A consistently recurring theme in the mainstream media and government is the helplessness of the consumer at the hands of corporations.  In passing laws ostensibly saving us from ourselves and our inability to refuse corporate exhortations to supersize our Happy Meals or light up like the Marlboro Man, the specter of corporate greed and power is invoked; gasoline prices are not the result of supply and demand, but rather the evil machinations of Big Oil.  What this ultimately ignores is the simple fact that consumers control the market, not shadowy corporate puppetmasters.  A telling example of this overlooked fact comes from an unlikely source:  the recent firing of Don Imus.  From radio and television broadcaster one day to unemployed the next, Imus showed the supremacy of the market, regardless of whether or not one agrees that he should have been fired.  Individual consumers caused advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Imus's show, leading NBC and CBS to cancel.  There was no government action, no use of force, just simple, old-fashioned market economics at play.

Free trade provides many benefits for American workers and consumers.  Lower tariffs on imported goods keep prices low and increase choices for consumers, and increased access to foreign marketplaces creates jobs for American workers and promotes capitalism.  In addition, trading partners are less likely to engage in predatory or terroristic activity.  The government is ill-equipped to manage the economy – why should we consider it any better equipped to manage trade?  The answer:  we shouldn't.  There are many countries clamoring for trade agreements with the USA.  Congress should act to return the "fast-track" trade authority to the president, and should ratify free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, and Columbia, and we should continue pursuing free trade agreements throughout the globe.

The 60 Minutes guy (I think it was Morley Safer, but who can keep them apart?  They are all old men except for the one old woman on staff) of course conducted the story on the assumption that Berman was in the wrong – after all, he produces commercials attacking unions, anti-smoking laws, and anti-obesity campaigns.  What could be more evil than that?  He also kept going back to the point that Berman (gasp!) makes big money doing his lobbying, somehow seemingly trying to imply that if he REALLY believed in his anti-zealotry campaigns that he should be doing it for free; Berman pointed out that he was plenty rich enough prior to taking on his current job, but he never brought that point back to Safer – isn't Safer himself getting paid big bucks to be on TV?  Come on Morley, aren't you just doing this for the money?

The crux of Berman's position is basically twofold:  first, that the government is infringing upon personal liberty when it gets involved in deciding for its citizens what they should be eating, drinking, smoking, etc.; secondly, that the anti-choice zealots are willing to use scientific studies disingenuously (or in many cases outright lie) to try to shock the public into accepting more government intrusion in the name of "public health".  Berman gave specific examples where various "public health", "consumer", or union advocacy groups had used distorted claims to enact legislation that limits individual choice.  Sure, Berman's efforts are funded by (cue evil music) corporations, industry groups, and others.  But are they just supposed to lie back and watch the health Nazis ban products and services without fighting back?

My own opinion is that instead of trying to enact their ideas forcefully using the government to limit individual choice, advocacy groups should use their freedom of association to band together with like-minded individuals, then use their freedom of speech to try to educate people on their opinions.  Then people can decide for themselves how often to risk heart disease by eating French fries, or by smoking, or even by going into a bar or restaurant where they might be subjected to secondhand smoke.  Every time the government makes a decision, that's one more decision that you can't make for yourself.  I trust myself more than corrupt politicians to know what's best for me.

In his classic great novel 1984, George Orwell presented a bleak picture of government as Big Brother, controlling every move like a boot stomping on the heads of the citizens.  Instead of Big Brother, we have seen the federal government become Big Nanny, regulating us to death in the name of keeping us safe and healthy.  Luckily we have unlikely heroes like "Dr. Evil", Rick Berman, working against the nanny state advocates and in favor of individual choice.  Salute him the next time you wash down your potato chips with a chocolate milkshake.