If You Know What’s Good For You…
Then the government would be out of a job. The recent rash of cigarette ordinances, seatbelt enforcement zones and the ever popular sobriety checkpoints just go to show that local government isn’t much different than federal government in its belief that it needs to be your nanny.
We know, for example, that such things only open the floodgates for more control of behavior. Isn’t it extraordinary, in a day where the Left clamors for abortion on demand, freedom to marry whatever gender or possibly species you so choose, the right to illegally enter the country and then suffer no consequences, or basically just the right to do whatever you want to do to make yourself feel good (be it drugs, sexual preference, scientology, voting for Democrats, whatever…), that same “freedom-loving” Left is leading the charge to put a clamp on behaviors it doesn’t like? Isn’t it even more extraordinary that they have become so radical on both ends as the years progress? Moderation seems to be lost in the polarization of these issues. Instead, the gulf between opposing viewpoints has become far less compromising and far more vicious.
It is not at all uncommon for the Left to scream “Hypocrites!” when someone from the Right evinces an alternate point of view, possibly even a more traditional or “old-fashioned” point of view. They will argue that those on the Right oppose abortion, but favor capital punishment or oppose euthanasia but favor gun rights. Of course, that they are for the exact opposite seems to escape that they themselves would share the hypocrisy moniker in such an instance, but why let reality get in the way of a good argument?
So what we face now, the increased polarization of issues and pundits and the idea of individual moralities facing off as to what is “right” and what is “wrong” is an almost overwhelming affair for the average citizen. Where to start? How do we prioritize or even take a tolerant or moderate position if most of the information sources are so one-sided and volatile? Unfortunately, there isn’t much of a solution forthcoming in that area.
Politics is compromise it is often said, and in Congress and the state legislatures that certainly is still the case, but our personal viewpoints we don’t like to compromise. For those who have a firm footing in religion, moral discipline and/or a very strong integrity and will, it is easy to see things in terms of individual responsibility, a faith in the Almighty and the natural rights He has granted us, and to assume that more freedom with a greater degree of personal accountability and responsibility are the norm. For those who have cast aside or never had much grounding in religion (or take a more liberal view of the institution), who have faith in government-granted rights and the benevolence of the State versus corporate or local entities (even the individual) as well as a more collectivist view of the world, such concerns of basic morality are passé and such belief systems are obsolete. The assumption that the latter doesn’t come with its own set of rules and restrictions for the masses is somewhat naïve in its own right, though. They’re just different.
Both the conservative and liberal points of view (for lack of better terms, sometimes it’s just easier to describe arguments as conservative/liberal) deal with issues that define the structure of society and the standard rules of behavior that society expects for normal, healthy functioning members. The difference comes in basic interpretation and execution of those beliefs. While conservatives largely believe in free will tempered by moral discipline, they accept that people will have shortfalls and that the community must be there if it is needed. However, and yes extremes can cause this model to fail, it is assumed that it’s up to the individual to make his or her own choices. They can succeed or fail on their own and must pay for the mistakes they make along the way.
Liberals along the same vein also believe heavily in free will, but believe the governing reason of traditional religious morality can improperly restrain the passion and zest for life that free will offers. They also believe that society should be there should someone stumble because of their choices, but they believe such a social net is mandatory and that the rest of society must pay for the individual’s mistake. The morality of the majority becomes more important than basic religious morality. Extremes also cause basic failures in this system as well, and as liberalism tends to dominate the power structure these days, it is the burden we feel more. Smoking bans, seatbelt laws, sobriety checkpoints, squirt guns, and environmental restrictions on the use of property are all examples of how the liberal philosophy of the nanny state has been abused and how it actually works to impede the freedoms of the rest of the citizenry for the “common good”.
I dare say we saw a lot of the former, conservative government, before Hoover. Since then, we have seen a liberal application of government here and abroad (most of Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and now South America). Levels of severity of course change from nation to nation and in our country state to state (sometimes even city to city). But it is still there and I dare say the abuses of the liberal way of doing things have been more pronounced and more severe over the past 100 years than the conservative way was for the 100 years or so before that.
In any instance of having a church scold me, and worrying about my relationship with my Maker, and having the State scold me and worrying about my continued health and welfare (in the more traditional use of the terms), I’ll take trying to work it out with my Maker any day. Humans are fallible and tend to selfish reasoning and so governments they create to enforce laws can be equally fallible. If we operate under this belief, there will always be tyranny of law and tyranny of the mind. A belief in a higher power, a perfect God that granted us inalienable rights allows us to still be flawed, frail creatures, but lets us aspire to be better and to sacrifice so that others can be better, doing so of our own free will. To me, the latter is far more noble than the former could ever hope to be and why I tend to put all my eggs in that basket.
Rather heavy handedly, what I’m saying is controlling our behavior through such small and petty things as laws and checkpoints “for our own good” is only done based on what other people think is “for our own good” and thus is subject to the whim of power and control. Those who have power and control will change that whim. Historically, we know that for a fact, and liberalism allows them that mechanism. Fast food, smoking, guns, free speech, free assembly, a free and politically diverse press are all things that have, are and will be under attack because some person or groups of persons doesn’t like them. If we allow that to continue, we allow our own oppression to slowly grow. If we nip these little nuisances in the bud now, we have made a small sacrifice for the future of us all.
