This isn't one of my usual topics but a friend of mine asked me to write an editorial for his page www.oneletter.org concerning big government, term limits etc. Which, as I said, isn't one of my typical topics but I've been thinking about these issues for a long time and even read some other blog/editorial sources about these topics lately so here goes.
The problem of big government is much more convoluted that just having too many laws, not having term limits, governmental corruption etc. I have a fairly unique perspective, being in the military and a student of foreign language and culture. Additionally, I am currently living overseas and thereby accountable to not only US laws but local law, Status of Forces Agreements and military regulations. So, I have the perspective of being accountable to more laws and regulations than the average person.
One of the recent blogs on this topic that I've read lately was from NPR's regular feature 13.7 Cosmos and Culture the most telling quote in the 18 June post: "Laws Of Unintended Consequence: A Warning To Policymakers."
"A law may be passed with noble intentions. but its uses inevitably stray far from its original purpose. As the legal system evolves dynamically, laws come to serve as adjacent possible niches, typically for the benefit of the powerful and to the detriment of the powerless. The more numerous the laws, and the heavier the sanctions, the greater the opportunity for persecution of the innocent."
Also, in a recent posting from Natural News concerning the recently proposed ban on large sodas in NYC. The most obvious outcome from such a forward proposal is that if the government can outlaw something so personal as how much soda one drinks what else can they outlaw? Where does the personal-life-invasion stop? My personal thoughts on this issue actually take a different turn. I personally think that instead of healthcare/welfare reform, we should consider health/welfare abolition. The logic goes like this; if the government is responsible for your personal welfare then the government has every right to tell you how to live your life.
Take seatbelt laws... NOT wearing your seatbelt (while a dumb idea, that I don't subscribe to at all) is an inherently personal decision that doesn't hurt anyone else if you don't wear your seatbelt. Because all liberty stops when one's actions infringe on someone else's rights. (E.g. you're free to drink alcohol, and free to drive, just not both at the same time because when one combines the two it often infringes on other's right to live, i.e. a car accident that more often than not leaves the drunk driver alive.) So, if the government is responsible for your health, read: governmental healthcare, then the government can enforce whatever health restrictions it wants. If there's no such thing as government provided healthcare/welfare then the government will have no (logical) right to tell you how to be healthy.
A quote Natural News sums this up quite well; "Be on red alert any time you hear, 'We're from the government, and we're here to protect you from yourself.' These are quite possibly the twelve most dangerous words ever uttered in America. Because from this illogical and liberty-crushing premise, the government can justify any and all invasions of your privacy."
