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.
While I am a member of the NRA, I take exception to a lot of what they do in my name. They have supported legislation that has been terrible for gunowners.
I think that there is a huge difference between a government office building -- which I have problems with banning guns there -- and a highway built for my use with my money. If you give them that much control, then they can stop you car on the highway just to check what you got inside. Ooops. They do do that already. It's under the guise of seat belt and baby seat checks and checkpoint charlies, er I mean DUI checkpoints.
See how it grows. It doesn't matter which party. They both expand the size and power of government. Individual rights no longer matter.
I'm sorry for your loss.
My own brother-in-law refuses to wear a seat belt because his mother died in a car crash where she was trapped or otherwise disabled by her seat belt.
No matter who dies or under what circumstance, it makes little sense for the government to make laws regarding personal behavior as such, except to fill their own coffers. Yes, require car seats for children, that makes infinite sense since children cannot make the decision for themselves, but how would you have made your brother-in-law buckle up? What could you have done? Taken his keys? Kept him chained in your cellar?
How do you stop someone from drinking themselves to death?
How do you keep people from smoking as long as tobacco is legal? Even if it were illegal my mom says she would still smoke. Should I over power her and chain her up so she can no longer do perceived harm to herself? What is the greater harm? Micromanaging people's lives to the point they want to die, or let them live making their wise and foolish decisions as they will?
What about donut eaters? People who eat greasy fried foods? People who drink too much Pepsi?
Do we assign a cop to every one of us to issue tickets every time we do something that could cause us to end our lives?
No matter what laws are passed, there is no cure for death.
Now they're talking about steroids in baseball as I type this, how do we stop baseball players from using substances that can drastically shorten their lives when all they care about is the short term gain? Especially if the fans don't care?
No matter how many laws your right people will still die. One day I too will die. Maybe tomorrow, driving to work. Maybe tonight from a sleep apnea I don't even know I have.
So be it.
On second thought, please DO NOT block this one.
I just read thru 100 posts on the other thread and no one gets the point of the article. At least on this one, the posters are making sense.
Thank you.
"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."
In my opinion, that is not conservatism. It's libertarianism. And it's a cop out. It sends kids the wrong signal - that marijuana is ok in some instances - and therefore blurs the moral line.
As for seat belts, it can also be said that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for excessive injuries caused by an unseat-belted (and uninsured) driver. I see it in small part as promoting a culture of life (something this Nation sorely needs). Anyway you are driving on public roads so I don't think it's too unreasonable. Next thing you know the author will be pushing for optional stop signs.
Although it's not touched upon this same author would probably also say that abortion should not be banned by the government. Many freepers may agree with that but I'm not one of them.
Conservatism, to me, is about less government and less regulations, but at the same time, as a conservative, I expect the norms of the Judeo-Christian society America was founded upon to be upheld by government. And if that means an occasional law (or a less occasional regulation), I'll live with it.
This article reflects what has happened to this forum...it is about as "conservative" as "Shake Your Grove Thing" Day at a nudist colony...
Take a reading comprehension course.
There are a lot of things that are perfectly legal that are dangerous to you and your kids, right? Some that will kill 'em dead right here, right now. Smoking a cigarette might get them addicted and they might die from lung cancer 50 or 60 years from now. Smoking a joint, I don't know. I've never smoked one. But of course you should stop your kids from smoking either.
Do we need a police force to make sure that they don't do these things? Do we need a tree climbing police? A skate boarding police? A don't play in traffic police? No. That a parent's job to teach these values and not to do stupid things. I don't advocate smoking or drugs, but I see it as a parental issue, not a government issue. Once the government can figure out how to make money of little boys climbing trees, though, you can bet there will be a law against it too.
As for seat belts, it can also be said that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for excessive injuries caused by an unseat-belted (and uninsured) driver.
Educate people of the benefits of seat belts. I can almost see that as a legitimate role. Fining me for not obeying an edict that I believe can kill me? No way.
I've driven over a million miles in all kind of conditions and sometimes the weather and roads weren't good either, if you know what I mean. I've never had an accident when I was not wearing a belt. Three (IIRC) when I was. One was my fault. I got careless and lackadaisical in perfect conditions and let down my guard. Under the influence or even downright drunk and without a seat belt, I'm always cautious. The seat belt, like airport security only give the illusion of safety -- a feeling. That's all -- an illusion that false sense of security. I'm prefer to be on guard and responsible for myself.
Admittedly, like the author, I lean heavily toward the libertarian side of things, but it is consistent with my small government, conservative side too.
I see it in small part as promoting a culture of life (something this Nation sorely needs).
That's a bit of a stretch for me. I am pro life, but seat belts aren't close to the same thing.
Anyway you are driving on public roads so I don't think it's too unreasonable. Next thing you know the author will be pushing for optional stop signs.
The concept of public roads has led to seat belt laws, baby seat checkpoints, and DUI checkpoints. All excuses to stop you and generate revenue, harass and intimidate, and to condition to further intrusion into your life. None of these are very conservative.
Although it's not touched upon this same author would probably also say that abortion should not be banned by the government. Many freepers may agree with that but I'm not one of them.
I don't think that at all. The difference is that we have a right to life and an abortion takes that right away from us. A baby is a separate entity from it's host mother. She has no right to kill it. And the government has a duty to preserve our rights.