Then the government would be out of a job. The recent rash of cigarette ordinances, seatbelt enforcement zones and the ever popular sobriety checkpoints just go to show that local government isn’t much different than federal government in its belief that it needs to be your nanny.
We know, for example, that such things only open the floodgates for more control of behavior. Isn’t it extraordinary, in a day where the Left clamors for abortion on demand, freedom to marry whatever gender or possibly species you so choose, the right to illegally enter the country and then suffer no consequences, or basically just the right to do whatever you want to do to make yourself feel good (be it drugs, sexual preference, scientology, voting for Democrats, whatever…), that same “freedom-loving” Left is leading the charge to put a clamp on behaviors it doesn’t like? Isn’t it even more extraordinary that they have become so radical on both ends as the years progress? Moderation seems to be lost in the polarization of these issues. Instead, the gulf between opposing viewpoints has become far less compromising and far more vicious.
It is not at all uncommon for the Left to scream “Hypocrites!” when someone from the Right evinces an alternate point of view, possibly even a more traditional or “old-fashioned” point of view. They will argue that those on the Right oppose abortion, but favor capital punishment or oppose euthanasia but favor gun rights. Of course, that they are for the exact opposite seems to escape that they themselves would share the hypocrisy moniker in such an instance, but why let reality get in the way of a good argument?
So what we face now, the increased polarization of issues and pundits and the idea of individual moralities facing off as to what is “right” and what is “wrong” is an almost overwhelming affair for the average citizen. Where to start? How do we prioritize or even take a tolerant or moderate position if most of the information sources are so one-sided and volatile? Unfortunately, there isn’t much of a solution forthcoming in that area.
Politics is compromise it is often said, and in Congress and the state legislatures that certainly is still the case, but our personal viewpoints we don’t like to compromise. For those who have a firm footing in religion, moral discipline and/or a very strong integrity and will, it is easy to see things in terms of individual responsibility, a faith in the Almighty and the natural rights He has granted us, and to assume that more freedom with a greater degree of personal accountability and responsibility are the norm. For those who have cast aside or never had much grounding in religion (or take a more liberal view of the institution), who have faith in government-granted rights and the benevolence of the State versus corporate or local entities (even the individual) as well as a more collectivist view of the world, such concerns of basic morality are passé and such belief systems are obsolete. The assumption that the latter doesn’t come with its own set of rules and restrictions for the masses is somewhat naïve in its own right, though. They’re just different.
Both the conservative and liberal points of view (for lack of better terms, sometimes it’s just easier to describe arguments as conservative/liberal) deal with issues that define the structure of society and the standard rules of behavior that society expects for normal, healthy functioning members. The difference comes in basic interpretation and execution of those beliefs. While conservatives largely believe in free will tempered by moral discipline, they accept that people will have shortfalls and that the community must be there if it is needed. However, and yes extremes can cause this model to fail, it is assumed that it’s up to the individual to make his or her own choices. They can succeed or fail on their own and must pay for the mistakes they make along the way.
Liberals along the same vein also believe heavily in free will, but believe the governing reason of traditional religious morality can improperly restrain the passion and zest for life that free will offers. They also believe that society should be there should someone stumble because of their choices, but they believe such a social net is mandatory and that the rest of society must pay for the individual’s mistake. The morality of the majority becomes more important than basic religious morality. Extremes also cause basic failures in this system as well, and as liberalism tends to dominate the power structure these days, it is the burden we feel more. Smoking bans, seatbelt laws, sobriety checkpoints, squirt guns, and environmental restrictions on the use of property are all examples of how the liberal philosophy of the nanny state has been abused and how it actually works to impede the freedoms of the rest of the citizenry for the “common good”.
I dare say we saw a lot of the former, conservative government, before Hoover. Since then, we have seen a liberal application of government here and abroad (most of Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and now South America). Levels of severity of course change from nation to nation and in our country state to state (sometimes even city to city). But it is still there and I dare say the abuses of the liberal way of doing things have been more pronounced and more severe over the past 100 years than the conservative way was for the 100 years or so before that.
In any instance of having a church scold me, and worrying about my relationship with my Maker, and having the State scold me and worrying about my continued health and welfare (in the more traditional use of the terms), I’ll take trying to work it out with my Maker any day. Humans are fallible and tend to selfish reasoning and so governments they create to enforce laws can be equally fallible. If we operate under this belief, there will always be tyranny of law and tyranny of the mind. A belief in a higher power, a perfect God that granted us inalienable rights allows us to still be flawed, frail creatures, but lets us aspire to be better and to sacrifice so that others can be better, doing so of our own free will. To me, the latter is far more noble than the former could ever hope to be and why I tend to put all my eggs in that basket.
Rather heavy handedly, what I’m saying is controlling our behavior through such small and petty things as laws and checkpoints “for our own good” is only done based on what other people think is “for our own good” and thus is subject to the whim of power and control. Those who have power and control will change that whim. Historically, we know that for a fact, and liberalism allows them that mechanism. Fast food, smoking, guns, free speech, free assembly, a free and politically diverse press are all things that have, are and will be under attack because some person or groups of persons doesn’t like them. If we allow that to continue, we allow our own oppression to slowly grow. If we nip these little nuisances in the bud now, we have made a small sacrifice for the future of us all.
posted by Rob Beck | 9:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home