Public Health - Private Choice

Despite my libertarian tendencies, I do accept that there are certain things that government has to do and for which government is necessary. The maintenance of basic infrastructure, the enforcement of the rule of law and the defence of the nation for instance are all things that would be very hard to organise properly any other way. 

However, there are many areas where government interference is not just a bad idea, it is expensive and counterproductive.  One such area is "public health": a carefully self-justifying phrase. It sounds like an obviously good thing - after all, that's health for all of us, right? But actually "public health" is generally a euphemism for "telling people what to do".  The constant barrage of "public health initiatives" under this government has not made people any healthier. Despite the enormous amounts of our money spent telling us not to eat junk food, not to eat salt, not to drink alcohol, not to smoke and so on, we are forever being told that as a nation we are fatter, less healthy and more prone to binge-drinking and the resulting general thuggery.

This is not surprising - the "public" is not, as government bodies assume, a single entity, but a group of individuals. As an individual, I will put as much salt on my food as is required to make it taste nice, no matter what the government say. If I had children, I would do the same for them. And if I want to go out and drink beer in the pub with my friends until closing time and then sway gently home, I will do this too. It really doesn't matter how much the government tell me not to: if I like it I'll do it - it's my choice, after all.

And this is why people like Dr Alan Maryon-Davis are so wide of the mark. He is such a fan of these public health initiatives (we pay him to be, whether we like it or not) that he wants to extend them yet further. In the article I've linked to, he proposes banning people from smoking in their car if there is a child on board. But a car is private property - so legislation like this would logically lead to all sorts of other rules about what we can and can't do, even in our own homes. I surely can't be the only person to think that this is not just a bad idea, but wrong. 

Public health sounds like a great idea, but the reality is often expensive, illiberal and ineffective: inform us by all means, but stop the "it's for your own good" nannying.