Protection Racket

When I drive or ride with someone else, I wear a seatbelt. If I were a motorcyclist, I would seriously consider donning a safety helmet. I chose not to consume gray meat or black eggs that emit obnoxious smells. I have recovered from financial failure and a broken heart. I presently have a disease (Type 1 diabetes) that requires diligent monitoring and frequent adjustments. I have learned as a young boy and also as an adult to safely handle firearms. My grandpa taught me not to eat dirt, weeds and toadstools. My parents have guided me through many pitfalls of youth and have given me sound guidance for going through life. Dear Nanny State, I do not need you to protect me from my own ignorance or bullheadedness. Just do your job, Nanny, and protect our collective nation from all threats domestic and foreign. Please note, Nanny, the Constitution does NOT require you to protect me from threats that are self-imposed. Please, leave me alone.

Throughout my life I have made mistakes. Some of them were doozies and required an all-out effort to recover from them. In each case under every condition I learned something and became a better or stronger person because of it. I do not need nor do I want the government to wrap a safety net so tightly around me that I cannot fall then recover. We usually describe progress and growth as being upwardly oriented. When seeds are planted below the ground, they struggle to emerge and grow taller. We are very similar. It is often necessary for us to hit the ground before we can spring up and grow taller, wiser and smarter. When government intercedes with its various prohibitions and protections, individual learning is stunted, and the communities and societies suffer because people lose their resiliency. As the protective net becomes more dominant, the entire region or nation loses its ability to “bounce back” from defeat. A nation of fearful citizens loses its zest for risk-taking because the prospect for failure will not be considered. The protective cocoon that government weaves around people becomes an insurmountable barrier for progress.

Just as we know that giving money to a ne’er-do-well is never fulfilling or successful, providing fail-safe protection for a nation will rob its people of creativity and energy. Over protection yields lethargy. When the wolves are nipping at our heels, we respond with alacrity. If we believe there is no danger, we tend to become a little more “laid back.” We may miss numerous opportunities for self improvement because government policies provide a comfortable environment that does not reward risk taking. Besides….the over-protective attitude is ineffective. We have those government-mandated stickers on ladders telling us not to stand on the top step, yet loons and eager beavers do it anyway. In a sense the government has increased the risk by limiting the liability for the ladder manufacturers while providing an unreal sense of security for the dim-witted climbers. Ladder stickers increase the cost of the ladder, are not effective and represent another failed government protection racket.

People who are smothered by the over-protective Nanny State become timid. Timid people are always followers and never leaders. It requires boldness and passion to be a true leader that inspires others to join in a great task. Nanny State is creating a nation of cowardly wimps, and Big Government is the winner because cowardly wimps are easier to control than free-thinking, self-reliant risk takers. It follows, therefore, that Nanny State’s compassionate concern for our health and safety is actually a ruse and a scam to transfer power from the people to Big Brother. Nanny State and Big Brother work in unison to deny our liberties and steal our yearning for self determinism. Nanny and Brother are dream-stealing, initiative-robbing and power-hungry despotic thieves.

In recent times “we the people” have felt the urge to resist when Big Government abuses us and our Constitution, but Nanny State’s meddling in our everyday lives has been nearly as destructive. Nanny’s constant involvement with how we go about our daily living has transformed us into a dependency culture. While Big Brother has openly taken our liberties, Nanny State has been stealthily stealing our strength and our will. Because of Nanny’s sneaky benevolence, we have lost the means and the desire to resist Big Brother’s egregious violations. We find ourselves in positions of dissonance when we challenge government over reaching while continuing to accept government largesse and bennies. The smiling concerned face of Nanny State has co-opted too many of us, and we are hesitant to challenge Big Brother because Nanny may become angry, take her goodies and withhold them from us. This scenario is somewhat reminiscent of what ones sees when using treats to train a puppy.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too” is a familiar statement for many of us. The relationship between Nanny State and Big Government is illustrative of the wisdom of that old saying. We cannot expect to maintain our individual liberty and sovereignty if we fawningly allow the Nanny State to usurp our personal responsibility. All or none, Patriot, either fight for total freedom….or give it all away. Big Brother MUST be defeated and Nanny State must be banished. Besides….those benefits must end eventually as we lurch toward fiscal collapse.

cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

   

Prevention or Oppression

We have heard the refrain many times, ”if this legislation (or rule) can save just one life, it will be worth it.” Bull! Do-gooder legislation, regulations and rules can rarely be empirically identified as saving lives, but they always lead to more restrictions and oppression. If our political leaders and their bureaucratic toadies were serious about wanting to protect and improve our lives, they would get out of the way and allow the ingenuity of the American people discover the keys to happiness, prosperity and contentment. All government at any level can deliver with consistency is red tape and nonsensical bureaucratic mazes. Besides….government’s mandate is to protect life….not to insulate it from all potential harm. One could argue that unfulfilled expectations can be psychologically harmful so government may actually be harming our citizens while claiming to protect them.

