What's in a disease?

The notion isn't new but it is being applied with greater force in the United States, arguably more so today than has previously been the case.

The idea?

Human beings are victims of themselves and need to be restrained.

It doesn't matter what the "disease" is---learning disabilities, alcoholism, gambling, depression, attention deficit disorder---but those who have the disease are incapable of figuring out for themselves how to deal effectively with or to overcome the effects of the disease.

Furthermore, because the behavior of people who are afflicted by a disease has the potential to impact the lives of other people negatively, the state must pass laws and issue regulations to protect the rights of those who otherwise would be negatively impacted.

Hence, the rise of the Nanny State and the erosion of personal freedom.

The problem with all of this, according to an article by Michael Keane, is that public health advocates apply the "disease model" to social problems.  Based upon pseudoscientific arguments, their research requires states to enforce certain behavior among and to exercise greater control over its citizens.

To gin up their assertions, Keane notes, public health advocates then focus upon the alleged damage caused to third parties. Consider second-hand smoke. Not only do those who inhale second-hand smoke suffer but so does society, as the costs of second-hand smoke add to overall healthcare costs.

The Motley Monk would observe that this approach has proven to be an very effective way for public health advocates to jam their cherished statist policies down the throats of an unwary public.

More importantly, however, Keane argues that the disease model ends up divorcing an individual's actions from his or her own decision making, as if human beings have no power of free will.  By not incorporating the power of free will as a relevant force into their research models, public health advocates neglect the notions of personal culpability and the need for self-control as if they are completely irrelevant because people with disease are victims and, in this case, victims of themselves.

It must be asked: Which contributes to greater personal and social prosperity?  A citizenry that accepts personal responsibility and exercises self control?  Or, a citizenry that accepts a state that limits personal freedom?

The answer is obvious if one believes that God endowed human beings with the power of mind and free will and, hence, are rational actors who are eminently capable of weighing the costs and benefits of their behaviors.  If human beings are aware of those costs and benefits and will pay the costs or reap the benefits, self-governance will more often time than not trump the need for a Nanny State every day.

Why?

Virtue is its own reward and brings true happiness, as Aristotle noted in the Nicomachean Ethics.  That's something the public health advocates seem to have neglected.


Let the discussion begin...




To ready Michael Keane's article, click on the following link:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1978/ideology,-not-science