GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
Who makes which decisions? How well?
Sarah Conly's March 27 commentary ("We're perfectly incapable of deciding for ourselves") seemed to imply that we ought not be permitted to think for ourselves. I disagree!
I have no objection to government suggesting and warning when our personal lives and welfare are involved. However, if she wants government more involved, it ought to be regarding issues that are far more important for both personal and social welfare.
Where government ought to be more involved in regard to personal decisions are the areas of abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as homosexual behavior. If there is anything detrimental to both personal and social welfare, it's those.
If the government needs to be involved beyond suggesting and warning, it should include being honest and open about those and other moral areas.
Bob Krueger, New Ulm, Minn.
• • •
Conly referred to philosopher John Stuart Mill's "harm principle." She wrote that it means "we should almost never stop people from behavior that affects only themselves." Conly emphasized "almost" as a caveat. Good point. But another word needs even more attention: "only."
It's very difficult to imagine any significant decision that doesn't affect others. Conly gives the example of regularly gulping very large amounts of soda pop. Everybody's health matters. Unhealthy people can't work as well as they could, so they underperform at tasks that affect others, and may end up not performing at all. Poor health increases demand for medical services, and that increases medical and insurance rates.
Even my decision to drive into Minneapolis to see a Twins game means I'm using money that could be used to buy a book. That decision obviously has an effect on lots of people, with varying degrees of significance. We certainly can't overlook the added air pollution I'll create no matter where I drive.