Why are people talking about a thin device to carry goods, purchased from merchants? People tend to approach this topic from one of two sides: those who love the feeling of helping their community and serving the authority and those who hate any additional financial burden. Both are ridiculous and missing a bigger issue.
How is one helping the community by bringing a bag? Is the community made better by merchants no longer being able to supply advertising and carrying devices to individuals who wish to purchase goods from them? Are reusable bags saving money, lasting longer, and able of keeping waste contained until deposited in landfill? Are used bags more sanitary and thus lower incidents of disease?
Is the price of paper bags an issue? Bags were never free, just factored into the price of merchandise. A few cents is nothing compared to the food inflation patrons have swallowed. Merchants were able to be more clever, like reduced quantity, retaining price. Patrons are going to bring a bag to save ten cents?
What is the bigger issue, which both sides seem to be missing? Who told these select merchants they need to inform patrons, how the bread is buttered? Who threatened these select merchants with fines, if they do not comply with this edict? Who wrote this ordinance? Who voted on it?
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency was formed in 1992 to help Sonoma County and her nine cities comply with AB939 (which instructed cities to reduce garbage by fifty percent). SCWMA completed the goal for which she was formed in 2003 and has been looking for reasons to justify her budget ever since. The county was not granted this level of control, by the people. There was not a voter referendum in city, county, or state.
There is no justification for this form of government regulation of commerce, in a free economy. Free markets breed innovation and are supplied by the will of the people. If people would like to carry merchandise home in a bag of their choice, they can in a free market. Or those who would rather collect a bag from a merchant with advertising on the side, that too may be an option in a free market. Capitol in a free market will be allocated to the greatest purpose within that community and thus those who do not act in the best interest of the community will fail. But in a regulated society where merchants are forbidden from advertising and must supply bags with state approval, those businesses fail for completely the wrong reason (going galt). Innovation is stifled. Broken systems persist, and those who have an inside track on government legislation prosper (fascism).
Government control has caused the problem they are now try to fix through more control. Government banned hemp: a lumber (paper), cotton, and future plastic competitor. Government banned burning, which could be used to eliminate waste and generate renewable energy.
Those who impose their will on others are tyrants; with threats they attempt to rule with fear. Morality can not be legislated. A bag (like a plant) is not evil. The ability of a merchant to advertise is free speech. Instead of swashing commerce, encourage innovation. Instead of threatening fines and fees, promote makers of alternative materials and award grants. We can reduce waste, generate energy, innovate, and prosper, if we free the market.
It is just a bag! Or is it?
—
This issue will be expound upon at bag.freeso.co.