In the opening scene of the movie Serenity, a teacher is telling a class of children the following:
The modern liberal thinks that if something is good for them, then everyone should enjoy the same benefits. The problem? They don't even try to persuade you that you should try it, they try to cram it down your throat via regulation and royal fiat.
I'm not a "pusher". It really used to bug me when people would force their hospitality on me. I mean, I've said, "no, thank you", now back the hell away, OK? And then I married into a family of them. It bugged me at first. Really bugged me. But then I realized it's their way, trying to ensure the comfort of their guests. I'm the world's worst hostess. You'll die of thirst before I realize I haven't even offered you a coke. I'm more targeted on talking to you than I am in the niceties of society.
Now I absolutely love to watch my husband and his family in action.
Hilary Clinton and her Socialist pals figured you would all love universal health care when she proposed it back in the 90s and it never even got out of the House. (Where all legal laws should start, young Padwan, not the Senate). When that happened they didn't get another chance at it until Obama. Then they knew they couldn't persuade you to accept something you didn't want, they would MAKE you take it. That's gone over so well, don't you think?
We, as rational human beings, do not have the right to tell another rational human being how to live, what to think, what to say, etc.,. Rational human beings do not have to be told not to kill other humans. It is irrational to do so, no matter how overwhelming the desire. We have to have laws for the irrational human beings who cannot control themselves and have no desire to practice restraint or responsibility. As a sane human being I don't need to be told not to kill or steal. It is not within my rational self-interest to upset those around me with those acts (again, despite the overwhelming desire). I also don't have to be told as a rational, intelligent human being that just because I like something doesn't mean it's everyone's cup of tea.
I really like eating left-overs for breakfast. They're delicious. That doesn't mean that you should do the same. I think my expanding waistline tells that tale. There is not another person in my home who likes left-overs. That's fine. They're great for breakfast or lunch. Whatever. Does that mean I get to make a law that all people who eat their leftovers for breakfast? Hell no, it just means that I like it.
I like drinking iced tea 24/7, regardless of the time of year. I also do not like sugar in it. Black and green teas have wonderful health benefits. Should I tout those benefits and make everyone drink unsweetened iced tea just because I find it enjoyable and beneficial? Hell no. Some people really hate iced tea. I may persuade someone to try iced tea, but I would never make them do something they don't really want to do. That is wrong.
Let's see if this illustrates my point better than food analogies. (Don't write in the morning before you've eaten breakfast. It all becomes about food.)
The Great State of Texas (The last state where it's apparently still legal to be free) had a mandatory helmet law which was repealed in 1997. And, someone noticed that the number of fatalities increased after the repeal. Lots of newspaper and magazine articles were written in an attempt to get motorcyclists back under helmets. Gallons of ink and an entire rain forest of trees were slaughtered in an attempt to "save lives". Until someone pointed out that they were saving more lives than they were losing. How so? You say. Easily. Organ transplants. It's why, back in my working in medicine days we referred to cyclists with no helmet as organ donors. And, to be honest, many of them are card carrying organ donors. That is why, 17 years after the law was repealed, there is no one in Austin willing to stand up in the State Legislature and start crying big Liberal tears over making cyclists wear helmets.
I cringe when I see dudes on the road not wearing helmets. I've seen the result of "splat" and it ain't pretty. But, they are perfectly free to do so in Texas. I ride with a helmet. I value my brain and my brain pan. That does not mean that I think I should force my comfort zone on anyone else. If they want bugs in their hair or their brain splattered on asphalt, I have no right to tell them they can't. They are not hurting me, not in any physical, tortious way. And, if, in their decision not to wear a helmet, they do go splat and end up brain dead, the fact that many of them donate their organs and tissues to help others, then perhaps the price they are willing to pay for their perceived freedom is none of my fucking business. So I leave it at that and just shake my head. Of course, I've known several people who have been wearing helmets who wound up organ donors, too.
The same thing as when Texas instated a mandatory seatbelt law back in 1982, I think it was. As soon as the law was passed I began buckling up, so that I would be in the habit when it was enacted. Now it feels unnatural to me to be seated without a strap across my body. I don't mind the seat belt. I know it makes me safer inside my cage. Since that law was enacted I've been stopped twice and given $10 gift certificates for wearing my seat belt. I didn't feel I needed to be rewarded for following the law, but it was nice to know that the State of Texas appreciated my very small efforts.
