The Balancing Act of Regulation and Individual Freedom

(and why the US should consider voting two year-olds into office in 2012 :) )

In the US, the Republicans have voiced opposition to the proposal of implementing federal standards for usage of more efficient light bulbs. On the surface it sounds ludicrous considering that governments, industry and people are placing increasing emphasis on going green. Their justification is that mandating the use of light bulbs that meet a minimum level of energy efficiency encroaches upon the freedom of the affected American citizens.

The justification propounded by the Republicans is fairly paradoxical considering the government does pass laws that mandate citizens to do certain things, or not to do certain things, on a fairly regular basis. It’s a slippery slope really, because why can I not claim that paying income tax encroaches on my personal freedom much the same way having to use a certain kind of light bulb does. So then, can I choose to not pay my taxes?

At the heart of the entire issue is really the question of where the line between setting laws that promote utilitarian good and smooth (or less rough) functioning of society and regulation that violate ideals of individual freedom lies. When is it okay for the government to modify your actions and choices by way of laws and regulation and when it is not okay?

If individual actions and “desired” actions always coincided, then we wouldn’t need a body with authority to formulate and implement laws. However, given that some would choose to steal, kill, destroy and behave in ways that give rise to negative externalities for the rest of society, we need guidelines if we even want any semblance of a utopian equal-opportunity society. An equal opportunity society, which is a fundamental notion underlying the concept of democracy, would ideally mean that one individual’s actions do not have a negative impact on other individuals simply because such a negative externality would mean the impacted individual would no longer have equal opportunity.

Using this simplified logic, to keep regulation and individual freedom balanced on the tightrope, regulation should only restrict individual freedom when such freedom gives rise to negative externalities for other members of society. While this logic is fairly simple, practical implementation is anything but simple as the example below illustrates.

Recently, a fairly radical idea was put forth saying that morbidly obese children should be taken from their parents by the state and put into foster care. Firstly, you have to decide whether the parents’ actions and the home environment is responsible for their morbid obesity. However, obesity isn’t that simple and no one thing can be singled out as the cause. Secondly, if you decide the parents are responsible, you have to reason whether the regulatory alternative restores equal opportunity. There’s no guarantee that foster care can reset the kids’ eating and exercise behaviors although there are one or two cases where this has happened. In fact some kids may be worse off under foster care as the transition process could prove to be an emotional strain. So is a regulation of this nature desirable?

The problem is that “desired” actions are not easy to distil. While we seem to always be working towards utopian ideals, we don’t really know the path that leads to them (makes you thankful for Google maps and cabbies!). As far as light bulbs and the US debt ceiling go, however, the picture is a lot clearer. More efficient light bulbs would mean lower carbon emissions, which would definitely be a positive externality. Possible downside of slightly higher costs and not being able to use that light bulb in the pretty shape don’t seem like that much of a price to pay. Raising the debt ceiling would avert a potential global recession. The egos of Republicans, and maybe a few Democrats, are a negligible cost compared to the benefit. Unfortunately for all of us, some Republicans behave like stubborn two-year olds. Except for the part where two-year olds usually get what they want (which might well be because they want chocolate and are cute; not quite on the same plane as a few trillion dollars!).

 In many cases passing a black and white judgment as to whether a certain kind of law encroaches upon individual freedom in an undesirable way is enveloped in shades of gray. We implicitly trust our elected government (for those living in democracies, since equal opportunity, which is a basic premise of this article, pertains to democracies) to discern the shades of gray and uphold our individual freedom. That will always mean that regulation and individual freedom will continue to sway as the scales of the weighing scale move up and down searching for that elusive equilibrium that they will never reach since not everybody uses the same kind of weighing scale. 

New Media Nightmares

“All the world’s a stage” is an oft quoted line, yet only sometime in the past decade has the  prophetic quality of this Shakespearean quote been realized.  We now live in the world where not only is the entire world a stage, the entire world is the audience too.  This stage is what is known as Web2.0. So many extol the virtues of living in a world made smaller and brought closer together by technology, the internet and social media. People far away can stay in touch, voice their opinions and generate truckloads of content. How awesome! Or is it?

Three-quarters of all mobile phone users in Singapore own a Smartphone. Two hundred million- that’s 200,000,000- tweets are sent out into the vastness of cyberspace every day. Between the two facts I find myself feeling like a subject under observation so much of the time! I wonder while I cross the road to get to the bus stop every morning, inevitably in a rush to get to office on time, whether someone will click a picture and post it online admonishing me for jaywalking. Then somebody will put a name to the face and everywhere I go I will be recognized as THE jaywalker. (Or when I’m on the train and busy reading the day’s news on my phone and don’t notice the pregnant woman and offer her my seat if someone will tweet and/or facebook obscenities aimed at me.)

In my defense the zebra crossing is pretty far away and the roads are empty that early in the morning. Not to forget the fact that I grew up in India at a time when zebra crossings were all but non-existent and crossing roads with heavy traffic was a daily occurrence. While that by no means precludes death by speeding car, I have plenty of practice and trust my eyesight. So I still cross the road the way I know I’m not supposed to everyday and worry about internet infamy on a regular basis. It’s exhausting at times to feel like you’re always being watched. I often wish that I either didn’t care or there were social contracts which implicitly restored personal privacy by not indulging in such broadcasting. Unfortunately neither the former, nor the latter is likely to happen.

The general lack of privacy is a love child fathered by the internet era and mothered by social media (or vice-versa if you please. And a little bit incestuous as social media and the internet definitely have a familial relation. Anyway). Some people become global sensations overnight with youtube videos with millions of views or with a kiss in the middle of a riot. Others get caught in the act and face the wrath of millions of people they’ve never met and will never meet. Any social contract which protects a person from ridicule for getting caught digging their nose on a bus would preclude the person from making millions off a random youtube video of his kid biting his finger. Therefore, I will keep on wishing  for temporary invisibility when jaywalking and hoping that when I meet a person who appears to like me I don’t find a tweet later on proclaiming me the bitch of the decade/century/millenium or something to that effect (one, I do not talk from experience as far as the latter  goes. Two, isn’t it much better to just say it and not have to spend hours with a person you don’t want to spend hours with?!)

I once told a friend who is a fairly strong believer in the power of social media that I thought that the dark side of social media was pretty sinister. Little did I know that one day I would come to mean that literally after I had a nightmare about being ostracized in the new media-verse (I don’t have the faintest recollection as to the cause of said ostracism. Really).  He was fairly certain I didn’t have a valid case. Every time the thought of unknowingly being on someone else’s social media broadcast channel, be it in good or bad light, crosses my mind I think I have a good case. Not to say that he doesn’t. Just that I do too. Classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide.