Alternatives to Government Intervention

Okay, so I am somewhat interested in government forcing people to do things, and so when I saw this headline on Yahoo! I was intrigued: "Los Angeles County declines to force..." Then when I clicked on the link (thinking it would be something about forcing people to take shorter showers because we're in a drought or something... oh wait, they wouldn't decline that opportunity), the full headline was: "Los Angeles County declines to force condom use in porn films." (Apologies if this shocks anyone, my stomach did a quick flip and this post is not about pornography.)

Apparently an AIDS prevention organization wants the government to require condom use to protect these "workers." Don't they get it? There's a much much easier solution for these people. Can you guess? No porn! Wow, revolutionary.

I don't know why it still surprises me that people get so frustrated that they can't eliminate all of the consequences of their actions. Society has definitely moved away from imposing consequences for inappropriate behavior. For example, in the United States we no longer criminalize sodomy, abortion, divorce, adultery, and in some places, prostitution. So, we've eliminated SOME of the consequences of those actions. But why are people so shocked that there are still consequences--STD's, particularly AIDS/HIV, the disintegration of the family, increases in abuse, children with psychological and developmental problems because they don't have two loving parents in the home, etc., etc., etc. If we really want to avoid the negative consequences of negative actions, maybe we should outlaw the negative actions! (Revolutionary idea, I know.)

But let's get real, do we even need the government telling us that something is bad? The reality is that in our type of society (a democracy/republic) the laws and government often reflect the will of the majority of the people (except when a few judges in the judiciary somewhere decide that they are going to impose their will on the people, which often happens). So, if the majority of the people are engaged in negative actions that produce bad consequences, laws banning such negative actions aren't likely to last very long, and even if the laws are on the books, they are likely to be ignored or make people mad. And on the other hand, if the majority of people really think that they shouldn't take negative actions, then do you really need a law to keep them from doing it, or won't their personal convictions be enough?

All that said, I'm probably likely on a personal level to still support good laws and vote against bad laws. But at the end of the day, the alternative to government intervention is to just do the right thing. If you feel that the government needs to step up regulation, the problem probably isn't with the government, it's probably with the people and what they are doing. If you don't want AIDS, a really really really good starting point is to stick with a monogamous and chaste relationship. I've read "Ryan White: My Own Story" and I've known entirely innocent people who have contracted AIDS from a cheating spouse, but it's not hard to see how the personal choice of being chaste will protect you from a lot of the negative consequences that some groups want the government to mandate away. Before running to the government we should look at our own lives, see what we can change personally, then look at the world around us and see what impact we can have there, and then go to the government if other options fail.