Or to put it in modern day terms, "You live the way you want, as long as it doesn't harm me or others and doesn't take my money."
I am the sort of person that will look down at a drunk on the sidewalk and say, "You know there are places to help you." While I step right over the guy and continue walking. It doesn't mean that I have no compassion, I just have the attitude that people make their own decisions and if someone wants to lay on a sidewalk drunk, that's their business just don't make excuses and blame others.
If most of us had my attitude, we certainly wouldn't have any issues with nanny state laws. Actually, I think most Americans do share my attitude, but they don't have the ear of our politicians like our "compassionate" counterparts, better known as lobbyists. Now look where their "compassion" has gotten us: Paying for people who are so fat, that their wall has to be cut down so they can put the guy on a flatbed trailer, then we all have to pay for it.
So much for not picking my pocket, when it costs us $93,000,000,000 a year to deal with it.
But, it gets even better. Do you recall a young(er) journalist who reported a story in the Ocala Star-Banner in May of 2002, linking sky high cigarette taxes and funding Hezbollah? Once you start reading the newspaper article it might jog your memory, if not, it goes something like this: The ring leader of a Charlotte, North Carolina organized crime cell was caught smuggling cigarettes to Michigan where the taxes were much higher. After selling them in Michigan over a four year period, they funneled the millions to terrorist support groups where it finally ended up in Hezbollah's coffers.
Way to go DC! Thanks for looking out for my well being, I knew I didn't have the brains to figure out that smoking was bad for my health, so you came to my rescue and jacked up the taxes to discourage me from smoking. So what if a few million dollars went to a terrorist group that hates our guts and wants to destroy Israel.
On a side note, have you ever noticed that something weird happens when the government thinks they know what's best for you and raises the taxes on cigarettes? Smokers tend to go elsewhere, such as New York's Indian Reservations, and buy them there. In 2007, $1,000,000,000 of state revenue was lost due to bootlegging. Read this blog article and you'll get an idea of why the government knows best.
But, here is where it gets really hilarious when Big Brother thinks he knows best. I want you carefully read the following statement:
Our government has significantly raised taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from smoking because it's bad for your health.
Do you see the contradiction? No? Well, let me spell it out for you. Our government (Big Brother) gets money from tax revenue. Since they have exponentially raised cigarette taxes to discourage you from smoking, how is Big Brother going to continue to rake in the revenue if everyone quits because they can no longer afford it?
Incidentally, has our dear leader quit yet?
Moving on we look at another inane nanny state law that's designed to look out for your best interest. Using your logic, read this statement and see if you can spot the error:
Seat belt laws saves lives.
Do you see the error? Are you missing it? Think about it for a minute and ask yourself if it's the actual law that saves lives or if it's the individual who decides to use them on their own accord that saves their own life? It's a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo proptor hoc (after this therefore because of this). In other words, after seat belt laws were enacted they subsequently saved lives. If you are one who follows this type of logic, then reducing maximum speed limits to 10 miles per hour would also save more lives. Or better yet, enacting a nanny state law forbidding you to go outside between the hours of 2:00 to 5:00 PM in the summer because that's when many people do yard work and tend to get sunburns.
I contend that passing the seat belt law was nothing more than a ruse to raise state's revenue. When first enacted all those years ago it was a secondary law, meaning that if you were pulled over for one infraction you could be charged for not wearing your seat belt. Now it's a primary infraction where you can get ticketed if you're not wearing it.
Same goes for wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle. If you are stupid enough to not wear one, then who am I, or Big Brother for that matter, to tell you otherwise. It doesn't pick my pocket nor does it break my leg, even though it breaks your head and damages other body parts if you lay down your hog on the highway.
Moving on to another nanny state law that's seems to be for the greater good, has, in fact, gotten way out of control.
"MADD has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned, I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with issue of drunk driving."
In other words, Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD in 1980, left her organization because it had become a monster and took another path with other intentions. What started as a noble crusade against drinking and driving after her daughter was killed by one, has turned to taking a zero tolerance approach to alcohol.
Uh oh, we've seen this before and it's consequences.
Here's a factoid you can tell your liberal progressive neighbor: The biggest percentage of drunk driving fatalities occur by repeat offenders. So what do nanny states do? They don't target the offender, no, they decide to target everyone when they decide to implement those ignition interlock devices. It doesn't matter if you don't drink at all or if you are a responsible person and has a plan in place in the event you have a little too much at happy hour. Nope, Big Brother has hopes of catching the few by punishing the responsible many.
In a 1998 report, a sociologist by the name of Ralph Hingson claimed that lowering the nationwide drunk-driving arrest threshold from .10% to 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) would save 500 lives a year. Regardless of the US GAO refuting that report, MADD continued to use his report that compelled many states to adopt “.08” legislation.
