Posted on 05/01/2006 10:26:46 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
IT MIGHT SURPRISE you that Chicago, known for its rough-and-tumble futures pits and passionate support for free-market capitalism, has been slowly morphing into a borderline socialist society where every aspect of private life is tightly controlled by the state.
We first noticed it a few years ago, when we outlined the Chicago City Council's attempt to ban smoking at all bars and restaurants. Of course, smoking in any large buildings and workplaces had already long since been outlawed.
Score one for the socialists. Thanks to opportunistic local politicians and an aggressive lobbying effort from liberal think tanks, the smoking ban passed, making it illegal to smoke cigarettes — a legal substance — in any bar or restaurant within city limits. Public-health advocates have heralded the move as a major score for the best interests of smokers and nonsmokers alike.
As usual, however, these immoral do-gooders miss the point completely. Despite the fact that they serve the public, bars and restaurants are private establishments, meaning that their smoking policies are only the proprietor's to determine. Some restauranteurs might choose to permit smoking in certain areas or throughout the entire establishment. Others might choose to ban smoking completely. The point is that it is not the public's (read: politicians') right to interfere with legal activities taking place on private property. It is quite simply none of their business.
Nobody is forced to patronize a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, and nobody is forced to work at one either. If you are concerned about second-hand smoke or hate the way your clothes smell after a night out drinking at the bars, you should simply avoid those establishments that permit smoking. The onus is on you to modify your behavior, not the law-abiding businessman to accommodate you on his private property.
Pragmatists argued against the economic ramifications of the ban, although the real issue here has nothing to do with whether or not local businesses will be affected or if waitresses will lose tips. Plain and simple, the issue is property rights. Does the government have the right to micromanage your property, your business, your life for the benefit of the "public good?"
But it isn't just smokers Chicago has sought to target. In recent months, the Windy City has become the nation's second-biggest municipality to ban motorists from using hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel. Putting a cellphone up to your ear while driving in Chicago is now illegal. Those caught violating the ordinance face fines and a court appearance.
Fact: It's illegal to run a red light, drive recklessly, or crash into someone else's car. But using a cellphone while driving doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, be it other motorists or pedestrians. If I'm able to safely operate a car while talking on the phone, what business is it of the city to prohibit this otherwise legal activity?
The truth is that holding a conversation on a cellphone while driving is no more distracting than talking to a passenger, tuning the radio or adjusting the rear-view mirror. Consider that the alderman didn't see fit to ban drinking hot coffee, disciplining your kids, putting on makeup or styling your hair while driving, all of which are significantly more distracting than simply talking on the phone. In a free society, a driver should be able to determine if he is able to safely speak on the phone while driving. What's illegal is causing an accident, not innocently carrying on a conversation on the phone. The law is just another "get tough" stunt designed solely to exert more control over the lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Moreover, now motorists have to drive while grappling for an ear bud, which many find even more distracting than simply using the standard handset with which we're all familiar. Some motorists report the headset cord gets caught in the gear shift, which could lead to a dangerous inability to control the car in an emergency.
Forget the total lunacy of talking on the phone in a neighboring suburb, then being forced to either terminate the call or fumble with a headset as you cross into city limits. Forget the fact that the ban imposes a multimillion dollar tax on excellent drivers who are now forced to buy headsets they didn't want and would rather not use. Once again, the real issue here is how activist local governments are increasingly determining the lifestyle choices of citizens, sacrificing the rights of the individual in the name of a "public good."
Once you permit government to begin regulating your life, it's just a matter of time before they'll start mandating just what you can eat. And continuing down this collectivist path, last week Chicago became the first major city in the country to ban foie gras, the fatty liver of geese that is considered world-wide to be a gourmet delicacy.
Environmental activists and animal lovers oppose the dish, which is made by force-feeding birds until their livers fatten to abnormal proportions. "Our city is better for taking a stance against the cruelty of foie gras," Alderman Joe Moore, who sponsored the ordinance, told a local paper.
