Liberals and liberals

Peter Kellner would, I'm sure, describe himself as a thoroughly liberal sort of chap. I can't say that I would regard him as such though.

One of our most striking findings is that as many as 77% of the public would support a ban on smoking in cars carrying children under 18. Only 11% oppose this. For the great majority of people, the health of children outweighs the freedom of adults to do what they want in their own private space. Even among smokers, supporters of a ban outnumber opponents by almost two-to-one (48% support, 27% oppose).

As a young journalist in the 1970s I recall covering the fierce debate over whether the wearing of seatbelts should be compulsory. The "freedom" lobby lost that battle and, more recently, we have had restrictions on the use of mobile phones by drivers. Now we find overwhelming support for further curbs on what we can do in our cars – only this time the cause, children's health, has nothing to do with road safety.

As a minimum qualification to be a liberal I would say that you've got to be able to distinguish between harm to oneself and harm to others. Mill certainly argued that harm to oneself isn't a sufficient reason for the banning of whatever it is that lead to such harm. But that harm, identifiable harm, to others or their rights was.

Not wearing a seatbelt risks harm to oneself and not to others...and indeed, Gordon Tullock has pointed out that not wearing a seatbelt but having a dagger on the steering wheel pointing at your heart is likely to make you a great deal safer to those around you than being buckled up.

Using a mobile does indeed make you more dangerous to those around you. So insisting that people wear a seatbelt is indeed a restriction of freedom not balanced by any protection of others while banning the use of mobiles is the protection of others and thus justified.

As to smoking in a car with children in it? It is necessary to show that harm is actually done by this before even an attempt can be made to justify it. (I can already see where they'll go next. If you can't smoke in your car with hte kids then why can you do so in your house?) That's actually really something of a problem. For when the UN did the Mother of All Studies on the effects of passive smoking a decade back they found only one statistically valid finding about child exposure to second hand smoke. That it protected them in later life from lung cancer.

So, as there's no proof that being in a car with a smoker damages a child's health then there is no justification for banning it.

Actions: Print this article   |   Email to a friend   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved