# Nanny state/government



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ladies and Gents -

I'm getting more and more troubled as I read the Facebook the posts in other sections of HT about how many approve of several of the laws and proposed laws are being made/passed to have the "state" tell everyone how to live, etc.

I'm pretty sure if you read around, you'll see some of the recent threads and how about 1/2 or more approve of the new regulations/laws. It's all in the name of "keeping people safe" or "it's for the children".

What happened to consequences of your actions and the choice for the parents and yourself to make those choices? And if everyone is going to be thinking the government is regulating the dangers away, will the situational awareness decline? I think it will. We have a true loss of anything approaching "common sense" and "critical thinking" of cause and effects to teach our young and ourselves to keep healthy and in one piece.

It's a bit like Sleeping Beauty fairy tale. She was suppose to prick her finger and die (the danger threat), so all spindles were done away with in the kingdom (nanny state taking the danger away) and no one ever taught her about the spindle and being able to be pricked (the ignorance due to nanny state) and so when she finally saw one, she touched it and pricked her finger (consequences of ignorance due to nanny state).

This is really troubling.

Are you seeing it?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> Ladies and Gents -
> 
> I'm getting more and more troubled as I read the Facebook the posts in other sections of HT about how many approve of several of the laws and proposed laws are being made/passed to have the "state" tell everyone how to live, etc.
> 
> ...



Seeing it with eyes, wide open.
Seeing it as the result of years and years of 'listening to the teacher'.
We have been 'primed' for this 'takeover' for 3 generations.
It's 'too easy'. Let someone else do it. Let someone else clean up the mess. Let someone else_______
Then when things go 'wrong'.......we can blame, blame, blame.
We don't have to take the heat.
NO consequences to actions. No discomfort. No nothing.....

It's a scary place to raise kids, that's for sure!!


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Could you give some examples?
I have been out of the computer loop for a few days and am currently blissfully ignorant of many goings on.
I am not a fan of the nanny state at all....


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

just take a look at the most posted on threads in General Chat/Political and Country Families since those are the most conversational forums.

I think one of the first ones is the stuff being discussed about the school person not liking the 4 year olds home lunch - and go from there.


----------



## bourbonred (Feb 27, 2008)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin 
February 17, 177


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

bourbonred said:


> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
> February 17, 177


I keep remembering this when I read these things and shaking my head at the ones that approve of them.


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

I agree to an extent...I believe in children (especially) having experiences and understanding the consequences of those experiences, whether good or bad. That's how you learn. I stuck my finger in a light socket when I was young (before the world was child-proofed) - that was a lesson I never forgot.

But when it's something like the anti texting/distraction laws...well, when *your actions *result in *my consequences* then I welcome those laws. The general public isn't becoming any smarter...some of them need a nanny :lookout:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Jokarva said:


> I agree to an extent...I believe in children (especially) having experiences and understanding the consequences of those experiences, whether good or bad. That's how you learn. I stuck my finger in a light socket when I was young (before the world was child-proofed) - that was a lesson I never forgot.
> 
> But when it's something like the anti texting/distraction laws...well, when *your actions *result in *my consequences* then I welcome those laws. The general public isn't becoming any smarter...some of them need a nanny :lookout:


 Swing and a miss. We don't need new anti-texting laws, it's already illegal to drive distracted.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> Swing and a miss. We don't need new anti-texting laws, it's already illegal to drive distracted.


Right.
It's not about 'enforcing the law to protect us'......duh......there are laws ALREADY on the books, and cops, never enforced them.

It's about chipping away at our freedom.
It's about "How much will you give up before you push back".....they will keep taking, if we keep giving.
All that have eyes, will see. The rest? In the potcha go.


----------



## bourbonred (Feb 27, 2008)

Kentucky's seat belt law


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Jokarva said:


> I agree to an extent...I believe in children (especially) having experiences and understanding the consequences of those experiences, whether good or bad. That's how you learn. I stuck my finger in a light socket when I was young (before the world was child-proofed) - that was a lesson I never forgot.
> 
> But when it's something like the anti texting/distraction laws...well, when *your actions *result in *my consequences* then I welcome those laws. The general public isn't becoming any smarter...some of them need a nanny :lookout:


I'll tell you my story ,how I learned. 
My Dad is an Electrician. I asked him ,what is electricity? He told me to hold onto the light pole(metal) and touch the moist aluminum window frame. :shocked:. 2 things I learned,never mess with electricity and never ask your dad a question.
Needless to say, our learning of consequences is supposed to take place before we are ever in the Government's grip. I suppose this is why they want kids to go into school environments so early-make them more dependant.Yes, the goverment wants us to feel dependant and entitled. It gives them voters and power.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

We talk about zombies and sheeple here, but I'm really beginning to think that all these new regulations and laws telling us how to live and how to raise our children; etc. The people that make the laws "work" have a natural disaster, a man - made disaster happen and the easily picked off will be standing around mumbling about the laws that are being broken as they are mowed over by the unlawful that take for themselves. The unlawful already do it now; but are held in check somewhat as people that can and do think for themselves and prepare to be okay without "nanny" do not rock the boat on minor issues; so in a sense, are allowing the consequences of over regulated- rely on the Nanny state - to set them up for dangerous consequences from the unlawful.

The more laws we allow for telling us how to live, the easier it's going to be for the zombies to pick them (not me I hope) off.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Look at photos of the People in Russia being made to get on those trains. They had bags packed and willingly got on. Gassed or gunned down shortly later.


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

Phrases that push my buttons:

It's for your safety
It's good for you
It's bad for you
It's best for everyone
I'ts in the Children's best interest
Someone might be offended


Remember being ticked off about the new seat belt laws in the mid 80's? they haven't stopped since then... Then there are the California municipalities that want to tell you that you can't smoke in your own home and won't allow McD's in their town cause it's not "healthy". Then there are proposals to tax soda as if it were alcohol, NYC's restrictions on salt and oh yeah.. that place that wanted to outlaw the use of sugar........ 

Making a law about texting and driving is redundent, there is already distracted driving... you can't change behavior due to that law... people have to WANT to focus on the road and not on themselves... They're just too important to not text, chat on the phone, eat, put on makeup, shave etc.. That's a mindset... it's called selfishness...

You can't legislate stupidity out of existance.... they are trying though...

They do it for control and they do it for the revenue


----------



## jd4020 (Feb 24, 2005)

Yes, I'm seeing it, God has been showing it to me for a long time now.
I'm constantly reminded of the minutemen and how they broke the laws to help gain our freedoms. I think of how sad & angry the men & women who worked to put into place our constitution would be now to see how weak minded our supposed leaders have become. How much people have turned into sheep & just follow along with whatever comes down the pike. I also think if they were to somehow be here alive, they would be dumping the tea in the harbor or some such thing.
I see some fighting against it and I admire & support what they are standing up for. Like the people in the town hall meetings who questioned the politicians, like Glen Beck & his team at least bringing out the information they do.
And as a Christian I see all these things falling neatly into place for the coming of the antichrist, whenever that may be.
And in all of this there is the peace that Jesus gives me as I strive to follow Him.
God bless,
jd


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

We watched "The Sound of Music" on DVD a couple of nights ago. Liselle's Nazi boyfriend makes a remark that "We know all about you" when she expressed surprise that he knew a family friend was staying at their castle/house. Twenty years ago that statement was still seen as a warning about overbearing government. The shock to me while watching, was the realization that most kids today would just take it as an offhand comment and not understand that it was in any way wrong.


