Means and fried rights
Let me make it clear that my post Roe Delenda Est was in no way intended to criticize legal prohibition of abortion. Abortion's mass slaughter is, in my view, worse than those perpetrated by Lenin, Stalin and Hitler - although abortion's marketing campaign draws upon many of the same propaganda techniques as Nazism did.
Nor am I advocating an end-justifies-the-means argument for dismantling a Supreme Court ruling. Rather, the end ought not disregard the means. In other words, inasmuch as Roe was the legal door through which this evil innovation gained free course into our nation, it must be slammed shut, locked and double-bolted if we're to have any hope of eradicating this plague from our borders.
Our Constitution simply does not authorize many of the governmental innovations we see around us. The framers, it's true, failed to anticipate a few problems. But where others are concerned, they were astoundingly prescient, bequeathing to us a remarkable philosophy and form of government, which, were they upheld, would prevent all manner of abuses, many of which currently afflict us. But our ignorance of our history, political philosophy and constitutional government, combined with our desperation to solve the problems which beset us, have led to tyrannies large and small in America. Take, for instance, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has spearheaded a statewide "get fit" campaign.
Anyone familiar with the obesity problem in Arkansas (or much of the deep south, for that matter) might, upon seeing impressive results from Huckabee's campaign, applaud it heartily. The CDC has recently released astounding statistics concerning America's obesity "epidemic". And rather than dispute the reasonableness of their criteria which pronounces Michael Jordan "obese", let's focus instead on whether weight reduction and improved health (the end) justifies Huckabee's program intended to achieve it (the means).
In a speech to the National Governors Association, Huckabee unashamedly outlines his propaganda campaign. First, we must make obesity politically incorrect. Next, we implement incentives and disincentives to encourage proper diet and exercise. Finally, once the majority have surrendered, we'll be able to revoke the liberties of the minority and coerce their acquiescence.
Sound extreme? It shouldn't. As Huckabee illustrates in example after example, it works like a charm. For instance, seatbelts. For decades, in many (if not most) cars, seatbelts were available to safety-conscious consumers only as after-market products. Then in the mid-60s, manufacturers were compelled by law to begin installing them in all vehicles whether the consumer wanted them or not - and the auto-makers passed the savings on to you. Then came the public service announcements, school films, etc. - all paid for by you. Next came the legal coercion to buckle up, with accompanying fines for driving "dangerously" down the block to your friend's house without a seatbelt. (Since you're obviously incapable of caring for your own welfare, you by default cede that authority to the state - which gladly assumes the role.) Finally, under the "roads are government property" doctrine, the seatbelt police can now stop you for suspicion of unbuckledness and ask to see your "papers".
Take another example - smoking. It wasn't so long ago that smoking was a popular pleasure. Then came evidence that the costs outweighed the benefits, and the anti-smoking campaign began. School films, blah blah blah. Fine. Education is a good thing. It enables people to make educated decisions regarding their own welfare. But that's not enough, since too few folks were making the "right" decision. So smoking in government office buildings was outlawed. ("We can do that.") Then smoking in all office buildings and other places of employment was outlawed. ("People have to be there who don't like cigarette smoke.") Then smoking in restaurants, apartments, hotels, parks, etc. was outlawed. ("People who don't like cigarette smoke are more important, and we can't expect them to choose available alternatives.")
And as with seatbelts, the state applied additional punishment for noncompliance by levying oppressive taxation. Federal tax is $0.39 a pack, and state tax varies. As of 2002, Washington had the highest at $1.425 a pack. In Texas where I live, the total tax (not including sales tax) is $8 a carton, which accounts for roughly 1/3 the cost - a 50% tax. That's some serious coercion! But as Minn. Gov. Jesse Ventura says, "If you don't want to pay it, don't smoke." Thanks for the tip, King George III.
Picture the tax collector standing next to you at the checkout counter: "Oh, you'd like a $2.00 gallon of milk, eh? Well let's see...That's gonna cost you 3 bucks. If you don't want to pay it, eat your Wheaties dry." Or... "So you'd like that new $30,000 Honda Accord, would you? That'll be $45,000 please. Got a problem with that? If you don't want to pay it, take the bus."
How do you think Huckabee and his ilk plan to coerce you into eating "right"? He proposes (among other measures) starting off with a food-stamp tax. You see, folks dependant on the state are prime targets. First we give them food stamps, and then we'll be able to tell them what they can and cannot buy.
"But we already do that. They can't buy beer, etc." Ah, but we're now taking the state's power even further. Of course we want parents to feed their families with the money we give them, not get drunk. But now we're going to dictate their diet. Since they're clearly incapable of making the "right" decisions about what's for dinner, the state will do it for them. We'll make $1 in food stamps buy $1.25 worth of the "right" foods but only $0.75 worth of the "wrong" foods. (What're they gonna do? Take their business elsewhere?)
Huckabee's plan also offers health insurance rebates to state employees who follow his fitness program. (Nevermind the actual fitness of the employee, whether on or off his program. Just like every other insurance plan, it's all statistics anyway. Nevermind that I've never in my life had a moving violation or filed a claim, I still have to pay $400 a year for the bare minimum liability...just because.) So now, rather than the group-insurance burden being spread evenly among the participants, those who don't join the official fitness program will bear a larger share, paying for those rebates. A lethargy tax, we might call it.
Now Huckabee can get away with the lethargy and food-stamp taxes because the subjects of these taxes are under his thumb, serfs dependant on the state. And many will no doubt cave in to the coercion. But will he stop there? Ha.
Huckabee plans to change attitudes about "wrong" fitness levels and eating habits. And once overeating and lethargy are made politically incorrect, all Arkansas citizens can reasonably expect to see their liberties similarly curtailed. After all, where can you draw the line?
Restaurant serving fried foods? Tax it. Supermarket selling Hershey bars? Again, tax it. School vending machine selling Cokes? Get 'em out. (Oh wait, we did that already.) Big Mac and fries? Don't get Huckabee started! "Let's see, we could sue McDonald's to recover public health costs. Or impose a 5-buck-a-burger tax. Or just use the good ol'fashioned zoning laws to drive the quarter-pounder-pushers out of the state."
When the ignorant masses use their liberty to make decisions you don't like, there's more than one way to use the power of the state to punish them. If you can't prohibit it outright, you can always penalize their "wrong" choices via taxation. And hey, if they don't want to pay the fat-fines....
One of these days, under the oppressive regime of these grease police, we'll hear patriots exclaim, "I don't like cheeseburgers, but I'll defend to your death the right to eat one!"
Nor am I advocating an end-justifies-the-means argument for dismantling a Supreme Court ruling. Rather, the end ought not disregard the means. In other words, inasmuch as Roe was the legal door through which this evil innovation gained free course into our nation, it must be slammed shut, locked and double-bolted if we're to have any hope of eradicating this plague from our borders.
Our Constitution simply does not authorize many of the governmental innovations we see around us. The framers, it's true, failed to anticipate a few problems. But where others are concerned, they were astoundingly prescient, bequeathing to us a remarkable philosophy and form of government, which, were they upheld, would prevent all manner of abuses, many of which currently afflict us. But our ignorance of our history, political philosophy and constitutional government, combined with our desperation to solve the problems which beset us, have led to tyrannies large and small in America. Take, for instance, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has spearheaded a statewide "get fit" campaign.
Anyone familiar with the obesity problem in Arkansas (or much of the deep south, for that matter) might, upon seeing impressive results from Huckabee's campaign, applaud it heartily. The CDC has recently released astounding statistics concerning America's obesity "epidemic". And rather than dispute the reasonableness of their criteria which pronounces Michael Jordan "obese", let's focus instead on whether weight reduction and improved health (the end) justifies Huckabee's program intended to achieve it (the means).
In a speech to the National Governors Association, Huckabee unashamedly outlines his propaganda campaign. First, we must make obesity politically incorrect. Next, we implement incentives and disincentives to encourage proper diet and exercise. Finally, once the majority have surrendered, we'll be able to revoke the liberties of the minority and coerce their acquiescence.
Sound extreme? It shouldn't. As Huckabee illustrates in example after example, it works like a charm. For instance, seatbelts. For decades, in many (if not most) cars, seatbelts were available to safety-conscious consumers only as after-market products. Then in the mid-60s, manufacturers were compelled by law to begin installing them in all vehicles whether the consumer wanted them or not - and the auto-makers passed the savings on to you. Then came the public service announcements, school films, etc. - all paid for by you. Next came the legal coercion to buckle up, with accompanying fines for driving "dangerously" down the block to your friend's house without a seatbelt. (Since you're obviously incapable of caring for your own welfare, you by default cede that authority to the state - which gladly assumes the role.) Finally, under the "roads are government property" doctrine, the seatbelt police can now stop you for suspicion of unbuckledness and ask to see your "papers".
