Recently,
MPs in the UK voted in favour of banning smoking in cars where a
child is present. The shadow health minister Luciana
Berger
(Lab) addressed the house of commons claiming that 'This
is a simple measure that would make a world of difference to hundreds
of thousands of children right across our country. Reducing the
misery afflicted by passive smoking. Saving millions of pounds for
our NHS and protecting children who do not have a voice, and do not
have a choice. Who in 20 years time, will wonder how this was ever
allowed in the first place'. This
amendment passed 376 votes to 107 (please see link at the end of this
article). The most fascinating thing about the passing of this new
law ( set to be active by 2015) is the lack of attention it received
in the media, after a few days of coverage the issue disappeared.
This piece of legislation follows in a long line of piecemeal
policies that can only be defined as 'moral' or 'safety promoting'.
Another recent example of this is David Cameron's 'opt-in' system of
viewing pornography. Whereby in order to have access to adult
material online, users must actively contact their internet service
provider ( again set for implementation in 2015). Far from being an
angry tirade against 'Health and safety gone mad', this article will
seek to identify a worrying trend in politics, whereby it is
increasingly the government defines how best to live. And by doing
so, adds to the already byzantine state structue. This, of course
has a long history stretching back to the birth of the modern nation,
but arguably as a result of two large-scale public wars over the past
ten years it has taken a characteristically 21st
century tone. The War for health is the third public war.
21st
Century Tone
'Liberalism has
to an increasing extent adopted the
policy of
dictating the actions of citizens, and, by consequence,
diminishing the
range throughout which their actions remain free' -
Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State
Herbert Spencer
wrote the following passage in 1885. Lamenting the rapidly expanding
state. It is difficult to fathom what Spencer would have made of the
modern state, however the meaning of this passage is to demonstrate
how over the course of a relatively short space of time historically
speaking. The idea of government intervention has changed mostly a
foreign concept to an institution that has influence over every
aspect of our lives. Since Spencer’s death in 1903 social concepts
of liberty and life have changed dramatically. Throughout the postwar
period,the public war been a defining feature. Since the late 90s a
war for health has been quietly under way. Fundamentally, already at
the beginning of the 2000s we were fighting two massive domestic
wars. The war on drugs and the war on terror. Both have been
disastrous in terms of casualties and in terms of expense The most
renowned piece of legislation passed being the US patriot act in
2001. Similar laws have been implemented in Britain such as the
prevention of terrorism act (2005). Arguably this sets a precedent of
state power that is difficult to counter act. In fact it is obvious
that in the media, government and big business. The idea of progress
is inseparable from the growth of state power. It is this context
that we must assess the gradual encroachment of the state into our
lives. Not as opponents to safety and well-being, but as individuals
that fully comprehend the very real dangers of unopposed government
expansion. Even a cursory look at the exhaustive lists of legislation
passed by the UK parliament over the past 15 years reveals that the
vast majority are safety related. Often minor amendments to existing
laws and regulations. This backdrop of constant high intensity
government action, allows measures like banning smoking in cars
possible with a minimal altercation.
Ultimately
politicians on all sides provide little in the way of opposition to
this 'progress'. Although in the news there may appear to be very
real differences between the two sides of the debate represented by
the established political parties. However in reality on the
fundamental 'progressive' issues there is a silent, but concrete
consensus. Ultimately it would be political suicide for any
politician anywhere in the western world to denounce the war on drugs
or the war on terror. Fundamentally the same atmosphere is rapidly
developing around the issues of public health. It is often stated
that in the UK, as a result of having a public healthcare system
justifies an increasingly intrusive set of social policies. Yet in
the USA, where healthcare is largely private, identical health
policies have been implemented for a plethora of different reasons.
Several US states have already banned smoking in cars where a child
is present. True healthcare issues are complex and defy simple
answers. However, increasing the scope of the state to deal with
these issues will only lead to disaster.
Arguably
governments are right to be scared about the public's health. In the
next 20 years (see Link at the bottom of the page) an increasing
majority of the populations of western countries will be of
pensionable age. With the bankruptcy of the city of Detroit in July
2013 fresh in our minds. Governments are already struggling to keep
the money flowing to their millions of dependants. The case is more
acute in the UK where the public healthcare system faces a tsunami of
demand in the near future. It is therefore understandable that
governments are beginning to panic. Unfortunately many will fail to
act before the situation hits crisis point. Consequently the 21st
century theme of unopposed government expansion and public conflict
will continue. As the state will need to grow, simply to sustain
itself.
Wolves in Sheep's
clothing
It is clear that the
war for safety is rapidly gathering in pace. It is increasingly
governments job to ensure that we live safe and healthy lives.
Arguably, this is a long way off from William Beverage's idea of what
a welfare state should look like. Ultimately government policy is
more aggressive in protecting citizens from themselves then at any
time previously. Again it is important to note that this is not a
tirade against those who choose to live in a safer environment, or
those who choose by voluntary means to live a healthy lifestyle. In
fact, common sense encourages that we live safely and healthy, to the
best of our ability. This article is concerned with the process
whereby, under the guise of ensuring a high standard of public
health, government is advancing it's reach far beyond what any sane
person could permit.
As is the case with
the war on drugs and the war on terror. The vast amounts of money
spent on these public wars, does not justify the threat. Indeed, the
threat is elusive. Intangible to the average citizen. Those outside
the elite state sphere simply are not able to identify just how much
we are all in danger. Thus, we must settle for the promise of
protection. Usually at huge public expense, measured not only in
terms of monetary value, but in terms of the liberties we must
surrender so that our government can adequately fight this 'threat'.
In his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop Radley Blako outline
a chilling scenario whereby under the guide of the war on drugs. The
police forces in America have been militarized
'Not only does
the military continue to provide surplus weapons to domestic police
agencies, but thanks to the Department of Homeland Security grants,
military contractors are now shifting to market resources toward
police agencies. Worse, a new industry appears to be emerging just to
convert these grants into battle-grade gear. That means we'll soon
have powerful private interests, funded by government grants, who
will lobby for more government grants to pay for further
militarization- a police industrial complex' Radley Blako, Rise
of the Warrior Cop
Furthermore already
increasing amounts of government and state affiliated contractor
money is used in airports, our streets and online to fight the war on
terror. As a result of what has happened with drugs and terror, it
could be argued that the same is happening to health.
Huge amounts of
mandatory pricing already pushes up the cost of alcohol, cigarettes
and foods that are high in sugar or fat. Despite the fact that little
evidence shows that this has been effective in preventing people from
living an unhealthy lifestyle. It is increasingly difficult to
imagine a world in the near future, whereby the state does not use
its power, under the guise on the 'war for health' to further
advance its power. Admittedly there will be those who believe that
the governments new role in promoting health is essentially benign.
However this was the case with the war on drugs or the war on terror.
Small scale advances that collectively add up, to from a new edifice
through which the state extends its power. Ultimately these 'public
wars' have little to do with the crusade that is used to identify
them. The ultimate goal in an extension of state power. Evidence for
this can be seen when we take a cursory look at society around us.
Terror is no less of an issue, and illegal drugs no less relevant.
The policies have had a negligible effect at best.
The war on drugs and
the war on terror burn on. However another war is beginning to take
shape, the 'war for health'. Even those who genuinely desire a more
healthy society should worry about using the state as a means of
achieving their desired aims.
No comments:
Post a Comment