Bans, Bans, Bans... How Demonising Adults Has Become Popular

I have just returned to the UK and while working on a film project was also invited to speak about the increasing anti-Americanism that seems to be so prevalent in Europe and indeed among the US elite. While I strongly criticise the pernicious and narrow anti-American outlook, that really seems to be an all out attack on human aspiration and ambition more broadly (where America is seen as still somewhat "can-do" which these days is unfashionable and we are told to slow down, less is more, and limit ourselves) I am dismayed and shocked to see just how far much of the opinions are shared on both sides of the pond. These ideas, though, are far more about attacking the general view that people are reasonable and should be allowed to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without interference.

The recent proposals for instance to ban smoking in New York parks represents the consolidation of some of the trends I wrote about some time ago here with regard to the utter disdain and contempt that bureaucrats today seem to have for ordinary people, whether it is about what we eat, drink, or ingest.

With the move to ban smoking in parks, it is clear none of this was ever about second hand smoke, but far more about demonising certain groups that are beyond the pale. Whether it is banning smoking in cars or talking with disdain about junk food (read: junk food eaters) the idea is the same -- autonomous citizens we are no longer, but rather childlike subjects that need to be nannied.

In the UK this disgraceful outlook has gone even further when it comes to adults accompanying children to the playground. While I often cringe at the NY City park signs declaring "no adults unaccompanied by children" in Britain, Watford Council has just introduced legislation banning adults from supervising their children at local playgrounds. This is an outrage -- and represents the expanding idea that adults are likely to be violators rather than caring, considerate citizens, and family members.

In Europe the appetite for banning alcohol consumption in public spaces has been on the rise and the general outlook is one where humans are a dubious species, hell bent on destroying the planet (and themselves) and that they need to be continually regulated and supervised.

In spite of the enthusiasm that surrounded the election of President Obama, it has become increasingly the case that the sentiment is one that people generally are irresponsible and in need of supervision from bureaucratic politicians. This is extremely dangerous.

That is why I am so pleased to be speaking at The Battle of Ideas in London this weekend, which is billed as a place where unorthodox ideas and challening debates are welcomed. With over 3,000 attendees and 300 international speakers, it seems we need more battling of ideas to challenge the increasingly unanimous conformity of our times.

Let's demand we stop being treated like naughty school children and take back the autonomy necessary for citizens who want to shape their destiny and the world around them.

Comments

[Alan Miller - Huffpost Blogger]

It's interesting, I don't think there is a "conspiracy" of any kind, of a corporate-­industrial Cabal ; it is more that the tendency towards policymaking in a bureaucratic way has become increasingly popular in the absence of real politics to address universal problems, whether that be alleviating poverty, bad housing or improving development and economic growth.

The first part (and yes I live both in Europe and USA) is to insist on being treated as adults, responsible and autonomous and history making - not children.

We have an event in NYC Monday evening, 9 Nov, for anyone interested in a live debate - a satellite event of the one mentioned in the piece above , on the recession, Obama and the future - see www.nysalon.org for more details

[Baja]

Bans on individuals' behavior are results of the massive power of the health insurance industry which hopes to avoid paying for anyone's care.
Same with governments, big and small, hoping to avoid public health expenses. It all has a sensible patina to it, but it's just "truthy".

The sinister thing is that insurers and governments do little or nothing about Corporate and Legislative Responsibility for devastating health effects of industrial chemicals, under-tested drugs, experimental genes, fossil fuels, radiation, etc.
The Corporate/­Government establishment labors to appear concerned for health...yet it is easily the biggest threat to health, and cause of disease and death, outside of old age.

The best evidence for this is the smoke ban crusade...against people's behavior---smoking. The pushers of this campaign ignore that typical cigarettes may often not even contain tobacco. Who checks? If cigarettes contain tobacco, all but organic brands are contaminated with residues of any of 450 registered tobacco pesticides, carcinogenic radiation from certain fertilizers, dioxin-creating chlorine pesticide residues and bleached paper, kid-attracting sweets and flavors, etc, added burn accelerants, and any of about 1400 untested, often toxic non-tobacco additives. THEY aren't banned. Specific warnings are not demanded...and patients are not even tested for body burdens of those pesticides, dioxins, and rads.
Health harms from all that are not the fault of un-informed, unprotected, deceived smokers’ behavior, but of industrial and governmental mis-behavi­or…crimina­l misbehavior.

References: Find "Fauxbacco".

[antaeus]

"In Europe the appetite for banning alcohol consumption in public spaces has been on the rise . . ."

Do you imagine that trend to be occurring in a vacuum? Perhaps your idealized conception of adulthood necessarily contains a quality of sober reflection, which of course becomes logically problematic in the context of gaggles of boorish 19-year-old binge drinkers. Maybe you just haven't lived for any period of time in a European city.

[TheBlackCat]

Agree completely.

Here in Boston, harsh new smoking bans have recently come down, one which includes the phasing out of Boston's cigar bars. I have never smoked cigarettes in my life and I still find this ridiculous. A cigar bar exists for no other reason than smoking. No one will accidentally find themselves in a cigar bar and then involuntarily imbued with the cigar smoke. No children are allowed entrance. No one who goes into a cigar bar needs to be protected, they are all patronizing the establishment for no reason other than being able to smoke inside of it.

Yet these are still being closed down, with Mayor Menino appointing himself guardium ad litum for the fully grown adults who patron them as if they were children who need protecting.

[Mnemanth]

Well, Alan, the alternative is for people to accept personal responsibility.
And that really goes counter to our society of entitlment.

[CanisLatrans]

I'm not a smoker and never have been, but once they started banning smoking in outdoor locations it was obvious that this was more about witch-hunts and Prohibition than protecting health.

But what about other nanny-state regulations, such as seat belt laws and wearing helmets on motorcycles?

[vfdowner]

Great post. This articulates real meat of what seems to be a disturbingly widespread nanny state attitude around the globe.

[gimle10]

As a life long non smoker I decried the smoking bans both as an assault on the meaning of public space and personal autonomy. I also cringe at the signs in Central park that refuse ME access to playgrounds, and don't all grown ups need an occasional slip down a slide?

I do have a prediction:when smoking is universally banned except in ones own home(unless you have minor children) organic tobacco will become the next big thing. Smoking will be seen as even more of a sign of sophistication and coolness than it was in the 20's and 30's.

[cktirumalai]

A society which nurtures adults (and not children masquerading as adults) can well afford to leave them alone, trusting the choices they make. Relentlessly turning thoughtless wants into needs (the must-have-that syndrome), however, means that quite a lot of people think they have made their own choices when in fact they have responded to a series of hypnotic suggestions made by those with a self-interested agenda.

[Neal Jansons]

So you can't win for losing? We get hit by forces beyond our control (advertising) that control us, so then we must appeal to forces beyond our control (government) to control us?

Is there any room for autonomy in such a picture? And how does the controlled citizen who can't be trusted become an uncontrolled governor who can be trusted by becoming elected or acting in larger groups with lots of formality? Is, somehow, the mode or mean of untrustworthiness trustworthiness? Is it a mystical state bestowed though the rites of democracy? When does this alchemy take place, and how?

[Mnemanth]

There is nothing hypnotic about advertising. We ultimately choose what we view.
You don't like the garbage on television? Turn it off.
You don't like the ad in the magazine? Turn the page.
Why are advertisments done the way they are? Advertisers don't just make stuff up. Through studies- and oh yes they do study- they latch onto what people respond to.
You want change? Stop responding, or respond in a manner meaningful to you.