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> Swing and a miss. We don't need new anti-texting laws, it's already illegal to drive distracted.



Enforcing the existing laws would take a trooper for every 10 cars on the road, then everyone would be screaming about govt spending. Or maybe a highway camera...I can imagine how that would go over :grin:. I see people texting behind the wheel everyday (worse when we were back in VA), existing laws/fines are not a deterrent.

Like I said...raise your kids how you want, helmets and seatbelts optional (but please don't come into the hospital with a TBI on the taxpayer dime), but if you choose to affect my life with your decision, then I want you slapped hard. Or preferably make the penalty so harsh you just don't do it to begin with.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

InvalidID said:


> Swing and a miss. We don't need new anti-texting laws, it's already illegal to drive distracted.


What is the definition of driving distracted? I'm wondering if the definition is too broad. 

I know that this will sound silly but a lot of people don't know that texting while driving is one example of driving distracted. Telling them that it is illegal to text (a la a new law), causes them to think twice. NY has had laws on the books for awhile to combat texting while driving and talking on the phone while driving.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Jokarva said:


> *Enforcing the existing laws would take a trooper for every 10 cars on the road, then everyone would be screaming about govt spending*. Or maybe a highway camera...I can imagine how that would go over :grin:. I see people texting behind the wheel everyday (worse when we were back in VA), existing laws/fines are not a deterrent.
> 
> Like I said...raise your kids how you want, helmets and seatbelts optional (but please don't come into the hospital with a TBI on the taxpayer dime), but if you choose to affect my life with your decision, then I want you slapped hard. Or preferably make the penalty so harsh you just don't do it to begin with.


 Then how is another law the answer? Would this not increase the work load on troopers?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

"The comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition.

Where once you had the freedom to think and speak as you saw fit you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Some are more responsible than others to be certain. But if you are looking for the guilty, you need only look in the mirror. I know why you did it, I know you were afraid, who wouldn't be? War, terror, crime, recession, poverty, drugs, etc. Fear got the better of you and in your panic you turned to government. They promised you order, they promised you peace and all they demanded in return was your silent obedient consent." -V


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

When man starts looking at man to take care of him he becomes a slave to him. Our rights are given to us by God, but we're handing them over to man. That creates slaves because if man gives us our rights, he can take them away. Most people don't see the long term implications of giving up so much power to the government. It's sad and dangerous.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

By 2014 the Mars company is going to stop selling snacks that are over 250 calories per serving. The candy bars will be one serving at 250 calories or less. The company claims they're doing this to keep from contributing to an overweight population. Really? Ha, so I assume we can expect a price reduction to go along with that? But it's for your own good since you can't be held responsible for making your own decisions. Gee, thanks big corporate systems that are here to take care of me and make my decisions for me. Whatever would I do without your caring and guidance?

The herding concept continues. The humans will be gradually absorbed into the artificial lifestyle that is easily controlled with the one mind interface.


----------



## Ruby (May 10, 2002)

It will eventually get to the point if we don't feed our children what the gov. wants, or smoke around them they will take them from the parents and raise them the way the gov. wants. That's sounds so much like communist to me. But it's comming.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

It is very interesting that the number of people who approve the "nanny state" concept, and the number of people who live off of the "nanny state" are very similar.

So why not take the right to vote away from the people who do not contribute to the operation of the government (by paying taxes). Free ride = NO vote.

In a couple of generations, perhaps three; we could have a working class again.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Since most voting is computerized I have zero reason to think my vote is accurately recorded and counted.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

soulsurvivor said:


> Since most voting is computerized I have zero reason to think my vote is accurately recorded and counted.


....at best...


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

For those of you new to the corruption of our freedoms, the 'nanny state' problem, the erosion of free society, etc..
Call this phone number and listen to the radio show. This is a 24 hour 'listen line'. It is a 3 hour show that begins new 11 AM -2PM, texas time and replays for 24 hours, then starts the new show. This guy is the only radio talk show host I have ever heard that GETS IT, so to speak. He is like us.
He tells the truth about what is going on in the government, both big and local. 
He makes people like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh look like a joke. He is not 'party biased'. He simply tells it like it is, and leaves you free to make your own choice.

Give it an hour of your time, and be disgusted at what you hear. Then be scared for your family, then DO SOMETHING.

512-646-5000


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

bourbonred said:


> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
> February 17, 177


I think every high school student should know this quote, and what it means...

We abolished slavery almost a hundred and fifty years ago.... we're slowly reinstituting it, luring more weak minded individuals into the shackles of dependency.

Don't know about ya'll.... but I learn my best lessons when I fail. Be dam/aged if I learn anything if there aren't any consequences (or actually rewards) to failure.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

I don't know what to tell you, Angie. Peoples ongoing acceptance of this type of thing is baffling. The death of Personal Responsibility within our society has been steadily progressing for some time now.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

Here in Michigan we're instituting a "Super DUI" law for people that are over .17 intoxicated. I guess a regular DUI isn't good enough.


----------



## GammyAnnie (Jun 2, 2011)

I am less concerned with texting while driving laws and laws that forbid you to smoke in the car with your kids than I am with the horrific laws the "possible" GOP would like to pass regarding contraception for women!!

My younger daughters have the RIGHT to contraception, be it the pill, condoms or an IUD and the GOP has NO right to take that away from them! 

Annie


----------



## Hazmat54 (Aug 10, 2010)

Great topic Angie. There was some topic a while back about government doing something for the health of the people. I posted that the first time I had heard the term "health Nazi" was when they banned smoking on airliners. Wow! The anti-smoking zealots here on HT dumped on me. I have never smoked. I was merely saying that the smoking ban on airplanes was the first time I remembered the government banning something for health reasons.

So, yeah. This place is loaded with people who want the government to control people's lives.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/




> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, *that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. *â That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â.......


I had to go find The Declaration of Independence to make sure I had the words correct.

That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

The Pursuit of happiness does not guarantee anyone Happiness only the right to go after it, not get it at the expense of others or take it from others or wait for it to be given to you.

To the comment about the contraceptives - if they can be bought, no one is being blocked from having them. But no one needs to provide them for another, either. So - I do not know what this GOP taking away contraceptive is being referred to. Unless they outlaw contraceptives, nothing has been taken away - just maybe not provided. 

And in this forum, of SUVIVAL and EMERGENCY PREP, if these provided items are not provided, how on earth are any of us that rely on them going to exist past that?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I already posted but did want to say that I do believe there are some laws that are needed. I guess it depends on each of us and what we think is important enough of an issue as to what we are willing to accept. The whole texting while driving, IMO, is as bad as driving under the influence.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

For the record, banks, insurance companies and municipal governments all have the same basic principle, behind the scenes. Dealing with any of the above, et al, waives a grand portion of, if not all of one's "inalienable rights".

A contract is an opportunity to write your own law. The courts will uphold the law you have agreed to, as per the absolute right to contract clause in the US Constitution.
Mostly, other, wiser and usually far more deviant entities actually write the contracts, and the unwitting sign them and are thereafter enslaved up to the moment the contract(s) can be lawfully terminated.

Cain has done a fantastic job creating a world based on the illusion of security.
This appears to be his best effort yet, though all such illusions grow more vulnerable as time goes along, and none have yet withstood the inevitable laws of physics.