Our city is better? Well, I suppose it is as long as you didn't like the occasional piece of foie gras! Like the smoking ban, the foie gras ban is another example of how the majority is able to trample on the rights of the minority. Few people eat foie gras or smoke — which makes restricting those activities an easy lay-up for politicians looking to score points as "doing something" for the community. If you don't like foie gras, don't order it! But banning it allows our Constitutional Republic to be turned into simple majority rule.
Forget that the vast majority of Chicagoans have never even tasted foie gras or that the city's gourmet restaurants will have a disadvantage over neighboring cities that are able to offer the fare. What's most amazing about the ban is that the alderman who supported it, in effect, grants greater rights to wild, plentiful, nonendangered birds than to his living, breathing human constituents. The human being's right to eat — or not eat — foie gras has been superseded by the "rights" of the animal who doesn't vote, pay taxes, or contribute anything to society besides the occasional bird dropping.
Although Al Capone is long dead, it's apparent that Chicago is once again becoming a city of mob rule. Once a city famous for its scrappy support for capitalism and individual rights, the slow creep of socialism is transforming it into a highly regulated paternalist state where what you eat, where you shop, and how you drive are all up for grabs. In Chicago, providing you can get enough votes in the city council, anything goes.
And maybe you don't eat foie gras, smoke or enjoy talking on a cellphone. But the point is that individual freedoms are being slowly obliterated. And although Chicago's City Council is oblivious to the fact, one need not be a Constitutional scholar to understand it's a trend that has significant long-term implications for our economy, our liberty and the very essence of the American way of life.
BUMP
I was in Chi-Town visiting my alma mater (a certain school on the South Side) on Friday. Such a shame that a great city where the "smoke filled" jazz club reached its apogee has become almost as annoyingly granola as Seattle.
Come to Kalifornia.
This Workers' Paradise has extended the smoking ban to certain outdoor public parks and beaches.
I am conflicted about this issue. We live under a Federal system of government. While I think the laws they are passing are stupid, and should be unconstitutional if passed by Congress, I think states (and by extension, counties and cities, etc) should be allowed to pass things like this, as long as its kosher within the state Constitution. Anyone who objects, can find another state.
Men and women whose sole occupation it is to make rules and laws are going to make rules and laws until the rule-bestridden, law-bestridden populace says, "Enough!"
I don't care whether the Marxists who support such Tyrannical law are well-meaning or not.
Ultimately, they, like their authoritarian counterparts on the poltical right, are about the task of minimizing human freedom, not maximizing it.
And that is as unAmerican as it gets: with majority Tyranny (unrestrained democracy), Freedom is inevitable reduced. And this is something the Founders warned about aand despised, as well as 19th century visitors like de Tocqueville.
Marxist authoritarianism was truly the scourge of the 20th century, and will become a bigger threat than Islamic extremism in the 21st century.
Long after the Islamofascists have been obliterated (and they will be, at a terrible cost), Socialism (which is inherently Marxist, and which Karl Marx himself said is "the road to Communism") will continue to be the same collective, murderous threat that it was in the last century...
They're so greedy because of the huge expense for all the vote buying social programs. I think they keep creating more stupid laws so they can collect more $$ from the fines from the violators. They're going to be selling out the naming rights for every possible municipal building, department, highway, etc. etc. !! It's crazy.
City Looking At Selling More Naming Rights .
With City Hall looking to raise as much as $3 million by selling naming rights to the Chicago Skyway, it is looking at raising cash by selling naming rights to other city entities.
The possibilities could include, hypothetically, The Hinckley & Schmidt Water Filtration Plant, Morton's Salt spreaders, The ADT 911 Center or The Geritol Senior Citizen Center.
Just as U.S. Cellular and United Airlines paid millions to put their names on stadiums, city vehicles, buildings and special events could someday bear the names of corporate sponsors, under a "request for proposals" issued Friday.