These laws were enacted by people who saw an inherent safety problem. One was repealed, the other was not. Because just before they enacted the Seat Belt Law, they made it mandatory to purchase auto insurance, bike insurance, etc. The insurance industry figured they would make a mint by making people buy car insurance. They quickly found out they were losing money due to claims on these new policies. Therefore they lobbied the State Legislature to mandate seat belts for everyone and then wrote riders into their policies that it would not pay off claims if you were not properly restrained. Same thing when air bags came along. Doubt me? Read your auto and life insurance policies.
Every time the Libs want to cram something down your throat they bring up auto insurance, for different reasons than the Libertarians who come back at them. In the Modern Liberal view, auto insurance for everyone, universal car insurance as it were, saves everyone, saves lives, lowers the seas and global temperatures. In the Modern Libertarian mind it's imposing something on everyone and doesn't benefit anyone, not one single person other than the insurance companies. Why do they see it so differently. Because the Modern Liberal won't admit that they codify their laws of force for the benefit of crony capitalism.
Doubt me? Then why doesn't Texas have tort reform? Yeah, chew on that one.
Look, we don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live. We are responsible for ourselves. I would by car insurance for no other reason than I don't want to be responsible for the medical bills and buying another car for someone if I have an accident out of my own pocket. Insurance is nothing more than betting against somebody else that you won't do something. Every month that you pay your premium and nothing happens benefits no one but your insurance company. That's what health insurance used to be. It was indemnity insurance, and then HMOs came along (in California) and suddenly everyone needed to buy health insurance whether they wanted it or needed it.
I don't have the right to tell you what or how to do anything. I think you'd resent the hell out of my if I tried. So why do you just accept it wholesale from the Government? They especially don't have the right.
When the teachers asks why people would resist the Alliance a student replies:
Earth that was could no longer sustain our numbers, we were so many. We found a new solar system, dozens of planets and hundreds of moons. Each one terraformed, a process taking decades, to support human life, to be new Earths. The Central Planets formed the Alliance. Ruled by an interplanetary parliament, the Alliance was a beacon of civilization. The savage outer planets were not so enlightened and refused Alliance control. The war was devastating, but the Alliance's victory over the Independents ensured a safer universe. And now everyone can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of our civilization.
We meddle. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.I don't think Josh Whedon realized just how telling that small paragraph is to people who think for themselves and wish to only be responsible for themselves. I find it more telling as it is written by a man, who for all intents and purposes thinks he's a liberal. But then again, When in Rome, and you have to work to eat, I would claim to be liberal as well.
The modern liberal thinks that if something is good for them, then everyone should enjoy the same benefits. The problem? They don't even try to persuade you that you should try it, they try to cram it down your throat via regulation and royal fiat.
I'm not a "pusher". It really used to bug me when people would force their hospitality on me. I mean, I've said, "no, thank you", now back the hell away, OK? And then I married into a family of them. It bugged me at first. Really bugged me. But then I realized it's their way, trying to ensure the comfort of their guests. I'm the world's worst hostess. You'll die of thirst before I realize I haven't even offered you a coke. I'm more targeted on talking to you than I am in the niceties of society.
Now I absolutely love to watch my husband and his family in action.
Hilary Clinton and her Socialist pals figured you would all love universal health care when she proposed it back in the 90s and it never even got out of the House. (Where all legal laws should start, young Padwan, not the Senate). When that happened they didn't get another chance at it until Obama. Then they knew they couldn't persuade you to accept something you didn't want, they would MAKE you take it. That's gone over so well, don't you think?
We, as rational human beings, do not have the right to tell another rational human being how to live, what to think, what to say, etc.,. Rational human beings do not have to be told not to kill other humans. It is irrational to do so, no matter how overwhelming the desire. We have to have laws for the irrational human beings who cannot control themselves and have no desire to practice restraint or responsibility. As a sane human being I don't need to be told not to kill or steal. It is not within my rational self-interest to upset those around me with those acts (again, despite the overwhelming desire). I also don't have to be told as a rational, intelligent human being that just because I like something doesn't mean it's everyone's cup of tea.
