Sad, isn't it Gabz............
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.
Absolutely sums up the attitudes of all the anti-(pick your vice)advocates.
I find it particularly interesting that anyone who is opposed to increased tobacco taxes or smoking bans is labelled a tobacco intustry "shill" or smokers' rights "lobbyist." Both words with very negative conotations.
Yet the proponents of these same proposals are called health "advocates" or clean air "activists." Both words conjuring rather positive images.
In my world the proponents of these taxes and bans are more deserving of the terms "shill" and "lobbyist" and all of the negative conotation they come with. These people are paid to LIE to the public and they are paid very well and paid with smoker money from the extortionate taxes smokers pay, from the extortion money stolen from smokers through the Master Settlement Agreement, and from smokers who have been so cowed they are willing to pay for the useless "smoking cessation" products being pushed by the anti-smoker organizations.
These people are PAID to find ways to remove the property rights of private business owners.
These people are PAID to find ways to demonize law abiding taxpaying citizens.
These people are PAID to find ways to extort more money from smokers.
These people are PAID to keep a minority of the population from being recognized as law-abiding, tax-paying, productive members of society.
They are PAID to get the rest of the population to accept smokers as addle-brained drug addicts who should have no say and no rights.
The scary part is - they are succeeding.
That is obvious from the number of FReepers who agree that the government should determine that a private business owner WILL be prohibited from permitting the use of a legal product within his premises.
Note it allows for anonymity, but makes you choose a subject-- so they can route it away from His Majesty and to some remote department or the circular file, no doubt. Let's see..."Travel & Tourism" might be an interesting subject line for out of towners (anonymous in-towners?) to play with-- or "Other" might be good, too. I hate to think he might one day--and we know he will--tell the gullible media that everyone's on his side in this smoker-bashing because he didn't "hear" from any of us.
The hubby read this and said he'd love to SUE that sucker!
He's getting a dose of MAJOR BROOKLYN ATTITUDE.
I wonder how "stupid" he's going to think me when the group of us who used to hit NYC on a monthly basis and drop nearly a grand in a weekend just say NO to the bloominidiot????
NYC can not afford to turn away tourism dollars - this dude needs to get a grip on reality.
Sad, isn't it Gabz............
anonymous of course
"Mayor Bloomingberg is a power hungry control freak. He can take his no smoking in New York City to BoneForkEgypt!"
I've got no problem with folks going to the owners of their favorite establishments to seek the VOLUNTARY change of smoking policy based upon customer request.
While I will not patronize such an establishment, I will support the customers and proprietors that work to do such.
All I want is for the proprietors to have the same right to make a business decision based upon custoner and employee requests to continue to permit smoking. Smoking bans remove that right from the owners, employees, and customers.
Anti-smokers claim they are just looking out for the rights of non-smokers. They are wrong. They are actually stealing the rights of most non-smokers.
Anti-smokers claim they speak for ALL non-smokers, but they don't - and they know it. As soon as a non-smoker says the antis do not speak for them, the antis call them liars regarding their non-smoking status.
Anti-smokers despise the Constitution and prove it every time they open their mouths.
That's how we feel, as well. But the Health Coalition in Maine made the restaurants go completely smoke-free in 1999. If a bar/restaurant sold liquor, they could have their smoking section. So, the bar/restaurants is where we go for our meals.
Under the current Clean Indoor Air Act(CIAA) any and all establishments are permitted to go entirely no-smoking and only bar/taverns are permitted to be all smoking. Any establishment with a restaurant license (with seating over a certain amount) must provide a majority non-smoking section.
The new CIAA prohibits smoking in ANY establishment that permits the public to enter. But it goes beyond that - if you have a business office that doesn't have a walk in clientele, but have empoylees, even if they all smoke - smoking is prohibitted.
The nannies are out of control - but the problem is they are controlling our elected officials.
They are one and the same.
Scary, isn't it????
Lord, who knows. Who really knew ANYthing about BloomingIdiot before he got into office!
Seems everything is coming out now, though......
Money TALKS! And you know how well-funded the ANTI's are!
I was listening for the phrase and was not disappointed. Near the end of the call the nut said "It's for your own good." I don't think Hannity heard it or I believe he would have commented on it.
So what else could be for my own good? If I am unable to get around very well might I not have a two-story house "for my own good?" If I am prone to drink too fast might water be rationed to me "for my own good?" If I drive too fast and get a ticked might my vehicle be taken from me "for my own good?" If I cannot see that well might I be made to stay home "for my own good?" Where does it end?
The correct answer is: It will NEVER end. There will always be some do-gooder or some busybody who will demand that Government make you act according to the way THEY think you should act and have what THEY think you should have.
Eyes
This garbage is never going to end.
Not entirely true. Each CHURCH member was expected to contribute AT LEAST ten percent to the church. Many wealthy members gave more
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.
I would sat this just about covers it.
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.