Paradox: Obligations Incurred When You Ban Something

If you favor banning something, I have news for you: whether you like it or not, some responsibilities and obligations come with that demand. Too often, the clamor is that someone, i.e., the government, must do something about the situation, whether abortion, gun rights, or even social media. Then, when the government tries to do something, everyone is outraged when it begins to affect them.

Historically, when we have tried to ban something, it has been an utter disaster that has resulted in more damage than if we had just left it alone and used existing laws to deal with outliers. Prohibition is the elephant in the room. Abortion continues to be another one. Gun control may be another one on the horizon. The problem with each one is that they demand personal responsibility at the individual level to deal with the subject correctly, and we don’t want our freedoms to be limited or interrupted.

When something is banned, several obligations and responsibilities arise for authorities (e.g., governments, regulatory bodies, organizations) and the public. These obligations will vary depending on the context of the ban.

These obligations are manipulated or even criminalized to make the ban more effective for one party or another. Confirmation biases, which tend to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories, go into overdrive, and alternative facts, which are falsehoods presented as if they were true, surface like maggots on roadkill.

Being part of humanity demands collaboration, trust, and compassion for one another while still holding firm to the moral compass that understands right and wrong regarding the greater good.

Here are just some joint obligations that emerge when something is banned:

1. Who, When, and How of Enforcement

Authorities: The institution that imposes the ban is obligated to enforce it. This must include clear guidelines, monitoring compliance, and imposing penalties. Enforcement may involve law enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies, or other oversight organizations.

However, suppose enforcement becomes too aggressive or punitive. In that case, it can lead to a situation akin to a ‘penal colony, ‘where a large portion of the population is incarcerated for minor infractions. Given the number of times I have heard the term ‘throw them in jail’ in the last five years, I can tell you that the US will become a penal colony if it continues.

General public: Citizens or organization members must comply with the ban and sometimes report violations. Many states like Texas have threatened those who don’t report breaches with incarceration.

2. Clear Communications

Authorities: Those responsible for the ban must clearly communicate its terms, rationale, and consequences. This includes informing the public about the ban’s scope, who it applies to, and the penalties for non-compliance. Clear communication is not just a formality; it’s a tool that empowers the public and ensures everyone is on the same page.

General public: People must understand and stay informed about the ban. This might involve seeking clarity about what is or isn’t allowed. How can people understand it if it is buried in legal mumbo jumbo and laced with vague, often inaccurate facts?

3. Actual Fairness and Justice

Authorities: The government must apply the ban fairly and equitably without unfairly targeting specific groups or individuals. This is not just a responsibility; it’s a commitment to protecting the rights of every individual.

General public: Individuals may have a moral obligation to challenge bans that they believe are unjust or discriminatory. How, when they threaten any challenges with legal action or jail.

4. Clear Legal/Administrative Framework

Authorities: When something is banned, there’s an obligation to establish a legal or administrative framework that supports the ban. This includes defining what actions are prohibited, setting up systems for reporting, and ensuring due process for anyone accused of violating the ban.

General public: If allowed, citizens or organization members may need to follow proper procedures to challenge or appeal decisions related to the ban. If they are not allowed, then democracy is in jeopardy.

5. Public Awareness and Education

Authorities: The imposing body is responsible for educating the public or organization members about the ban’s reason, benefits, and impact. This is not just a task for the authorities; it’s an opportunity for the public to be part of the solution.

General public: People should educate themselves and others about the ban and its implications, especially if the item or behavior were previously legalized.

6. Protection of Rights

Authorities: If the ban restricts certain rights (e.g., freedom of speech, personal choices), authorities must ensure that the ban is narrowly tailored and does not infringe upon more rights than necessary. In democratic societies, a duty is often to ensure bans align with constitutional or human rights protections.

General public: People are responsible for advocating for their rights or the rights of others if they believe the ban oversteps legal or ethical boundaries.

7. Alternatives and Support

Authorities: There must be an obligation to provide alternatives or support systems for those affected by the ban. For instance, if a product is banned for health reasons, there might be a need to promote safer alternatives. Here is where we in the US need to improve in every area where bans have been implemented.

General public: Those impacted by the ban may need to adjust behaviors or seek alternatives and may also have a responsibility to advocate for reasonable replacements if necessary. Again, this demands personal responsibility and accountability, which many are unwilling to accept.

8. Open, Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Authorities: The body that enforces the ban must regularly assess its effectiveness and fairness. This includes gathering data, reviewing complaints, and adjusting as needed. Again, this is where we in the US fail miserably; when we write new laws, they are put on the shelf, never to be reviewed again, waiting for some extremist group to latch onto them and try to impose.

General public: People are responsible for providing feedback on how the ban affects them and reporting any unintended consequences.

These obligations are not written down anywhere except through the framing of the Constitution. These freedoms aim to ensure that the ban is implemented fairly, effectively, and following the rights of the affected individuals.

We have abandoned our moral compass in many areas. We are trying to ignore that moral values evolve and must change for human sanity and health to grow.

However, when legislators or candidates talk about banning, deporting, or imprisoning someone, they have a very narrow point of view. At the same time, there are extremists on the immoral side who try to force their opinions on the public by using freedom of speech.

There must be some moral boundaries in place for issues like human trafficking, climate control, lying, financial manipulations, taking advantage of someone’s misfortune, false advertising, theft, murder, and oppression of political activism, just to name a few. But we need to find alternatives to incarceration because we will run out of prisons, and as mentioned above, the US could very well become a penal colony.

Is this going to happen? It is up to everyone to accept this idea of banning and understand the obligations on all sides. What are we willing to give up to have a better world instead of someone forcing their narrow point of view on us?