If politicians and cubicle-bound bureaucrats were really interested in protecting the American people from harm, they would enact two critical laws: They would ban “stupid,” and they would require that every adult in the nation be armed. Obviously, banning stupidity is problematic, but so many harmful outcomes are the result of stupid actions by the person who was injured or killed. Banning stupidity will NOT eliminate stupid behavior. Government would not deterred, however because they ban or forbid any number of things that occur despite their Nanny-like intervention. Also banning stupidity would mean that the entire political and bureaucratic apparatus of the nation would be forced to resign….unless they’re too stupid to understand that they are monumentally stupid, or…as usual they exempt themselves from legislation or rules that oppress the rest of us.

Requiring adult citizens to be armed (except for those who have been legally or clinically judged as dangerous) would generate a sense of security. Bad guys and bad girls might be less willing to accost and harm innocent citizens if they KNEW that a .38, .40 or .45 could be on the scene in a flash without the necessity for a 911 call. One of my favorite quotes is a line by author Robert Heinlein, “An armed society is a polite society.” Obviously neither of these two proposals has a snowball’s chance of adoption, but that nugget alone should illustrate how governments’ protective benevolence is a scam. Their effort to wrap us with cocoons merely restrains our arms and our movements so that we are unable to ward off danger when it approaches. Too often government protection evolves into our becoming complacent and unaware. The false security provided by grandiose programs and public relations campaigns lulls us into an artificial sense of safety……as we willingly sacrifice a little more of our liberty.

With a population of roughly 310 million people in the United States it is folly to assume that the government can protect all of us or a significant number of us from each and every unique potential danger. The bureaucrats and their misfit legislative enablers create and generate a myriad of laws, rules and regulations which may or may not enhance our individual personal safety, but they do dramatically interfere with and impede our commerce and our daily living. Their yeomen’s efforts to protect us end up confusing us, and any bureaucrat worth his daily salt should be aware that confused and disoriented people are more susceptible to danger and injury. In essence, the massive undertaking by our governments at all levels to limit our exposure to harm have created an environment that lulls us into a sense of well-being while danger still stalks us, and they have constructed a maze of red tape and prohibitions that lies in wait to trip us and entangle us.

The Nanny State has gradually transformed our nation from a collection of rugged, self-reliant individuals into a whimpering population of National Assisted-Living residents. If we do not stop them, and reverse the trend and undo the damage, we will become prisoners of the total-care state apparatus….just when the disintegration of the overspending, fiscally irresponsible government occurs. Just when our self reliance and strength are most needed for our survival, our skill set will have atrophied. Timing is everything.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed.,6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

Safety First

The Nanny State cares about you. The Nanny State wants you to live life without facing any adverse situations….well, without facing difficulties that have not been caused by government. You see, when life throws you curve balls, those are bad. When government throws you bean balls, those are called “shared sacrifices.” The Nanny State is committed to protecting you from every type of imaginable or potential harm…except for the damages inflicted by the government. Even when I personally resent the Nanny State’s annoying meddling in my life, I could, at some level, understand the insatiable desire by the government to control so many facets of my life if they were not ideologically and agenda driven constraints. Many of the limitations and regulations do not make sense from an economic or a safety point of view, but do satisfy some misbegotten ideological purpose.

A glaring example that we have previously discussed on these pages is the banning of the incandescent light bulb in favor of the compact fluorescent variety. For the moment the House has suspended the implementation of the policy, but government never gives in, never gives up. The insanity of an ideological unproven “global warming” scare leading Congress and the EPA to ban a tried and true technology and replace it with a toxic-laden substitute illustrates the folly of much government regulation—particularly the ideological-driven rules. The collectivist attitude is blatantly apparent in this regulatory fiasco….preserve the planet from a theoretical future of global warming, but put individuals at risk with more expensive deadly products.

When any child loses his or her life, it is a tragic circumstance. According to the Product Safety Commission, in the last ten years 32 children have been mortally injured by baby cribs with sliding adjustable sides. With the publishing of the data the PSC has arbitrarily determined that ALL parents are too stupid or lack discernment to choose a crib for their children that is not so risky. So, they have banned the sliding-side infant crib, and forbade reselling of older models at garage sales and thrift shops. We are waiting for a definitive rule that bans “giving” the lethal cribs from one family member to another as has been the historical norm. While 32 deaths are regrettable and heart-breaking, the banning of the crib can, to some degree, affect nearly all of the 308 million residents of the nation.

Unlike the infant crib regulatory ban, RU-486, the “morning after pill,” is ideologically and politically correct. The statists promote unrestrained abortion, and resist any attempt to curtail the deadly industry. It is apparent that ideology trumps safety when the impact of RU-486 is examined. According to analyst David Alton of Great Britain, roughly 5-8% of RU-486 users experience severe complications…including death. So, the obvious question is “why are sliding-side baby cribs banned because of their dangerous potential when RU-486 has a much higher level of malfunctioning?” Clearly the answer is that Big Government and the Nanny State are driven by ideological considerations. Aborted children and their deceased mothers are an acceptable risk to preserve the right to destroy children at will according to the government’s priorities.

