Who Says Liberals Want Government Out of the Bedroom?
By Anthony Gregory • Friday August 12, 2011 10:39 AM PDT • 8 Comments
Nothing is off limits anymore. Nothing. Not as far as politicians are concerned. Democratic State Senator Kevin De Leon wants California to mandate fitted sheets in the state’s hotels, and forbid flat sheets.
According to the bill’s opponent Lynn Mohrfeld, president and CEO, California Hotel & Lodging Association, “SB 432 would cost the hotel and lodging industry $30–$50 million to replace sheets and buy the appropriate laundry equipment. On top of that, it would cost millions more in frivolous lawsuits—costs that will be passed on to hotel customers. This is nothing more than a transparent ploy to provide workers comp attorneys and trial lawyers a new avenue to file frivolous lawsuits.”
There are plenty of arguments against this ludicrous proposal. But it frustrates me that arguments have to be made. A hotel should have whatever sheets it wants, period, and if the customers or employees resent the decision for any reason, they shouldn’t patronize or work there. Is this really difficult for people to understand?
This is only to be expected, I suppose, in a society where nothing is private any more. Property owners, certainly those who own “commercial property,” haven’t had actual property rights for a very long time. There is nothing fundamentally different between SB 432 and many other intrusions we have seen for years. To forbid a bar owner, for example, from allowing smoking (or any other behavior) on his own property, all because it poses a potential risk to the employees there, relies on the exact same logic. Bed sheets are just the latest target for regulation by the officious planners in Sacramento.
In a free society, hotels could allow or disallow smoking of cigarettes (or other substances), mandate or prohibit whatever sheets they wanted, set the terms of employment and patronize, and do pretty much anything else short of prohibiting their customers and workers from freely leaving their premises whenever they wanted. There would be norms established by social convention, as patrons would tend to favor certain policies over others. But it would ultimately be up to the owners to decide.
Of course, in a free society, workers would also have much more economic opportunity while at the same time having much less sense of entitlement. Maybe this “problem” of the difficulty of changing flat bed sheets wouldn’t exist in such a world. But if it did, a proposal to address the difficulty through government mandates would not get very far. I our own reality, I expect it to fail in the state senate. The fact it’s a controversy at all, however, is a testament to how far we’ve slid away from the principles of liberty, free enterprise, and personal responsibility. So is the fact that this politician wasn’t simply laughed out of the room for suggesting such a law.
Tags: California, Civil Society, Free Market, Liberalism, Liberty, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, Property Rights 
So true. Not only our beds but the toilet we use in the middle of the night (must be low-flush), the light bulbs (no incandescents) when you are making love (or reading), etc., etc.
Americans have lost that instinctual MYOB attitude. It’s gone. People will always say “there must be a reason” or “there ought to be a law” or, even worse, “why can’t everyone just get along and stop arguing” (the Left loves that one).
Jonathan Bean | Aug 12, 2011 | Reply
I had a part time job in a gym that was part of the Fairmont Hotels, an “environmentally conscious” Canadian multinational that prides itself on how green it is. The employee-only areas of the hotel had posters and suggestion boxes about ecology, and the hotel had beehives on its roof. The hotel also has some very expensive luxury suites outfitted totally in recyclable materials, bamboo etc.
While I was there a guest was eaten up by bed bugs in the night, something that has been happening in many East Coast cities one hears. Washing sheets in non-phosphate detergents in cold water and other such practices have helped them spread. The guest was given a day of free skin and spa treatments to pacify her.
Bruce Majors | Aug 14, 2011 | Reply
Clearly, Democratic State Senator Kevin De Leon is an idiot (and he has lots of company) and nothing more than a crooked shill for the ambulance-chasing plaintiff lawyers. He should be thrown out of office for dereliction of duty. Anyone who would vote for this slime-ball also is an idiot.
Dale Ogden | Aug 14, 2011 | Reply
In a backhanded way we should be thankful for the likes of Sen. DeLeon. There’s already a cross-migration in progress as conservatives move to the “red” states and liberals to the “blue” ones. When (not if) the US goes the way of the USSR, this migration will accelerate into a torrent, perhaps comparable to the India-Pakistan partition of 1947. The “People’s Republic of Californicate” will then become the ultimate asylum (dumping ground) for the assorted fruits, nuts and flakes across the former USA. Then the place can officially change its nickname to “The Granola State.”
Strider | Aug 16, 2011 | Reply
Strider, sure, although I don’t like the anti-liberty policies favored by red-state conservatives, either.
Anthony Gregory | Aug 16, 2011 | Reply
Several California hoteliers and hospitality management companies have already taken proactive steps to reduce overexertion and repetitive motion injuries using the Bed MadeEZ mattress lifter. For More Information see here.
Gordon | Aug 18, 2011 | Reply
Unless Gordon’s post is nothing more than a sales pitch, than the law is aimed at supposedly making the job of maids easier since lifting mattresses is apparently difficult of them. The obvious “if you can’t do a job, don’t apply for it” argument aside, how exactly is this law supposed to alleviate lifting a mattress?
To imply that this law will reduce the requirement of changing the mattress sheet is disgusting in it’s self; as changing any mattress sheet – fitted or not – will still require lifting said mattress.
joe4liberty | Aug 24, 2011 | Reply
How far does the anti-regulation go? Are fire and building codes also bad? Are there any governmental regulations with which you agree?
The fitted-sheet issue may be overkill to those who don’t do the work. It’s an easy matter for someone with a job to say just go get a different job though.
What if all jobs were with entities that were completely un regulated? Which potential employee could possibly know if the hidden building components were up to safety standards before the next earthquake?
The idea of just trusting the marketplace to such matters, what with how lax so many “owners” are already, seems to be asking a great deal of workers. Well, perhaps all the employers will become Christlike. That would be nice.
Tom Usher | Aug 28, 2011 | Reply