Bad Nanny: How regulations and busybodies are destroying our freedoms and our economy
Could you have every have believed that one day you would wake up in an America in which the busy bodies, the safety nazis and the control freaks would so dominate American life and all levels of our bureaucratic state that kids would be forced to shut down their lemonade stands because they weren't in compliance with government regulations and mandates? Yet in 21st Century America, it would seem that we can't even let our children explore their entrepreneurial itch without them understanding that their first and primary responsibility in life is to ask Nanny Government for her blessing. It would seem that in this new reality, children should learn that the most important thing they need to learn about business isn't how to provide the best product for a great price, but that nothing in this whole wide world can be done or accomplished unless it is first sanctioned, approved, regulated and taxed by the all powerful state. Nanny is watching you! Is that really what we are trying to teach our kids? Is that really what America is all about?
Have we become a people so in need of government to protect us and keep us safe that we are willing to throw away our most basic freedoms? To a conservative or libertarian, there is no doubt that this is sadly the current reality. Today there is no aspect of our lives that government doesn't wish to regulate and control. This is the exact opposite of the intent of the Founders. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written expressly to limit the government's power into the affairs of men and women so that we would be free to live as we choose:
Have we become a people so in need of government to protect us and keep us safe that we are willing to throw away our most basic freedoms? To a conservative or libertarian, there is no doubt that this is sadly the current reality. Today there is no aspect of our lives that government doesn't wish to regulate and control. This is the exact opposite of the intent of the Founders. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written expressly to limit the government's power into the affairs of men and women so that we would be free to live as we choose:
Having said that, there is no question that the government was also set up and empowered to regulate and pass laws within those jurisdictions given to it by the Founders. No one would deny that. Our Founding documents set up a government that would oversee and maintain the necessary frameworks of a civil society in order to allow people to interact fairly and smoothly with each other. The battle that rages between progressives and libertarians/conservatives is over exactly what roles and functions the government may have in our lives and how many of our God given rights can be abrogated by the caprices of the Crooks and Thieves who predominate in our government.
2=====================================================================================================
The spin that progressives and the left would like you to believe is that libertarians/conservatives are against government and therefore against the role it plays in protecting the average citizen. Here is an example of that meme at work courtesy of Congressman Henry Waxman of California:
“The Republicans want us to repeal the 20th century, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, to turn us back to the robber barons running the country, and to eviscerate the environmental and other regulations to protect public health and safety,”
The success of this and similar attempts to miscategorize the belief system of conservatives and libertarians became particularly apparent to me when my buddy "Fred" revealed that he too had fallen prey to believing these unfounded accusations. He wrote to me:
But, when conservatives say they believe in "a few regulations when necessary," can they point to any?
By repeating the ridiculous spin of the progressives, "Fred" gives credence to their premise that a conservative is basically an anarchist who believes there should be no restrictions on the freedom of individuals at all. This is one of the straw men that Barack Obama likes to knock down when he asserts that conservatives believe that:
the only thing we [conservatives] can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody's money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own."
Therefore, according to Obama's progressive meme, conservatives like me would like to return all financial transactions to the days of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) where sellers were free to sell whatever snake oil they wanted to and it was the consumer's responsibility to be sure they knew what they were purchasing. Incidentally, this reminds me of the current political caveat emptor that exists when Crooks and Thieves like Obama/Reid/Pelosi write laws in secret and then pass them before anyone has a chance to read and analyze them. Then they have the nerve to say we must buy it first before we can find out what's in it. But I digress... Despite their clear hypocrisy, the main narrative that progressives would like everyone to believe is that if conservatives got their way, they would hearken back to the days before safe food and drug laws were enacted and companies were free to pollute the air and water all they wanted.
All of that leftist spin is just that...spin. It couldn't be further from the truth. There is nothing that a conservative values more than the rule of law and the Constitution. To believe in these foundational principles of proper government is to be in direct opposition to anarchism. While, it is true that I have great sympathy for the idea expressed in this quote from the early anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the public interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
I also fully accept that government has a critical role to play in protecting and safeguarding our freedom. For the most part, I see government as a necessary evil, but I do put a great deal of emphasis on the "necessary " part of that sentiment. However, in any debate over how much government is actually appropriate, I tend more towards the kind of state our founders gave us: a Constitutional republic with defined and limited powers. I am also acutely conscious of the fundamental truth handed down to us from the Founders that whatever powers the government may have is expressly derived from the consent of the governed and as the Tenth Amendment so clearly states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Thus, our founders created a brand new political system in which individual freedom was seen as paramount and Government was a necessary evil that should be limited to only those powers essential to allow a civil society based on the rule of law to flourish. As any reading of the philosophy of men like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Madison would tell you, they fervently believed that freedom is the natural state of man and should be the rule and not the exception. Government's role was to act as a guarantor of that freedom, not its main source of abrogation.
3=====================================================================================================
Like our Founders, I truly believe that a society based on individual freedom is the most beneficial to humanity . While it is true that people in their every day lives make stupid or foolish decisions, allowing them to make their own choices and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of them makes us better as individuals and as a society. Although sometimes too much freedom can lead to broken lives and allows for activities that many of us don't approve of, it is a far better alternative than letting religious folk order our society "for our salvation" (Iran) or intellectuals and bureaucrats order it for the "collective good"as they do in communist tyrannies, European social welfare states and in Obama's America.
I know I've said this before, but it truly blows my mind that those who believe they are righteous and good and who think they stand on the moral high ground because they are pro-choice on abortion are the very ones who want to limit your choices on everything else:
2=====================================================================================================
The spin that progressives and the left would like you to believe is that libertarians/conservatives are against government and therefore against the role it plays in protecting the average citizen. Here is an example of that meme at work courtesy of Congressman Henry Waxman of California:
“The Republicans want us to repeal the 20th century, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, to turn us back to the robber barons running the country, and to eviscerate the environmental and other regulations to protect public health and safety,”
The success of this and similar attempts to miscategorize the belief system of conservatives and libertarians became particularly apparent to me when my buddy "Fred" revealed that he too had fallen prey to believing these unfounded accusations. He wrote to me:
But, when conservatives say they believe in "a few regulations when necessary," can they point to any?
By repeating the ridiculous spin of the progressives, "Fred" gives credence to their premise that a conservative is basically an anarchist who believes there should be no restrictions on the freedom of individuals at all. This is one of the straw men that Barack Obama likes to knock down when he asserts that conservatives believe that:
the only thing we [conservatives] can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody's money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own."
Therefore, according to Obama's progressive meme, conservatives like me would like to return all financial transactions to the days of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) where sellers were free to sell whatever snake oil they wanted to and it was the consumer's responsibility to be sure they knew what they were purchasing. Incidentally, this reminds me of the current political caveat emptor that exists when Crooks and Thieves like Obama/Reid/Pelosi write laws in secret and then pass them before anyone has a chance to read and analyze them. Then they have the nerve to say we must buy it first before we can find out what's in it. But I digress... Despite their clear hypocrisy, the main narrative that progressives would like everyone to believe is that if conservatives got their way, they would hearken back to the days before safe food and drug laws were enacted and companies were free to pollute the air and water all they wanted.