But, here's the real kicker: MADD uses what it calls VIP (Victim Impact Panels) that many judges require of anyone convicted of DUI. These offenders are required to pay a fee to MADD out of their own pocket to hear the victims and/or their families relate their stories.
After researching these VIP's in New Mexico, a report was issued in 2001 and concluded, in part:
“Female repeat offenders referred to VIPs were significantly more likely to be rearrested compared with those not referred, with an odd of rearrest more than twice that of females not referred.”
But, MADD didn't stop there. They tried pushing a campaign to raise taxes on adult beverages (where have we seen that before?) for the purpose of, now get this, reducing under age drinking. Huh? Where is the evidence for that? Thankfully there are politicians that were smart enough to see right through that, even though they can't see the problem with raising taxes on cigarettes, after Henry Wechsler, who, by the way, is a staunch anti-alcohol researcher forced MADD to admit that there wasn't any basis for their wild assertion.
Incidentally, this forced the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in their 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health to admit that "alcohol prices were a less salient determinant of the drinking behavior of college students than they were in other population groups."
If you weren't a victim of our public school system, you may recall what the disastrous fallout was that occurred when Prohibition (The Noble Experiment) was enacted in 1919-1933. If you were a victim of our public school system, I'll bet you are an expert Googler and while you're at it, posit (that means ask) a question: If nanny state laws assume that it can correct bad behavior, then why is there still crime in other countries, like China, that have many laws that are punishable by death if they are broken?
But, if you are sitting on a chair in front of your PC or MAC eating a bag of Doritos and slugging down a half rack of Red Bull while playing World of Warcraft, I'll help you along: After the Noble Experiment was enacted, crime rates shot up 80%, many legitimate businesses resorted to becoming speakeasies, brilliant "businessmen" like Al Capone and Joe Kennedy made millions from bootlegging and, get this, our government was no longer raking in the revenue. You know, those pesky taxes that help or government raise revenue?
Continued...
So, where does all this nanny state legislation come from? Why do the federal and state governments implement these laws that basically tells you that they know what's best for your well being?
Simple. Because in their perverted world it's for the greater good.
What the government doesn't quite understand is that what's good for the few, doesn't mean that it's good for the many. For instance, did you know that most infants under the age of one die each year because they were left unattended in the bathtub? So, taking the greater good aspect of government, does that mean they should ban all bathtubs or should they prosecute the parent for being a moron?
Now, you may think that these laws are petty because they don't directly affect you. Tsk, tsk. Remember the high taxes on cigarettes in New York? Remember the local store where some people used to go to for a half rack of Guinness? Well, chances are pretty good that Crazy Joe's mini mart is no longer there because of the greater good. The unintended consequences most likely due to the black market because smokers are going to look for the cheapest pack they can find.
And who pays for all of this errant lifestyle? We all do because it's for the greater good. Remember the $93,000,000,000 we spend on taxes to pay for obese people? Do you really think that they know how to eat right by eating smaller portions, eating low calorie foods and exercising can probably fix their bad knees, diabetes and heart disease? I'll wager that they do, they just don't want to and unfortunately it picks our pockets. The government is of the opinion that these people don't know how, then they tax everyone else so these obese people can continue their lifestyle.
I can think of a few things that would definitely be for the greater good, like sterilizing Charlie Sheen so he can't contaminate the rest of the world.
At any rate, here are some issues that have either resulted in nanny state legislation, causing some other knee jerk reactions or just being a moron and blaming others:
- Remember the banning of saccharin? It was banned after lab results concluded that it would cause cancer. Never mind the rats were force fed pounds of it.
- Remember the lady that sued McDonalds after she spilled coffee on her lap at the drive thru? Here's a news flash: Coffee is hot.
- What about the woman that tried to sue McDonald's because it made her husband obese causing them to be unable to have sex?
- What about the countless idiots that use an electric device in the bathtub?
- Driving or operating a vehicle after drinking is stupid.
- Yes, Virginia smoking is bad for you. If you have to put a label on it to tell you that, you're an idiot.
- Putting oil in a deep fat fryer, clamping down the lid and then deciding to take a nap is not smart.
- Banning themerosal because some idiot doctor tried to link it to autism.
- Hiding a loaded gun in the oven before you go on vacation.
The list is endless. But, do you punish the many for what a few morons can't seem to do? If a company has to put a label on a chainsaw telling the user not to touch the chain while it's in motion, then maybe the person using it should find another tool. But, what makes blood shoot out of my eyes is when these morons blame others for their stupidity.
No comments:
Post a Comment