Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBag Law Not A Threat To Freedom
Many people contend Seattle's new law requiring a 20-cent per bag fee is frivolous and exemplifies government's tendency to curtail individual freedom. But far from being frivolous, this innovative law will decrease the annual production of bags by 184 million - and the resulting 4,000-ton reduction in greenhouse gases will be multiplied many times over if Seattle's model is replicated widely.
Rather than curtailing freedom, this kind of environmental regulation is based on longstanding precedent allowing government to prevent nuisances in order to protect public health and safety. The bag law does not conflict with any individual freedom delineated in the U.S. Constitution.
A hundred years ago, many people complained about government campaigns to curb the spread of tuberculosis by banning spitting in streetcars. Global warming is a more abstract but not a less dangerous threat than tuberculosis. We are a freer people because of the lowered incidence of tuberculosis, and if we lessen the severity of global warming, future generations will be freer as a result. And by acting now, we can preclude the need for far more drastic actions down the line.
We no longer live in a frontier society containing seemingly limitless resources to exploit for individual gain. Rather, ours is an urbanized and overpopulated world in which one person's behavior often affects others, necessitating community-oriented approaches to complex problems if we want to maintain our freedom and our ability to attain a decent quality of life.
Voluntary action is great, but it has proved insufficient to address the scale of the global warming problem. We severely hamper our ability to deal with environmental and social problems if we take government action off the table. We value our freedom, but all too often we ignore the Founders' admonition that with freedom comes obligations. If we abuse our freedom by failing to act as responsible stewards of our nation's resources, by failing to direct our government to provide sensible ground rules for living together, we will ruin things for future generations.
Right-wing presidents' actions to curb "big government" regulations have resulted in deadly mining disasters to Hurricane Katrina because the Bush administration associated its agenda with federal interference. In such instances, government action would have been warranted.
It's ironic that while right-wing ideology concerning government's threat to freedom has resulted in deadly inaction, at the same time right-wing officials have directed government to take forceful actions that have threatened freedom - for example, by abrogating habeas corpus, inflicting torture, spying on citizens without warrant, intimidating union-organizing efforts and declaring that the president possesses the arbitrary power to change legislation by issuing signing statements.
Given this grim context, people trivialize the struggle between freedom and oppression when they contend that modest regulations, such as the bag law, threaten freedom. We view the world through ideological rather than pragmatic lenses when we see every regulatory action as a threat to freedom. What would the families of miners who died due to lax regulation say to those who mockingly equate government regulations with a "nanny state"?
In some instances government oppresses, but in other instances government provides the foundation for enhancing individual freedom and fulfillment, and provides security against very real dangers. It would be more useful to judge each policy on its own merits, asking whether a government proposal actually poses a threat to liberty or is instead more simply an inconvenience.
Our bag law, though inconvenient, will promote the common good, and for this we can justly be proud.
Daniel Burnstein, associate professor of history at Seattle University, is the author of "Next to Godliness: Confronting Dirt and Despair in Progressive Era New York City" (University of Illinois Press 2006).
©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
26 Comments so far
Show AllBy the way, Costco doesn't pack the goods in any kind of bag, and people seem to manage.
BYOB. Bring your own bag. We have been giving lightweight foldable nylon grocery bags as stocking stuffers or small gifts for the past two years or so. People really like them.
If you know anyone who is going to France you can ask them to pick up a dozen or so (about $1.50) each at Monoprix.
Daniel David: I, too, agree with your post. Thank you.
TOAST/NELSON: Good posts!
I agree with Daniel David August 16th, 2008 1:35 pm and others. Aside from that the citizens of Seattle decided this as is their right.
I plan to suggest the same action to our city council. Sensible laws do not abridge freedom....besides, do I have a "right" to plastic bags? If I want to bring my own I do. Otherwise bring your canvas bags....ours hassn't split once! Can anyone say the same for plastic?
I have allergies, therefor, I'd like to tax my nose for breathing in pollen.
While Seattle is nothing but "liberal" hypocrisy, North Dakota is leading the way in promoting hemp for industrial use. Biodegradable plastics are entirely possible. If CV would do his/her homework and do a simple search on HEMP and plastic, he/she would find out that hemp requires no petroleum to grow or manufacture and that plastics can be 100% petroleum free thanks to HEMP. Of course, if CV doesn't like it, he/she can go right ahead and call hemp "marijuana" even if it ain't.
