Posted on 03/14/2005 8:24:05 PM PST by Badray
____________________________
MUTH'S TRUTHS by Chuck Muth March 13, 2005 _____________________________
"FORGET THE NEO-CONS, BEWARE THE EX-CONS"
So I'm listening to talk radio recently during the hellish commute to our nation's capital, and I hear caller after caller start out by saying, "I'm a conservative, except..." The issue was over a proposed new government-mandated smoking ban in bars and restaurants. And the callers - so-called "conservatives" - were all for it.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying smoking is good. And I'm not saying smoking isn't offensive to a lot of people, especially while dining. What I AM saying is that the proper, consistent conservative position is that the decision whether or not to allow smoking in a privately-owned bar or restaurant should be up to the OWNER of the bar or restaurant - not the government.
If the bar or restaurant allows smoking - and you don't like smoking - don't go there! There is no "right" for you to eat in someone else's kitchen. I'm not saying conservatives need to defend smoking. I'm saying true conservatives need to defend individual liberty; to defend the private property owner's rights over government power and coercion. If government can tell a business owner how to run his business, how long before that same government begins mandating healthy meals in your own home - for the good of the children, of course?
I've found over recent years that more and more so-called conservatives find "exceptions" to their limited-government principles on a host of issues. I've started calling them "ex-cons" - exception conservatives - and they are far more dangerous to the limited-government movement than the so-called "neo-cons." See if you haven't run across an "ex-con" in your political travels recently...
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to tobacco. Government shouldn't raise taxes, except on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. That's OK."
* "I'm a conservative...except for delivering the mail. The government should continue to ban private companies from competing with the post office."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to advertising by drug companies. The government should force them to cut back on their advertising so that their products would be cheaper."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to McDonalds and Burger King. The government should stop them from advertising during kids' shows."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to snack machines in high schools. Those machines should be banned to protect the children."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to Howard Stern. The government should ban him from the airwaves...even on satellite radio."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to Budweiser and Coors commercials during college football and basketball games. The government should ban those ads."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to Microsoft. The government was right to prosecute them for being so much better at selling their products than their competitors. Bill Gates was being fair."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to terminally ill patients using marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. The government should prohibit pot smoking in the privacy of your own home no matter what the circumstances."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to home-schoolers. Those people should have to report to the government."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to driving safety. The government is absolutely right to require people to wear motorcycle helmets and seat belts."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to wages. The government should determine the minimum wage a private employer has to pay to his or her employees."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to air travel. The government has every right to randomly search people and their luggage without probably cause. It's for our own good."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to health care. Health care is a "right" and the government should make sure everyone gets it. For free."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to retirement. The government should provide everyone with a comfortable retirement."
* "I'm a conservative...except when it comes to gun rights. It's OK for the government to require that people get gun licenses and ban the sale of guns at gun shows. Otherwise, a 'bad' guy might get one."
And on and on and on. One "except" after another. THIS is the biggest problem with the conservative movement today. If so-called conservative voters are willing to constantly make exceptions to their own philosophical beliefs, is it any wonder that pandering politicians are so schizophrenic in their voting? If we, as true conservative voters and activists can't or won't be consistent in our positions, how can we expect our elected representatives to be any better?
We have met the enemy, and it's us. Conservatives, heal thyselves.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Copyright 2005 Chuck Muth. All rights reserved. "Muth's Truths" may be republished providing the column is copied intact, and full credit is given. Talk show producers interested in scheduling an interview with Mr. Muth should call (410) 391-7408.
LOL thanks for the welcome, I've become a celebrity b/c of that one post...
I do understand people who use drugs to realieve pain (in addition, pot is a sometimes part of legitimate medicines, such as treating gluacoma). But tell me, if i SELL marijuana within the privacy of my own home, am I still a conservative? or have i leaned more libertarian?
once again, i dont support the absolute legalization of pot.
But believe me, I'm elated when that Big Government bans partial-birth abortion. I mean I'm not in love with BG, but it has its advantages.
Explain how ir was "conservative" 75 years ago to ban marijuana (by a TAX measure no less) to fix an imagined social problem - sounds "liberal" to me.
In this, I agree with him. I disagree: "more and more so-called conservatives find "exceptions" to their limited-government principles on a host of issues."
What Mr. Muth is hearing is a certain number of conservatives who are voicing their exceptions which were pre-existing, regardless of being conservative. He is not hearing "more and more" conservatives who are finding exceptions to their desire for limited Government.
