Sensible liberal thought, the open-minded consideration of government policy that is supposed to balance liberty and equality, seems abundantly absent these days. One of the reasons for this appears to be that liberal perceptions of equality are now often reduced to simplistic notions that all citizens should enjoy the same outcomes.
Couple this utopian concept with the socialist philosophy that it is the duty of government to force the Nirvana of equal outcomes for all; and one quickly understands why socialist and liberal ideals often merge these days in marriages made in Hell. Liberty is not only forgotten in, but also is antithetical to, these relationships.
Such thinking allows our national government, under the guise of majority rule, to determine what it believes is best for all us, whether or not our founding values or our national interests are at stake and whether or not such authority has been granted under the enumerated powers of Congress. Further, the motivation to regulate in almost any area for these reasons is so strong that both common sense and logic are often trampled in the process.
WHAT GOVERNMENT REGULATES TO EXTINCTION . . . .
To use one of Barbara Joann’s examples, we are not threatened if one of us smokes. Neither our country nor our culture will be substantially harmed if someone lights up. That’s been proven trillions of times.
Smoking doesn’t violate anybody’s inalienable or constitutional rights. In fact, one might argue that smokers have their unique and insane ways of appreciating a product of nature, pursuing happiness, peacefully assembling, and speaking.
Smokers may bother others; that is true. If they bother you, then accommodate the smoker’s needs, or ask the smoker to accommodate your needs, or suck it up in the name of humanity. Such techniques have worked billions of times. There was, and remains, little reason to get the government, or its police forces, involved.
. . . . IT SIMULTANEOUSLY SUBSIDIZES . . . .
Similarly, our country isn’t threatened if 100 million of its citizens smoke. Unless, of course, in the pursuit of the Socialist Nirvana, we pledge the resources of all citizens to take care of the health consequences of this apparently insane smoking minority who cause their expensive nicotine delivery systems to successively disappear in a series of small fires.
This is insult added to injury. The government, through other, similarly motivated, social welfare concerns, subsidizes smoking. In providing healthcare for those afflicted with smoking related diseases, the government protects smokers from personally having to absorb the consequences of their choices to smoke. Instead, it makes us all liable for the poor choices of these few.
No matter how poor or how rich you are, no matter what your lifestyle, no matter what your life choices, Liberal simpletons, married to envious Socialists, believe that we should all enjoy the same “free” healthcare at some point. They believe we should all live to the same age, have the same quality of life, and the same access to healthcare, thereby relieving us all from much of the personal responsibility of having to provide for ourselves in these areas. Lest we believe that all this is free, let’s contemplate for just a second on how expensive it has become to try to achieve these objectives.
. . . . WHILE ELIMINATING CHOICE . . .
In the presence of ‘one government policy fits all’, if a certain type of business is forced to expel smokers, then all similar businesses must abide by the same rule. Thus, liberty is limited to the extent that bar owners, for example, can no longer choose whether to allow smoking in their establishments to suit the tastes of their clients. Their clients also lose the choice to go to bars that prohibit smoking indoors or to those that allow it; because all similar bars, per governmental policy, are the same when it comes to smoking. In this way, we don’t get happier and more free; we get sadder and less free.
. . . . . AND ENCOURAGING SENSELESS ACTIVITY
One thing leads to another as we march to Utopia. Since taxpayer money is at stake for social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, rationales are developed to put labels on cigarette packages. Government makes rules about where one can smoke and what one can smoke and what cigarette manufacturers may include in their products and what they must not include in their products. Lots of bureaucracy is created and lots of money is spent enforcing the rules and regulations that follow.
None of this makes any real sense. For instance, labels don’t impart information that both smokers and non-smokers don’t already know intuitively. Smoking is simply not good for one’s health; it never has been; and it never will be.
Smoking is unhealthful no matter what one smokes and no matter where one smokes. Consequently, we have a large, expensive burearcracy regulating what is unquestionably bad for us.
Way to go guys!
Would it have been so terrible had the government allowed us to keep the money it took from us for Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance?
We could have invested such assets for our own emergency funds, retirement plans, private insurance premiums, or irresponsible spending.
Would it have been so wrong for our government to leave us all responsible for our own outcomes?
Who the hell knows. . . . . or much cares . . . . at this point. What is done is done and the inertia of national government, good or bad, makes changing it practically impossible outside the context of an impending apocalypse these days.
Whatever, . . . . I nevertheless appreciated the ironic humor of the foregoing when I recently read the following on the career page of Baptist Health, the entity that manages several of the Baptist-sponsored hospitals still in operation:
ATTENTION APPLICANTS: Please note that as of January 1, 2011, all Baptist Health facilities will be tobacco free. For the protection of our patients, visitors and co-workers, no tobacco products will be allowed on any Baptist Health campus, including buildings, common areas and parking lots. We thank you for your cooperation.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh ohhhhhhhhhhhh. . . . Here we have a set of church sponsored institutions denying access, on all of its campuses, to what many believe is a medical therapy for many illnesses. Further, since many Baptist Conventions oppose smoking, as well as dancing and drinking, this clearly has religious overtones.
WHERE IS THE RULEMAKING IMPERATIVE OF THE ACA NOW, WHEN WE REALLY NEED IT???????????