I shouldn't forget the main purpose for this blog: to convince people to think like I do. Right? What else do people have blogs for? In that light, let me lay out a simple test to decide whether or not any particular new law/regulation/whatever is something that should be supported or stomped out...
Ask yourself the question: "Does this give me more freedom or does it take a tiny bit of it away?"
That's the test. If the result will not be more freedom, it is almost certainly another stone laid down on the path to slavery.
Do you think I'm being melodramatic? Chances are you need to wake up...
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tax on Soda?
I just saw a link on Yahoo! saying the government is proposing a tax on SODA to help curb obesity. It's being talked about in Kansas and has officially been proposed in CA and PA.
Uhh... Are you kidding me?
The number one thing is: No tax is going to do anything about obesity -- except make the government more obese. (Seriously government, you're too big -- you should lose some weight!) This is an excuse!
All kinds of "studies" have been cited to indicate that this can work. However, people can setup studies to make them show virtually whatever they want them to show.
I have a question though: At what point did it become the government's job to solve problems?
Seriously. Now I'm pretty young, and that's been one of government's roles longer than I've been around, but why?
I would like to elect a representative who's platform mostly involves sitting on his hands. What would happen if they all just sat on their hands for a while instead of doing stuff? I mean, go play golf [more] or something. Just stop legislating.
Uhh... Are you kidding me?
The number one thing is: No tax is going to do anything about obesity -- except make the government more obese. (Seriously government, you're too big -- you should lose some weight!) This is an excuse!
All kinds of "studies" have been cited to indicate that this can work. However, people can setup studies to make them show virtually whatever they want them to show.
I have a question though: At what point did it become the government's job to solve problems?
Seriously. Now I'm pretty young, and that's been one of government's roles longer than I've been around, but why?
I would like to elect a representative who's platform mostly involves sitting on his hands. What would happen if they all just sat on their hands for a while instead of doing stuff? I mean, go play golf [more] or something. Just stop legislating.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Equality
"We in America -- and men across the earth -- have trapped ourselves with the word equality, which is inapplicable to the genus man. I wish we would forget it. Stop its use in our country -- let the communists have it. It isn't fit for men who fling their dreams across the skies. It is fit only for a leveling down of mankind."
From Killers of the Dream by Lillian Smith
Now I'm not against equality, mind you, but it's the artificial imposing of it on society that is the issue. Her last sentence -- and thousands of years of human experience -- show us that if it does anything, it brings everyone down to the lowest level. There is no such thing as "leveling up".
This is true everywhere:
You cannot become hungry enough to feed one starving person;
You cannot become poor enough to make another person wealthy;
You cannot become stupid enough to make another person smart;
You cannot be weak enough to make one weak person strong;
Etc, etc.
And yet, as obvious as these examples may sound, this is EXACTLY what our notion of "equality" amounts to -- making everyone equally WEAK.
Equality -- like freedom -- is a condition of birth into this world. Neither is dispensed according to fellow men, and therefore neither can be directed or granted to guarantee anybody anything. In fact, the only thing men can do to affect either is to RESTRICT them.
From Killers of the Dream by Lillian Smith
Now I'm not against equality, mind you, but it's the artificial imposing of it on society that is the issue. Her last sentence -- and thousands of years of human experience -- show us that if it does anything, it brings everyone down to the lowest level. There is no such thing as "leveling up".
This is true everywhere:
You cannot become hungry enough to feed one starving person;
You cannot become poor enough to make another person wealthy;
You cannot become stupid enough to make another person smart;
You cannot be weak enough to make one weak person strong;
Etc, etc.
And yet, as obvious as these examples may sound, this is EXACTLY what our notion of "equality" amounts to -- making everyone equally WEAK.
Equality -- like freedom -- is a condition of birth into this world. Neither is dispensed according to fellow men, and therefore neither can be directed or granted to guarantee anybody anything. In fact, the only thing men can do to affect either is to RESTRICT them.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Freedom
You know, we are endowed BY OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; namely life, liberty, and property. Now it is certainly acceptable to have a government as a condition of being human, but governments definetly do not GRANT anyone freedom. Inherent in the very nature of any government is that they LIMIT some freedoms. Right off the top of my head, one of those would be the freedom to destroy your neighbor's property. This includes everything from vandalizing a car... to murder (because, of course, your body is your property). When law enforcement stops a crime from happening (which is almost never) or punishes someone for an offense like this, it is enforcing it's policing power. It is one of the main purposes a government has and things would be pretty chaotic if this didn't exist.
What this amounts to is that a person has all the freedom they want, right up until the point that they begin to infringe on somebody else's. This is a fine place to draw the line.
But what if a government decided (after many studies, and careful deliberation between the smartest minds available -- of course) that it had to protect you from...........yourself? You know, it's a dangerous world out there and there are lots of bad people willing to break the law in order to take advantage of you in some way. How could anyone be capable of working their way through the minefield that is everyday life without the assistance of some well-meaning people to hold their hands, or even clear the "mines" for them?
The answer is that making/finding/struggling for your own way through life is part of THE MEANING OF LIFE. We're not meant to go through life, staying quiet and still for as many years as possible until we die. To get the most out of it, you have to get in there and mix it up, get dirty, maybe get some bumps and bruises and break a sweat. That's figuratively and, if you want, literally too.
What this amounts to is that a person has all the freedom they want, right up until the point that they begin to infringe on somebody else's. This is a fine place to draw the line.
But what if a government decided (after many studies, and careful deliberation between the smartest minds available -- of course) that it had to protect you from...........yourself? You know, it's a dangerous world out there and there are lots of bad people willing to break the law in order to take advantage of you in some way. How could anyone be capable of working their way through the minefield that is everyday life without the assistance of some well-meaning people to hold their hands, or even clear the "mines" for them?
The answer is that making/finding/struggling for your own way through life is part of THE MEANING OF LIFE. We're not meant to go through life, staying quiet and still for as many years as possible until we die. To get the most out of it, you have to get in there and mix it up, get dirty, maybe get some bumps and bruises and break a sweat. That's figuratively and, if you want, literally too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