The correction will be holocaust, at best.


----------



## Jonaspear (Oct 13, 2006)

Some interesting comments here. I am all for freedom to choose but many people want it both ways. They want to choose what to do and have others be liable for their decisions. For example if you choose to smoke, great - knock yourself out. But don't complain when your health insurance premiums skyrocket or you are turned down for insurance. Why should people who don't smoke pay more for your decision? There are a lot of hypocrites out there, they want it all and want someone else to pay for it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

soulsurvivor said:


> By 2014 the Mars company is going to stop selling snacks that are over 250 calories per serving. The candy bars will be one serving at 250 calories or less. The company claims they're doing this to keep from contributing to an overweight population. .


really? So I guess those that want their chocolate fix will just buy 2 now.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

GammyAnnie said:


> I am less concerned with texting while driving laws and laws that forbid you to smoke in the car with your kids than I am with the horrific laws the "possible" GOP would like to pass regarding contraception for women!!
> 
> My younger daughters have the RIGHT to contraception, be it the pill, condoms or an IUD and the GOP has NO right to take that away from them!
> 
> Annie


:goodjob:


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Hazmat54 said:


> Great topic Angie. There was some topic a while back about government doing something for the health of the people. I posted that the first time I had heard the term "health Nazi" was when they banned smoking on airliners. Wow! The anti-smoking zealots here on HT dumped on me. I have never smoked. I was merely saying that the smoking ban on airplanes was the first time I remembered the government banning something for health reasons.
> 
> So, yeah. This place is loaded with people who want the government to control people's lives.


Sometimes one person's rights infringe upon the rights of another. Like you, I don't smoke and never have. If smoking were allowed on planes, I'd never be able to fly anywhere because it triggers migraines, coughing stuffy nose, etc.... If I were in a car with a smoker, there are some folks that would say that a window should be opened. Unfortunately, a window doesn't whisk all of the smoke out and at 20,000 feet, the windows don't open.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Jonaspear said:


> Some interesting comments here. I am all for freedom to choose but many people want it both ways. They want to choose what to do and have others be liable for their decisions. For example if you choose to smoke, great - knock yourself out. But don't complain when your health insurance premiums skyrocket or you are turned down for insurance. Why should people who don't smoke pay more for your decision? There are a lot of hypocrites out there, they want it all and want someone else to pay for it.


:goodjob:


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Sonshine said:


> I already posted but did want to say that I do believe there are some laws that are needed. I guess it depends on each of us and what we think is important enough of an issue as to what we are willing to accept. The whole texting while driving, IMO, is as bad as driving under the influence.


I agree! Many of the people killed are underage drivers and a carload of friends. Such a tragic loss...


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Yep, about 50%....

Angie, worry not. The system will collapse under the weight of the big stinking pile. The name of which is referred today as "law".


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I believe in social services to aid those in need and safety nets for those who work and pay into them. However I despise the casual way in which they are administered. All the regulations needed are already in place to ensure that those who need the services can get them and those who would use fraud to take what they do not deserve are caught and prosecuted. Nothing is enforced.

Many people talk incessantly about independence and self sufficiency but there are very, very few who are actually doing this even as they demand others do it - able to fully fund themselves for retirement, disablilty, unemployment, medical, maternity etc. etc. We can fund ourselves for 2 years if unemployment hit us and we can fund ourselves for 5 years retirement. By the time we retire we will be able to do 7 or 8 years. After that we will be fully dependent on government pension plans or we will find an iceberg to float off on.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

This is nothing new and some concerned now were probably applauding if not pushing for some in the past. ie A business's right to decide if it was a smoking or non smoking establishment. Everyone had the right to decide whether to go to that establishment or not. I will bet a lot of folks regreting loss of freedoms said "About time, I hate that cigarette smoke" Most people arre quite all right with takeing someone else's rights away.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

PS I am not a smoker


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Thermionic said:


> :good job:


No one is trying to take any ones Birth control. You do yourself and others a great disservice by repeating this misinformation.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

GammyAnnie said:


> My younger daughters have the RIGHT to contraception, be it the pill, condoms or an IUD and the GOP has NO right to take that away from them!
> 
> Annie


No GOP candidate is advocating outlawing Birth Control -- where are you getting this from?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

The problem with the smoking example is that the person smoking is infringing on the non-smoker -- so whose "rights" are more important?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

edcopp said:


> ......So why not take the right to vote away from the people who do not contribute to the operation of the government (by paying taxes). Free ride = NO vote.
> 
> In a couple of generations, perhaps three; we could have a working class again.


This would exclude disabled veterans from voting, is that what you want?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> This would exclude disabled veterans from voting, is that what you want?


 I'm sure there would be exceptions to his rule. Same with Police and Firefighters and such injured in the line of duty. Not that I support the idea mind you. I'm on the fence.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

I was emailed this by a friend today. Seems appropriate for this thread.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I was emailed this by a friend today. Seems appropriate for this thread.
> 
> If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
> ...


I'm not a liberal, but disagree with this whole list. I have liberal friends that are hard workers and believes in live and let live. In fact, many of the liberals in HT I consider friends and know they don't agree with this list.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Liberal or conservative, the character referenced certainly has grown pervasive these last few years.....


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Forerunner said:


> Liberal or conservative, the character referenced certainly has grown pervasive these last few years.....


Indeed


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

GammyAnnie said:


> I am less concerned with texting while driving laws and laws that forbid you to smoke in the car with your kids than I am with the horrific laws the "possible" GOP would like to pass regarding contraception for women!!
> 
> My younger daughters have the RIGHT to contraception, be it the pill, condoms or an IUD and the GOP has NO right to take that away from them!
> 
> Annie


Wow, you are completely uninformed on what you are speaking about. You are obviously one of those folks that believe the garbage your spoon fed by the so called media. I love how Obama forcing religious entities into paying for their employees contraception is turned into "the horrific laws the "possible" GOP would like to pass regarding contraception for women!!" by sheeple like you. The whole GOP thrust is to stop Obama from demanding religious organizations pay for it. I have worked at many places where the insurance did not pay for it. I have worked at places where they didn't even offer insurance, are they evil too for not offering it?


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

TheMartianChick said:


> Sometimes one person's rights infringe upon the rights of another. Like you, I don't smoke and never have. If smoking were allowed on planes, I'd never be able to fly anywhere because it triggers migraines, coughing stuffy nose, etc.... If I were in a car with a smoker, there are some folks that would say that a window should be opened. Unfortunately, a window doesn't whisk all of the smoke out and at 20,000 feet, the windows don't open.


