Posted on 09/24/2014 5:07:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Democrats often call themselves "pro-choice." Republicans defend "freedom." Unfortunately, neither party really believes in letting individuals do what we want.
When Democrats say they are "pro-choice," they are talking about abortion. Some act as if a right to legal abortion is the most important freedom in America.
But Democrats aren't very enthusiastic about other kinds of choice. They don't want you to have the right to choose your kids' school, work without joining a union, buy a gun, pay people whatever you contract to pay them if they choose to work for you, buy things you want to buy without regulations constantly interfering and so on.
Liberals, such as my Fox colleague Alan Colmes, say individualism is not enough. "'Collective,' sounds like communism," says Colmes on my TV show this week (yes, Alan, it does), "but we do work and live in a society where there is a collective well-being."
He thinks I should be grateful for regulations that limit access to guns and that force people to negotiate via labor unions instead of individual contracts. But if we were really grateful, it wouldn't be necessary to force us to abide by those rules.
I want to try doing things my own way. I should be able to. As long as I don't harm someone else's body or property.
Democrats constantly increase limits on individual choice. President Obama won't let people work in unpaid internships, and health officials in liberal cities ban trans fats from restaurants.
I like the way Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) summarized liberals' love of crushing choice: "It's light bulbs. It's toilets. It's cars. You name it. Your freedom of choice is gone. For a party that says they are the pro-choice party, this is the most anti-choice administration we've seen in a lifetime."
Republicans have their own list of ways in which they want to control us. Many are not just anti-abortion (as is Sen. Paul); they're also anti-gay marriage, anti-drugs, anti-gambling and, in a few cases, anti-free speech.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, says most of these rules are needed to protect society as a whole. When I challenge the war on drugs, asking, "Don't I own my own body?" he answers, "It is your body, John, but the consequences are paid for by the broader society."
For example, when he was a police officer, Perkins "had to go into homes [such as in] one case where there was an infant that was on the mother's body, and the mother was dead from an overdose. I had to wait for child protection to come. And that child became a ward of the state, which we all pay for."
The neglect of that child is a terrible thing, but where does this logic lead? I asked him if he'd ban alcohol and cigarettes, since those kill far more people. He said, "We restrict who can buy cigarettes, who can use them."
But we impose those restrictions only on children. Adults are free to smoke. Adults should be free to do anything we damn well want to do -- as long as we don't directly harm others.
Perkins worries that controlled substances can be habit-forming. I worry more about people becoming habituated to being controlled.
I wonder just how many things social conservatives would outlaw if they thought the public would accept the bans. Perkins doesn't approve of gambling, gay marriage, plural marriage, sex work or making a political statement by burning a flag.
And some of those things harm people. But we should use law to punish those who harm others, not to micromanage their lives.
Meanwhile, liberals keep adding new things to their own list of items to control: wages, hate speech, high-interest loans, plastic shopping bags, large cars, health care, e-cigarettes, Uber, AirBnB and more.
One choice America needs urgently is an alternative to politicians who constantly want to ban more things.
I'm no republican, but the author has left his principle of "as long as it doesn't harm anyone" that he established earlier in this article.
Abortion kills another human being without any accusations, charges, courts, juries, peers, and brings a capital sentence upon a totally innocent American.
Anti-drugs is also born in the realization that drugs harm and kill people. Should a nation have laws that say that people are permitted to kill themselves? Absolutely not. That is too easy a manner to kill others with no investigation to determine if that had actually been the case. "Oh gee...she overdosed; said she wanted to end it all."
Obviously, I disagree with restricting all speech but 'death speech'. Liberals will rage on about 'hate speech', but that's just emotions. 'Death speech', on the other hand, is a threat against the life of another person. It cannot be ignored.
Gambling? Gambling should either be totally legal or totally illegal. If it's a matter of controlled venues by the state, then that's not 'free gambling'. Let Uncle Joe have his Saturday night poker game with real money. Leave him alone.
President Obama won’t let people work in unpaid internships
Clinton was famous for not paying interns. Kathryn Willey said she wasn’t paid. I’d be surprised if there were no unpaid interns in the White House.
‘...as long as we don’t directly harm others.’