All of that leftist spin is just that...spin. It couldn't be further from the truth. There is nothing that a conservative values more than the rule of law and the Constitution. To believe in these foundational principles of proper government is to be in direct opposition to anarchism. While, it is true that I have great sympathy for the idea expressed in this quote from the early anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the public interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
I also fully accept that government has a critical role to play in protecting and safeguarding our freedom. For the most part, I see government as a necessary evil, but I do put a great deal of emphasis on the "necessary " part of that sentiment. However, in any debate over how much government is actually appropriate, I tend more towards the kind of state our founders gave us: a Constitutional republic with defined and limited powers. I am also acutely conscious of the fundamental truth handed down to us from the Founders that whatever powers the government may have is expressly derived from the consent of the governed and as the Tenth Amendment so clearly states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Thus, our founders created a brand new political system in which individual freedom was seen as paramount and Government was a necessary evil that should be limited to only those powers essential to allow a civil society based on the rule of law to flourish. As any reading of the philosophy of men like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Madison would tell you, they fervently believed that freedom is the natural state of man and should be the rule and not the exception. Government's role was to act as a guarantor of that freedom, not its main source of abrogation.
3=====================================================================================================
Like our Founders, I truly believe that a society based on individual freedom is the most beneficial to humanity . While it is true that people in their every day lives make stupid or foolish decisions, allowing them to make their own choices and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of them makes us better as individuals and as a society. Although sometimes too much freedom can lead to broken lives and allows for activities that many of us don't approve of, it is a far better alternative than letting religious folk order our society "for our salvation" (Iran) or intellectuals and bureaucrats order it for the "collective good"as they do in communist tyrannies, European social welfare states and in Obama's America.
I know I've said this before, but it truly blows my mind that those who believe they are righteous and good and who think they stand on the moral high ground because they are pro-choice on abortion are the very ones who want to limit your choices on everything else:
Seriously, though, how is it that a political party which uses an entire night at their convention to scream to the rafters how wonderful they are because they favor a woman's right to choose believe, at the same time. that people should not be able to choose what to eat, whether or not to buy health care, where to send their kids to school, what kind of light bulbs they can buy and what kind of cars they can drive? If it's nobody's business whether a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, how can it be their business if she wants to drink a 32oz cup of soda while smoking a cigarette? If you ask me, other than the solitary subject of abortion, Democrats and leftists are oh so eager to make every other one of your decisions for you. Because they know better and are righteous. After all, they are pro-choice! Like I say, that kind of leap of logic and rational thought just boggles my mind.
That said, while conservatives want each individual to have the ability to make as many choices as possible, no one is arguing that there isn't a role for the government to play in protecting the populace at large from those who would do us harm, whether they be individuals or businesses. Progressives who fought to protect society in the early part of the twentieth century from those who would sell us rotten or harmful food, pollute our air and poison our water are owed a debt of gratitude. The victories that they won over those who abused their freedom by harming their fellow human beings have been beneficial to us all. In fact so successful was their argument about the government's role in protecting the populace from the unscrupulous, that today that those who would suggest that we should eliminate regulations on safe food or water have been marginalized to the extreme fringes of acceptable thought. However, that doesn't stop President Obama from claiming that Republicans want:
That said, while conservatives want each individual to have the ability to make as many choices as possible, no one is arguing that there isn't a role for the government to play in protecting the populace at large from those who would do us harm, whether they be individuals or businesses. Progressives who fought to protect society in the early part of the twentieth century from those who would sell us rotten or harmful food, pollute our air and poison our water are owed a debt of gratitude. The victories that they won over those who abused their freedom by harming their fellow human beings have been beneficial to us all. In fact so successful was their argument about the government's role in protecting the populace from the unscrupulous, that today that those who would suggest that we should eliminate regulations on safe food or water have been marginalized to the extreme fringes of acceptable thought. However, that doesn't stop President Obama from claiming that Republicans want:
Once again, the President is knocking down straw men to prove what a strong and caring man he is and what evil heartless cowards his political opponents are. The spin is that he cares and that his opponents are evil stooges in the pay of the rich and the corporations who'd rather just let us eat cake while they laugh all the way to the bank. However, as I have pointed out, the Republican party is not opposing Obama's regulatory excess because they want to end current regulations on clean water, pure air or safe food, but that the additional rules that are being proposed are not worth the cost to society. The real political argument today is about the degree to which we regulate, not whether to regulate at all. It is about the cost/benefit analysis of things like whether the FDA goes overboard in their desire to protect us and allows too few life saving drugs to come to market causing unnecessary and premature deaths. The conflict between left and right today is about safe vs. supersafe. It's kind of like arguing over whether Britta water is healthy enough or whether we should all go out and buy Zero water to be absolutely sure. Progressives have been so successful in framing the narrative to their advantage that the debate has really come down to that level of absurdity as we'll see when we examine the Obama EPA's plans for regulating things like Ozone and particulate matter in the air.
4=====================================================================================================
Despite what Obama and progressives would have you believe, no one objects to regulations on the disposal of hazardous waste or regulation on the drilling for oil and natural gas to prevent spillage and pollution. The truth is that most conservatives/libertarians support the vast majority of the current regulations on the books because there is a common consensus that they exist to protect the rights of the people against those who would infringe them either individually or collectively. We all recognize that this is one of the primary function of government.
Even Ronald Reagan, the so called champion of deregulation did not throw two hundred years of laws and progress out the window when he became President. The vast, vast majority of regulations were kept and were added to by both the regulatory agencies and the congress. For a short while, Reagan was successful in halting the growth of new regulations, but they soon continued on their inexorable rise again:
4=====================================================================================================
Despite what Obama and progressives would have you believe, no one objects to regulations on the disposal of hazardous waste or regulation on the drilling for oil and natural gas to prevent spillage and pollution. The truth is that most conservatives/libertarians support the vast majority of the current regulations on the books because there is a common consensus that they exist to protect the rights of the people against those who would infringe them either individually or collectively. We all recognize that this is one of the primary function of government.
Even Ronald Reagan, the so called champion of deregulation did not throw two hundred years of laws and progress out the window when he became President. The vast, vast majority of regulations were kept and were added to by both the regulatory agencies and the congress. For a short while, Reagan was successful in halting the growth of new regulations, but they soon continued on their inexorable rise again:
Actually, as you can see from the chart, it was Jimmy Carter, of all people, who began the most ambitious effort to deregulate the economy. Under his administration, the airline, trucking and railroad industries were deregulated and allowed to compete again on the open market. As a result of Carter's deregulatory emphasis, soon AT+T would lose their monopoly on the phone industry. For those who say deregulation is a bad thing, would you prefer to go back to the Ma Bell monopoly or pay the insane airfares that were common before "People's Express" and "Southwest Airlines" revolutionized the aviation industry forever?
This is the main point of the philosophical divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives are forever seeking new areas in which government can intervene in the name of "fairness" and the "collective good". For each area of intervention that is proposed and enacted, a freedom is taken away and a cost is passed on to the populace. The only debate that exists between conservatives and progressives is over whether the government has a "right" to restrict the freedom and/or whether the cost is worth the reward. In other words, does the government have the constitutional authority to micromanage the airline industry and is the safety and availability of flights worth the cost of such regulation. For years, progressives said it did. Now, we know better.