I agree with you for the example you posted, but here is where it goes astray. The banned the smoking in airplanes. Then they banned the smoking in public places like courthouses and police stations. Then it went astray, they expanded the term "public place" to include privately owned businesses that should be able to decide for themselves if they allow smoking. Perspective employees and customers can then decide if the want to eat/work there. Instead, the government has taken that choice away with the ever-powerful "Public Health" phrase. Now, lets see the logical progression: the government says the eatery can't serve trans-fats, they cant serve salt, they can't serve soda---all in the name of "Public Health". They never stop, they always feel they can decide what is best for you because your a moron. Did I mention that they are supposed to be working FOR us not AGAINST us?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I consider myself liberal. my notes added.


lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I was emailed this by a friend today. Seems appropriate for this thread.
> 
> If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. *Not this one, but then I don't dislike guns*
> ...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

edjewcollins said:


> I agree with you for the example you posted, but here is where it goes astray. The banned the smoking in airplanes. Then they banned the smoking in public places like courthouses and police stations. Then it went astray, they expanded the term "public place" to include privately owned businesses that should be able to decide for themselves if they allow smoking. Perspective employees and customers can then decide if the want to eat/work there. Instead, the government has taken that choice away with the ever-powerful "Public Health" phrase. Now, lets see the logical progression: the government says the eatery can't serve trans-fats, they cant serve salt, they can't serve soda---all in the name of "Public Health". They never stop, they always feel they can decide what is best for you because your a moron. Did I mention that they are supposed to be working FOR us not AGAINST us?


You can still smoke, you just can not inflict it on anyone else. Some people really need the jobs and would have to breathe that smoke. You still can inflict it on yourself.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You can still smoke, you just can not inflict it on anyone else. Some people really need the jobs and would have to breathe that smoke. You still can inflict it on yourself.


 What if I own the bar and I want to allow smoking? It's private property, it's a private company. If I tell the people I intend to hire before hand that I allow smoking in my bar then they would have the option of not working there. Right?

So when is it stepping on my rights to defend your rights? Do you have a right to go to someones property and demand they don't smoke because you have a right to fresh air? Or do I have the right to smoke in my own building?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> What if I own the bar and I want to allow smoking? It's private property, it's a private company. If I tell the people I intend to hire before hand that I allow smoking in my bar then they would have the option of not working there. Right?
> 
> So when is it stepping on my rights to defend your rights? Do you have a right to go to someones property and demand they don't smoke because you have a right to fresh air? Or do I have the right to smoke in my own building?


Okay. Lets say you own a mine and you tell everyone that sorry I am not going to provide fresh air. You don't have to take the job so I am not causing anyone's death or illness. I guess we would be trampling on your rights by passing a law that would keep these employees safe.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Let's take it one step further. I want to speed and weave my car all over the road. I want to drive at night with no lights. I don't care if I hit and kill or injure someone. Your laws infringe on my rights.

How about this. I am going to shoot my gun at that bird in your yard because it might fly over and poop on my car. So what if I hit your kids in the yard. You are infringing on my rights.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

One step toward forced compliance in any direction always leads to an eventual stampede.
Invalid has it right...so far as true rights vs. responsibilities go.....declare your position and let the buyer/worker decide whether or not they choose to do business with you.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Okay. Lets say you own a mine and you tell everyone that sorry I am not going to provide fresh air. You don't have to take the job so I am not causing anyone's death or illness. I guess we would be trampling on your rights by passing a law that would keep these employees safe.


 Not providing air and smoking aren't the same at all. Do you sit at home and not breath?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Let's take it one step further. I want to speed and weave my car all over the road. I want to drive at night with no lights. I don't care if I hit and kill or injure someone. Your laws infringe on my rights.
> 
> How about this. I am going to shoot my gun at that bird in your yard because it might fly over and poop on my car. So what if I hit your kids in the yard. You are infringing on my rights.


Simple and long-standing solution.
Force the negligent and the malicious to pay for the damage they inflict.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Let's take it one step further. I want to speed and weave my car all over the road. I want to drive at night with no lights. I don't care if I hit and kill or injure someone. Your laws infringe on my rights.
> 
> How about this. I am going to shoot my gun at that bird in your yard because it might fly over and poop on my car. So what if I hit your kids in the yard. You are infringing on my rights.


Reductio ad absurdum


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> Not providing air and smoking aren't the same at all. Do you sit at home and not breath?


Read again. FRESH AIR!!


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Read again. FRESH AIR!!


 Ok, do you sit at home and pump mine tailing through your living room?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> Reductio ad absurdum


Right back at you.


----------



## Sweetsong (Dec 4, 2010)

GammyAnnie said:


> I am less concerned with texting while driving laws and laws that forbid you to smoke in the car with your kids than I am with the horrific laws the "possible" GOP would like to pass regarding contraception for women!!
> 
> My younger daughters have the RIGHT to contraception, be it the pill, condoms or an IUD and the GOP has NO right to take that away from them!
> 
> Annie


The GOP is not going to take away any of the rights to contraception. What makes you think they will? As long as your doctor gives the prescription I doubt anyone will argue. 

I, on the other hand, have a problem with the Democrats/Liberals telling me I HAVE to pay for the healthcare of others with MY taxes. I don't want to be told what to eat, what to drive, what to think, what to read, where to live and what to believe religion-wise.

There is more chance of the latter happening than the former.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> Ok, do you sit at home and pump mine tailing through your living room?


This has nothing to do with my living room. It has to do with the workplace and your right to hurt others who need a job.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Forerunner said:


> Simple and long-standing solution.
> Force the negligent and the malicious to pay for the damage they inflict.


 But then people couldn't force their will on you before you caused damage.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> This has nothing to do with my living room. It has to do with the workplace and your right to hurt others who need a job.


 Just because you need a job doesn't mean I have to hire you. What's to say I don't only hire other smokers?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> Just because you need a job doesn't mean I have to hire you. What's to say I don't only hire other smokers?


I don't even know what else to say. The mindset that you have that it is all right to not protect the people working for you from hazards, so that you can enjoy poisoning yourself is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I don't even know what else to say. The mindset that you have that it is all right to not protect the people working for you from hazards, so that you can enjoy poisoning yourself is beyond my comprehension.


 I understand your confusion. Your mindset that it's ok to infringe on my rights and tell me not to smoke on my own property is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps if I provided respirators for the non-smoking employees?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> I understand your confusion. Your mindset that it's ok to infringe on my rights and tell me not to smoke on my own property is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps if I provided respirators for the non-smoking employees?


So is it only smoking or does anything go? Toxic chemical pools to walk through or breath in? Pools of water and bad wiring connections.

Do the slow killers not matter, just the quick ones?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> So is it only smoking or does anything go? Toxic chemical pools to walk through or breath in? Pools of water and bad wiring connections.
> 
> Do the slow killers not matter, just the quick ones?


 You tell me, you're the one that wants to make the rules.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> You tell me, you're the one that wants to make the rules.


You just said that I should not be able to make rules that infringe on your rights on your private property. You have all ready decided that I should not be telling you.

I just want to know where you draw the line on hurting others.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You just said that I should not be able to make rules that infringe on your rights on your private property. You have all ready decided that I should not be telling you.
> 
> I just want to know where you draw the line on hurting others.


 I see, so you are confusing building codes with personal rights. 

I believe you should have building codes for commercial buildings but not for private dwellings. This would eliminate your open electric wires. Toxic pools of chemicals, you mean like in a dishwasher? What? What kind of pools of water? Like a swimming pool or a puddle?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

No business owner owes anyone a job that does not want to work in the conditions of the business. It is not a business owner's responsibility for your (the general you) job regardless of how much you need it.

You don't have to work where there is smoking, if you don't like it. Just do not go there and apply.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

AngieM2 said:


> No business owner owes anyone a job that does not want to work in the conditions of the business. It is not a business owner's responsibility for your (the general you) job regardless of how much you need it.
> 
> You don't have to work where there is smoking, if you don't like it. Just do not go there and apply.


