Posted on 08/18/2002 10:33:36 PM PDT by kattracks
"You have no right to impose your moral values on me!" How often have we all heard that defiant remark tossed into a blazing debate on social issues to clinch the argument? Yet, most of our laws represent the imposition of moral values on a minority.
The graduated income tax, altarpiece of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto," is rooted in a moral conviction that the rich should not only pay more taxes, but a larger share of their income. Under the tithing of biblical law, all contributed the same 10 percent. Marx has prevailed.
Segregation was law rooted in the moral belief of white folks that social mixing of the races was wrong and ruinous. Busing and compulsory integration are legal and judicial reflections of the opposite belief -- i.e, that integration is so great a good its claims supersede all property rights and the freedom of folks who wish to live apart.
Segregationists and integrationists both used the power of law to impose their vision of the good society on non-believers.
To see how America's views of morality and immorality have changed, consider what was legalized, and criminalized, in 20th century. Gambling, booze, the numbers racket and narcotics were once the preserve of Al Capone and organized crime. To transfer a woman across state lines for "immoral purposes" was to violate the federal Mann Act.
Today, states today run the numbers racket, called the lottery. Gambling is legal, and government, not the Godfather, gets the rake-off. Not only would the feds not interfere with teen-age promiscuity, the school clinic will provide a girl with birth control pills and tell her to have a good time and be sure to practice safe sex.
Doctors who did abortions used to go to prison. Abortion today is a constitutional right. Pornography could also get you prison time, but Larry Flynt today is a Hollywood icon and First Amendment hero. Narcotics remain illegal, but in Nevada an initiative to decriminalize marijuana is on the ballot and running strong. Look for the state to muscle in on this racket, too.
Liberals call this progress, milestones on mankind's march to a better, freer, more moral society. But do liberals really believe in freedom, or have they simply substituted their own proscriptions for the old biblical ones?
Under the civil-rights laws, the property rights for which the Founding Fathers took up arms have been more severely restricted than ever they were under George III. You can no longer hire or fire whom you please. Run afoul of these laws, and not only your reputation, but your business, is gone.
You cannot sell your home to whomever you wish. Your child cannot go to the neighborhood school in some districts, it if upsets the desired racial balance. While you are free to read pornography, blaspheme and use filthy language, if you use an ethnic slur, or even show "insensitivity," you go before the Inquisition.
In the 1950s, the middle class paid a tiny fraction of family income in federal taxes. Today, upper-middle income taxpayers pay close to 40 percent in U.S. income taxes, and when Social Security, state, property and sales taxes are factored in, more than half of all they earn. Socialism has triumphed, by another name.
Not long ago, smoking was a pleasurable minor vice indulged in by millions. Today, it is being everywhere outlawed, even though the lion's share of tobacco-company profits go into the coffers of government, as it weeps crocodile tears for the cancer victims.
In the 1950s, cigarettes used to go for 25 cents a pack and $2 a carton. In New York City, thanks to $3.00 in taxes on every pack, they cost $7.50 a pack. In the name of helping the smoker cure his addiction, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to rob him.
Billionaire Bloomberg also wants the city council to outlaw smoking in all restaurants and bars, though in many neighborhoods, bar owners and their patrons like things as they are. Bloomberg has a problem more serious than a smoking habit. He is a blindly intolerant man who does not understand freedom, but thinks himself a great progressive. He is like the Puritans of old of whom it was said they opposed bear-bating, not because of the suffering it caused the bear, but because of the pleasure it gave the spectators.
The mayor calls smokers "crazy" and "stupid." And given the cost to human health of the habit, the mayor has a point and a right to express it. But which is worse -- those who know the risks of smoking and freely choose to smoke, or those who demonize, tyrannize and rob smokers, for indulging in a habit of which they disapprove.
The Founding Fathers knew. They put their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line rather than be hectored and harassed by the Michael Bloombergs across the sea. And what did these men, Washington, Madison and Jefferson, do for a living? They were tobacco farmers.
Contact Pat Buchanan | Read his biography
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
An excellent point.
The Founding Fathers knew. They put their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line rather than be hectored and harassed by the Michael Bloombergs across the sea. And what did these men, Washington, Madison and Jefferson, do for a living? They were tobacco farmers.
Here's a bump for a "New York Tobacco Party" to rival the old Boston Tea Party!
Hey... I'm not joking! It's fun to be an uncivilized native. Representative Billy Bob agrees. Leave us gun toting nudists alone.
Mike Long prostituted himself and the Conservative Party a long time ago. Why don't the rank and file throw him out?
BTW: I visited his Liquor Store on Fifth, not with the intention of buying anything. I have no respect for ANY wine shop that doesn't carry Portuguese Vinho Verde.
POLITENESS POLICE COULD POUNCE ON POLS' EVERY PEEVE
MUCH LONELIER NIGHTS WITHOUT THE SMOKE
BURNING ISSUES STEAM THE APPLE
Even non smokers are starting to see what this is all about, and asking "Did Bloomberg run on this platform??!!!"
Well, they grew HEMP too!! But boy oh boy, doesn't that little bit of truth open up a whole new intellectual can of worms for many folks.
They also ran a national lottery to help defray the cost of the Revolutionary War.
Laws are one thing, executive decisions are something else.
Bloomberg didn't have a platform other than "I will bring my talents as a businessman to the Mayor's office." He was actually behind in polls featuring a runoff between him and Freddy Ferrer OR Mark Green. Then, September 11 happened, Rudy endorsed Bloomberg and he prevailed by a few thousand votes over the weak Mark Green.
Clemenza predicts: Dems run Freddy Ferrer (cause its "his turn") or Nydia Velasquez (if she wants to leave congress) in 2005 and Bloomberg is stomped like a narc at a biker rally.
You know what? There's the ticket. Rudy endorsed Bloomberg!
I think that is the key to this whole mess. Just because Rudy was NYC God after 9-11, anything he did was worshipped! Know what I mean? I admit, I didn't know much about Rudy either, before 9-11. But during that time, anything he touched turned into gold. If you know what I mean.
New Year's Eve when Rudy stood up with Bloomberg, I didn't like the looks of that man, even then. But just because "Rudy" endorced him, I thought "Well, this will be good for New York." How wrong we all were.
At least "I" was wrong! I think most of us were blinded by the light............
Tha-a-a-a-nks, Pat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.