Do you know that 95% (yeah, I'm guessing. it might be higher) of all traffic accidents and traffic fatalities involve LICENCED drivers? Licensing drivers has NOTHING to do with safety beyond it's initial issuance, if then. If a licence meant anything but revenue, you'd be tested every few years and more frequently as you got older.
If you do not renew your licence, do you suddenly forget all of your driving (assuming that you had any) skills if you don't pay the fee?
But, back to conservatism. . .
Where in the Constitution is the authority for the Federal Freaking Government to require the states to require you to wear seat belts in order for the states to get back money that the FFG confiscated from YOU in the first place? That's the issue here -- proper Constitutional authority for government actions against citizens.
nah, its like saying that its wrong to ban abortion because the conservatives "feel sorry" (sounds pretty liberal) for the babies.
ban marijuana by a "tax measure"? i'm not sure what your talking about, please explain.
I haven't read enough of your posts in the short time that you've been here for me to make that determination. But, length of time here is no sure determinate of conservatism either. There are lots of people here who are afraid of liberty for themselves and for others.
BTW, are you are leftist?
Hey. I had to ask since you brought it up. ;-)
Well i guess with licenses, one could make the argument about "public property" (that the government can regulate its own property). Which is of course perfectly legit. The NRA acknowledges that government does have the right to regulate carrying laws on public property, and they use the driving license analogy to prove it.
Sho'nuf.
I did a search on the actual title from the author, not on a made up one from a forward of a forwarded email.
It was just pointed out to me that this was posted previously under a different title that the author used. Can you do what you have to do to end this one and redirect to the link in OB's post.
Thanks.
One word - slippery slope. (OK two words)
First it was seat belts - clear benefit, well worth the cost of inposing.
Then motorcycle helments - marginal adbvantage, still worth the cost of imposition
The air bags - even more marginal, possibly safety neutral, but not worth the cost
Then bicycle helmsts - mo safety adavantage, definately not worth the cost.
And all this time the govenment monster has grown. Now it no lonher matters whether it is for our benefit or not, it's about the needs of Leviathan.
Did I mention the gun laws? there the goal was not the crime rate, or safety but "reducing the number of guns in the Australian community", a Government objective.
The two philosophies are not mutally exclusive.
I'm a conservative. I have been for over 40 years, but the more that I learn about government intrusiveness the more libertarian I become. I don't like or approve of a lot of things that I believe people should be free to do, but that doesn't mean that I want a Police State to look into your bedroom to find out. Because the power that I want them to have to control you, can just as easily be turned on me.
Look at the drugs. Drug addiction is terrible. Look at the War on Drugs. The attack on our 2nd and 4th amendment rights under the guise of the WOD is worse. Look at the corruption within the legal system because of the huge amounts of money that the illegality brings to it. Look to prohibition as an example. The cure of Prohibition was worse than any drinking problem the country had. The gangs (the M word, not that they really exist) and the corruption lives on after getting it's birth in Prohibition.
"For example, seat belts in cars save lives. I'm pro-life. I support seat belts."
Quit drinking the kool-aid & do your own research. Both of the above statements contradict each other. Clearly, you are an ex-con the article described.
Seat belts save lives IF you are in the right type of accident, the correct height, what time of day it is etc. etc. The whole seat belt intrusion was a multi-million dollar business deal between, then Secty. of Transportation, the RINO herself, Elizabeth Dole. Seat belt laws have, nor had, anything whatsoever to do with safety. Talk to a few EMT's, honest Dr's or nurses. Pro-life has nothing to do with seat belts.
100 years ago marijuana had recognised medical uses.
The Federal Government had no constitional power to ban it, but they had the power to tax, hence the intoduction of the Marijuana Transfer Tax Bill of 1937. And actual transfer's approved = 0.
(Background cheers from ex-cons on how clever the Government is - we love Government.)
Remember that the government that is big enough and powerful enough to give you what you want, is big enough and powerful enough to TAKE what ever it wants.
Small is much better.
That said, I am pro life. I am opposed to ANY abortion than the one which will save the mother's life RIGHT NOW. Those who do the PBAs thould be charged with murder. But it should be a state issue. Murder is not federal.
I'm sorry. I didn't follow your second paragraph. Can you restate that so it's clearer.
Until I have definitive proof to the contrary, I'll accept your word, sir. You are a sir, right?
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.