5=====================================================================================================
Conservatives believe that there must be an especially compelling argument to be made before government should be allowed to restrict our freedoms. We believe that the government is overstepping its constitutional authority when it seeks to micromanage every conceivable human transaction and interaction. It goes too far in restricting our freedom when it tries to regulate the internet, promotes censorship of thought, speech and expression, interferes in how we utilize our private property, seeks to regulate carbon emissions and even tells us how to pay for and choose our own health care. Conservatives object to restrictions on our choices of washers and dryers, showers, or the elimination of incandescent light bulbs for fluorescent bulbs that are so hazardous to your health the EPA feels the need to instruct you on how to clean up the poison inside a broken one:
This is the main point of the philosophical divide between progressives and conservatives. Progressives are forever seeking new areas in which government can intervene in the name of "fairness" and the "collective good". For each area of intervention that is proposed and enacted, a freedom is taken away and a cost is passed on to the populace. The only debate that exists between conservatives and progressives is over whether the government has a "right" to restrict the freedom and/or whether the cost is worth the reward. In other words, does the government have the constitutional authority to micromanage the airline industry and is the safety and availability of flights worth the cost of such regulation. For years, progressives said it did. Now, we know better.
5=====================================================================================================
Conservatives believe that there must be an especially compelling argument to be made before government should be allowed to restrict our freedoms. We believe that the government is overstepping its constitutional authority when it seeks to micromanage every conceivable human transaction and interaction. It goes too far in restricting our freedom when it tries to regulate the internet, promotes censorship of thought, speech and expression, interferes in how we utilize our private property, seeks to regulate carbon emissions and even tells us how to pay for and choose our own health care. Conservatives object to restrictions on our choices of washers and dryers, showers, or the elimination of incandescent light bulbs for fluorescent bulbs that are so hazardous to your health the EPA feels the need to instruct you on how to clean up the poison inside a broken one:
The busybodies and nannies have even gone so far as to mandate toilets without enough water in the tank to flush them properly:
6=====================================================================================================
Many conservatives believe that this type of regulatory insanity is both ill advised and beyond the scope of government's wisdom or authority:
Many conservatives believe that this type of regulatory insanity is both ill advised and beyond the scope of government's wisdom or authority:
It is bad enough when the government mandates that you buy something that you would otherwise choose not to under the guise of "conservation", the "environment" or some other cause that is so unconvincing that you won't do it voluntarily, but what is really abhorrent are laws and regulations designed solely to empower politicians and entrenched interests at the expense of the people:_
Unfortunately, what is going on in Nashville is becoming more the rule than the exception. The progressive mindset that promotes the state as the solution to all of our problems when combined with the greedy tendencies of corrupt Crooks and Thieves in both parties who see state power as a never ending source of campaign donations and bribes encourages more and more government intervention in our lives. I led off this section with the video on lemonade stands to demonstrate how absurd the level of government interference in our lives has become. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, but is becoming frighteningly more and more common. It is one thing to make sure that everyone has healthy food, drugs, air, water and workplace rules among other measures designed for our safety and protection. Again, everyone agrees with that. But, it is quite another to take those policies to their ultimate extreme by shutting down anything that poses even the slightest of risk to the public:
7=====================================================================================================
Should we really be so doctrinaire and ideologically rigid about "safety" and conformity in all of its forms that there is nothing that should be left unregulated no matter how mundane or ridiculous? Should the government really have the power to intimidate its citizens with legal costs so overwhelming that they cannot possibly afford to fight the fiats and diktats of regulators? Does it make sense and is it consistent with our constitutional principles of limited government that even healthy green tea and refreshing smoothies sold by children hoping to make a few dollars and learn about the free market be no longer immune from the nanny state's reach?
Should we really be so doctrinaire and ideologically rigid about "safety" and conformity in all of its forms that there is nothing that should be left unregulated no matter how mundane or ridiculous? Should the government really have the power to intimidate its citizens with legal costs so overwhelming that they cannot possibly afford to fight the fiats and diktats of regulators? Does it make sense and is it consistent with our constitutional principles of limited government that even healthy green tea and refreshing smoothies sold by children hoping to make a few dollars and learn about the free market be no longer immune from the nanny state's reach?
I mean really! Can you imagine the thinking behind this: Oh, no! Nosiree Bob! We can't have green tea and smoothies much less lemonade being sold without proper regulations or supervision. The state might not get all the taxes it is due. Someone might get poisoned! Uh, huh. Yeah. There is surely a need for the state to get involved here, right? Amazingly enough, to many people apparently there is and Nanny's need to control every transaction isn't confined to lemonade. Do you remember the garage sales we used to have as kids to make a couple of bucks? Well, if you think that Nanny government doesn't have a problem with someone trying to make some extra cash by selling some of their possessions they no longer need, think again:
Oops!! Hold a garage sale and sell the wrong item and get fined $100k. Would the same be true if you just gave someone something that was on that government list? Do we now have to ask Nanny every time we give something away too? After all, who knows what might be declared harmful to children on any given day. From now on, if you want to sell something, or even give something away, you must consult your nanny first to see if it's ok. Or else!
8=====================================================================================================
The ridiculous overreach of government doesn't stop there. Remember all of those teen aged girls who used to babysit us when we were kids? Remember all of your girlfriends who were happy to watch over someone's kids for a few hours so they could make a couple of dollars to buy clothes or makeup? Did you know that they were oppressed workers being abused by uncaring employers? Neither did I. But, the state of California is so concerned about the plight of these poor girls exploited by slave-driving parents that they have decided to regulate it:
8=====================================================================================================
The ridiculous overreach of government doesn't stop there. Remember all of those teen aged girls who used to babysit us when we were kids? Remember all of your girlfriends who were happy to watch over someone's kids for a few hours so they could make a couple of dollars to buy clothes or makeup? Did you know that they were oppressed workers being abused by uncaring employers? Neither did I. But, the state of California is so concerned about the plight of these poor girls exploited by slave-driving parents that they have decided to regulate it:
Are you freaking kidding me? This is America? Does every single form of behavior and transaction need to be regulated and taxed? Apparently, so. And if I hire a babysitter and I give her a "rest period" every two hours, doesn't that mean I have to hire another one to look after the kids while the first one is on her mandated break? After all, if the children were to be left unattended for fifteen minutes and something went awry, surely the state would arrest me for child neglect and endangerment. On top of that I need to keep forms and records so I can pay worker's compensation or face huge penalties? And if she is over 18, I have to pay her minimum wage? I guess that means Saturday Date Night is out and little Susie babysitter is out of a job. Unemployed she may be, but, at least she's no longer being exploited, eh?
Doesn't everyone agree that we must rid the world of employers who would take advantage of their workers? No one should ever be exploited by evil capitalists ever again! We can't have people being forced to do unimaginably horrible things like fit sheets onto a hotel bed now can we? I mean, really, who would condone that kind of torture:
Doesn't everyone agree that we must rid the world of employers who would take advantage of their workers? No one should ever be exploited by evil capitalists ever again! We can't have people being forced to do unimaginably horrible things like fit sheets onto a hotel bed now can we? I mean, really, who would condone that kind of torture:
As with all laws and regulations, someone in California government must be employed with taxpayer dollars to make sure that this ridiculous law is enforced and that all hotels and motels in the state are in compliance. I am sure that in a state that is going bankrupt, this is a necessary expenditure of the public fisc. Indeed, you'd think that, given how bankrupt the state of California is, that worker injury due to sheet fitting must be a statewide emergency! Uh huh. And down is up.