I really like eating left-overs for breakfast. They're delicious. That doesn't mean that you should do the same. I think my expanding waistline tells that tale. There is not another person in my home who likes left-overs. That's fine. They're great for breakfast or lunch. Whatever. Does that mean I get to make a law that all people who eat their leftovers for breakfast? Hell no, it just means that I like it.
I like drinking iced tea 24/7, regardless of the time of year. I also do not like sugar in it. Black and green teas have wonderful health benefits. Should I tout those benefits and make everyone drink unsweetened iced tea just because I find it enjoyable and beneficial? Hell no. Some people really hate iced tea. I may persuade someone to try iced tea, but I would never make them do something they don't really want to do. That is wrong.
Let's see if this illustrates my point better than food analogies. (Don't write in the morning before you've eaten breakfast. It all becomes about food.)
The Great State of Texas (The last state where it's apparently still legal to be free) had a mandatory helmet law which was repealed in 1997. And, someone noticed that the number of fatalities increased after the repeal. Lots of newspaper and magazine articles were written in an attempt to get motorcyclists back under helmets. Gallons of ink and an entire rain forest of trees were slaughtered in an attempt to "save lives". Until someone pointed out that they were saving more lives than they were losing. How so? You say. Easily. Organ transplants. It's why, back in my working in medicine days we referred to cyclists with no helmet as organ donors. And, to be honest, many of them are card carrying organ donors. That is why, 17 years after the law was repealed, there is no one in Austin willing to stand up in the State Legislature and start crying big Liberal tears over making cyclists wear helmets.
I cringe when I see dudes on the road not wearing helmets. I've seen the result of "splat" and it ain't pretty. But, they are perfectly free to do so in Texas. I ride with a helmet. I value my brain and my brain pan. That does not mean that I think I should force my comfort zone on anyone else. If they want bugs in their hair or their brain splattered on asphalt, I have no right to tell them they can't. They are not hurting me, not in any physical, tortious way. And, if, in their decision not to wear a helmet, they do go splat and end up brain dead, the fact that many of them donate their organs and tissues to help others, then perhaps the price they are willing to pay for their perceived freedom is none of my fucking business. So I leave it at that and just shake my head. Of course, I've known several people who have been wearing helmets who wound up organ donors, too.
The same thing as when Texas instated a mandatory seatbelt law back in 1982, I think it was. As soon as the law was passed I began buckling up, so that I would be in the habit when it was enacted. Now it feels unnatural to me to be seated without a strap across my body. I don't mind the seat belt. I know it makes me safer inside my cage. Since that law was enacted I've been stopped twice and given $10 gift certificates for wearing my seat belt. I didn't feel I needed to be rewarded for following the law, but it was nice to know that the State of Texas appreciated my very small efforts.
These laws were enacted by people who saw an inherent safety problem. One was repealed, the other was not. Because just before they enacted the Seat Belt Law, they made it mandatory to purchase auto insurance, bike insurance, etc. The insurance industry figured they would make a mint by making people buy car insurance. They quickly found out they were losing money due to claims on these new policies. Therefore they lobbied the State Legislature to mandate seat belts for everyone and then wrote riders into their policies that it would not pay off claims if you were not properly restrained. Same thing when air bags came along. Doubt me? Read your auto and life insurance policies.
Every time the Libs want to cram something down your throat they bring up auto insurance, for different reasons than the Libertarians who come back at them. In the Modern Liberal view, auto insurance for everyone, universal car insurance as it were, saves everyone, saves lives, lowers the seas and global temperatures. In the Modern Libertarian mind it's imposing something on everyone and doesn't benefit anyone, not one single person other than the insurance companies. Why do they see it so differently. Because the Modern Liberal won't admit that they codify their laws of force for the benefit of crony capitalism.
Doubt me? Then why doesn't Texas have tort reform? Yeah, chew on that one.
Look, we don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live. We are responsible for ourselves. I would by car insurance for no other reason than I don't want to be responsible for the medical bills and buying another car for someone if I have an accident out of my own pocket. Insurance is nothing more than betting against somebody else that you won't do something. Every month that you pay your premium and nothing happens benefits no one but your insurance company. That's what health insurance used to be. It was indemnity insurance, and then HMOs came along (in California) and suddenly everyone needed to buy health insurance whether they wanted it or needed it.
I don't have the right to tell you what or how to do anything. I think you'd resent the hell out of my if I tried. So why do you just accept it wholesale from the Government? They especially don't have the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment