TheyLovedBloodand Soil but Not the Mind 203callyobjectionablesolelyas a resultof Hitleror otherNazishavingapprovedof it; mus-
tachesdo not becomeinnatelyevil just becauseHitlerhadone.Thelargerpointof Sul-
lum’s, to whichProctorgivesshortshrift,is thatthe “public-healthmovementwouldbe
worrisomeevenif the Nazishad takenno interestin it.. .”^9 The issueis not that the Nazis
had inspiredAmerica’s publichealthregulations.Nay,the issueis that everygovernment
regulationoverwhatprivateindividualspeaceablydo withtheirownbodiesoriginates
fromthe samegovernistassumptions.
Eachof theseregulations,recall,is maintainedby the threatof Stateforceagainstthose
whofail to complywiththe regulations.Thatis the reasonwhythereare severalominous
parallelsbetweenthe Nazipublichealthpracticesthat Proctorpraises,and the movement
for governistpublichealthmeasurespresentlyexistingin the West.For instance,Proctor
admitsthat the Nazisadopted“healthas a duty” as a nationalsloganin 1939.In the “Nazi
ideology,” he explains,the laissez-faire“liberaldistinctionbetweenpublicandprivate
spherewasabandoned.As oneHitlerYouthhealthmanualput it: ‘Nutritionis not a
privatematter!’... The statetherebyacquireda stakein the maintenanceof the individual
body—whetherit was healthyor poisoned,exercisedor abused,and so forth.”^10
Sullumthenexposesthe parallelsbetweensucha mentalityandthoseof modern
governistpublic-healthactivistswhoemploya specificrationalization.Thesepublic-
healthactivistsproclaimthaton accountof howtax moneyfinancesthe healthcareof
everyone,it followsthatpeoplewhoexperienceworsehealthcomplicationsdrainthe
exchequermorethanthosewhocontractfewersuchdifficulties.Therefore,saysthe argu-
ment,it standsto reasonthat,everythingelsebeingequal,a fatterpersonwhosmokes
morewill ultimatelycostthe publictreasurymorein healthspendingthanwill a thinner
or moreathleticnonsmoker.The argumentthusconcludesthatto reducecostsfor every-
one,the Stateis justifiedin tryingto micromanageeveryone’s healthdecisions.That
argumentwasutteredin the ThirdReich,whereintax moneyfinancedmosthealthcare,
andit is utteredin the USA,where—despitethe USA’s reputationfor holdingout on
adoptingfullysocialistsingle-payerhealthcare—tax fundingstill accountsfor morethan
a quarterof spendingon health-careprovision.As an example,SullumquotesDr. FaithT.
Fitzgerald,a U.C.-DavisMedicalCenterinstructor.In theNewEnglandJournalof Medicine,
Dr. Fitzgeraldwrote,“Bothhealthcareprovidersandthe commonweal nowhavea
vestedinterestin certainformsof behavior,previouslyconsidereda person’s private
business,if the behaviorimpairsa person’s ‘health.’ Certainfailuresof self-carehave
become,in a sense,crimesagainstsociety,becausesocietyhas to payfor theirconse-
quences.” The ReasonFoundationlibertarianchewsout the PennStatescholarfor failing
to scrutinizehis ownpremise“thatthe governmentshouldprotect‘the publichealth’
fromindividualswhochooseto tradelongevityfor pleasure.”^11
ThroughoutthistrilogyI havearguedthatlife is the standardof value,andthat
freedom’s justificationis that it allowsfor the maximizationof life. For thosereasons,one
mightwonderhowI can justifythatrightthatSullumdefends,the rightto “chooseto
tradelongevityfor pleasure.” Recallthat whenI arguethat the goalof an individual’s life
is to maximizeher life, I meanthather goalis to maximizeher eudaemonia—thatis, the
levelof happinesswithinher life. One’s continuedphysicalsurvivalis merelythe prereq-
uisiteto any futurestateof eudaemonia.To review,liberty’s justificationis thatliberty
bestallowsone to findeudaemonia.Thateudaemonicself-interestjustifiesliberty,how-
ever,doesnot placeuponanyonesomedutyto extendher ownphysicalsurvivalas
lengthilyas possible.Oneespeciallypossessesno suchdutyif the actionsnecessaryfor
extendingher physicalsurvivalreallylong,suchas denyingvariousdeliciousfoodsto
herself,comesat the expenseof years’ worthof happiness.My doctrineof eudaemonia-
maximizationtakesintoaccountthe fact thatsomeonecan maximizeher owneudaemo-
nia in specificpursuits—suchas eatingwonderfulmeat—cognizantthatsuchchoices