My son asked me today how this country reached the point where personal liberty is under constant attack. Busybodyitis isn't a new condition. Consider this chart:
In 2008 there were nearly 900,000 marijuana arrests in the United States. I think it is safe to say that the "war on drugs" was primarily the brainchild of Conservatives and that the cost to society to prosecute that war has far outweighed the benefits. I would also argue that an unintended consequence of prohibition is increased demand. Lastly, I will admit that until recently I never put much thought in to Conservative attacks on personal liberty because it didn't affect me.
Now that we have the food police, the tobacco police,etc., the stampede to totalitarianism is primarily being led by the Progressives. They argue, just like the Conservatives before them, that society shoulders the costs of individual's unhealthy behavior and therefore, has a right to regulate individual behavior. If you buy in to that line of reasoning it follows that there is nothing that society shouldn't regulate. In the end the choice is whether people should be regulated based on Conservative values, Progressive values, or allowed to regulate themselves based on their own values.
Functioning societies require some regulation of individual's liberties but less really is more. A good place to start is by eliminating busybodyitis.
3 comments:
The question, which you recognize, is where do you draw the line as to what laws should or should not be proposed?
You wrote: "Functioning societies require some regulation of individual's liberties but less really is more."
I'm not quite sure I know what that means, but I also have to ask is that really true?
Also, I would argue against using the term "Progressive" when you say "the stampede to totalitarianism is primarily being led by the Progressives." The current American Left has about as much to do with historical Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt as they do with Dick Cheney.
By buying into the Hegel/Marxist idea of history being a chain of progress, one allows the Left to usurp the title of "Progressive" and allows all improvements and reforms throughout history to be usurped by the current Left-- passing the torch to the next generation on humanity's incessent march toward utopia.
I know this sounds idiotic, but I knew a PoliSci professor who structured his entire class around that idea. Thus he was able to teach Ronald Reagan as being equivalent to Oliver Cromwell. Never mind that this comparison doesn't stand up even under his own criteria...
Yukio, once upon a time we had "prevailing community standards". Many of the laws we have today didn't exist because people voluntarily conformed to their group's standards in order to garner respect or avoid shame within the community. No doubt some felt that society was repressive but because standards were passed on among the community I would argue that the majority as a whole was satisfied.
For a variety reasons we moved away from recognizing "right" and "wrong" as absolutes. Lack societal policing has led to more government imposed regulation, not less. Unfortunately we seem to have entered an era where busybodies don't distinguish between regulating child molestation and salt intake.
To your point on the term "progressive", the Left self identifies as "progressive" and why not? The word implies forward thinking, open mindedness and a whole slew of positive attributes. That the Left doesn't actually possess any of these qualities is irrelevant to them. After all, I can claim to be a "bombshell" but it doesn't make it so.
"To your point on the term "progressive", the Left self identifies as "progressive" and why not? The word implies forward thinking, open mindedness and a whole slew of positive attributes. That the Left doesn't actually possess any of these qualities is irrelevant to them."
Then why allow the Left the label?
I get nervous with "prevailing community standards." Some of the prevailing American standards not so long ago was no blacks and no Jews. And no, of course I am not simply talking about the South.
Yeah, I don't want people to lord over my salt intake as well. But would the community standards have changed without the Civil Rights movement or Civil Rights Amendment? I'm not sure. Yes, the majority of Americans wanted that, but that doesn't necessarily translate into change. I don't believe that guarantees of rights necessitates federal oversight of salt, and the amount of veggies I should eat.
Post a Comment