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.
The only guilt trip put upon us is for eating Big Macs and driving SUV's. So far, there has not been a ban against people using them as cigarettes have.
I'm glad somebody agrees.
A gf once recorded my conversation with her (in the car, not on a phone) while I was driving my car. Most of my half of the talk consisted of "uh." I was concentrated on the road and not the chit-chat. Not a bad thing in NYC.
Chicago and Cook County is a one party Soviet State, just like the old evil empire. To make matters worse, the GOP here is non existant or supine.
It's not just the smokers that it will come from.
Eventually someone/something will push too far and it will come from a much greater proportion of the population than just smokers.
I'm 51.
I hope the masses will rise up.
They're getting kinda lazy.
BTTT!
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.