|
| The Global Freedom Institute |
| Social Order: The killing of Individual Freedoms in America (page 3) The second justification is to protect individuals from themselves. However, this argument is fallacious. Consider the freedoms that could be limited, and are being limited in the name of protecting individuals from themselves. Schools are forcing students to take drugs to attend their schools to protect the children from themselves and their hyperactivity or attention spans. Those drugs are becoming commonplace for behaviors that have existed in children for hundreds of years. People in many states are forced to wear seatbelts to protect themselves. Motorcycle riders are forced to wear helmets to protect themselves. Imagine the future of such thought. A world where you have to eat certain foods to take care of yourself, and others are banned, where animals are prohibited as pets to protect yourself from cat scratches or dog bites, banning smoking because it may cause cancer to you, banning meat because it may cause heart disease and cancer, banning alcohol because it may hurt your liver, and on and on. All these choices and many more may be taken away in the name of protecting you from yourself. This is an incredibly broad interpretation of the �general welfare� clause in the constitution to override your freedom to choose. This is a slippery slope to more governmental control over the lives of individuals. What does this �general welfare� clause mean? That is a question that seems to have a very ambiguous meaning that has been left for broad interpretation, unfortunately. This clause has been used for the limitation of rights in the name of �public safety� and �morality.� In reality, many of these claims are unfounded and politically motivated. Consider that legislation to create more public safety still is a major political issue, in spite of the 30 year low in crime statistics. It is called the �fear of crime� in many journals. This, like many fears, is truly unfounded in comparison to other times in recent history. Especially, considering that drug use and other �crimes� like prostitution have no victim other than the individuals involved, yet drug criminals make up the majority in prison. People get upset that serious, violent offenders are getting out of jails too early, however, considering the mandatory sentences for drug crimes, they leave little other choice. After all, America already owns the highest imprisoned population per capita in the world. That is scary for the �land of the free.� The general welfare clause is used to make things like prostitution illegal. It is interpreted out of the general welfare of the country�s morals. Consider the large percentage of people that cheat on their spouse in society and you have an idea of how outdated and hypocritical these laws are. Between Bill Clinton and the congressmen who were brought into the public light for affairs during impeachment, as well as the many who weren�t caught, lawmakers are the last people who should preach morality. Even religious leaders have a problem with morality in this forum. One need only say the names of Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham, and many other religious leaders who have been caught in affairs, not counting the �alter boy� scandals in churches, to realize the hypocrisy of morality claims for all. Humans are fallible and that has been forgotten. The real question may be if sex is legal and selling is legal, why is selling sex illegal? Why is it illegal to sell something that it is perfectly legal to give away? One could also make the case that dating is little more than legalized prostitution too. The question should be whose rights are infringed upon by prostitution? The answer is no ones rights are infringed upon. Two consenting adults should be able to do as they please, so long as no one infringes on the rights of another. In order to control children, government is now starting to hold the parents responsible for their children. They are doing so in a way that makes little sense, unless a parent was to be with their child for every moment of the day and night. The idea of making parents responsible for their children going to school, any violence their children commit, and any mistakes the children make is one of reactionary thought rather than clear attempts to deal with the societal issues. In order to guarantee that a child goes to school and attends classes, a parent could have to actually walk a child to and from all of their classes. That is the only true way to guarantee that happens. Unfortunately, many parents have to work or maintain a home, which means they could not possibly do so. To hold a parent responsible for violence or drugs that a child may do is to ask the parent to spend all day and night with their children. Unfortunately, work, homemaking, and even a need for time away all get in the way. This is not an attempt to solve the problems with our children, it is an attempt to create an atmosphere where parents must return to the family situation where one parent, probably the mother, must stay home instead of work. In today�s economic climate, this makes little sense. Parents are responsible to teach their children the values that they wish their children to have. However, just as any teacher must do, after you have taught them those lessons, the must go out and live in the world and be tested. Just as with children 50 and 100 years ago, they make mistakes or don�t listen to their parents. It is no accident that most people, for example, tend to come closer the political views of their grandparents than they do their parents. Children, at some point, rebel for their own individuality. Just as many parents tell their children to say no to drugs, many children at least experiment with some drug or alcohol before the age of 21. Someone once said that in order to be successful, you must have experience. How do you get experience? You try to do something and make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. One can teach all they want, however, children seem to have a need to find out certain things by themselves. Even our presidents and recent presidential candidates have admitted to �mistakes� in their �youth� and experimentation with drugs and alcohol, yet they intend to hold parents today to an impossible standard that their parents could not achieve. This is social control rather than teaching freedom and its responsibilities that America was founded on. 1 2 3 4 |
|
|