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

Liberty's Laggards

A recent article in “MailOnline” the internet version of the Daily Mail from the United Kingdom provided an individual freedom analysis for the 50 states of the United States. There’s some irony in the fact that a British paper sought to examine liberty in the former colonies. Clearly when describing liberty within states there are subjective parameters at work. The 50 “laboratories for democracy” have considerable leeway in determining how their states will be organized and function. The three largest areas of limitation for them within the federal Constitution are the mandated federal obligations as given in the enumerated powers, the prohibitions for curtailing inalienable rights, and the states must be democratic republics. If the fifty states take their freedoms seriously, there are multiple opportunities to experiment with laws and rulemaking to generate environments for prosperity and liberty.

Alas, too many of our formerly-sovereign states have followed the lead of Big Brother by implementing restrictive regulatory structures and punitive tax policies. Where they might have flourished as laboratories of freedom and opportunity, they, instead, overregulated, overtaxed and overwhelmed their citizens with obstacles and constraints. The “MailOnline” piece by Mark Duell lists New York and California as the worst offenders in the limitation of individual freedom. These are two of the largest states in the union…rich in resources, talent and population. It defies logic for states so richly endowed to squander their natural wealth for the false dream of centralized government. Another state that Duell has categorized as “less free” is my own native Ohio. As a candidate for statewide office in 2010, I drove across the entire state. It was clear to me how statism impacts the economic environment of the state. Certainly there were pockets of prosperity, but most of my beloved Buckeye state was staggered by the loss of industry…and the tangential businesses, suppliers and service companies that thrive when the industries are doing well.

The federal government and the state regulatory apparatus combined to construct high hurdles and elongated approval processes for plants to upgrade. In addition the labor union situation in Ohio has strangled attempts to innovate and create a competitive cost profile. Big government, lousy business opportunities and excessive union power are a troika for job killing. A corollary indicator of the relative freedom of the respective states is the apportionment of congressional seats following the census. One of the freer states, Texas, picks up 4 additional congress critters while New York and Ohio each lose two seats…and the corresponding national influence. Florida with its friendly atmosphere for freedom will gain 2 seats while Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will have one fewer congressperson in 2012. Missouri also loses one seat as does Louisiana…probably an after effect of Katrina. Indeed, there is a very high correlation between a state’s level of freedom and its growth and prosperity. You might ask why California is not on the “loser list” if it is rated as “less free.” The census counts people not citizens, and the continuing migration of non-citizens to California has kept the population large enough to offset the out migration of business, jobs and citizens.

Freedom and prosperity are linked. Where the people have the freedom to function without an oppressive regulatory environment or restrictive workplace rules, they will capitalize and maximize their opportunity. Lower taxes will encourage businesses to reinvest in growth and technology. Lower taxes and spending by state governments will encourage commerce and industry. Sadly, states, cities or any other government entity cannot resist the urge to grow and control. Only one of the original thirteen states was considered to be relatively free by Duell’s analysis: New Hampshire, the state with the stirring “Live Free or Die” motto. The other two top-ranked states were South Dakota and Indiana.

As a former researcher, I am aware that correlation does NOT confirm causality. Common sense suggests, however, that states that are growing may be doing so because of lower taxes, fewer union complications and sensible regulatory environments. Those liberty-lagging laboratories of democracy who have selected more government, more regulation and higher taxes as their modus operandi are faltering … staggering. As their businesses close or move, their tax bases dwindle and their social network costs increase. It’s a downward spiral that can be corrected by choosing liberty. Some experiments fail and others succeed. The intelligent observer can discern the difference and respond accordingly. Liberty, freedom always wins. Tyranny is a loser.

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