By Sarah Pfander
Gargoyle assistant editor
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006, The OG, opinions

The problem with flaming liberals is that they are flaming imbeciles. Well, that's too harsh. Plus, I don't actually have a problem with liberals, for I would define myself as liberal too. It's our occasional insistence on libertarian values and ideals that troubles me. Sometimes, in this high school society where so many advocate individual rights and freedoms, I find myself supporting the greater societal interests. At some point, we must look at the larger picture rather than the individual and his or her rights.

For example, I recently found myself in an argument with a fellow student about the new indoor smoking ban that will end smoking in local bars and restaurants. The ban has been in effect in Urbana restaurants since Aug. 1, and it will take effect in Urbana bars on Jan. 1 and Champaign restaurants and bars on Jan. 31.

I have had an uncle die from lung disease due to cigarettes, and my grandmother is still addicted to nicotine from the time when she smoked, now requiring as many as four nicotine gum tablets a day. Both my parents smoked as well.

Needless to say, I am extremely anti-smoking and in full agreement with the indoor ban (although I believe in an exemption for hookah bars whose business depends on the ability of customers to smoke). I feel strongly that reducing the amount of smoking in restaurants and bars will reduce the amount of second-hand smoke that we inhale and that we are exposed to. It will make restaurants and bars a place for everyone, smokers and nonsmokers.

While I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke, I don't believe that they should be able to impose it on others. Similarly, I believe that people should have the right to kill themselves, but I don't advocate random suicide attempts whenever life becomes a little stressful. I am in obvious agreement with the right to free speech, but I don't think that people should be able to publish lies, slander, or obscenities. I think that we should be able to drive, but we clearly can't go around running stoplights. We have a need for certain constraints.

When people discuss the need for individual freedoms and limited intervention, they are often espousing largely traditional 19th-century mentalities. During that time period, people started experimenting with a constitution that didn't require heavy government action. In the United States, a country recently freed from a corrupt government, many politicians fought vehemently for a government that would have such limited responsibility with regard to the people that there would be no opportunity for legislators to impose tyrannical restrictions.

Unfortunately, in a growing age of interdependence, this model is no longer possible. Perhaps, in a simpler time, a yeoman farmer out in the West could say, “Let me go do my own thing, leave me alone.” He could farm, he could sell, he could eke out a living without encountering problems that required government action. A problem with his neighbor could be settled one-to-one. He had a limited market, so his produce only affected a few surrounding residents; his farm could function without intervention.

But alas, this is not a simpler time. More and more people are living in less and less space. That same farmer has a market that has been infinitely expanded. He can sell on a global scale, and his farm acts as a part of the larger international economy. This growth also requires more restriction. We saw with the spinach and E. coli incident that poor produce quickly spreads nationwide and affects millions of people. This newly entwined and extensive ecomony means that a collapse anywhere leads to a collapse everywhere, as illustrated by the Great Depression.

The world has changed, and with it so must our mentalities change. Interdependence means we can't go off and do our own thing. Increased interaction requires increased limitations to prevent complete chaos. To return to the yeoman farmer, he has expanded his opportunities and his importance in society, and thus requires maintenance by the government. Traditional noninterventionist doctrine is a good place to start, but it can no longer be applied to the lives we are living today.

The indoor smoking ban follows accordingly. Smokers no longer hurt only themselves; instead, they affect increasing amounts of people who must suffer the consequences. In the end, there is no room for personal vices, because nothing is really that personal. This individual right to smoke in restaurants and bars takes second place to larger societal needs and desires.