9=====================================================================================================
Things have gotten so out of control, that now you cannot even use your own front lawn to grow vegetables to help feed yourself even in these harsh economic times. Could our agrarian Founders have ever conceived of a country where you couldn't farm on your own land? Could they have imagined that the banning of farming would be done on the grounds of aesthetics? No food in favor of the view? Unbelievable:
9=====================================================================================================
Things have gotten so out of control, that now you cannot even use your own front lawn to grow vegetables to help feed yourself even in these harsh economic times. Could our agrarian Founders have ever conceived of a country where you couldn't farm on your own land? Could they have imagined that the banning of farming would be done on the grounds of aesthetics? No food in favor of the view? Unbelievable:
Really? Ninety Three days in jail for a vegetable garden? But, seriously, could you ever have imagined that we would have gotten to this point as a nation? Is there no activity, no behavior, no transaction that the government won't regulate and tax? Is this what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution? I don't think so. I think the busybodies, do-gooders and spoil sports are out of control! To hell with individual freedom and your rights. From now on, the freedom you are endowed with by the Creator is only that which is left after the busybodies of the Nanny State get done regulating and taxing every aspect of your life.
10====================================================================================================
If the debate about how much of your life the government should be allowed to regulate were solely based upon preventing individuals and businesses from causing harm to other individuals or society at large by their actions, that would be one thing. While people may argue the specific point at which one person's exercise of freedom crosses the line and becomes an abridgement of others rights, the vast majority of people agree in principle with the idea that with freedom comes certain responsibilities. This agreement is what allows for a civil society that also respects the sanctity of individual liberty. Even the most staunch libertarian agrees that the golden rule of personal freedom is that your actions must never deprive someone else of their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
However, the same busy bodies, nannies and safety nazis who rightly believe that society has a responsibility to protect others from my depredations are not satisfied with that. It isn't enough control for them. They want absolute power over all behavior public and private. To that end, they also believe they have the right to protect me from myself. As an American, I take major exception to that fundamental assault on my liberty. Engaging in certain behaviors may seem harmful or foolish to others, but the freedom to do so is an integral part of each and every individual's particular path to bliss:
10====================================================================================================
If the debate about how much of your life the government should be allowed to regulate were solely based upon preventing individuals and businesses from causing harm to other individuals or society at large by their actions, that would be one thing. While people may argue the specific point at which one person's exercise of freedom crosses the line and becomes an abridgement of others rights, the vast majority of people agree in principle with the idea that with freedom comes certain responsibilities. This agreement is what allows for a civil society that also respects the sanctity of individual liberty. Even the most staunch libertarian agrees that the golden rule of personal freedom is that your actions must never deprive someone else of their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
However, the same busy bodies, nannies and safety nazis who rightly believe that society has a responsibility to protect others from my depredations are not satisfied with that. It isn't enough control for them. They want absolute power over all behavior public and private. To that end, they also believe they have the right to protect me from myself. As an American, I take major exception to that fundamental assault on my liberty. Engaging in certain behaviors may seem harmful or foolish to others, but the freedom to do so is an integral part of each and every individual's particular path to bliss:
I agree with Bill Whittle. Life without risk is a life not worth living. Are we such slaves to safety and security that we are nothing but children who are willing to allow Nanny government to infantilize us and watch over our every move to make sure nothing happens to us? Or, are we the free people our Founders envisioned, capable of self-government and at liberty to choose our own actions and decide for ourselves what risks are worth the reward? As the Nanny state grows larger and larger and as more and more people feel like it is their business to interfere in your pursuit of happiness, these are questions that we must answer before it is too late.
11====================================================================================================
We now live in a society where some people believe that veganism is the only healthy and moral way to live. Too many of them, if they had their way, would ban the killing of any animal for any reason at all. Were they to become a majority, should they have to right to prevent me from eating a juicy steak? Should Michelle Obama have the right to use the power of the government to "persuade" companies to stop putting french fries in happy meals or should the parent be the one to choose the carrot sticks instead? Supposing it was found that the vegan diet was detrimental to the health of young children and that too many kids of vegan parents were malnourished, does the government have the right to force them to serve them meat? If you follow the principles of individual liberty, then the answer is clearly no. The power of the state to meddle in such affairs in limited by the Constitution.
However, that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying. As I said, it always amazes me that the same people who are always talking about how the Constitution should prevent government from coming into our bedrooms when they are advocating for pro-abortion laws, don't seem to have any problem with government interference in every other room in the house. Particularly, the kitchen!
Their attempt to use the power of the state to compel others to live the way they say is "best", just because they and a majority of others say so, goes against everything the Founders believed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is irrelevant how well "intentioned" their position may be. I have a right to disagree and to live my life as I see fit. We all have the right to speak our minds, worship our faith, pursue our own particular form of intimate relations or create, watch and consume whatever we desire without having to subordinate that desire to the control and censure of others. These are, after all, the very individual and unalienable rights our Founders said were endowed to us by our Creator.
No one has the right to tell you how to live your life as long as your actions harm no one else. That is the very essence of freedom and liberty. A classic case study of government restricting someone's rights even though there is virtually no case to be made that the exercise of that freedom is harmful to anyone but the individual is the ongoing war over motorcycle helmets. I have absolutely zero problem if, as a condition to get a license, someone is required to sit through a movie showing the dangers of riding without a helmet. In fact, I think they should make it especially scary and gory to make the point that helmetless cycling is dangerous and life threatening. Even better, they should give a test afterwards to make sure prospective riders were paying attention.
However, once educated, it is an individual's right to make his/her own informed decision and to pursue their own happiness. What one person sees as foolish another cherishes as the ultimate in bliss. Who is to say who is correct? Someone choosing to wear or not wear a helmet impinges on no one else's rights. If their insurance company wants to say they won't cover them or that they will have to pay a much higher premium if they make this choice, that's fine by me. Like individuals, these companies have the right to assess the risks involved come to actuarial determinations and then make their own choices as it relates to their business.
If a motorcycle rider was to crash and smash their head and get seriously injured or die as a result of riding without a helmet, their misfortune is solely their own and those who love them and has nothing to do with protecting others from their decisions. Therefore, because there is no argument to be made that one person's exercise of his freedom impinges upon someone else's enjoyment of theirs, there is no justification for the state to intervene. That is, if you believe that we have an unalienable right to pursue our own individual happiness. Unfortunately, those who believe in this most basic and essential philosophical view of our Founders are now in the minority in our country. Those who have set themselves up as the arbiters of good and proper conduct are ever more imposing their views and their values on the rest of us.
12====================================================================================================
Today, most people seem to feel that they have a right to tell other folk what to do and how to do it. If they are allowed to win this argument about whether the government has a right to protect you from yourself, that they have the authority to ban you from engaging in any activity that they conclude might be harmful to you, then we will have lost the most precious gift that our Founders gave us. As Ronald Reagan once warned, we will have admitted that a small elite in a far distant capital can plan our own lives for us better than we can ourselves. The sad truth is that those of us who truly believe in individual liberty and individual responsibility are losing that argument. The "elites" have now convinced enough Americans that a good benevolent Nanny state just wants to watch out for them and protect them. If only we'd be good little boys and girls and just do what they say. Now that they are in the majority, they are beginning to set up a society where they'll be able to tell you what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can say and, yes, even what you can think.
