The other day, I posted a link to a story on a health care company firing smokers. At the time, I said it is the sort of thing that it would be nice to see state and local governments doing. This article, from the BBC, has some more details. Most of the article is the same as the other. All seems very positive, after all, we all know smoking is bad for you. Most of us don't like smoke. Its all very unpopular. Very easy to dismiss, or even feel encouraged by, someone banning smokers. However, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tools for thee". Towards the end of the article, is the following snippet of information: "According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers." Again, at first, this sounds fairly innocuous. But then remember, that according to our definitions, most Americans are overweight. Now, I say I'm fat all the time. And I do weight more than I should, by about 50 pounds. But most of my friends, while recognizing that I could and should loose some weight, say that it doesn't show that much, and most have trouble agreeing to my 50 pound figure. And that figure itself, at my height, I would still probably be considered overweight if I did loose 50 pounds, even though that would put me within 15 pounds of the weight I wrestled in high school, and never mind the fact that I'm stronger now than I was then, though in worse shape. This long tangent really does tie in. If I worked for Weyco, and Mr. Weyers were able to implement his dream of enforcing health standards further, I'd prob be at risk of loosing my job. That puts a different light on it, doesn't it? We always have to be VERY careful allowing our employers, or our governments, since government could do this as easily as Weyco has, control over our lives. This sort of thing brings out the libertarian in me, and some people would dismiss me out of hand. It is, however, imperative that individual responsibility be promoted, enhanced, and protected. "Freedom" is not the same as "license", in part because freedom, unlike license, is directly proportional to responsibility. Almost sounds like a contradiction or paradox. But in an absolute sense, we cannot have free will without the ability to cause real harm. That does not mean that causing harm is not wrong, we have the responsibility not to cause harm. We are free to do what ever, but some things are wrong. Contrast this to "license." If you have a license to hunt ducks, there might be restrictions on your license, but within the bounds of that license, you are not responsible for what duck you choose to hunt, or how you choose to hunt it. This is not a perfect analogy, because while the license to hunt does not impose responsibility, you are still responsible for your actions because of other things. For instance, you are still responsible, under our still somewhat free government, to not kill or recklessly endanger anyone. But as bad as my ability to demonstrate it may be, properly understood (consult a dictionary, its definition number 3 and 4 in both Webster's and Wordnet), license is different from freedom. Again, I am tangenting. But again, the tangent is related. We do not want a license to eat (so much), but the freedom to eat what we see fit. And, if we overeat, we accept (or should accept), as part and parcel of that freedom, the responsibility for the impact on our health. The problem is that it isn't quite so simple. Health-care costs have skyrocketed, and without insurance, many people would be unable to afford a level of care that many of us would now consider "basic." Thus we are all in need of medical insurance, and by that need, the increased cost of my choices affect (effect?) the premiums you pay. And my freedom, reasonably, necessarily, ends where yours starts. So where is the line drawn? That's a good question, one we should be hesitant to allow health insurance companies, employers, or governments draw casually.