The way he wrote this is confusing, but he is not advocating any of these things. He is giving examples of EXCEPTIONS to the conservatism that people claim to hold dear. I want the government to intrude on you because I don't like that you smoke, but otherwise, I want small government. Or you don't like "X", so it's okay for government to act against those who do "X", but otherwise, you want small government. If we all carve out our exceptions that we want government to do, then there is nothing left that you and I can do. It'll all been regulated or illegal.
Conservatism, to me, is about less government and less regulations, but at the same time, as a conservative, I expect the norms of the Judeo-Christian society America was founded upon to be upheld by government. And if that means an occasional law (or a less occasional regulation), I'll live with it.
See? You're an 'ex con' too. ;-)
Some of our Founders were smugglers. Some were drinkers and frequented whores. They weren't all saints and didn't try to regulate everything. Remember, they just came from a bloody revolution to be free of a tyrant 3000 miles away. They didn't want an all powerful, over reaching government 300 miles or 3 miles away.
Our Founders were quite liberal in their views of government and liberty. Modern day conservatism should be about preserving that liberty. it's just too bad that simple words get twisted until they are no longer recognized. Liberal used to be a good thing.
LOL
At least I gave you one free lesson.
I do miss the old days.
Don't get me wrong. What's good is very good, but there is less of it. There are still lots of great people here, but not in the quantity that there used to be (even though the numbers are up). The depth of discussion isn't what it was either. I've learned so much since coming here.
But Hell, the flame wars aren't even as good. LOL
Overall, there seems to be less appreciation for the utility of freedom. Can you imagine how bad it is elsewhere?
I think that it was better when we all realized that we had an enemy in the White House and that our liberty was threatened.
Sorry to hear about your brother in law. Was there a seat-belt law on the books in the jurisdiction where he died?
If so, did the law on the books prevent anything? The obvious answer is no.
Personal responsibility is the only thing that saves lives. You can't legislate personal responsibility. Either you are responsible, or you aren't.
I'm with you on the smoking thing which is occurring here in WA State even as we FReep. It sickens me that so called conservatives (well, Rs really) are asking people to sign a state-wide no-smoking initiative. (Even bars ect) Rather than educating them, the R party is saying we are "split." Brains of mush is more like it. And the Indian Casinos are not governed by Wa State law, so guess who will watch businesses grow while white guys (and black, yellow, brown) go out of business...? How very easily we surrender our liberty. How very sad.
Aussie Dasher:
We have had compulsory wearing of seat belts in Australia for thirty years. In that time thousands of lives have been saved. Well worth it by any standard.
______________________________________
You also gave up your guns, so you are not exactly a model of how to preserve liberty. Citizens own guns. Subjects do not.
22 microgood
______________________________________
You must understand that the gun-owning mentality of the US has never been predominant in Australia.
The gun issue is big here - and the conservative Government is wrong on this one - but it will never be as big as it is in a country where owning a gun is regarded as a birthright.
27 Aussie Dasher
Who, sir, are you kiding? You are not a conservative. You are a libertarian.
The mere notion that you, the article writer, or anyone else owns the dictionary definition of conservatism and has the right to slap people on their wrists for violating The Definition with imaginary "exceptions" to your conservatarian credo is not only ridiculous, it's frankly offensive. There are generally accepted views that conservatives hold but they are certainly far less stringent than your conservatarian manifesto. No one needs to, nor should they ever, think in lock-step.
Like you, I don't smoke. Unlike you, it doesn't bother me to be around smokers. You are obviously uncomfortable when more than a few people are puffing away.
BUT, you take the bold stand for freedom against the nanny statism of many so called conservatism. You get it.
That's just one of the reasons that I like you so much. ;-)
There are so many driving on invalid licenses, suspended licenses, people with no insurance, illegals, on and on the only people that may ever pay any price are the law abiding legally licensed insured drivers who accept responsibility. I would have to mull that over due to all the current circumstances.
I don't want government pretending to take care of me. Reality is they only look for what serves them. I want to see the statistic regarding how many lives have been lost due to seatbelts. Know where I can find that?
LOL
Do you see the irony in your post? You deny my 'control of the definition of conservative' while trying to wield that same control yourself.
I said in post #35 that I have a wide libertarian streak, but it is born of my conservative nature. I've been a conservative for 40 years.
When I started to analyze the role of government, the more I began to oppose government intervention in a variety of things.
I endorsed the so called War on Drugs for a long time. My conservative side tells me not to use drugs. They can be harmful or fatal. Their use doesn't lead to good outcomes. My libertarian side tells me that you can do drugs if you want to (and don't steal to get them). It's not my business. Being nosey isn't conservative. Minding one's own business is.
My faith in God teaches me that there are things that I should not do. If you do the same things, it is my duty to approach you one to one, face to face, and show you the error of your ways. If you are not violating someone's rights or harming them, by what authority do I, and by extension, the government have to kick your door down and haul you away. Big government is not conservative.
You have every right to feel offended. You do not have a right not to be offended. As conservative SC Justice Scalia recently said, "If something offends you, you can always avert your eyes."
That you still apparently do not grasp the concept behind the article should amaze me. That so many on this and a similar thread don't understand, is no longer a surprise.
Phwew! At the last moment I was pulled back from the brink...for a little while I thought I was going to get a smack down ;) LOLOL
EX-CONS ON PARADE
Wanna see ex-cons in action? Surf through this discussion
thread on the Free Republic network and marvel at so-called
conservatives extolling the virtues of gun control and seat
belt laws. For example, "Aussie Dasher" writes, "(S)eat
belts in cars save lives. I'm pro-life. I support seat
belts." Huh? Sad. Really sad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1362910/posts?page=15
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.