Posted on 09/29/2004 8:56:26 AM PDT by hardhead
Journalists often compare contemporary society to the totalitarian social order described in George Orwell’s disturbing novel 1984. Orwell portrayed the state as being all-powerful, controlling every aspect of citizens' lives. When the novel was first published in 1949, few people could conceive of such a society. Most felt that citizens simply wouldn't allow it. Of course, if the state had attempted to implement a totalitarian society overnight, angry citizens might have prevented it. But the state cautiously enacts its takeovers incrementally, so as to not arouse the public. Also, it is able to persuade people that the agenda it is pursuing is for their own good or for the betterment of society. Consequently, little resistance is offered.
Of course, you already know how the state operates but I wanted to remind you again before discussing three invasive government proposals that will seriously encroach on our freedoms. In fact, these three, if they materialize, should make us turn off the TV, put down the remote control, get off the couch and take to the streets.
The first has been reported on LRC by both Rep. Ron Paul and Wendy McElroy: the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" that proposes a governmental mandate requiring mental-health screening for all Americans, including public schoolchildren and even pre-school children, with or without parental consent. Rep. Paul criticized the proposal as follows: "...it negates parental rights and would encourage the over-medication of children." Although this law would provide a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry and greatly enlarge the Washington bureaucracy, it would be a disaster for Americans especially families.
(Excerpt) Read more at lewrockwell.com ...
Ron Paul bump.
Gee, all this intrusive (Ow! Hey, that hurt!) stuff makes me (why should EYE be MADE to do it, anyway?) want to go to my window (if I had one) and shout:
I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT! DO IT TO JULIA!
If she consents, of course of course, I would add.
Yet who would listen?
WHAT A WORLD!!!
Thank God that FR keeps me coherent.
ping to read later. At the very least I'll get some entertainment out of a lewrockwell post
What happens when certain moral positions are ruled as evidence of mental illness? Perhaps religious fundamentalism might be seen as such (the justifications might point at Arabs shooting children, but the weight of the edict would come down on Christians and Orthodox Jews). Would children diagnosed with such maladies be taken from their parents and "cured" in government institutions?
Yeah, I'm cruising with tinfoil on, but still...
There were also a number of exaggerations in the article.....the survey is most interested in the people in your home - it does not quiz you on friends and relatives, unless they live with you.
I still think that it's overly obtrusive, and a disgusting abuse of power by the government. However, the way to combat issues like this are not with hyperbole and lies, but by presenting facts and convincing the populace that laws like this need to be changed. The value of all work that is done to repeal government intrusion is for naught if one lie can be pointed to. (see John Kerry, Dan Rather, et al)
And people still insist there's a difference between Bush and Kerry...
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.