costs.
The inevitable question then is whether these good ideas, we all agree on, should become the law of the land; we would be healthier, and we would save on healthcare costs. More explicitly, as Professor Walter asks, “should Congress enact a law requiring every able-bodied American to lift weights four times a week and bike forty to sixty miles each week? If you think such a law would be an invasion of our privacy, consider that other good ideas have already been enacted into mandates such as wearing a bike helmet while bike riding, and wearing a seat belt in a car.
Moreover, a congressional law mandating physical fitness programs presents no downside to the fitter population, and people would have a longer, and possibly happier, working life. Professor Walter suggests we may title such a law the “Improving American Health Act.” Of course, the Improving American Health Act would have to impose fines and penalties on any able-bodied person found not to be in compliance. But who could be against such a compassionately labeled, cost-effective, and beneficial measure?
My constitutionally savvy readers may jump in here to argue that the Improving American Health Act would be unconstitutional, because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact such an intrusive law. Unfortunately, they would be wrong. Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To…provide for the…general Welfare of the United States.”
Also, since unhealthy Americans would be a burden on economic activity, the Improving American Health Act could find constitutional viability under the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 3) which grants Congress the power “To regulate Commerce…”
And sadly, those of us that find the Improving American Health Act to be an abomination would be labeled as people that do not want to see a healthier America.
Philosophers could even argue for the morality of the Improving American Health Act on utilitarian grounds of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Consequentialist philosophers understand moral value only in terms of the outcome of an action leaving aside any other questions. For them, the clear outcome of the Improving American Health Act would be a healthier American people and lower healthcare costs.
How can we intellectually counter this intrusion into our lives? One compelling strategy is to bring to bear the libertarian arguments of the relationship between the state and the individual. As libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick reminds us, ‘Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).’
These individual rights are dominant, and they constraint the power of the state as it relates to the individual. These are natural rights that predate any social contract or institutions. These rights cannot be abrogated. They are inviolable. Thus, even if it is for their own good, it is not a good idea to use the coercive power of the law to force people into activities.
Professor Nozick offers that: “a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protecting against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; any more extensive state will violate a person’s rights not to be forced to do certain things and is unjustified…”
This limited state is the good idea the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Please let us know if you  this article. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment