Extremist libertarianism By Steve Stewart | Tidewater News Published Saturday, June 12, 2010 Steve Stewart is publisher of The Tidewater News. His e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org
*** begin quote ***
If an adult chooses not to wear a life jacket — or a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet — that’s one thing. He is old enough to weigh the risks and make a decision. It’s his life. An 8-year-old kid isn’t equipped to make that decision. When a reckless parent doesn’t see fit to take a simple step that will save a kid from drowning, I have no problem with the state saying he must.
Libertarian instincts aside, I disagree with Pollard. The collective wisdom of society does occasionally trump the not-so-common sense of an individual. In such cases, there oughta be a law.
*** end quote ***
The death of child is tragic. The unnecessary death is even more so.
That being said, we don’t worry about the preventable deaths of children in war, collateral damage, boycotts, embargoes, aboortion, the war against (some) drugs, poverty, swimming pools, car accidents, DWI, bathtubs, and … the ultimate killers … pais of water in the home!
(Before you say I’m absurd, please look up the most frequent cause of accidental drownings.)
SO what we have here is the political class saying they know better how to raise your child. We’ve already established that there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of a problem, no evidence that this law will solve more problems than it corrects, nor any evidence that the “law” would have any practical impact at all.
Now I understand that in the Declaration of Independence, “we”, (as if there was such a thing as “we”), assert that there is “an inalienable right to life”. (Isn’t it amusing when you quote their own documents back to the Statists and Socialists?) We have never agreed on when those “inalienable rights” inure to the “person”.
Is the legislator trying to state an answer to that question by preempting parental decision making?
The busybody politicians and bureaucrats are trying to run everything. With the fatal conceit. What did Thomas Sowell call it. “Conceit of the Anointed” Or Walter Williams. “The bottom line is that the idea that government bureaucrats have enough knowledge to manage an economy well is the height of conceit — what Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit.” I’d call it the “conceit of the elite” that they would know better how to run your life than you do. With all their fancy “laws” (not like natural Laws), rules, regulations, diktats, or no-nos. And stuff still happens,
When you try to force someone to do something, even something that they would have wanted to do if left alone, they rebel. Because, instinctively, in their DNA, they “know” where that leads to: being a slave, mistreatment, and eventually the death camps. That’s why calling someone a Nazi is such a powerful slur. Like racist. Because you can IMMEDIATELY associate a picture with a label. And, we all know where it ends.
So, this politician tries to mandate “life jackets” for kids and we can trace it to its logical conclusion killing children in Auschwitz. May sound far fetched, but to me it’s as logical an outcome as any chemical reaction, the drips that cause stalactites and stalagmites. (Tites are tight to the ceiling) Or ants building a mound.
Drip, drip, drip. We lose out freedom. As Guliver is tied down thread by thread. No single drip, no single thread, no single “law” is enough to fight about. Like a parasite in a host, slowly eating it to death.
So the answer to every new intrusion, must be a firm “No”. “Never”. “Buzz off”.
“but it’s for the children”?
Well how about all these other “for the children” items that you don’t seem to care about.
Take your gooferment off our liberty!
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” — Robert A. Heinlein
# # # # #