A once-reasonable political institution is redefining itself as the universal policy authority of life on Earth. Hundreds of city councils across the nation have taken up the cause of protecting mankind from entirely avoidable situations.

Should businesses be allowed to make decisions about their establishment? Are people smart enough to make decisions regarding their health? Should we take military action in Iraq? Many city councils have decided they are experts in all of these areas, and have given their answer … “no.” Such councils include those of the more liberal caliber: Ames and Iowa City with restrictive ordinances and Des Moines’ attempt at foreign policy.

Not long ago the Ames City Council passed a nonsmoking ordinance that limited smoking in restaurants and bars. As described in city code chapter 21A, the ordinance is simply a ban on smoking in any eating or drinking establishment that collects 10 percent or more of its revenue from food. The ban is in effect from 6 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. for virtually every restaurant and bar in Ames. The Iowa Supreme Court is scheduled to make a ruling as to its legality, but regardless of that decision, such a policy is still ridiculous.

While many people, including myself, detest any smoky environment, does that require or legitimize the government’s dictation of legal business decisions? Do people not have the free will to enter or abstain from a private environment they don’t care for?

Of course they do, but our City Council has decided that the government must protect people to the point of removing any smoke from the air in a bar. Individuals are smart enough to judge the air quality of a room, and if they do not wish to be in that room, they have the freedom to go elsewhere.

This policy does contrast with a nonsmoking ordinance for public areas. The principal difference is that part of government’s role is to regulate public places and public goods, but not necessarily legal private activities. It is reasonable to make a public facility nonsmoking, as every citizen may find it necessary to use these facilities. But while a public place may be used out of necessity, private places are entered at the complete discretion of the individual. The council seems to believe that people should depend on the government to decide where they want to have dinner.

Now the Ames City Council also wants to decide how much alcohol you should drink in one evening. While I am certainly not a proponent of binge drinking, I don’t agree with the City Council expanding their role as the almighty protector.

Unfortunately, this concept is part of the foundation of liberalism. It suggests individuals do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves so government must regularly intervene into the everyday decisions we make. On a local scale this is seen in limiting personal discretion in daily affairs, and on a national scale this is seen in suppressing personal discretion in areas such as social security privatization.

While many city councils across the nation have stepped up their efforts to control individuals’ decisions locally, this government expansion isn’t quite enough for some. Some city councils feel that foreign policy should not exceed their influence. Almost like a “liberal bloc,” 107 of the more liberal cities in our nation recently passed resolutions opposing Bush’s position on Iraq. Des Moines was one of these cities announcing new involvement in foreign policy.

Obviously these council members have no intelligence information to back up their position, as the federal administration does. There is no Des Moines CIA or NSA or Des Moines spy satellites examining Iraq to detect a threat to the United States. These council members are simply liberals who feel it necessary to overstep their role as city policy makers in order to announce their position on the issue. While every individual has the freedom to criticize any government institution or representative, these council members should not pass city resolutions as if speaking with the voice of the residents. They used their office, not their voice, to speak out against policy made by a level of government — one that actually does have jurisdiction in the matter.

It is not the role of a city council to oversee the executive branch of the federal government. This behavior is inappropriate and outside their charter. That is, unless I missed the clause of the Constitution designating foreign affairs to Mayor Preston Daniels of Des Moines.

City councils do not exist to take up the cause of a smoke-free society, a reduced drinking rate or any foreign policy issue. While the intention may be to protect people, residents don’t need to be protected to the point where their choice of legal behavior is taken from them, and residents certainly don’t need a city council aspiring to manipulate policy outside their jurisdiction.

Nathan Borst is a senior in political science from Ames.