Im all good w/ unlimited freedoms as long as those exercising them could guarantee the above. For the dope heads here I say do your dope but can you tell me for a fact youll hurt no one in the process? I think its impossible. The abortionists certainly cant make that claim w/o involving pretzel ‘logic’. Clearly some restrictions are necessary. As a people we need to agree on those. However, we’ve elected lairs and swindlers to represent us in these matters. Thats where the problem arrises. We’ve delegated our authority to people bent on enslaving us. We we go along and allow it or something else?
I'm no republican, but the author has left his principle of "as long as it doesn't harm anyone" that he established earlier in this article.
Abortion kills another human being without any accusations, charges, courts, juries, peers, and brings a capital sentence upon a totally innocent American.
Anti-drugs is also born in the realization that drugs harm and kill people. Should a nation have laws that say that people are permitted to kill themselves? Absolutely not. That is too easy a manner to kill others with no investigation to determine if that had actually been the case. "Oh gee...she overdosed; said she wanted to end it all."
Obviously, I disagree with restricting all speech but 'death speech'. Liberals will rage on about 'hate speech', but that's just emotions. 'Death speech', on the other hand, is a threat against the life of another person. It cannot be ignored.
Gambling? Gambling should either be totally legal or totally illegal. If it's a matter of controlled venues by the state, then that's not 'free gambling'. Let Uncle Joe have his Saturday night poker game with real money. Leave him alone.
There are exceptions made for government interns. Most Congressional offices couldn’t function without unpaid interns.
The reason why Obama didn’t want to allow unpaid interns was because he wanted to increase the employment numbers. But only for the private sector. His own party would have turned on him if he’d gone after public sector ones.
That is kinda Mr. Stossel's point. Doing drugs is no different than eating crap and not taking care of your own body. But, we are free to do such things. We suffer in a broad society from those choices in neglect but there is no outcry from Mr. Perkins from that. There is other countless bad choices we are free to engage in.
Even though I don’t play the lottery or gamble with money, because I am a sore loser as far as losing money is concerned I voted yes when the Tennessee lottery was put on the ballot, simply for the fact that I thought the people of TN should have the choice if they wanted to have it or not
I get bored very quickly putting nickels in the nickel slot machines. I can get rid of about a roll of nickels and that’s all the interest I have in gambling.
Playing nickel dime poker with friends is fun...but technically illegal.
My sense is that if the state argues ‘freedom of choice’ to institute gambling, and then allows only 3 or 4 casinos as part of the law with everything else still illegal, then they’ve simply played the people and really have not been in favor of freedom. They’ve been in favor of enriching gambling industry cronies and their own tax budgets....not ‘freedom of choice.’
Free choice would mean that Joe’s Bar and Grill could set up a slot machine if they felt like it.
Stossell is a libertarian, so his idea of freedom includes much of what the most hard left supports, such as abortion gay marriage, open borders, a homosexual military, and the usual.
True - but more freedom is better than less freedom.
In the case of the gambling sleight-of-hand, I’d have to disagree. They have provided an illusion of freedom.
It would be like having freedom of the press, but only on Sundays between 5th and Broad Streets.
Which, as I said, is better than at no time and at no place - though far less than is our due as reasoning free-willed individuals.
Sorry, but can you point to any guarantee in life, aside from death and taxes?
He’s pointing out exactly the collectivist fall-back ‘it hurts society/community/etc.’ [and, yes, he’s wrong re: abortion. It’s the one failing of the (L), IMHO]. Again, what actions DON’T possibly do so??? (IE: I decide to spend $$ on a new car; that effected the boat builder, the carpenter, etc.).
Whom owns another? Where do my Rights end from a vote by another, and by what authority? Just HOW did the Republic survive up ‘til the early 1900’s w/out the plethora of ‘Laws’ we have today?
Nope, the list sounds right. OTOH we have laws to protect society from those who would want to live outside commonly accepted behavior. That list isnt long either: murder, theft, rape, assault. Maybe there are others. What we have now is well beyond that. The reason we have them is partly b/c the concept of self govt is long gone. It wasnt always that way...when there wer fewer laws.
If Stossel is shilling for the Liartarians here, then he’s doing the work of the rats.
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.