Last month Jesse Russell, editor of Dane101, implored us to learn from our neighbors, i.e. – to enact laws that other states already have on the books. In this spirit, a ban on bottled water at public events is being bandied about as is one to make plastic bags illegal in one circumstance or another. If you follow the plastic bags link, you'll also find that the author of the post, Emily Mills, notes "Madison calls itself a progressive city, and this move would help us live up to the name." Very often these days the term "progressive" is invoked when abrogating negative liberties, i.e. – bans. Charlie Sykes takes issue and notes the slippery slope of this view of "progressivism". However, if Emily is correct, then what does it mean to be "progressive"?
Let's say you want to fight obesity in this country so you decide that you want to prohibit obese people from being served at restaurants. Having them turned away at the door of McDonalds or denied service at Burger King is for the better, you wax progressively.
Is such legislation progressive? If so, why? If not, why not?
If you think this is far-fetched then think again because a bill recently introduced in Mississippi would do just that. It is by State Rep. W.T. Mayhall, Jr. and it would prohibit "restaurants and food establishments from serving food to anyone who is obese (as defined by the State)". The state would determine an acceptable Body Mass Index and restaurants would then be given the burden of determining the BMI of customers and be directed to turn any away that don't meet the standard.
Mayhall's bill certainly brings up many an issue. For instance, what's the difference between restaurants discriminating against customers with a certain physical attribute relating to weights vs. discriminating against customers with a certain physical attribute relating to skin color? This bill doesn't prohibit "obese" people from obtaining fat-laden foods from grocery stores so, in the name of the fight against obesity, does it not also follow that such a prohibition should be enacted? If not, what's the qualitative difference between barring certain people from restaurants and barring them from purchasing certain foods at a grocery store? Another if to consider is a genetic basis of obesity. Does the government have the right to discriminate against the obese and prescribe a lifestyle to them which would help to counteract their genetic predisposition? Imagine being assigned a case worker who makes sure you go to the gym everyday. How much micromanagement by the government is too much in the fight against obesity? Is there such a thing?
There's little doubt in my mind that the obese in our society suffer at the hands of stigma and discrimination. It is acceptable to jeer at the overweight person in ways that, if these comments were directed at someone of color, would be totally unacceptable. Why should this be? What is it about the obese that produces such socially-acceptable reactions? Does obesity break your leg? I think not and, instead, think that a war on obesity is motivated by the notion that it picks your pocket because of health care costs. Just as Steven Pinker pointed out that smoking has gone from a preference to a moral issue, so too it would seem has obesity. Being obese is morally wrong because it imposes financial costs on those who are not. (A corollary of this is that obesity is a lifestyle choice over which individuals have complete control. That should sound familiar.) Going back to the ban on plastic bottles, Sykes wrote:
Brilliant. By shifting the focus to the energy used to create the bottles, the nannies have opened vast new worlds of possibilities for environmental posturing. After all, just about everything takes “energy and resources” to make them, so why stop with grocery store bags and water bottles?
None of this will make an iota of difference to the planetary ecosystem, but any time the frisson of smugness starts to wear thin, Madison can now roll out jihads against everything from yogurt containers to Styrofoam and egg cartons. How about bans on straws, margarine tubs, and shampoo bottles, and shower curtains?
The question "paper or plastic" also seems to have become a moral one rather than a choice. Given that everything takes energy and resources to be produced and given that nearly everything we do has some externalities associated with it, then essentially every choice we make is a moral one. And most choices we make end up coming down on the side of evil. So, when nearly everything we do has a moral component, how are we to know when enough bans have been enacted? If using energy and resources to produce plastic is bad, then is it morally permissible to ban hospitals from using plastics? Are the lives saved in medical facilities a good enough trade-off for the pollution, the wars over resources, etc.? If smoking tobacco in public places is to be banned, should the burning of incense not also be banned as it too is a carcinogen?
So what makes a particular ban "progressive"? And how should we discriminate amongst the various items/behaviors to be banned?
I just went from indignant to contemplative to indignant again, all in one post. Thanks! :)
ReplyDeleteNo, really, you do bring up a good point when you ask if "progressive" is really the correct name to apply when talking about negative rights. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully.
But then you go on to argue that banning plastic bottles and bags is akin to banning obese or black people from being served in restaurants. I see where there's a connection there with negative rights, but that's where the similarities end.