As the government and the multiplicity of agencies, bureaus and departments roam the country looking for ways to make my life better and safer, the unspoken factor is that every little regulation that makes my life safer also limits my freedom. Many would argue that the comprehensive examination conducted by the TSA at our airports is necessary to protect us from nefarious characters. We know, however, that their “so-called” random extensive observations have no basis in reality other than mere statistical happenstance. Profiling is forbidden because it may be deemed as discriminatory whereas groping small children and little old ladies in wheelchairs is considered acceptable. Once again, the Nanny State’s efforts to enhance our safety do little to make us safer and do restrict our personal liberty.

Finally, this observation does not involve product safety or the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. I wonder how can a government that is so concerned with the potential safety of every citizen when they interact with the private sector, be so nonchalant about high-level bombing using aircraft and drones? The resultant collateral damage from those sorties exceeds the losses by far from some of the issues they seek to regulate. Does our federal government practice gross discrimination by assuming that Libyan civilians or Afghanis are not as valuable as U.S. residents? Or is it that Nanny State’s real concern is for the power to control us? Our actual safety and well-being are secondary considerations. Every little regulatory element places another nail in our boxes. The motto of the new order is “safety first, liberty never, state forever.” Enjoy your safe trip toward tyranny, because it will be nearly impossible to come back.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Needing Wants

If only I could remember where I first heard the phrase “we are a country of wants…who believes they are needs.” Yep. It is the entitlement mentality. That phrase represents the new movement for “rights” that are neither inalienable nor practical. How often have we heard a self-important politician or a “rights” advocate proclaim their rights to healthcare? Well, my poor misguided fellow humans, you have an inalienable right to life (which many deny to the unborn), its up to you to find a way to succor it. God has provided you with life. Do what you can to preserve it. All of us share the same inalienable rights, but we may have varying methods or preferences for preserving or enhancing our lives. One such method may be found by seeking the best most high-fallutin’ healthcare regime available. Others may prefer to follow more natural, herbal methods. And some of us may wish to roll the dice and live a totally debauched and gluttonous life. It seems, therefore, that YOUR healthcare is neither a right for you nor an obligation of mine.

As we attempt to draw the distinctions between wants and needs, rights and needs, we might use the following illustration: Harley avoids doctors and pharmacy counters whereas Farley goes to ER for a hangnail and takes a number of meds. Should Harley be forced to subsidize Farley’s medical addiction through punitive taxation, and should Farley cough up the money to pay for Harley’s natural multi-vitamins? If you have answered in the affirmative, then it isn’t much of a leap to insist that we should purchase Farley’s food for him because his vitamins supplement an extremely healthy diet. Because we agree to by Farley’s food in the previous illustration, we are socially, morally and equitably obligated to purchase the food for Harley. He prefers Big Macs, Big Boys, super-sized fries, and Dilly Bars from Dairy Queen. Food is food, after all.

The moral, economic and personal bottom line is that we NEED food. We NEED shelter of some sort during inclement weather, and most of us NEED clothing in certain types of climates. The Bible states  (paraphrase) that if we expect to eat, then we must work for our sustenance. Working will also produce resources for limited shelter and clothing. If there is no moral or theological basis for a collective effort for providing the basic needs, where can we find a universal imperative for meeting the wants of individuals…as varied as they might be? Any decision for provision by the state or the collective requires that some value be given to the item. Generic or brand? Cloth coat or fur coat? Prius or 10-year old Chevy? It is unavoidable that some wants (or perceived needs) will be satisfied while others remain unmet. Given the individual preferences and perceived needs, it follows that the distribution of the collective largesse will be uneven and biased. Besides, government will grossly underperform anyway.

As each person transforms personal “wants” into “needs” or “rights,” the social order moves closer to a breakdown. The new-found needs begin to ratchet higher and higher as the government redefines its role, and the level of satisfaction for the recipients sinks lower and lower. The end result is a government and economic structure incapable of providing the newly-defined “needs” while the frustration level of the populace swells because of their dissatisfaction. Redefining wants as needs leads to a disintegration of the economy and the social order. Everyone—government and individuals—live beyond their means….spend beyond their abilities to produce. Wants are unfulfilled, and needs are shortchanged. The benevolent Nanny State slips into chaos. The government yields to anarchy. The competent and resourceful will satisfy their own needs while their neighbors resort to violence or endure suffering. Expecting government to supply our wants leads us down a deadly to destruction. It is unfortunate that so many of our citizens have misinterpreted the “pursuit of happiness” clause to mean that they chase after government goodies while other taxpayers pay the bill.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com