Commentary: The Authoritarian/Totalitarian Plastic Bag Ban (June, 2019)

By Rob RoperRob Roper

Activists and politicians around Vermont are preening with pride about having passed the nation’s broadest ban on plastic bags and plastic products, with a promise (in the form of a study committee) of more to come. As citizens of an ostensibly free society founded upon the principle of limited government, this is not something we should be pleased about. This bag ban is a truly authoritarian/totalitarian policy.

Given that in the current national political atmosphere words like authoritarian, dictatorial, police state, etc. are being thrown about quite a bit, it is probably important to revisit what those terms really mean:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an. Adjective. 1. Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an. Adjective 1. Relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

With the bag ban, for example, rather than allow merchants the personal freedom to decide whether or not to provide plastic bags, and customers the freedom to choose what kind of bag they would prefer, the state has usurped and centralized the “authority” to dictate that decision to us, and we are to strictly obey – or the police will force us to. Hence, it is an authoritarian policy.

I also call it totalitarian because in a totalitarian system the totality of decision making for the citizenry rests with the state. If we citizens are not at liberty to decide for ourselves something as minute as “paper or plastic”, what decisions can’t the state make for us? This is not limited government; it’s limitless government. “Total” control.

Sadly, way too many policies becoming law these days are authoritarian, robbing us of individual liberty and requiring obedience to centralized, government decision making. The state has assumed the authority to decide whether or not we must purchase health insurance, what kind, and from whom; where our children must go to school and what they will learn there; everything down to what kind of light bulbs we can use and, increasingly, what kind of electricity we must buy to power those bulbs. The list goes on and on as this seems to be the “progressive” vision.

But this is not, as the chant says, “what democracy looks like.” This is what an authoritarian police state looks like. A society based on individual liberty, as our is (or was), leaves the people free to make decisions for and amongst themselves. The legitimate role of government in such a society is to ensure that private decisions are made “free of force and fraud.” In other words, government is supposed to protect citizens from other citizens who want to force us to do things against our consent. It is certainly not supposed to be the entity doing the forcing!

Government is always, by its very nature, an agent of force. It has what has been aptly described as a “monopoly on legitimate violence.” What makes ours a uniquely free, democratic, and non-authoritarian society is that our Constitution, when followed, limits to a vast degree where and when that violence can be employed. Hence the oft-repeated language in our Bill of Rights like “Congress shall make no law,” rights “shall not be infringed,” government can’t take action “without the consent of the owner”. With respect to most aspects of our daily lives, we do not have to obey government so long as we deal on a peaceful, mutually consensual basis with our fellow citizens.

And this is a good thing. When outcomes are by necessity determined as a result of mutual consent it fosters understanding, cooperation, innovation, diversity, shared value and values. This dynamic is what has made the United States the most prosperous and diverse nation in human history.

On the other hand, when outcomes are the result of one side extracting its agenda from another through force, it leads to anger, resentment, and reactive hostility. We can see this today as government force injects itself into more and more aspects of our lives (such as plastic bags), the more anger, resentment and hostility grows. And, honestly, who wants to live in a society where everything is decided by force or the threat of force besides a narcissistic psychopath who gets a thrill out of controlling other people and bossing them around?

When people for government action these days, they are too often saying, I cannot get my fellow citizens to consensually do what I want them to do, so use the government’s monopoly on violence to force them to do as I say. The impulse to resort to force is unfortunately a common human reaction to not getting one’s way. But giving into that impulse is to embrace authoritarianism at the expense of liberty. This is exactly what our government is supposed to guard against, not foster.

– Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. He lives in Stowe.



{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Mark Lamorey June 29, 2019 at 3:04 am

Saw this in the Williston Observer and thought about writing a response, but rather than being heavy handed I figure I’d try a more directed response. I think you miss the point. The use of the word “totalitarian” and argument for its use is pretty flimsy and far fetched. It does set the tone for the article, in that it is more anger and vitriol than logic, reason, and empathy. I’m all for a bit of anarchy, but when the externalities and risks are measurable societies step in and form cohesion in the face of irresponsibility.

Should we all be allowed to decide what happens to our sewage? what speed to drive? what time we can mow our lawn? when / where to have an open burn pit?

Any suggestion that people should be free to choose every aspect of the life is non-sensical. People and businesses have been free to choose paper or plastic for years. And we have shown that we make the wrong choices over and over again.

I would have been happier if we taxed both straws and plastic bags at a high rate , say 1$ per straw / bag. Most people would have made the right choice then. It is worthwhile to discuss what was wrong with the ban implementation , but I am not sure how this article is anything more than fringe.


Dave Soulia July 4, 2019 at 4:00 am

“People and businesses have been free to choose paper or plastic for years. And we have shown that we make the wrong choices over and over again.” Which do you consider to be the right choice?

Prior to a little plastic bag be branded with “I Love Vermont”, which was hung on vehicle cigarette lighters back in the 70s, Vermont roadways were littered with garbage as far as the eye could see.

When I was a kid, the expert environmentalists applauded the addition of plastic bags to the shopping experience. The motto, “Save a tree.”

Fast forward 40 years and the expert environmentalists now want plastic bags smited from the face of the earth. I think it’d be a hoot if the “experts” could make up their minds.

Apparently, the trees have been saved. Except, we need new laws to protect continuity of forests due to over-development. Pick one! Oh wait! Paper bags are next on the chopping block. We all need to buy far more pricey “reusable” fabric bags – made in China (forget buying U,S, made bags, they’re crazy pricey)

Should we be free to choose every aspect of our lives? Yes, we should. Is that concept nonsensical? No. Does that mean we have a right to trash our neighbor’s property or the collective environment? No. You appear to be operating on the premise that freedom=irresponsibility. It does not. I’d argue that the more responsibility the government assumes, the less responsible the individual becomes.

I would be happier if my neighbors would stop inventing new punitive, coercive taxes for every theoretical ill facing our communities.

I ran into one of the legislators that introduced the plastic bag ban bill in a local market. As I was being informed about the forthcoming legislation, I couldn’t help but notice the legislator was carrying his groceries in a few plastic bags. I asked why he would be using such things given his bill. His answer, I left my reusables at home. True story.

Remember, society is a social construct.


Rob July 7, 2019 at 2:25 pm

If you can’t persuade people of your point without resorting to force (government action), maybe it’s you who are making the wrong choice.

Multiple studies show that plastic bags, for all their drawbacks, are better overall for the environment than the alternatives being pushed by the politicians. Looks like most people and the free market were making the right choice all along, but the police state is going to force us to start doing the wrong thing, causing more environmental damage.


William Hays July 1, 2019 at 11:02 pm

The plastic bag ban is a boon and windfall for businesses that dispense them at no cost to the consumer. Gone is the ‘free’ recyclable trash/garbage bag, hand luggage, and doggie ‘pooper-scooper’, replaced by a product (plastic) SOLD in grocery and hardware stores, etc.. A win-win for the retailers and manufacturers. The ban on plastic straws is just too silly for me to comment on. I sit here, in Montana, sipping on a “Yoo-Hoo” chocolate drink that comes in a “Tetra-Pak”, with its own plastic straw. The mixed component “Tetra-Pak” has, for its entire existence, defied any viable recycling procedure. Are deposit fees levied on them in Vermont? Imagine: a deposit on Yuppie kiddies “Juicy Juice” (contains some real juice, barely measurable) container and straw! Horrors!


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...