West Des Moines’ Republican Senator Pat Ward’s criticism of traffic enforcement with traffic cameras offers us all a well needed moment of reflection on just how much security we feel that we, as a society, need.
Without a doubt, 21st Century America is reaching a point much like pre-Magna Carta Norman England where, quite literally, everything becomes illegal, and enforcement of the law becomes a business necessity for government. While enforcement of traffic laws undoubtedly does serve some social good, does the marginal increase in traffic safety that is surely the best justification for such devices outweigh the loss of privacy that results from having cameras on every street corner?
Do we really need to so prioritize traffic enforcement that we rely on vigilante witnesses to chase down vehicles that might have driven by a stopped school bus? Are the evils of cigarette smoking so great that we should imprison teenage smokers? Is society so threatened by teenage males fighting, behavior as old as our species, and hardly limited to our species, that we need even more, and ever more expensive, law enforcement in grade schools. Finally, are the children of America so threatened by their grandparents that grandparents have to register with the state to provide care to those children?
Ask yourself these questions. You’d better ask others because every one of those things is happening in 2007 Iowa. Then, ask yourself if perhaps we are reaching the point where the pursuit of a government that can ensure a utopian and unnatural degree of personal physical safety is giving us a government big enough to take from us everything we have. There is a continual cost of this inane and unrealistic pursuit of utopian safety, the constant loss of privacy and an increasing extent of governmental invasion of every orifice of the body politic.
It’s a spiral, more government needs more money. If we are going to police our grade schools we need more traffic enforcement. That makes money. Traffic enforcement brings revenue. Double the fines, find more ways to catch that guy going 27 in a 25 and ticket the car. Think of the revenue? Think of the safety from dangerous speeding drivers? Fill in the minor miscreant and the same principle applies. More social workers and counselors are required to “educate” the 20 year old vet of the war in Afghanistan as to the evils of alcohol because he/she got caught downing a Natty Light with some high school buddies outside his high school football stadium, and all those social workers need paid and housed don’t they?.
We already know where this will end. George Orwell made it clear. If you’re not into Orwell perhaps a more recent iteration of the ultimate paternalistic total state was described by the American Evita in her ode to paternalistic totalitarianism, “It Takes A Village”. So Pat, keep up the good fight for a little privacy when we leave our houses 'cause we sure don't need that Big Sister watching us!
Without a doubt, 21st Century America is reaching a point much like pre-Magna Carta Norman England where, quite literally, everything becomes illegal, and enforcement of the law becomes a business necessity for government. While enforcement of traffic laws undoubtedly does serve some social good, does the marginal increase in traffic safety that is surely the best justification for such devices outweigh the loss of privacy that results from having cameras on every street corner?
Do we really need to so prioritize traffic enforcement that we rely on vigilante witnesses to chase down vehicles that might have driven by a stopped school bus? Are the evils of cigarette smoking so great that we should imprison teenage smokers? Is society so threatened by teenage males fighting, behavior as old as our species, and hardly limited to our species, that we need even more, and ever more expensive, law enforcement in grade schools. Finally, are the children of America so threatened by their grandparents that grandparents have to register with the state to provide care to those children?
Ask yourself these questions. You’d better ask others because every one of those things is happening in 2007 Iowa. Then, ask yourself if perhaps we are reaching the point where the pursuit of a government that can ensure a utopian and unnatural degree of personal physical safety is giving us a government big enough to take from us everything we have. There is a continual cost of this inane and unrealistic pursuit of utopian safety, the constant loss of privacy and an increasing extent of governmental invasion of every orifice of the body politic.
It’s a spiral, more government needs more money. If we are going to police our grade schools we need more traffic enforcement. That makes money. Traffic enforcement brings revenue. Double the fines, find more ways to catch that guy going 27 in a 25 and ticket the car. Think of the revenue? Think of the safety from dangerous speeding drivers? Fill in the minor miscreant and the same principle applies. More social workers and counselors are required to “educate” the 20 year old vet of the war in Afghanistan as to the evils of alcohol because he/she got caught downing a Natty Light with some high school buddies outside his high school football stadium, and all those social workers need paid and housed don’t they?.
We already know where this will end. George Orwell made it clear. If you’re not into Orwell perhaps a more recent iteration of the ultimate paternalistic total state was described by the American Evita in her ode to paternalistic totalitarianism, “It Takes A Village”. So Pat, keep up the good fight for a little privacy when we leave our houses 'cause we sure don't need that Big Sister watching us!
10 comments:
Sporer,
It's hard to disagree with your general big brother premise. Once again, common ground.
This does remind me of your recent post on Krusty regarding non-sexual privacy being a bedrock of democracy. I would love to hear your take on sexual privacy. ;)
only the confessional gets the whole story.
sexual privacy is actually a subset of a larger privacy protection to conceal personal behaviors that neither invlove the larger community nor seek its approval or support.
put another way, if you close your door you can do stuff that would make caligula blush for all i care.
its why i so utterly oppose things like "hate crimes" like breaking a guys legs 'cause he's black or a Muslim makes it any worse.
or this nonsense about prosecuting people who make animated kiddie porn. i mean they are sick f***s, but they aren't using real children, animated creatures don't have rights (unless hillary needs to empower those children also) so we are really simply punishing the concept of an illegal act, to wit: thought police.
same with flag burners. unpatriotic fools, yes. but, we have to tolerate their gibberish and boorish behavior.
the PC problem is, the PC police forget that a majority has the same rights to public expression of opinion and exercise of belief.
So what's the deal with so many of your fellow R's being obsessed with what their neighbors do in their bedrooms? - Freedom for everything else, but not for sexual preferences. I simply don't get it. My view: Between consenting adults, anything goes. Polygamy included.
The morality police of the Republican Party are guilty of the same sins as the Political Thought police of the Democratic party. Both are in violation of common sense.
Your points are well argued and very well received. The examples you cite are appalling to say the least. But we must also remember that there is another side to this coin and striking a balance between the two will border on extemely difficult, at best.
Take for instance the Right to Privacy. Even as early as 2002, libs and Dems were condemning the Patriot Act as a violation of the RtP, as if it were more important to allow terorists to plan attacks in secret than it was to expose their plans and stop them thereby saving lives. People cannot enjoy their freedom if they are too afraid to leave their homes for fear of being killed.
I'm not trying to contradict you. I hear what you are saying. But there has to be a balance between the responsibilities of society and the freedoms society enjoys.
Ted - This reminds me of Ronald Reagan's great creed, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you've got."
Couldn't be more true.
How refreshing to see some honest discussion. I think most reasonable D’s and R’s realize that both sides go overboard with some of their stuff. We D’s really have to realize that we have to demand some responsibility from individuals. Government can’t do it all. The R moral police aren’t any better, as anon pointed out. And then 84rules’ good point, we should all realize that sometimes we do have to give up some liberties for greater good. If, in order to keep an eye on terrorists who want to kill us, FBI needs to listen in on even my domestic calls, go ahead.
Sporer here-not all Republicans are as libertarian as am i, although most are far more free speech oriented than the average Dem. Remember, I grew up in a Democrat house, my dad was a fairly powerful local Dem pol, and believe me, the thought police are in control there, and always have been.
i fight that battle intra party quite frequently. most republicans, for example, support repeal of sodomy laws, however they may feel morally about homosexuality.
we as a society would be far better if we spent more time on our own logs before we take on the splinters of others on most behaivoral issues (like smoking, for pete's sake. i'll bet the market would crave a no smoking bar or restaurant-i know i wood).
Looks like you're pretty close to allowing pot smokers to grow and consume their own crops. Or do I misread you?
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
Post a Comment