:cowboy:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> I see, so you are confusing building codes with personal rights.
> 
> I believe you should have building codes for commercial buildings but not for private dwellings. This would eliminate your open electric wires. Toxic pools of chemicals, you mean like in a dishwasher? What? What kind of pools of water? Like a swimming pool or a puddle?


What about health and safety regulations?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> :cowboy:


quoted wrong post.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> What about health and safety regulations?


 Depends, I've seen some pretty stupid regs. You know that you have to wash the floor in a commercial kitchen once an hour per health regs, but you can't have employees on a wet floor per OSHA. So I'm suppose to shut down my kitchen for 30 minutes of every hour huh?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> No business owner owes anyone a job that does not want to work in the conditions of the business. It is not a business owner's responsibility for your (the general you) job regardless of how much you need it.
> 
> You don't have to work where there is smoking, if you don't like it. Just do not go there and apply.


Well I am very glad that the majority of the people in the US do not agree with you. We would have no health and safety regulations.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Well I am very glad that the majority of the people in the US do not agree with you. We would have no health and safety regulations.


 Give it time, the pendulum swings both ways.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Well, I see that the ones that believe in more laws have found this thread. It's a shame my point is being made so strongly.

Because if something happens and they cannot run around trying to control the world and wrap everyone in cotton batting of total safety, they will perish as the group will have no strength to fight the germs, the slightly off air, the riding in a heap without a seat belt or any other thing.

The example of trying to compare a smoking business that is labeled as such, so no one would enter by accident - would not harm anyone but those that wanted the environment is not a mine where someone chooses to work. To compare the two, it's just trying the overkill examples to make people feel badly when the two are not close to being the same. 

The ones that believe in freedom and taking care of themselves will surely last longer than those that think the government should be controlling everything.

But as I said, read this thread, and see what I meant in my original post. It's evident.


And I do believe in LOCAL laws, and that most of them being voted on, but not just a decree.

We are becoming a nation of sissies and overly concerned with other people's business; if bad things come here I am wondering how we can possibly survive.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Well I am very glad that the majority of the people in the US do not agree with you. We would have no health and safety regulations.


And I hope all your wishes for control come to your life to satisfy your hopes and outlook.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

AngieM2 said:


> We are becoming a nation of sissies and overly concerned with other people's business; if bad things come here I am wondering how we can possibly survive.


 A thousand times this.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I've read this thread over and over . I think someone said its been going on for 3 generations. I think it was Laura...??? She is waaayyy right. The public has been trained to think instead of thinking for themselves. If you are trained and don't know it you are nothing more than a lap dog... No offense to dog lovers! Look at all the alphabet (sp) agencies we have looking out for our best interest.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Well, I see that the ones that believe in more laws have found this thread. It's a shame my point is being made so strongly.
> 
> Because if something happens and they cannot run around trying to control the world and wrap everyone in cotton batting of total safety, they will perish as the group will have no strength to fight the germs, the slightly off air, the riding in a heap without a seat belt or any other thing.
> 
> ...


I disagree. I don't believe in more laws. I bet I will and do fight germs way better than you. I believe in the right laws, the right regulations that ensure that others can not hurt me while they are hurting themselves. It is my business if your business is hurting others.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I disagree. I don't believe in more laws.* I bet I will and do fight germs way better than you.* I believe in the right laws, the right regulations that ensure that others can not hurt me while they are hurting themselves. It is my business if your business is hurting others.


 A clearer picture emerges.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> A clearer picture emerges.


You can see that through all the smoke your breathing in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Well, I see that the ones that believe in more laws have found this thread. It's a shame my point is being made so strongly.
> 
> .



Did you want discussion or only those people that agree with you to post?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You can see that through all the smoke your breathing in.


It's amazing I can even function, I'm such a brutish neanderthal to think people should mind their own  business. How ever could I figure out that a person that wants to control the actions of those around them is afriad of life and all the scary things in it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

InvalidID said:


> It's amazing I can even function, I'm such a brutish neanderthal to think people should mind their own  business. How ever could I figure out that a person that wants to control the actions of those around them is afriad of life and all the scary things in it?


That is right I am so scared of life. You have me pegged. I am surprised I even have the guts to express my opinion.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

This is a forum where I expected to have people who believe in taking care of themselves to be. For those that expect the government to do this for them I do not understand how that applies to survival and emergency prep.

I was making a point about the current abundance of "homesteaders" or "homestead want to be's" that seem to want to rely on the government to make rules so someone cannot mess with them, and that's fine until the new rules apply to them then they are shocked.

I expected to see people who would have enough sense not to go into a smoking bar, or apply for a job there if they don't like smoking. I expected to see people who would think the government agent (be it a school teacher or other) telling a child that their good lunch was not good, and give them the Gad' awful overly processed, colored, pressed, and fried "chicken" nuggets instead. Great nanny state. Soon people who teach their children to THINK for themselves will have Social Services come to take them away cause they are thinking wrong and it's harmful.

The balance of government laws and the people having responsibility to not be dumb or if dumb bear the consequences - up to death, is out of balance.

And this welcoming of government telling everyone what to do is NOT survival and definitely not emergency prep (remember Katrina and how good government worked for those there).


----------



## Harmless Drudge (Mar 9, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> Ladies and Gents -
> 
> I'm getting more and more troubled as I read the Facebook the posts in other sections of HT about how many approve of several of the laws and proposed laws are being made/passed to have the "state" tell everyone how to live, etc.
> 
> ...


A broader issue is the fact that the law is no longer intended to be applied to all to constrain people from infringing on others' rights under natural law; it is instead held in reserve to be used when there is a need to "get you" for something. 

Think about it: if they enforced every law on the books, every last one of us would be in prison right now. That is the entire purpose of the new philosophy of law, that once you are deemed to be a nuisance, they can have plenty of arrows in their quiver to "take you down." Anyone in a position of authority can, at their discretion, impel you through enforcement, coercion, incarceration, public humiliation, and threats. The process IS the punishment, and when you stand up and fight, they get nasty.

I have only recently learned enough about the law to fight back. Sadly, this was only after I was taken advantage of in civil courts, financially assaulted by the IRS, and repeatedly harassed by the police.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That is right I am so scared of life. You have me pegged. I am surprised I even have the guts to express my opinion.


 Well, you're afraid that I'm going to hurt you with my smoke and too much chemical in the dishwasher. I can't think of another reason you'd want me not to smoke in my own building.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> This is a forum where I expected to have people who believe in taking care of themselves to be. For those that expect the government to do this forum them I do not understand how that applies to survival and emergency prep.
> 
> I was making a point about the current abundance of "homesteaders" or "homestead want to be's" that seem to want to rely on the government to make rules so someone cannot mess with them, and that's fine until the new rules apply to them then they are shocked.
> 
> ...



How does taking care of yourself and the homesteading life preclude worrying and caring about the working and living conditions of those we live with and love? Having a different opinion from you on what laws I believe are good or bad does not make me dumb, though you seem to be implying it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Let's take it one step further. I want to speed and weave my car all over the road. I want to drive at night with no lights. I don't care if I hit and kill or injure someone. Your laws infringe on my rights.
> 
> How about this. I am going to shoot my gun at that bird in your yard because it might fly over and poop on my car. So what if I hit your kids in the yard. You are infringing on my rights.


Just because you "want" something doesn't mean you have a right to it.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Just because you "want" something doesn't mean you have a right to it.