This country has been around for over two hundred years. In that time, the government has never been on a power grab for our Constitutionally enshrined freedoms like they are today. The one exception was during the Depression when FDR attempted to micromanage our economy to levels unimagined by the Founders. The government's assault on freedom and liberty was so egregious that the Supreme Court finally had to put the kibosh to it and most of the New Deal. Like a true busy body progressive, Frankie D was so upset with their limitations on his power that he threatened to set aside the Constitution and pack the court with his cronies. After all, he couldn't let some silly old crinkly piece of paper get in the way of what he thought was best for us, now could he? FDR failed in that attempt, but he did cow the court into playing more nicely with him after that and we have been paying the price with our freedom ever since:
11====================================================================================================
We now live in a society where some people believe that veganism is the only healthy and moral way to live. Too many of them, if they had their way, would ban the killing of any animal for any reason at all. Were they to become a majority, should they have to right to prevent me from eating a juicy steak? Should Michelle Obama have the right to use the power of the government to "persuade" companies to stop putting french fries in happy meals or should the parent be the one to choose the carrot sticks instead? Supposing it was found that the vegan diet was detrimental to the health of young children and that too many kids of vegan parents were malnourished, does the government have the right to force them to serve them meat? If you follow the principles of individual liberty, then the answer is clearly no. The power of the state to meddle in such affairs in limited by the Constitution.
However, that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying. As I said, it always amazes me that the same people who are always talking about how the Constitution should prevent government from coming into our bedrooms when they are advocating for pro-abortion laws, don't seem to have any problem with government interference in every other room in the house. Particularly, the kitchen!
Their attempt to use the power of the state to compel others to live the way they say is "best", just because they and a majority of others say so, goes against everything the Founders believed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is irrelevant how well "intentioned" their position may be. I have a right to disagree and to live my life as I see fit. We all have the right to speak our minds, worship our faith, pursue our own particular form of intimate relations or create, watch and consume whatever we desire without having to subordinate that desire to the control and censure of others. These are, after all, the very individual and unalienable rights our Founders said were endowed to us by our Creator.
No one has the right to tell you how to live your life as long as your actions harm no one else. That is the very essence of freedom and liberty. A classic case study of government restricting someone's rights even though there is virtually no case to be made that the exercise of that freedom is harmful to anyone but the individual is the ongoing war over motorcycle helmets. I have absolutely zero problem if, as a condition to get a license, someone is required to sit through a movie showing the dangers of riding without a helmet. In fact, I think they should make it especially scary and gory to make the point that helmetless cycling is dangerous and life threatening. Even better, they should give a test afterwards to make sure prospective riders were paying attention.
However, once educated, it is an individual's right to make his/her own informed decision and to pursue their own happiness. What one person sees as foolish another cherishes as the ultimate in bliss. Who is to say who is correct? Someone choosing to wear or not wear a helmet impinges on no one else's rights. If their insurance company wants to say they won't cover them or that they will have to pay a much higher premium if they make this choice, that's fine by me. Like individuals, these companies have the right to assess the risks involved come to actuarial determinations and then make their own choices as it relates to their business.
If a motorcycle rider was to crash and smash their head and get seriously injured or die as a result of riding without a helmet, their misfortune is solely their own and those who love them and has nothing to do with protecting others from their decisions. Therefore, because there is no argument to be made that one person's exercise of his freedom impinges upon someone else's enjoyment of theirs, there is no justification for the state to intervene. That is, if you believe that we have an unalienable right to pursue our own individual happiness. Unfortunately, those who believe in this most basic and essential philosophical view of our Founders are now in the minority in our country. Those who have set themselves up as the arbiters of good and proper conduct are ever more imposing their views and their values on the rest of us.
12====================================================================================================
Today, most people seem to feel that they have a right to tell other folk what to do and how to do it. If they are allowed to win this argument about whether the government has a right to protect you from yourself, that they have the authority to ban you from engaging in any activity that they conclude might be harmful to you, then we will have lost the most precious gift that our Founders gave us. As Ronald Reagan once warned, we will have admitted that a small elite in a far distant capital can plan our own lives for us better than we can ourselves. The sad truth is that those of us who truly believe in individual liberty and individual responsibility are losing that argument. The "elites" have now convinced enough Americans that a good benevolent Nanny state just wants to watch out for them and protect them. If only we'd be good little boys and girls and just do what they say. Now that they are in the majority, they are beginning to set up a society where they'll be able to tell you what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can say and, yes, even what you can think.
This country has been around for over two hundred years. In that time, the government has never been on a power grab for our Constitutionally enshrined freedoms like they are today. The one exception was during the Depression when FDR attempted to micromanage our economy to levels unimagined by the Founders. The government's assault on freedom and liberty was so egregious that the Supreme Court finally had to put the kibosh to it and most of the New Deal. Like a true busy body progressive, Frankie D was so upset with their limitations on his power that he threatened to set aside the Constitution and pack the court with his cronies. After all, he couldn't let some silly old crinkly piece of paper get in the way of what he thought was best for us, now could he? FDR failed in that attempt, but he did cow the court into playing more nicely with him after that and we have been paying the price with our freedom ever since:
Following in FDR's footsteps, Obama and the Democrats have renewed the quest for government power over individual rights with a vengeance. Nothing is immune from their regulatory ambitions. So much so that for the very first time in our history they have pushed forth the notion that government has the power to mandate what goods and services you must buy from a private company as a condition of your citizenship. This they argue is necessary because it serves the "public good”. You may shrug your shoulders and think that is not such a big deal. After all, states tell you that you must have a drivers license and mandates that you buy insurance. Yes, but that is only if you choose to drive. If you choose to walk, you don't need either. In this case, the government is telling you that your individual freedom as a citizen to act or not to act, to choose or not to choose and the right to make your own decisions is irrelevant because the primacy of the "public good" takes precedence. Where is that written anywhere in the Constitution, pray tell?
13==================================================================================================== It's like a bad British comedy sketch:
13==================================================================================================== It's like a bad British comedy sketch:
While I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing that the Commerce Clause does not allow the government to regulate inaction, the fact that they have concluded that the government can tax anything it wants means that there are basically no longer any limits on the power of government. From this point forward, the nannies and the busybodies will have the authority to use the excuse and argument of the "public good" as a tool of absolute and complete power that will give them the ability to control just about every aspect of your life If they don't want you to do something, they can tax it and make it too prohibitively expensive to do. If they want you to do something, they can now tax you for not doing it. Sadly, far too many people are totally on board with this philosophy. Once again, this is exactly the kind of tyranny of the majority that the founders wrote the Constitution to prevent.
Yet these same progressives who are always trying to spin the public with the myth that the Republican party wants to enter your bedroom and interfere with your sex life are frothing at the bit with the notion that the passage of Obamacare means that soon they'll be able to enter your family room and grab that bag of chips and can of beer out of your hands on the premise that your consumptions of these items would cause every one else to pay for your sins when you end up at the hospital as a result. Welcome to Obamacare!
