Uncle Sam knows best

By taking advantage of a relatively new technology known as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, some cities in Great Britain are piloting a program that will weigh the garbage each business and household creates and provide monetary incentives to encourage recycling.\nIt's not easy to religiously recycle everything you throw away. It's not like people hate the environment, but it's such a hassle to separate plastics, glass and paper. However, for a slightly larger refund check, I might overlook the overwhelming inconvenience of dividing clear and colored bottles. \nReward is more effective than punishment, but at what cost are we sacrificing the freedom to make our own choices? Now, I'll be the first to sign up for mandatory recycling, but there's a much more sinister trend: This new plan is just another in a long series of government-encouraged behavior.\nThere is no mass conspiracy here, but the government is sanctioning very specific habits and choices. Some regulations do provide benefits for society in general, but many personal freedoms like smoking and retirement are being encroached upon using the same justification. \nConsider a pack of cigarettes. Many smokers will tell you they'll quit when they're good and ready, no matter how high the tax gets. As it stands, the average tax per pack is about 35 percent of the unit cost. That extra dollar per pack adds up quickly and has at least partially contributed to the yearly drop in number of new smokers. You might say, "Well, smoking is terrible for you, plus it stinks and causes lung cancer; it's a good thing people are quitting." Yes, you're right. It's all of those things. It's also a personal choice. No one should be forced to stop smoking just because it's unhealthy.\nThe list goes on: assisted suicide, online gambling, the national drinking age, even abortion. The most devious of them all is the forced labor system known as Social Security. Most readers won't be retiring for another 50 or 60 years, but someday the AARP will send you a membership card, and you're going to have to give Social Security a serious look. As the law stands, benefit recipients receive more money per month in proportion to the number of years they've paid into the system. In other words, a 65-year-old working for 40 years will get less than a 75-year-old who worked for 50 years but has much less time to collect. Benefits are an expensive payout for an already debt-ridden government, so the rules are written to encourage longer careers with the hope that Social Security recipients will keel over and die before they can cash out.\nThe morality behind the laws may be understandable, even justifiable -- live long, work hard, stay healthy -- but the decision to do any or all of those is among those unalienable rights and ought not be influenced by government edict.