| THE WRONG QUESTION TheWashingtonDistpatch.com 2004 Copyright Steve Pomper, 2004 |
Have you ever noticed how leftists cringe, or even duck when confronted with a, "liberty" argument in
response to their socialistic ideas? They will assault you with tortured statistics to enhance their positions,
and will blather incessantly about how they "feel," about these issues, which reveals their paternal elitism.
The key words and phrases they'll spout will be things like: Safety, health, "it'll save lives," and "it's for
the children." Conspicuously missing from their arguments will be any mention of freedom, or liberty.
We find ourselves in an America, particularly in major urban areas, where legislation and public policy are
no longer based upon our founding principle: Individual liberty. Instead decisions are based upon the
collective, "health," and "safety."
In fact, in some areas of our country not only hasn't individual liberty been the focus of public policy, it's
been its target. Our elected officials, and some appointed health boards ask the wrong question when they
contemplate laws and policies such as mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws, smoking bans on private
businesses, and most recently (at least here in the greater Seattle area) a proposed ban on apartment and
condo dwellers barbecuing on their own decks.
Policy makers ask: How will this law, or policy enhance community health, or safety? A valid question, but
a secondary one at best, and the answer for which should be used to educate, not mandate.
The most important question to pose is: How will this law, or policy affect individual liberty? Why is this
foundational premise no longer the primary focus of legislation and public policy in America?
The simple answer is that those on the political left still believe that socialism is a viable system, "if it's
done right." They are in denial of the great collapse of the eastern block, (accelerated by the late
President Regan) and of continuing, and growing evidence of its debilitating effects in much of Western
Europe, China, Canada and sadly even in the United States.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry, in his most recent television campaign ad states that all
Americans have a, "right," to health care. In other words, some Americans have a, "right," to some other
American's hard-earned money, and the government's going to facilitate the transfer.
Socialism and liberty are incompatible; why doesn't the left get that? Or, perhaps they do and I'm giving
them too much credit. To them, "liberty," is just a pretty word, which they dare not speak against, but is a
concept against which they have no problem working.
I am passionate about combating the rising socialism in America, because as a law enforcement officer, I
am the one who the government will have to use in order to abridge your rights. Proper law enforcement in
a truly free society dictates that I protect Peter from Paul, not Peter from his own decisions with regard to
how he chooses to protect his own body.
A mandatory seatbelt law is a good example of a socialist law, and one that affects most of us. When you
ask an advocate why she supports a seatbelt law, she may tell you that she is concerned about your safety.
So you tell her, "Thank you that's nice, but I'm an adult, and it's really none of your business." Of course
she knows that you're right, however she pulls the socialist arrow out of her quiver and fires this shot at
you, "Hey, as long as I have to pay for your injuries if you crash without a seatbelt, I do have a say." And
you know what? The socialist is right; if you pay for it you should have a say, but why should you have to
pay for other people's medical care in the first place, first with your money, and then with your rights?
Advocates of socialism in America state that these laws act to control the public burden: taxes we pay for
the medical costs of those who don't pay. Without a socialist construct wherein the productive are forced to
pay the medical costs of the unproductive, there is no public burden. The socialists are a very creative lot.
They create the public burden by creating crisis after bogus crisis, which liberal activists and legislators
use to conjure more liberty grabs. If liberty were still the primary principle guiding public policy, none of
these laws would be possible.
In Washington State a seatbelt law was first implemented as a secondary law, which means that you'd have
to get pulled over for a, "real," violation before you could be cited for not wearing a seatbelt. The
proponents pushed the law, in part, by promising that they had no intentions of making it a primary offense.
Fast forward to 2003, Washington State's liberals lied again and we now have a primary seatbelt law. You
can be tooling down the road, minding your own business, but if a law enforcement officer observes you not
wearing a seatbelt, she can stop and cite you. You've put no other person at risk, and it's only because of
socialism that are you breaking the law.
What crisis occurred to make a primary seatbelt law necessary? You got me. The voluntary compliance
rate in Washington State was already in excess of 85%. There was no crisis, except for those who wish to
pursue their socialist agenda. I'm telling you folks; these people will never stop. How do we know this?
Because they never do.
We are the posterity for whom the Founders secured the blessings of liberty. We owe it to them to be
certain that when we pass legislation, or implement public policy, that we ask not: will we be safer, or
healthier, but more importantly, will we remain as free.
response to their socialistic ideas? They will assault you with tortured statistics to enhance their positions,
and will blather incessantly about how they "feel," about these issues, which reveals their paternal elitism.
The key words and phrases they'll spout will be things like: Safety, health, "it'll save lives," and "it's for
the children." Conspicuously missing from their arguments will be any mention of freedom, or liberty.
We find ourselves in an America, particularly in major urban areas, where legislation and public policy are
no longer based upon our founding principle: Individual liberty. Instead decisions are based upon the
collective, "health," and "safety."
In fact, in some areas of our country not only hasn't individual liberty been the focus of public policy, it's
been its target. Our elected officials, and some appointed health boards ask the wrong question when they
contemplate laws and policies such as mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws, smoking bans on private
businesses, and most recently (at least here in the greater Seattle area) a proposed ban on apartment and
condo dwellers barbecuing on their own decks.
Policy makers ask: How will this law, or policy enhance community health, or safety? A valid question, but
a secondary one at best, and the answer for which should be used to educate, not mandate.
The most important question to pose is: How will this law, or policy affect individual liberty? Why is this
foundational premise no longer the primary focus of legislation and public policy in America?
The simple answer is that those on the political left still believe that socialism is a viable system, "if it's
done right." They are in denial of the great collapse of the eastern block, (accelerated by the late
President Regan) and of continuing, and growing evidence of its debilitating effects in much of Western
Europe, China, Canada and sadly even in the United States.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry, in his most recent television campaign ad states that all
Americans have a, "right," to health care. In other words, some Americans have a, "right," to some other
American's hard-earned money, and the government's going to facilitate the transfer.
Socialism and liberty are incompatible; why doesn't the left get that? Or, perhaps they do and I'm giving
them too much credit. To them, "liberty," is just a pretty word, which they dare not speak against, but is a
concept against which they have no problem working.
I am passionate about combating the rising socialism in America, because as a law enforcement officer, I
am the one who the government will have to use in order to abridge your rights. Proper law enforcement in
a truly free society dictates that I protect Peter from Paul, not Peter from his own decisions with regard to
how he chooses to protect his own body.
A mandatory seatbelt law is a good example of a socialist law, and one that affects most of us. When you
ask an advocate why she supports a seatbelt law, she may tell you that she is concerned about your safety.
So you tell her, "Thank you that's nice, but I'm an adult, and it's really none of your business." Of course
she knows that you're right, however she pulls the socialist arrow out of her quiver and fires this shot at
you, "Hey, as long as I have to pay for your injuries if you crash without a seatbelt, I do have a say." And
you know what? The socialist is right; if you pay for it you should have a say, but why should you have to
pay for other people's medical care in the first place, first with your money, and then with your rights?
Advocates of socialism in America state that these laws act to control the public burden: taxes we pay for
the medical costs of those who don't pay. Without a socialist construct wherein the productive are forced to
pay the medical costs of the unproductive, there is no public burden. The socialists are a very creative lot.
They create the public burden by creating crisis after bogus crisis, which liberal activists and legislators
use to conjure more liberty grabs. If liberty were still the primary principle guiding public policy, none of
these laws would be possible.
In Washington State a seatbelt law was first implemented as a secondary law, which means that you'd have
to get pulled over for a, "real," violation before you could be cited for not wearing a seatbelt. The
proponents pushed the law, in part, by promising that they had no intentions of making it a primary offense.
Fast forward to 2003, Washington State's liberals lied again and we now have a primary seatbelt law. You
can be tooling down the road, minding your own business, but if a law enforcement officer observes you not
wearing a seatbelt, she can stop and cite you. You've put no other person at risk, and it's only because of
socialism that are you breaking the law.
What crisis occurred to make a primary seatbelt law necessary? You got me. The voluntary compliance
rate in Washington State was already in excess of 85%. There was no crisis, except for those who wish to
pursue their socialist agenda. I'm telling you folks; these people will never stop. How do we know this?
Because they never do.
We are the posterity for whom the Founders secured the blessings of liberty. We owe it to them to be
certain that when we pass legislation, or implement public policy, that we ask not: will we be safer, or
healthier, but more importantly, will we remain as free.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
STEVE POMPER
AUTHOR
Copyright Steven E. Pomper 2005-2007