14====================================================================================================
Think I am being extreme? That this would never happen? Well, I'd say that it is fantasy to think that it won't. They've already done exactly that with smoking. That's why cigarettes that once cost less than a buck a pack when my mom sent me down to the store to buy them for her (can you imagine that we once lived in an America where the local guy at the store never thought to question that my mom had sent me to get them because he knew our family?). Well those exact same cigarettes now cost as much as ten bucks a pack in some places. This is how they get you, you see? They don't make chips and beer illegal. Oh, no. They'd have a riot on their hands. After all, we dumb stupid idiots of the proletariat actually love the stuff that our "betters" think are bad for us. So, what they do is to try to price these "harmful" things out of our reach. And then they call them sin taxes and cloak themselves in the high ground of morality and compassion. I remember when I used to smoke a pack and a half a day and the price was two bucks a pack. That was ninety bucks a month. Exorbitant, but doable. Were I still a smoker here in Florida where butts cost six bucks a pack, the price of my habit would go up to $270 a month, which is far less doable. Particularly in today's economy. Voila! I choose to quit smoking and the government has effectively banned my smoking without having to actually mandate it.
Still don't think that 's the direction were headed in? Well, the other day Michelle Obama was trying to lay those fears to rest:
Did you get that? Government doesn't have all the answers, but everyone should do their part and do what the government says anyway? The key thing to note here is that the Chief of the Food Police makes the statement that no one should force you to eat the way government says you should. However, that doesn't mean that, like with the individual mandate in Obamacare, government can't tax you into doing what it wants. Like I said, this is the new preferred method of controlling people's behavior. It's already been proposed numerous times and is being heavily pushed by the media-Matrix:
15====================================================================================================
It's not like other leftist's, busy bodies and control freaks haven't already enacted nonsense like this:
It's not like other leftist's, busy bodies and control freaks haven't already enacted nonsense like this:
The Danish decision was then applauded on national TV by the usual suspects:
With that kind of media-Matrix wind in his sails, Mayor Bloomberg, who should be forevermore known as Nanny Bloomberg, has been emboldened to go as far as banning large sodas in all restaurants in New York:
Watch only the first two minutes of this drivel. Any more and you might need a 32 oz. beer
According to the powers that be, you are too stupid to make your own choices for yourself as to how much sugary liquid you'd like to consumer. Nanny Bloomberg isn't really preventing you from having more than one 16 oz soda, he is merely "forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup". This asshole thinks it's his business to "force" you to have the exact amount of liquid that he thinks is best for you. Freedom of choice? Not in Nanny Bloomberg's New York.
16====================================================================================================
In fact, food-nazism is so out of control in the Big Apple and other cities around the country, that homeless shelters are being forced to stop giving away free food:
16====================================================================================================
In fact, food-nazism is so out of control in the Big Apple and other cities around the country, that homeless shelters are being forced to stop giving away free food:
Have you ever heard of something so asinine? But, these food-police fools will look you straight in the eyes and tell you that it is you who are out of step. It is you who are out of the mainstream. Everything these caring individuals are doing is for your own good. Even if that means taking tasty Kugels out of the mouths of the homeless. While this is a ridiculous farce, the insanity of their positions hasn't stopped the food-nazis from taking over the Federal government. Because, Federal tax money helps pay for school lunches, the government believes that they have the right to regulate what every child eats in school. After all, there are some bad mommies out there that want to deliberately poison their children by giving them a turkey sandwich:
Totally, outrageous, no? As far as the Nanny state is concerned, it doesn't matter if the kids don't want to eat what the food police says is good for them or whether banning "bad" foods in school cafeterias actually make a difference in fighting obesity, as long as the Feds can exercise control over your kids they will:
17====================================================================================================
The food-nazis have even started to ban school bake sales! Can you believe it? Even Justice Elena Kagan is forced to admit that as far as progressives are concerned, there is no part of what you eat and consume that they don't have authority over:
The food-nazis have even started to ban school bake sales! Can you believe it? Even Justice Elena Kagan is forced to admit that as far as progressives are concerned, there is no part of what you eat and consume that they don't have authority over:
You see? Busy bodies and control freaks are the same all over the world. From the nazis, to the communists, to the socialists of Denmark to the progressives here in America, the desire of the educated and moral "betters" to control the ignorant masses seems to be universal. That's what made what the Founders created in America with the Constitution so special. Finally, the power of the state was to be limited and directed towards empowering the freedom of the individual, not the primacy of the state and the busybodies that run it. That is why conservatives are so upset about the passage of Obamacare. If the government really does have the power to mandate that, as a condition of your citizenship, you must buy a product of their choosing and specification whether you want it or not, then there is no aspect of your life that it doesn't control. As long as they "say" it is for the public good, that is.
To put it another way, think about this….
Supposing W had said that his experience in Texas and several important peer reviewed academic studies showed that crime would drop dramatically if everyone was armed and ordered to carry their weapons with them wherever they go:
To put it another way, think about this….
Supposing W had said that his experience in Texas and several important peer reviewed academic studies showed that crime would drop dramatically if everyone was armed and ordered to carry their weapons with them wherever they go:
Supposing that he proposed this "must carry" law after a surge in public outcry over events like the Fort Hood shootings , the Norway massacre and the Batman Movie shootings in Colorado which were made far more deadly by the lack of anyone with a firearm of their own to oppose the crazed killers. Supposing, using those events as a pretext, he had used a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the house to ram through a law that said, for the good of the nation and for the "public good" every American citizen must buy a federally mandated gun and keep it with them at all times or pay a $10,000 fine. If you cannot afford one, it will either be provided for you or subsidized. If such a law were passed, do you think there might be a whole bunch of folk up in arms (pun intended) about that?
I know that’s an extreme example, but it is no more extreme than what is being proposed with the individual mandate in Obamacare. Whether that mandate is made legal by the Commerce clause or government's taxing authority the end result is the same. If this concept of the "public good" triumphs over individual rights based upon the government's authority to tax you, it will become the holy grail for the busy bodies, safety nazis and control freaks in our society.
Further, once everyone in the country is forced to become part of the "system" through Obamacare, then the actions of a single individual has consequences for all of the others and can be regulated in the same way that Wickard v. Filburn allowed FDR to stop a farmer from growing more wheat than the government mandated even though it was solely for his own consumption. Once Obamacare is phased in, our government is going to have the power to become a complete and total nanny state and tell you what you can and can’t eat, what you can and can’t smoke, what you can and can't drink and generally dictate how you should live every single jot and tittle of your life so as not to burden others to pay for any health related decisions you might make that they deem "risky".
18====================================================================================================
If you don’t think that is what is going to happen, then you don’t know liberals and progressives:
I know that’s an extreme example, but it is no more extreme than what is being proposed with the individual mandate in Obamacare. Whether that mandate is made legal by the Commerce clause or government's taxing authority the end result is the same. If this concept of the "public good" triumphs over individual rights based upon the government's authority to tax you, it will become the holy grail for the busy bodies, safety nazis and control freaks in our society.