"There are many serious and valuable opportunities for public/private partnerships," said budget director Paul Volpe. "It's another creative effort to make the best use of the assets we have before turning to taxpayers."
The Sun-Times reported last fall that Mayor Daley was dipping his toe into the concept of "municipal marketing" with a "request for information" from potential bidders.
Now the city is asking companies to do an inventory of Chicago's physical assets and "intellectual property" -- like seals and computer software -- and determine the "potential income" from each category.
The possibilities are endless, but some assets are expected to be off limits.
Police squad cars and fire trucks are likely to be out of bounds, simply because they need to be uncluttered and easily identified. City Hall is also not for sale -- even though corruption-fighting federal prosecutors might argue otherwise.
Certain "municipal services" may also be of interest to advertisers and sponsors "because of their reach and presence" in Chicago neighborhoods, the request states. Direct mail from water bills provides yet another opportunity for corporate outreach, officials said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 24, 2006 - By Gregory Meyer
Chicago Skyway naming rights going up for bid
(Crain’s) — City officials will take the first step toward selling off the naming rights to the Chicago Skyway when they circulate a request for qualifications from bidders over the next two weeks.
If deemed qualified, candidates will then be able to submit proposals to brand the 7.8-mile causeway’s neon toll plaza, signage and maps – and rename the Skyway itself.
The prospect of selling off naming rights to the Skyway first came to light last summer, after the city of Chicago had succeeded in leasing the road to private investors for $1.83 billion. The city deliberately kept naming rights and advertising out of that deal to preserve a revenue opportunity later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OUTRAGEOUS!! $1.83 BILLION! And STILL, their hands are out for mo money, mo money .. any way they can get it. (But, gee .. ain't it great that they WON'T sell space on the POLICE cars and FIRE engines????)
It's a gorgeous, thriving, clean city, but it's also the closest thing to a police state with the most intrusive governmental machine (big brother) I've ever seen in my life.
Let's see:
The Ford Foundation Grant Park
The Lindsey Buckingham Fountain
Ricki Lake Michigan
The Janet Reno Burnham Yacht Club
The Old Navy Pier
The Teddy Kennedy Water Crib
The Mayor Richard Daley Scandal Sheet
The Chicago Lyric Oprah
...
I disagree with that part. The cellphone conversation demands your immediate and continued attention as the other activities do not.
Pecos Texas now has NASCAR cop cars, signs on the side of the cars announce "this car maintained by NAPA."
Nanny State Ping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the ping. I am really beginning to regret that I caved in to my friends and will be joining them on the annual Chicago excuresion this year.
Maine and California have very intrusive government control as well. And just getting worse.
don't forget New York, New Jersey, and Delaware.
don't forget New York, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Well, heck, let's show all the states that are having government forced upon them:
There are 15 states with state laws in effect that require 100% smokefree workplaces and/or restaurants and/or bars:
California: Restaurants and Bars
Connecticut: Restaurants and Bars
Delaware: Workplaces, Restaurants, and Bars
Florida: Workplaces, and Restaurants
Idaho: Restaurants
Maine: Restaurants and Bars
Massachusetts: Workplaces, Restaurants, and Bars
New York: Workplaces, Restaurants, and Bars
North Dakota: Workplaces
Rhode Island: Workplaces, Restaurants, and Bars
South Dakota: Workplaces
Utah: Restaurants
Vermont: Restaurants and Bars
Washington: Workplaces, Restaurants, and Bars
Note: The following state law has been enacted but is not yet in effect:
•Montana enacted a 100% smokefree bar law, which is scheduled to go into effect October 1, 2009.
.....and Casinos.
Michigan has banned smoking within 6 feet of all workplace entrances and smoking in all workplaces, except restaurants and bars. We all know what's next.....
Thanks for the ping. As you know, I live in this socialist city. No wonder I am looking for a nice place to retire to in a few years.
Any suggestions?
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.