Take another example - smoking. It wasn't so long ago that smoking was a popular pleasure. Then came evidence that the costs outweighed the benefits, and the anti-smoking campaign began. School films, blah blah blah. Fine. Education is a good thing. It enables people to make educated decisions regarding their own welfare. But that's not enough, since too few folks were making the "right" decision. So smoking in government office buildings was outlawed. ("We can do that.") Then smoking in all office buildings and other places of employment was outlawed. ("People have to be there who don't like cigarette smoke.") Then smoking in restaurants, apartments, hotels, parks, etc. was outlawed. ("People who don't like cigarette smoke are more important, and we can't expect them to choose available alternatives.")
And as with seatbelts, the state applied additional punishment for noncompliance by levying oppressive taxation. Federal tax is $0.39 a pack, and state tax varies. As of 2002, Washington had the highest at $1.425 a pack. In Texas where I live, the total tax (not including sales tax) is $8 a carton, which accounts for roughly 1/3 the cost - a 50% tax. That's some serious coercion! But as Minn. Gov. Jesse Ventura says, "If you don't want to pay it, don't smoke." Thanks for the tip, King George III.
Picture the tax collector standing next to you at the checkout counter: "Oh, you'd like a $2.00 gallon of milk, eh? Well let's see...That's gonna cost you 3 bucks. If you don't want to pay it, eat your Wheaties dry." Or... "So you'd like that new $30,000 Honda Accord, would you? That'll be $45,000 please. Got a problem with that? If you don't want to pay it, take the bus."
How do you think Huckabee and his ilk plan to coerce you into eating "right"? He proposes (among other measures) starting off with a food-stamp tax. You see, folks dependant on the state are prime targets. First we give them food stamps, and then we'll be able to tell them what they can and cannot buy.
"But we already do that. They can't buy beer, etc." Ah, but we're now taking the state's power even further. Of course we want parents to feed their families with the money we give them, not get drunk. But now we're going to dictate their diet. Since they're clearly incapable of making the "right" decisions about what's for dinner, the state will do it for them. We'll make $1 in food stamps buy $1.25 worth of the "right" foods but only $0.75 worth of the "wrong" foods. (What're they gonna do? Take their business elsewhere?)
Huckabee's plan also offers health insurance rebates to state employees who follow his fitness program. (Nevermind the actual fitness of the employee, whether on or off his program. Just like every other insurance plan, it's all statistics anyway. Nevermind that I've never in my life had a moving violation or filed a claim, I still have to pay $400 a year for the bare minimum liability...just because.) So now, rather than the group-insurance burden being spread evenly among the participants, those who don't join the official fitness program will bear a larger share, paying for those rebates. A lethargy tax, we might call it.
Now Huckabee can get away with the lethargy and food-stamp taxes because the subjects of these taxes are under his thumb, serfs dependant on the state. And many will no doubt cave in to the coercion. But will he stop there? Ha.
Huckabee plans to change attitudes about "wrong" fitness levels and eating habits. And once overeating and lethargy are made politically incorrect, all Arkansas citizens can reasonably expect to see their liberties similarly curtailed. After all, where can you draw the line?
Restaurant serving fried foods? Tax it. Supermarket selling Hershey bars? Again, tax it. School vending machine selling Cokes? Get 'em out. (Oh wait, we did that already.) Big Mac and fries? Don't get Huckabee started! "Let's see, we could sue McDonald's to recover public health costs. Or impose a 5-buck-a-burger tax. Or just use the good ol'fashioned zoning laws to drive the quarter-pounder-pushers out of the state."
When the ignorant masses use their liberty to make decisions you don't like, there's more than one way to use the power of the state to punish them. If you can't prohibit it outright, you can always penalize their "wrong" choices via taxation. And hey, if they don't want to pay the fat-fines....
One of these days, under the oppressive regime of these grease police, we'll hear patriots exclaim, "I don't like cheeseburgers, but I'll defend to your death the right to eat one!"
posted by Lear's Fool | 7:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home