 Not to mention, in her post she wants to do dangerous things in a public space. When you are in public the public has an interest in SOME of your actions.

When in a private space however....


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Good thing I got the results of my yearly health check up today.!.! lol... My grand dad born in 1909 has long past . He told me this" You can't take care of all the little birds in all the nest in all the trees in the woods" Common sense has to figure in somewhere. This is S&EP......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Just because you "want" something doesn't mean you have a right to it.


The same thing goes for you.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Harmless Drudge said:


> A broader issue is the fact that the law is no longer intended to be applied to all to constrain people from infringing on others' rights under natural law; it is instead held in reserve to be used when there is a need to "get you" for something.
> 
> Think about it: if they enforced every law on the books, every last one of us would be in prison right now. That is the entire purpose of the new philosophy of law, that once you are deemed to be a nuisance, they can have plenty of arrows in their quiver to "take you down." Anyone in a position of authority can, at their discretion, impel you through enforcement, coercion, incarceration, public humiliation, and threats. The process IS the punishment, and when you stand up and fight, they get nasty.
> 
> I have only recently learned enough about the law to fight back. Sadly, this was only after I was taken advantage of in civil courts, financially assaulted by the IRS, and repeatedly harassed by the police.


I agree with you. Sorta like them doing a new law against txting rather than use the "distraction" law. next it will be cell phones - now think back to cb radio's and taxi radio's and ham radio's in the cars and on the highways - it's just amazing there were not then laws against them, but those laws are coming. 

Someone made a comment on this thread about not enough police to enforce the "distraction" laws - more laws will not make more police to enforce them, or maybe that's where the new jobs are going to be.

Makes one wonder


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think it all started with the best of intentions. A terrible thing happens, and people think and say out loud, "There should be a law....", so that it can never happen again. So a law gets passed, usually in a reactive way and with unintended consequences. Then another tragedy hits the news and, "There oughta be a law...." Lather, rinse, repeat, next thing you know, we get to the ridiculous level we are at today. The more "protectionist" laws, the more people get accustomed to someone else doing their thinking for them. Until the straightjacket gets really tightened down, I guess it is warm and comfortable. 

And, people can be so blinded by their personal prejudices, such as against smoking, they don't look at the bigger picture. Can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> I think it all started with the best of intentions. A terrible thing happens, and people think and say out loud, "There should be a law....", so that it can never happen again. So a law gets passed, usually in a reactive way and with unintended consequences. Then another tragedy hits the news and, "There oughta be a law...." Lather, rinse, repeat, next thing you know, we get to the ridiculous level we are at today. The more "protectionist" laws, the more people get accustomed to someone else doing their thinking for them. Until the straightjacket gets really tightened down, I guess it is warm and comfortable.
> 
> And, people can be so blinded by their personal prejudices, such as against smoking, they don't look at the bigger picture. Can't see the forest for the trees.


Amen.
Frog in pot.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> I think it all started with the best of intentions. A terrible thing happens, and people think and say out loud, "There should be a law....", so that it can never happen again. So a law gets passed, usually in a reactive way and with unintended consequences. Then another tragedy hits the news and, "There oughta be a law...." Lather, rinse, repeat, next thing you know, we get to the ridiculous level we are at today. The more "protectionist" laws, the more people get accustomed to someone else doing their thinking for them. Until the straightjacket gets really tightened down, I guess it is warm and comfortable.
> 
> And, people can be so blinded by their personal prejudices, such as against smoking, they don't look at the bigger picture. Can't see the forest for the trees.





Laura Zone 5 said:


> Amen.
> Frog in pot.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Medicare, Social Security Funds Expiring Sooner, U.S. Says

While Medicare won&#8217;t have sufficient funds to pay full benefits starting in 2024, five years earlier than last year&#8217;s estimate, Social Security&#8217;s cash to pay full benefits runs short in 2036, a year sooner than the 2010 projection, the U.S. government said today in an annual report.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-security-funds-expiring-sooner-u-s-says.html






With stories like this becoming more common... Cigarettes are obviously the real culprit in human suffering.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> Medicare, Social Security Funds Expiring Sooner, U.S. Says
> 
> While Medicare wonât have sufficient funds to pay full benefits starting in 2024, five years earlier than last yearâs estimate, Social Securityâs cash to pay full benefits runs short in 2036, a year sooner than the 2010 projection, the U.S. government said today in an annual report.
> 
> ...


You are comparing no street lights with lung cancer and higher medical costs for everyone. Yes we are on the road to ruin.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

InvalidID said:


> How ever could I figure out that a person that wants to control the actions of those around them is afriad of life and all the scary things in it?


InvalidID, there is a lot of wisdom in your statement.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Okay. Lets say you own a mine and you tell everyone that sorry I am not going to provide fresh air. You don't have to take the job so I am not causing anyone's death or illness. I guess we would be trampling on your rights by passing a law that would keep these employees safe.


No, then you'd be an idiot for working there. That is no different than saying the government should make every restaraunt serve only food you like. A job is not a right BTW. Read the Constitution! Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is it! Not a job, not private businesses doing what you want. Your problem is that you have no faith in your fellow Americans and obviously think we're all idiots. What moron would work somewhere that they would suffocate to death? I believe people have free will. If it turns out that allowing smoking in my restaurant is a bad idea, I'll go out of business---problem solved.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

Sweetsong said:


> The GOP is not going to take away any of the rights to contraception. What makes you think they will? As long as your doctor gives the prescription I doubt anyone will argue.
> 
> I, on the other hand, have a problem with the Democrats/Liberals telling me I HAVE to pay for the healthcare of others with MY taxes. I don't want to be told what to eat, what to drive, what to think, what to read, where to live and what to believe religion-wise.
> 
> There is more chance of the latter happening than the former.


Exactly! For the uninformed, not meaning you Sweetsong, there are MANY forms of contraception available without a script, heard of a condom?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

edjewcollins said:


> No, then you'd be an idiot for working there. That is no different than saying the government should make every restaraunt serve only food you like. A job is not a right BTW. Read the Constitution! Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is it! Not a job, not private businesses doing what you want. Your problem is that you have no faith in your fellow Americans and obviously think we're all idiots. What moron would work somewhere that they would suffocate to death? I believe people have free will. If it turns out that allowing smoking in my restaurant is a bad idea, I'll go out of business---problem solved.


History has already proven you wrong. People through out history have taken dangerous jobs, worked in deplorable conditions because they needed to survive. They were not idiots they were hungry. Every day through out the world people put their lives at risk travelling in ships cargo holds, crossing deserts on foot, paying human smugglers so they can get to a better job and life here in the US. They would gladly take those jobs you think no one but idiots would take.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You are comparing no street lights with lung cancer and higher medical costs for everyone. Yes we are on the road to ruin.


No I'm saying as the depression deepens... Your points become moot.

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/...Citys-Dilemma-Budget-Savings-or-Public-Safety


http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2012/02/bangor_could_disband_its_polic.html


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I don't even know what else to say. The mindset that you have that it is all right to not protect the people working for you from hazards, so that you can enjoy poisoning yourself is beyond my comprehension.