Further, once everyone in the country is forced to become part of the "system" through Obamacare, then the actions of a single individual has consequences for all of the others and can be regulated in the same way that Wickard v. Filburn allowed FDR to stop a farmer from growing more wheat than the government mandated even though it was solely for his own consumption. Once Obamacare is phased in, our government is going to have the power to become a complete and total nanny state and tell you what you can and can’t eat, what you can and can’t smoke, what you can and can't drink and generally dictate how you should live every single jot and tittle of your life so as not to burden others to pay for any health related decisions you might make that they deem "risky".
18====================================================================================================
If you don’t think that is what is going to happen, then you don’t know liberals and progressives:
You know, it isn't a coincidence that San Francisco is the most liberal city in America and the most restrictive. People who believe in government as the answer to every question consequently believe that it should have absolute power over everything. And, I mean everything! Even to the point of banning goldfish:
In a place that progressives hold sway, there is simply no philosophical objection preventing them from garnering enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to ban even the most sacred of religious rituals if they deem it is for the "public good":
Do you think this is too ridiculous an idea ever to be enacted here? Think again:
If it can happen in Germany, it can definitely happen in the progressive nirvana of San Francisco. The city by the bay is definitely the kind of place where they believe that there is no limit as to how far the tyranny of the mob can go in trampling on individual rights. Tell me, why is it that the people who claim to be the most "tolerant" tend to be the most restrictive? Seriously, could it really be true that in these United States there is a place you can't buy a happy meal, a goldfish or have some minor surgery done on your own Johnson for God's sake? Have all San Franciscans gone completely insane and completely forgotten the concept of individual liberty? Sadly, it appears so.
19====================================================================================================
My first introduction to the progressive mindset on behavioral control gone wild was when I was living in California in the late Eighties. One day while I was in San Francisco I went to go wait for a trolley. As I mentioned, back then I was a pack and a half a day smoker and I lit up a Marlboro. I am standing at the stop biding my time till the next trolley came and I am watching two guys kissing each other. Now, don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with two guys choosing each other for intimate relations if that's the way their boat floats, but I do find particularly graphic public displays of affection a bit uncomfortable. Also, I'd never seen two guys kiss that way before so it was particularly disconcerting. But, hey, live and let live right? Uh, no. Immediately after I lit up and was observing my "interesting" surroundings, another bystander gets in my face and says in his whiny little voice:
"Sir... SIR!"
"What?"
"You can't do that here!"
"What? I can't stand here?"
"No, you can't smoke here."
"Get the @#$% out! This is America!"
"It's the law. No smoking in a public place and please watch your language"
"But, we're outside."
"It doesn't matter. A trolley stop is considered a public place and smoking is illegal and besides I find it offensive."
So, I moved about ten feet away, which was no longer within the lines of the trolley stop and finished by butt. The whiny little twerp kept giving me nasty stares, but once I'd shifted my position outside the "public" space, he was powerless to control me any longer. It was my first experience with this kind of restriction on my freedom. It posed a major challenge to my intellectual assumptions about my fellow citizens. I mean, it's ok for two guys to deep tongue each other at the public space, but it's not ok for me to consume a perfectly legal product? Outdoors, no less,where it can't possibly harm anyone else? Because this pathetic little dweeb and a majority of people like him find it offensive? What the @#$%? That's when I learned that some behavior is ok and protected and other behavior is unacceptable. And some people would set themselves up as the arbiters or what's acceptable and what is not. All in the name of the public good, you understand. It has nothing to do with control issues that they might personally have. Oh, no!
That was twenty-five years ago and that kind of nonsense was then confined to San Francisco and the loony left coast. Unfortunately, since then, the safety nazis and the nannies and the busybodies are now completely in control everywhere. Ban this, ban that. If it's fun, you can't enjoy it. You can say this, but you can't say that. An African can use the N word, but a public official in Washington DC is forced to resign for using the word niggardly. Even the phrase used to describe acceptable speech is indicative of its reality. You can only say, write or think things that are politically correct. Not factually correct, but correct in a way that those in power deem to be acceptable.
20====================================================================================================
How can it be that we have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, while at the same time we are told that some speech is just unacceptable and won't be tolerated. Worse, what speech is sanctioned and proscribed is decided by nameless, faceless and unelected academics and media elites. It is absolutely ridiculous that in these United States of America, we the people, allow this abridgement of our freedoms to continue. In a country that constitutionally protects every form of expression including all kinds of pornography and violence on first amendment grounds (and rightly so), the very idea that we seek to prevent people from expressing their thoughts and opinions no matter how distasteful is beyond hypocritical:
19====================================================================================================
My first introduction to the progressive mindset on behavioral control gone wild was when I was living in California in the late Eighties. One day while I was in San Francisco I went to go wait for a trolley. As I mentioned, back then I was a pack and a half a day smoker and I lit up a Marlboro. I am standing at the stop biding my time till the next trolley came and I am watching two guys kissing each other. Now, don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with two guys choosing each other for intimate relations if that's the way their boat floats, but I do find particularly graphic public displays of affection a bit uncomfortable. Also, I'd never seen two guys kiss that way before so it was particularly disconcerting. But, hey, live and let live right? Uh, no. Immediately after I lit up and was observing my "interesting" surroundings, another bystander gets in my face and says in his whiny little voice:
"Sir... SIR!"
"What?"
"You can't do that here!"
"What? I can't stand here?"
"No, you can't smoke here."
"Get the @#$% out! This is America!"
"It's the law. No smoking in a public place and please watch your language"
"But, we're outside."
"It doesn't matter. A trolley stop is considered a public place and smoking is illegal and besides I find it offensive."
So, I moved about ten feet away, which was no longer within the lines of the trolley stop and finished by butt. The whiny little twerp kept giving me nasty stares, but once I'd shifted my position outside the "public" space, he was powerless to control me any longer. It was my first experience with this kind of restriction on my freedom. It posed a major challenge to my intellectual assumptions about my fellow citizens. I mean, it's ok for two guys to deep tongue each other at the public space, but it's not ok for me to consume a perfectly legal product? Outdoors, no less,where it can't possibly harm anyone else? Because this pathetic little dweeb and a majority of people like him find it offensive? What the @#$%? That's when I learned that some behavior is ok and protected and other behavior is unacceptable. And some people would set themselves up as the arbiters or what's acceptable and what is not. All in the name of the public good, you understand. It has nothing to do with control issues that they might personally have. Oh, no!
That was twenty-five years ago and that kind of nonsense was then confined to San Francisco and the loony left coast. Unfortunately, since then, the safety nazis and the nannies and the busybodies are now completely in control everywhere. Ban this, ban that. If it's fun, you can't enjoy it. You can say this, but you can't say that. An African can use the N word, but a public official in Washington DC is forced to resign for using the word niggardly. Even the phrase used to describe acceptable speech is indicative of its reality. You can only say, write or think things that are politically correct. Not factually correct, but correct in a way that those in power deem to be acceptable.