Banning the use of plastic bags and bottles is far more akin to banning the use of, say, CFCs than to prohibiting certain people, based on genetic or societal factors, from partaking in public services.
Plastic bottles and bags pose a far greater threat to personal and environmental health than do plastic tools used in hospitals, which are, as far as I know, disposed of in a highly regulated fashion. They're also not used in quite such large quantities as shopping bags and water bottles. Too, with bags and bottles there are alternative, reusable options that don't make plastic a necessity, which is not always the case with hospital supplies.
Imposing a plastic bag tax, as has been successfully implemented in Ireland, may in fact be a better route to take than an outright ban. I'd say it would be less hackle raising for the likes of Sykes, but then I'm sure he'll take umbrage at the idea of a new tax, too. Still, a great many people might be more inclined to make the switch from plastic to reusable if there was a tax involved instead of the government simply saying "you can't do this."
In the end, we can't forget that the plastic used to make shopping bags uses a great deal of nonrenewable petroleum, and litter resulting from them threatens water quality and wildlife. Surely that's something worth fighting against.
Hi Emily. While I admit to being tired of hearing every ban justified with the term "progressive", I honestly wasn't trying to make you or anyone else indignant.
ReplyDeleteI must have written poorly because I wasn't comparing the denial of service to black people to the banning of various plastic items. I thought I made this clear that comparison was to banning obese people from restaurants.
One of the justifications for banning plastic bottles was the energy and resources used in their creation. Plastic implements in hospitals also use energy and resources used in their production.
What do you think will replace plastic bottles if their sale is banned at public events? I honestly have no idea what the plan would be? Wax-covered paper cups? (How much energy is used in their production?) Or will people be expected to bring their own (gasp!) plastic drinking containers?
I am ashamed for having linked to Sykes but I think he put some things succinctly. It is not that I'm necessarily against some of the bans but, if someone wants to ban something, I'd prefer the case to be made to me with something other than the fact another municipality is doing it or that it's "progressive". It seems that any time something is deemed harmful, many people in this town immediately want it banned. And I am interested in finding out what rationale, what criteria people use in deciding what they favor banning.
So what do you think about the bill in Mississippi?
P.S. - was that you I stepped in front of at the ice sculpture thingy? The photo at your blog leads me to believe it was.
Hah, that might well have been me. :)
ReplyDeleteI understand where you're coming from, and I don't believe that the solution to every problem is to ban things. The bill in Mississippi is flat out ridiculous. But again, I stand by my assertion that comparing that bill to a potential plastics ban is not valid. They aren't the same thing. We're talking public service vs. a wasteful material with valid alternatives. Telling everyone that they can't use oil-based plastic is not the same as telling one group of people that they can't eat out.
There are companies that make water bottles out of renewable resources, for instance. Research into this sort of technology can help provide viable alternatives to oil-based bottles and bags.
We do need to make sure that we're not just shunting the high energy consumption up the ladder with new techniques, that's true. But it's extremely doable, and it's important to do.
Obviously it's not my writing. Please re-read my comment above: "I wasn't comparing the denial of service to black people to the banning of various plastic items." I'm not sure what else I can do to emphasize this.
ReplyDeleteWhy is providing bottled water at a public event not a public service? In both instances people are going to a public place and consuming food. In addition, the restaurant receives much of its food in plastic.
Do you have any idea how much of an impact banning the sale of bottled water at public events would have?
I think we're both hitting a communication wall here. I got that you were not comparing this to denial of service to black people. You did, however, say that you were comparing it to denial of service to obese people. And I think that's a faulty comparison.
ReplyDeleteIn one case, you're denying someone access to food. In the other, you're denying them access to a particular kind of container. Water can still be sold/made available at public events (because you're right, that's extremely important), just in different types of vessels. Bottles made from corn materials, like the ones I listed above, or glass containers, etc. would work just fine. Installing more water fountains is another idea. Paper cups, made from recycled resources and then recycled again when people are done with them. There are so many, less pollution and energy intensive options. That's what I'm trying to convey.
If this were like banning the obese from restaurants, we'd be asking that the water itself, and access to it, be banned. But we're not. We're simply asking that a new means of containing that water be made available. Same goes for bags, which have even more alternatives than bottles through canvas, etc.