Have you seen Deadliest Catch? Crab fishing is the most dangerous job you can do and people do it willingly. If you fall in the water you die. If the boat sinks you die. Why do they do it? Because it pays really really well. What causes that? Is it the government? No, it is the free market. People know what they are getting in to. You used the mining industry as an example. Do you think the government made mining safer? They didn't, the miners striking and demanding better pay and conditions did. That is where the term ******* came from, striking miners were wearing red scarves around their face and neck. Everytime their is a mine accident we hear that the mine had a string of violations cited by government inspectors that the government had never forced the mine to fix. So, did the government protect the miners---no! What will protect them? The MANY lawsuits that will result from the negligence and the fat wad of money they'll lose! They will then figure out its cheaper in the long run to do things right.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I wish the soft-hearted and idealistic could live in the make believe world they'd like to create, and experience the desolate absence of forward motion that is rampant there....


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

I'll say this and then I'm out. People die and accidents happen. God and the Founders both had the same idea---free will not government regulation. Ultimately, it is my responsibility to protect my family as the father. If someone rapes my daughter I'll put a bullet in their brain. Other rapists will learn its a bad idea. If I get caught I'll go to jail. If someone leeches chemicals in to my well water I'll sue them. Other businesses will learn its a bad idea. If I eat lard and stroke out the people that knew I did it will know its a bad idea. 
It is all about choice and responsibility and consequences. The government regulated the financial industry and the mortgage industry, did it stop 2008 from happening? No, and then the same government used our money to save the very offenders that caused 2008. The government runs Social Security and Medicare both broke. The government is broke, incredibly innefficient and inept in everything it does. It has indebted our great grandkids with its reckless spending. You want more of their wisdom and control? If so, I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

Yes*,I see it all of the time-as I look around-aware of my surroundings.A mind is a terrible thing to lose. You will lose it,if you don't use it!


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Entire libraries have been written about governments. Entire economic systems have been developed around governments. Dissecting the various issues cannot be properly done in a few paragraphs. What can be exposed are a few core concepts, so that any thought on the subject can be compared and examined.

Government started out with a group of bullies realizing that they could make a good living protecting people from other bullies. Within each group of bullies, a natural leader emerged. At various times that person was called king, emperor, president, even god or god-king. While there have been attempts at checks and balances, that basic structure remains.

The wealth of a kingdom or nation can come from within - through taxation of various sorts, or from without - plunder from wars, acquisition of new territory, or lopsided trade and taxations on trade, which are generally known as tariffs.

The core function of any government IS government. It is NOT business, as has been glossed in the U.S. A government is as much a virtual person as any corporation. As a person, it has needs, and those needs must be met for it to survive. It also has wants. The ultimate want or desire of any government is to control everything absolutely, just as an individual wants to control everything about his own destiny.

The key factor that keeps governments under control is limited funds. A government struggling to cover the basics of a functional military and legal system is not particularly interested in regulating minutia.

Until the relatively recent introduction of income tax and general sales taxes, the U.S. government depended on sin taxes (for example the whiskey taxes) and tariffs on goods going in and out of the country and the sale of acquired lands.

A country that depends upon trade tariffs is logically going to support strong businesses that can export goods and bring back cash or other goods in return. Although the United States was (and is) seen as meddling in the affairs of other countries, the flow of goods and knowledge began to bring many countries out of a middle-ages existence. Within the U.S., workers reaped the benefits of companies needing lots of laborers to make the goods being traded. This is what created the "American dream", and is the feeling-state invoked when we think of "America" at its greatest.

Every mob, every gang, every bully knows that there are limits on just how far people can be pushed before they revolt. In the 1920s and 1930s, the U.S. was on the brink of revolution. Our history books downplay it, and the revisionists would love to claim it never happened, but the government realized that the industrialists had gone too far and that there needed to be a balancing before a full-fledged peasant revolution occurred.

The Homestead riots, the treatment of coal miners by the Dukes and others, and the utter callous nature of the railroad magnets towards workers were all leading to an increasingly strong organized labor movement at the same time that communism was being seen by many as a valid governmental system. Left unchecked, the excesses of the industrialists would have inevitably led to a complete change in government.

As much as many people hate Roosevelt (FDR), he saved the United States and actually made it stronger by absolutely brilliant actions. First, he recognized the immediate threats AND the threats that might occur in a few years. He started what we call the "nanny state" by introducing a patronizing government. He HAD to do that, because the industrialists had failed to see the threat and were so totally focused upon IMMEDIATE profit that they had begun to turn the general population towards communism and Marxism. Raw unfettered capitalism is ultimately self-destructive.

When examined against the alternatives, many of the programs FDR instituted prevented small fires of dissent from becoming huge conflagrations. Imagine the propaganda value if communists had been able to show the aged cast-offs of the factory systems dying of starvation after years and years of underpaid labor, and the government standing back and saying "tough luck." A few photographs of dying grandmother types, or arthritic old men dying in the street outside of a mansion would have built anger that could not have been stopped, just as it did in Russia.

The retire at 65 idea back then was like a retire at 85 concept today. Most people didn't live anywhere near that long. Life expectancy was in the late 40s for much of the population. Giving a light at the end of a tunnel that most people would die in was a cheap fix. Social security made total sense. Getting the current workers to fund the care of their grandparents was smart.

Taxation of the wealthiest with an income tax ALSO made sense from a propaganda point of view, and frankly did little or nothing to reduce their wealth or power. It DID give a feeling of balance to the poor that kept them willingly working instead of revolting.

The Civilian Conservation Corps and "New Deal" programs were perhaps the most inspired tools that FDR used. By turning government into a huge contractor, building dams and other massive structures and creating huge public parks, he wrested power from those who controlled the power (electrical and water power) which was vital to continued growth.

There were three different ways that this was so brilliant that my mind boggles. First, Roosevelt UNDERSTOOD that cheap energy was THE core to building the economy quickly. Had private power companies been able to monopolize or claim high costs in producing power, businesses would have been spending all their money on power and unable to compete effectively in the world market. The huge dams and TVA made the Dukes redundant. It sapped their political power and power to dictate, allowing further reforms. (Our core problems today stem from the lack of governmental control over the price of oil, which by continuing to rise faster than inflation is strangling economic recovery.)

Second, these projects took the able-bodied men who would be the leaders and soldiers in any anti-government riots, gave them a living wage and a trade, and took them OUT of the cities and into secluded camps that were under an almost military governance. The people who had the potential to create anti-government propaganda were turned into commissioned artists, creating public works. How amazingly smart was that?

Third, he understood that the U.S. would absolutely get dragged into WWII and fights with Germany and Japan, and by the ruse of the CCC camps, he created a group of men who knew civil engineering, were used to a military environment and discipline, and were effectively soldiers that needed no more training than how to work with the weapons of war. Further, he did so without Japan or Germany seeing those men as "soldiers", and he hid them under the covers from anti-war groups as well.

All of that was the start of the "nanny state." Like it or not, had any portion of it not been there, the U.S. would likely no longer exist today. It was that close in WWII.

There was a period after the war during Eisenhower's reign when government took a break and regrouped. The exit out of China, Japan, and Asia was rushed and underfunded. (We paid for that later in Vietnam and the poor relations with China) The shift of powers were focused on Europe and Russia and all funds were focused on that task.

Kennedy and Johnson had to deal with civil rights and the possibility of a different type of insurrection. Neither was as brilliant as FDR, but the nation got through it.

Only after all those threats were brought under some semblance of control, and funds began to free up, was government able to begin to expand into a true nanny-state.

