|
Mercnbeth -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/8/2006 7:15:07 AM)
|
quote:
The real problem I have with such laws is that they just keep opening the door for further expansion.
People are getting killed in cars they should be required to wear seat-belts. okay - LAW
People are getting killed riding motor cycles and should be required to wear helmets. okay - LAW
People die from smoking. Okay LAWS. No advertisement, no smoking in restaurants, bars, public buildings, outside (Calabassas)
People with seat-belts continue to die in cars. okay - Airbag - LAW
People are too fat. okay - LAW - Nutrition disclosure
People make meth from cold/sinus medicine. LAW - Product only kept behind counter
People talk on a car phone irresponsibly and get into accidents. LAW - Hands-free needed for cell phones.
Intermittently attention is paid to one law or the other that effects a group of people personally. But generally, there is no consensus. Eventually, like talented magicians, attention is distracted from the issue of freedom infringement by some poster child type worse case example to rationalize imposing a freedom restricting Law. We all now routinely buckle up like good, well trained submissives, obedience without thought.
It's a game of chess. Our small freedoms are sacrificed like pawns. When in jeopardy, not enough consideration is given by enough people to make a difference. Not enough people care about the issue of personal freedom. The focus is on the poster child image. The 6 month old killed because he/she wasn't in a car seat. The motor cycle rider in a coma because he/she wasn't wearing a helmet. It's a "so what - it doesn't really matter - it's not important - I don't ride a motorcycle" attitude that sacrifices the pawn. Ironically enough, the generation of Woodstock, gone from hippie, to yuppie, to AARP; oversaw the transition and is now in charge of moving the pieces on the chess board.
Now we wonder why someone would want disclosure on anonymous websites. We wonder how censorship is permitted. We wonder why a womans rights over her body is once again being challenged. Why? Most of the pawns are gone from the game. We're so used to being conditioned that these "little" freedoms aren't important we don't even notice when they are removed from the playing board.
Try and point out the issue of freedom infringement and you are labeled a Libertarian - synonymous for inconsequential, a "wasted" vote. Is it a coincidence that every law sited above was money generating? From enforcement fines, to creating whole industries that didn't exist prior to the law's inception. Expand the pawns to knights and bishops, and you can consider the entitlement programs. Whether corporate or personal welfare the consequence is you lose the freedom to be charitable to who you deem. Every child MUST go to school, but that doesn't require that they know how to make change at Burger King when they "graduate". But your taxes MUST be used to keep the system going, and if you want to educate you kids at home or in some other matter you can be jailed if you don't have permission. How the hell did that happen? Were we all drugged into complicity? Was it the fluoride in the water?
Will there be any uproar when these pawns are in play?
There are sex offenders out there - Everyone going into a sex store needs to registrar and show a picture ID.
People speed in cars and don't get caught - GPS tracking in all cars and a automatic fine imposed.
If Orwell's 1984 had a prequel would it represent what occurred between 1970 and today? What we read about in the book was the result of all the years before. It illustrated "checkmate". When the day comes that personal preferences or personal beliefs are sacrificed and the fight is not focused on issue but the consequence, there may be a chance to stem the tide. But I doubt it will happen. Too much selfishness exists. Too much personal rationalization. Too much self importance.
Assemblyman Biondi proposed this law because his constituency saw it as a way to protect themselves and their children. They already surrendered their personal right to do so on their own, they already surrendered that pawn.
(Edited because spell checking doesn't work when you post in anger!)
|
|
|
|