I lived in Britain (Ipswich/Suffolk Co.) in the early eighties. When you went shopping, you paid a couple of pence if you wanted plastic. Americans always want that free lunch.
We must all realize that taxed are imposed not to fund governemnt, but to affect individual behavior. Whether a tax on tobacco or bags, these taxes are meant to change the decision making of individuals. In many of these cases the tax has had a positive affect on bad behaviors - that is the tax has done its job. If we decide as a society to tax plastic bags to reduce waste etc. and tobacco to reduce cancer, etc. then why not tax other forms of bad individual behaviors.
Charging .20 per bag is a great idea and I don't see how it is any different from airlines charging you to check luggage, in fact it makes more sense to charge for bags. I remember going to Sweden in 1984 and seeing people bring their own bags to the store and if they didn't they had to pay for one. We are so behind. As far as government intervent these right-wing hypocrites only want the government to butt out when it is convenient for them, they are more than happy to have the government poke its nose into our bedrooms and to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. I am so tired of their hypocritical whining determining the discourse in our country.
Cry babies. Americans must learn to sacrifice if they want to save the planet, but then I guess they don't. I am much more worried about Habeas Corpus then plastic and hate the idea I have to visit at Christmas.
As for the bag issue, I almost ALWAYS bring my own bags when I go shopping. Our grocery stores sells solid ones, marks the date and will replace them when they wear out, BUT so far after two years, mine still looks new. Ocassionally I will use plastic bags but that keeps me from having to buy garbage bags and the one I use for my paper waste paper basket is now 18 months old. When I empty the paper I keep the bag.
Oh, and I don't consider saving the planet a sacrifice.
This kills me when people defend their *right* to a plastic bag. Let's let the lazy, short-sighted, environmentally ignorant decide the fate of our species and few hundred thousand others on the planet. We wouldn't want to compromise the quality of anyone's life by taking away their toxic, polluting plastic bags. It's not like there is any shortage of natural gas and petroleum on the planet...
A typical weekly shopping for a family of four can yeild as many as 15 bags, @20c thats $3 bucks. That get's people's attention, it rewards people that bring there own bags, it reminds people that left their reusables in the car. And it provides for people that aren't prepared (as opposed to a ban on bags). And it does it without costing the retailer, so no resistance from them.
It's a proven system, it was implemented in Ireland and had a huge impact.
btw, those "biodegradable" bags are still made of plastic, it's just smaller bits, held together with starch, when the starch melts the bag dissolves, but the small pieces persist, they blow in the wind and wash down into the ocean. They are small enough pieces that krill hit them thinking (as much as krill can think) that they are food. They don't disolve and they don't pass through, reducing the amount of real food the krill can injest. Weakened, starving krill means poorer nutrient base for the lifeforms that live on it, that kicks up the chain.
Another BIG GOVERNMENT intrusion ! A better idea would have been to switch to biodegradable plastics for bags ! The 20 cent fee won't do jack shit anyway !
There was a time when Parisians rebelled at being forced to follow the new law imposed by M.Eugene Poubelle, Prefect of the city, head of city sanitation ca.1890 - to put their trash in lidded containers provided by the city. The citizens' resistance was strong and noisy, based on a perceived right to throw their trash wherever they pleased - until an outbreak of cholera got people to see the wisdom of the policy of containing and collecting the waste. Poubelle is now the French word for trash basket.
Sometimes, people see rights issues where there aren't any. It's idiotic, once you're aware of the cost, harm, and death plastic single-use bags cause, to keep insisting on a perceived "freedom" or "right" to use them. Hauling out "nanny-state" buggaboos is even more idiotic.
Your paranoia is put to better use elsewhere.
20 cents for a plastic bag is an infringement on your freedom?
Come on!
If that is a problem, I herewith give you freedom to walk two miles to get (polluted) water from the creek, freedom to spend two hours collecting kindling wood to cook your food tonight...
Expect the prattling to become a roar from the Libertarian / Ayn Rand types if this law becomes in vogue across the United States. In Europe, shoppers have been supplying their bags for decades and the sky has not fallen. It is well past time for cosseted American consumers to quit being such babies.
Amazing, a city like Seattle will pass a 20 cent tax on bags and people love it but when someone proposes a 10 or 20 cent tax on spray paint to fund cleanup efforts people bristle.
I think that a 20 cent tax on spray paint is fair. Tax each can and deposit the revenue into a fund to help clean up grafitti.
I forgot, that's infringing on our "freedom".
"when we allow the decisions to be made for us, we all lose."
Welll... I'm all for a much higher degree of participatory democracy than we now "enjoy". However, anarchy closely scrutinized, doesn't much appeal to me. The fact is that we (the people) currently govern through "representation". Although most of our representatives are more aligned with corporations, with human concerns a distant second, that is the reality. "Others" make almost all of our decisions on a governmental level. We do have the alternative to gather support and place initiative on the ballot for nearly any concern... so we can bypass governing bodies and appeal directly to the citizens in Washington State.
As far as Seattle's bag law goes... I've been pushing this concept for years. The Seattle City Council finally listened to those of us who wanted change... so it wasn't entirely "someone else" who brought this action into fruition. In fact, I wanted a much higher tax to help defray the actual cost to our environment and our waste services... more along the lines of taxes on tobacco.
The change doesn't "outlaw" plastic and paper. You can still "buy" them (pay the tax) either at the counter or purchase the products outright in bulk and bring your own... or employ a reusable environmentally friendly bag, which can also purchased at the counter.
As to behavior modification... I agree with Daniel's observation about change. Sometimes the incentives for "no change" must be demonstrated to be costly in real terms. That the American Chemistry Council and plastic bag manufacturers have spent a great deal of money and effort to propagandize this issue through a website, should lead you to consider where the "loss of freedom" talking point comes from.
When my wife and I first committed to this change years ago, we could probably count those using reusable bags on one hand while at market. While it's true that there are still a large number of people using paper/plastic at checkout, the percentage of those who have opted for alternatives is very strong... and most stores give a small discount to those who bring their own... and all this is before the law goes into effect.
I'm heartened. Seattle and Washington State in general, have been at the forefront of many successful environmental movements. We intend to keep it that way. Quality of life is a primary concern to us.
You are free to foul your own nest, but it will no longer be "free" for you to affect others when you do so.
The fee should be charged at the point of production since that is where the cleanup cost is originally generated. And it should be charged on all plastic "disposable" packaging.
A good law. Now if Seattle would pass some regulations to make the Drive Through Fast Food joints less ecologically destructive, that would be a good thing, too.
Are we actually seriously going to debate the bag issue??!
Aren't there better laws we can be protesting?
Bringing your own bag to the store is basic common sense. If you're too DUMB to realise that, perhaps you should get stuck with a .20 fee. Which, really isn't enough to motivate people to do the right thing. You should be doing the right thing for it's own sake.
Start charging $2/bag.
"Nanny state" is about laws supposedly to protect YOU from yourself, say seat belts (even though most of them may have been passed by urging of the insurance industry).
A bag law is to save energy, reduce emissions and maybe keep some plastic out of oceans and fish. Low-flow toilets were mandated to conserve fresh water for everyone. Fireworks bans are to keep idiots from burning OTHER PEOPLE'S houses down. These are not "nanny" laws, nor do they reduce "freedom". Every time you see one of these, it's a sign voters got sense, grumbled a little and then said "Okay, we need to do this". "Conservatives" (who don't actually "conserve") yell around like rock stars who don't rock.
while i agree with the general ideas presented, i bristle at the idea that someone is better able to make decisions for me be they conservative, liberal, progressive, or green. when we allow the decisions to be made for us, we all lose.
PLastic bags should be banned outright.
No question. no argument.
Hell, most items made of plastic should be boycotted, if not outlawed. Think about it: Does your kid *really* need that new Transformers (tm) toy?
As for those who demand an end to the 'nanny' state: After the coming economic collapse, when I loot your house for the materials I need to survive, don't bother calling the police, because they are just there as a symbol of the oppressive laws you break anyway.
I would like to see stupid people tax most heavily - since they tend to cost society the most.
The possibilities are endless - tax anyone and everything you do not like.
I would like to see residential lawns banned, or maybe just the back lawn to start with.