20====================================================================================================
How can it be that we have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, while at the same time we are told that some speech is just unacceptable and won't be tolerated. Worse, what speech is sanctioned and proscribed is decided by nameless, faceless and unelected academics and media elites. It is absolutely ridiculous that in these United States of America, we the people, allow this abridgement of our freedoms to continue. In a country that constitutionally protects every form of expression including all kinds of pornography and violence on first amendment grounds (and rightly so), the very idea that we seek to prevent people from expressing their thoughts and opinions no matter how distasteful is beyond hypocritical:
Even to the point of what you can say in public:
Or whether a "joke" or flirting might constitute improper speech or conduct:
21====================================================================================================
Either we have rights or we don't. I mean, God forbid, someone should be offended. Well, I am sorry, perceived psychological trauma does not trump actual Constitutional rights. As if we aren't all "offended" by all kinds of @#$% every day, like my language ;-)
Either we have rights or we don't. I mean, God forbid, someone should be offended. Well, I am sorry, perceived psychological trauma does not trump actual Constitutional rights. As if we aren't all "offended" by all kinds of @#$% every day, like my language ;-)
The very idea that government should have to power to tell you how to behave offends me. It's one thing if I cause a direct harm to someone else's person or property. It is another if they find something I do distasteful. You know what? Grow the @#$% up! There is a difference between behaving in a civilized manner and trying to be courteous to other people because it is the right thing to do and being forced to do so. I do my best to hold in my inner Jersey and not curse at inappropriate moments and places, because that is right and proper. But, clearly, some people would say that I should be restricted from doing so by law.
Anything they find distasteful and offensive should be banned. So, you didn't take a shower today and you stink? Now, you will be banned from all public spaces until you get a note from the cleanliness police! Think that's ridiculous? Well then, what about perfume? Lots of people find someone dousing themselves with perfume to be offensive and some folks in Canada say its time for a scent free society:
Anything they find distasteful and offensive should be banned. So, you didn't take a shower today and you stink? Now, you will be banned from all public spaces until you get a note from the cleanliness police! Think that's ridiculous? Well then, what about perfume? Lots of people find someone dousing themselves with perfume to be offensive and some folks in Canada say its time for a scent free society:
What we have in places like San Francisco, Ottawa, San Jose and New York City is a culture that now believes that as long as they can cobble together a majority of Crooks and Thieves in government, they can ban anything and abridge just about any right including your freedom of speech. The very idea that some people feel they have the right to ban perfume, soap or deodorant or anything that has a scent or try to restrict someone's freedom from performing a religious ritual that goes back millennia is an indication that things have gotten out of control. Today, the Bible offends some people so much you can get arrested for reading it aloud in public. Are you freaking kidding me? I guess not:
Say the wrong words today on a college campus or in the workplace and they might fire or expel you. If you are lucky, you might just have to go to "sensitivity training". I don't know about you, but the concept of "sensitivity training" reminds me way too much of "re-education" as in the kind of re-educating they did in "concentration" camps and gulags. But, then, they say that I am an extremist nut.
22====================================================================================================
Often, these same people who call me an extremist or paranoid for warning that there is something seriously wrong with this growing trend of government control over all aspects of our lives say the same thing as my buddy "Fred" whose mom is from the UK:
Hell, the U.S. isn't anywhere near as socialist/totalitarian as, say, Britain. And Britain isn't exactly a gulag nation, yet.
Well, I don't know about you, but as far as I am concerned, a country that can arrest you because of what song you choose to sing is on the way to gulag nation status, just a kinder and gentler form:
22====================================================================================================
Often, these same people who call me an extremist or paranoid for warning that there is something seriously wrong with this growing trend of government control over all aspects of our lives say the same thing as my buddy "Fred" whose mom is from the UK:
Hell, the U.S. isn't anywhere near as socialist/totalitarian as, say, Britain. And Britain isn't exactly a gulag nation, yet.
Well, I don't know about you, but as far as I am concerned, a country that can arrest you because of what song you choose to sing is on the way to gulag nation status, just a kinder and gentler form:
But, hey... What can you expect from a country that thinks that schools should ban kids from having best friends:
Bizarre is too tepid a word to describe it. But, this is what happens when society allows bureaucratic do gooders to control every aspect of our lives even to the point of deciding our social relationships. Good grief.
23====================================================================================================
Look, let's be honest. The bottom line is that there are a lot of people who look to government to solve every problem that they have. They want free health care, free rent, free food, a free car and freedom from being offended. It would seem that today the number of people who want to "modify" the behavior of their fellow citizens has surpassed those of us who understand that a government powerful enough to free us from all of our problems is one we've given sanction to become powerful enough to take all our freedoms away.
You can see this process in action everywhere in our country today. Now, that they are in the majority in many "progressive" cities, the busy bodies and control freaks can find plenty of Crooks and Thieves in government to do their bidding. Just look at Nanny Bloomberg in New York City and the effort to ban smoking everywhere, ban transfats, large sodas and even talk about banning salt from the table. These extremists have gone past the point of sin taxing to outright prohibition. Note, they don't propose that people be educated and then left free to make their own informed decisions. Oh, no! We can't have that. They might make the "wrong" one. Therefore, they propose the banning of any behavior they don't approve of. Their solution to problems of health is to take away your freedom to choose.
It's all for the public good they'll tell you. After all, what "reasonable" person can argue with that? Note that if you disagree with their argument, you are the one who is unreasonable. It's another one of their famous heads I win, tails you lose arguments. But, it is not people like me who are being unreasonable. In reality, it is people like this idiot, Carl Kruger in NY:
23====================================================================================================
Look, let's be honest. The bottom line is that there are a lot of people who look to government to solve every problem that they have. They want free health care, free rent, free food, a free car and freedom from being offended. It would seem that today the number of people who want to "modify" the behavior of their fellow citizens has surpassed those of us who understand that a government powerful enough to free us from all of our problems is one we've given sanction to become powerful enough to take all our freedoms away.
You can see this process in action everywhere in our country today. Now, that they are in the majority in many "progressive" cities, the busy bodies and control freaks can find plenty of Crooks and Thieves in government to do their bidding. Just look at Nanny Bloomberg in New York City and the effort to ban smoking everywhere, ban transfats, large sodas and even talk about banning salt from the table. These extremists have gone past the point of sin taxing to outright prohibition. Note, they don't propose that people be educated and then left free to make their own informed decisions. Oh, no! We can't have that. They might make the "wrong" one. Therefore, they propose the banning of any behavior they don't approve of. Their solution to problems of health is to take away your freedom to choose.
It's all for the public good they'll tell you. After all, what "reasonable" person can argue with that? Note that if you disagree with their argument, you are the one who is unreasonable. It's another one of their famous heads I win, tails you lose arguments. But, it is not people like me who are being unreasonable. In reality, it is people like this idiot, Carl Kruger in NY:
This moron and convicted criminal wants to ban anyone from crossing a street with an ipod or music player? Now, I know many people are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and I know that texting while walking can create hazards for yourself and others:
After we are all done laughing hysterically at this woman (did you know the guys who are commenting on the video in the security room all got fired for their "insensitivity"?), the evidence is pretty obvious from looking at this video that there can be no doubt that texting and driving should be illegal. I might even listen to a case for banning texting and walking on public streets too. Clearly, someone engaging in this activity is not just a danger to themselves, but most critically they are a danger to others and that alone puts their behavior under the authority of the state. But iPods? Crossing the street? Are you freaking serious? Didn't mommy ever tell them to look both ways before they cross? Using that same logic, shouldn't we then ban deaf people from crossing the street? Don't even get me started applying Sen. Kruger's logic to blind people. At what point does Senator Kruger think that people stop becoming responsible for their own behavior? It's an important question that we need to ask and address and soon if we are to save our liberty from idiots and safety nazis like him.