Cost Based Optimization of our System of Government.

When did we move from building a system of government around principles to building it around costs? Let's look at a few examples.

Maryland has a mandatory helmet law for motorcycle riders. The pro argument is that when motorcyclist have accidents, brain injuries cost the government a lot of money. For now, I'll stipulate that is a fact. My question is, when did this become an acceptable reason for the State to eliminate freedom? Of course, it was the state who decided that they would take on the responsibility of public health care. It is disingenuous to use this choice as the basis for the right to restrict freedoms. Either it is the job of government to ensure the health and well being of every citizen or it is not. Even if we, as a society, explicitly give the State that responsibility, it does not follow that it is also endowed with the power to eliminate any other freedom which makes that duty more costly or more difficult. For example, the State is, most definitely, charged with maintaining law and order. This task would be made much simpler if the state was allowed to torture suspects, to search without warrants or to eliminate jury trials.


If one argues that our state-financed medical system would be less expensive if motorcyclist were forced to wear helmets, you might as well argue that our justice system would cost less if freedom was eliminated. The very idea that we value freedom so much as to allow 100 guilt men go free so as to avoid 1 innocent man going to jail, has a tremendous cost associated with it. If economics becomes (continues as) the yardstick by which freedoms are allowed or revoked by the government there is no end to the revocation process.