The alcohol nannies

Jonah Goldberg writes a brilliant piece on the crackdown on drinking occuring in Great Britain and the backlash it is generating.

Winey Warriors

I have to say that if this more libertarian direction - freeing Lewis Libby and all -is the direction the National Review will be taking in the coming years (their talk about border fences is a little scary to me, frankly), then I might find some renewed hope in the National Review.

Jonah's brilliant deduction for why Great Britain, uniquely, is attracting the beer and liquor scolds and nannies: the National Health Service.

And he's right. As he argues:

"Britain still subscribes to a system where health care is for the most part socialized. When the bureaucrat-priesthood of the National Health Service decides that a certain behavior is unacceptable, the consequences potentially involve more than scolding. For example, in 2005, Britain’s health service started refusing certain surgeries for fat people. An official behind the decision conceded that one of the considerations was cost. Fat people would benefit from the surgery less, and so they deserved it less. As Tony Harrison, a British health-care expert, explained to the Toronto Sun at the time, 'Rationing is a reality when funding is limited.'

But it’s impossible to distinguish such cost-cutting judgments from moral ones. The reasoning is obvious: Fat people, smokers and — soon — drinkers deserve less health care because they bring their problems on themselves. In short, they deserve it. This is a perfectly logical perspective, and if I were in charge of everybody’s health care, I would probably resort to similar logic.

But I’m not in charge of everybody’s health care. Nor should anyone else be. In a free-market system, bad behavior will still have high costs personally and financially, but those costs are more likely to borne by you and you alone. The more you socialize the costs of personal liberty, the more license you give others to regulate it."

It's true. And it is an important reason to be very skeptical of national health insurance. Canada and other countries with socialized medicine have similar problems with costs and available technology for even serious and life-threatening health conditions.

I've rediscovered Reason magazine, lately, which leads, today, with the cover article and perspective that I've been wanting to read for the last year:

Bashing Barry Bonds: The Campaign Against One of Baseball's Greats

That's the direction the country needs to take. And it's gratifying to see the National Review following the lead of Reason and Andrew Sullivan and other more openly libertarian thinkers and publications.

Now if only the country would give up its government-as-daddy complex and learn to grow up, be responsible for themselves, and let each of us be responsible for ourselves, we'd all be better off.

And finally figure out that Prohibition era mentalities that regulate alcohol, smoking, drugs and the like are the direction of regress, not progress.