|
There is a growing trend in the United States that is of great concern for many independent thinkers. It has to do with losing our independence as our population increases. We lose independence slowly each year, so slowly that most of us do not even notice the change. The older generations are often the first to sound alarms, which are seldom heeded because the elderly are thought to be slow to accept change. However, many elders are the first to recognize intrusions on our liberty due to their vast life experiences. Is some loss of independence necessary? Some loss of independence is necessary for social development as our world population increases rapidly each year. Most of us understand the need to heed a stoplight on our streets and roadways, as the signals are necessary for safe travel to and from our destinations. Some laws, however, seem to be designed to produce results that often impede some of our rights as individuals. Our Canadian neighbors have noticed the trend for others to control our lives, as evidenced by a recent Agriculture Online piece by Elbert van Donkersgoed,, a Canadian correspondent. He reports an interesting trend to lack of independence in Canada. He quotes Canadian pollster Allan Gregg: "First we label a behavior risky. Second, we study the risky behavior and propose solutions. Third, the media over-reports the risk. Finally, a public consensus emerges that brands the risky behavior socially reprehensible. There are lots of examples: driving without a seatbelt, cycling without a helmet, hockey without a face mask." We have local examples of steps toward social reprehensible behavior. Our local paper has recently published several letters to the editor regarding the necessity of seat belt laws. How far should we go to pass laws that protect others as we take away their right to choose? One letter writer says he should have the right to not fasten his seat belt and take his chances. A respected local physician has replied, stating that it is necessary to fasten our seat belts in order to prevent local emergency rooms from becoming overcrowded and cause health insurance to rise. It is up to individuals to decide who, if either, is correct. There are reasons to accept both sides of the argument. Slowly, as cigarettes have become socially reprehensible for the same reasons, we wonder how long it will be before they are illegal. Since they are a great revenue enhancer for taxing bodies, that process has been slowed or stopped, making it doubtful if the taxing bodies would ever create a law that would stop their flow of funds into public coffers. Obesity seems now to be the next target of those who slowly begin to make the problem socially reprehensible. We read and watch many reports on the high percentage of overweight people in the United States now, as the campaign begins. What steps will be taken to make that condition illegal? Donkersgoed, in his article linked above, shows how we may well be on a path to legally controlling fast food. Agree or not, obesity is already well on its way to becoming socially reprehensible, if it is not already there. Taking away individual freedoms for the good of society. There are already people quite willing to dictate by law that we will not eat meat, and they are gaining in power daily. Compare those vegan terrorists with the fur protestors that throw paint on expensive garments in public to make their point that we should not even use products made from animals. All people have the right to choose whether or not they eat meat and use animal products. So far, those against using animal products have not succeeded in taking that choice away from the majority. Extremists in other regions are engaging in eco-terrorism, some burning new houses under construction to protest the use of lumber from trees they think should not be cut for that purpose. Much should be considered before the minority terrorist extremists are allowed to take individual liberties from the majority by political action achieved through their illegal behavior. That government is best which governs least Three questions should be considered when creating a new law. 1. When is a law necessary for social development? 2. When is a law necessary for the good of others? 3. When should we accept the concept of Civil Disobedience? In his famous article on Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau states: "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. The solution to the problem of too much control of our independence is not easy to define, and far too many people today seem very intent on lobbying for laws that impose their will upon others. If the intent of a law is to impose the will of some over the majority, perhaps civil disobedience is necessary. For the good of the majority, we must have laws that are enforced, and all law-abiding people accept as necessary. The time when extremists can gradually impose their will over the majority, or unduly influence the majority, is when those laws should be changed. How to change them is quite another matter, but we must not lose all our liberties and freedoms gradually over time. The Lord God only passed down Ten Commandments, showing that simplicity in law is much better than our current system of complicated legal code. After the Ten Commandments are followed, perhaps the following poem could serve as a message for those who would take over our liberty so they can have control over our lives:
Let us hope we can accept more of this philosophy in our lives, before others can take away many of our freedoms while trying to make all of us accept only one way of life. The day when diversity in the United States dies is the day we all lose our freedom, and it can happen without warfare of any kind. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) Copyright 2004, John Dappert
|