How did that happen? Primarily through lobbying groups, the growing rebirth of guild merchants, and the growth of insurances. I'll go into that another time. The above is a lot for many people to digest at one sitting.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

You can see it in the UK, where the goverment cordinated every move of the populus during WW2. Looks like the goverment once they had their hooks into the people didn't let go. Even after the war was over.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> I wish the soft-hearted and idealistic could live in the make believe world they'd like to create, and experience the desolate absence of forward motion that is rampant there....


:clap::clap: Brilliant!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> :clap::clap: Brilliant!!


We live in the real world. We have experienced, we have prospered, we have failed. We just don't happen to have the same cynical view that some others do. Our experience shows us that we don't need to blame our ups and downs on others. 

Each day, week and year we move forward and sometimes sideways knowing that the world is better today then it was yesterday. We rejoice in the people that are trying to make the world better in their own small ways. We are happy the most of us know that we will get further as a group when we work together making things better for those that need it. We don't bunker down and wait for the ills of the world to get us. We move forward. 

I feel sorry for you if you think being soft-hearten is an negative instead of a something to strive for. Life has not beat me down it has lifted me up.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> We live in the real world. We have experienced, we have prospered, we have failed. We just don't happen to have the same cynical view that some others do. Our experience shows us that we don't need to blame our ups and downs on others.
> 
> Each day, week and year we move forward and sometimes sideways knowing that the world is better today then it was yesterday. We rejoice in the people that are trying to make the world better in their own small ways. We are happy the most of us know that we will get further as a group when we work together making things better for those that need it. We don't bunker down and wait for the ills of the world to get us. We move forward.
> 
> I feel sorry for you if you think being soft-hearten is an negative instead of a something to strive for. Life has not beat me down it has lifted me up.


Don't feel sorry for me........This world, this 'life', this place....is not my home. I am not attached to it, love it, or am comfortable in it. 
Some call it cynical, some call it realism, and some call it discernment...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Don't feel sorry for me........This world, this 'life', this place....is not my home. I am not attached to it, love it, or am comfortable in it.
> Some call it cynical, some call it realism, and some call it discernment...


It's a very sad thing.


----------



## Harmless Drudge (Mar 9, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> I wish the soft-hearted and idealistic could live in the make believe world they'd like to create, and experience the desolate absence of forward motion that is rampant there....


Entirely correct. In order to regulate, the government must first categorize everything. Every new idea that comes across is forced, for the purposes of regulation, into an existing category. If it doesn't fit in one, they slam it into one with a hammer, or they create a new category and ban everything in it.

In this way, by regulatory fiat, nothing new is ever created in a society that regulates everything.

Cases in point:

1) Transportation. Think about the explosion in transportation at the close of the 19th century through the middle of the 20th. The automobile. The airplane. The helicopter. It was an age first of invention-by-inspiration, and then invention-by necessity.

But look at the pace of innovation since the mid-20th century. It has slowed inversely with the rising number of laws and regulations. Ralph Nader and his book, _Unsafe at any Speed_, which blamed the Chevy Corvair, the most forward-thinking car of its day, with every malfeasance under the sun, spawned a plethora of state and federal laws, allegedly for our safety. What they really did was grind innovation to a halt, as auto manufacturers were unwilling to take risks with new technology, when the existing technology had already been deemed as safe. 

Consequently, we are still using the same basic modes of transportation (planes, trains, and automobiles) that have been around for more than a century.

2) Small arms.

The federal government decided to start regulating small arms in the 1930's, and really ramped up their gun control in the 1960's.

The AR-15 was adopted as the M-16 in the mid-'60's. The same gun with a carbine length barrel and gas tube is now the current issue M-4. That's _5 decades_ of the same design. Why?

*It's simple: the only way a manufacturer would ever risk researching and developing a new product is if they can sell it.* So why can't they?

The federal government will not allow civilians to have them, so there is no civilian market.

The federal government restricts which countries American manufacturers can sell to, to prevent them from having better toys than the US military.

The federal government has a history of being slow to adopt new technology. They hamstrung the M1 Garand, for example, by mandating that it use the .30-06 ammo they had already stockpiled, instead of the intermediate round it was designed around. They then required the M-14 (and all of our allies) to adopt a full-powered .308, setting ammo selection back 40 years.

So, no new innovations have been made in small arms since the aftermath of WWII.

The point is, regulation kills innovation. The damage from killing innovation is deadlier than certain peoples' alleged inability to think for themselves.

Stupid nanny state.


----------



## Harmless Drudge (Mar 9, 2010)

The biggest problem with the paternalist theory of government is that it is diametrically opposed not only to homesteading and self-sufficiency, but to the mission paragraph in our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence.

Our founding document, by which the United States, individually and collectively, came into being states clearly that securing for the individual his rights under natural law is the only reason for our collection of sovereign nation-states to exist. The rights specifically enumerated are Life, Liberty, and Property (T.J. expanded the description of property as the "Pursuit of Happiness"). These rights are cited as the reason why governments are instituted among men, and the right was reserved by the people, if the government acted to these rights, to alter or abolish that government.

The authoritarian/paternalist mindset is incompatible with this premise. It is also incompatible with the desire of people to be self-sufficient. In fact, the very reason why so few of us have felt the sting of the restrictions and abridgements on our freedoms that have already become law is because most of us live in the middle of nowhere. The government has an easier time and lower cost per person maintaining urbanites and suburbanites as subjects. They simply don't waste the time and money coming after us, because for the same effort, they can maintain, be it by constraint, threat, or bribe, several of their willing sheeple.

Sadly, we have now become the suspects of terror watch lists and suspicion by Big Brother. We are the last holdouts; the last of a dying breed who are fully-vested and self-aware "citizens," instead of malleable and morally-flexible "subjects." We know better. We are willing to live our lives and tell our servant-government to return to their Constitutionally-limited role. We, collectively and individually, are the final few who will remind our would-be rulers that we are the sovereign of this great nation, and that they work for us, at our pleasure.

So, no, I am not thrilled when the EPA fines a small rancher out of business because it decides that feeding hay to cattle by distributing the hay on _grassland_ pasture constitutes an "environmental hazard." Nor am I any less than flummoxed when that same EPA puts a small dairyman farmer out of business and into several lifetimes of debt because the possibility of spilled milk, in their minds, constitutes an "oil slick."

Here on my homestead, the state government wants to ban the methods by which I build soil, grow organically, neutralize acid pollution, and heat with zero carbon footprint. In their zeal to be seen doing something, they are threatening to destroy my environmentally-friendly lifestyle.

You see, I heat with wood. Wood is carbon-neutral because the same wood would release the same carbon dioxide as it rots as it would as it burns. the growing trees inhale that CO2 and turn it back into wood. That part is a wash. But it means that I don't need to burn oil or propane, so I'm preventing the mythical "global warming" that is all the rage these days. 

But they want to outlaw burning wood because it is less efficient than other fuels, completely missing the fact that propane and oil don't re-grow and take CO2 back out of the air. They also can't tax me for burning my own wood. In their desire to be seen "doing something," they are destroying my self-reliance without warrant.

Additionally, the same wood ash that is a by-product of burning is necessary to prevent the acidification of the soil. Acidification is the culprit that kills old-growth forests more than any other. The government won't allow forest fires or controlled burns, but then wonders why the forest cycle can not be short-circuited. Their regulation assumes that it can, by fiat, trump nature and dictate environmental conditions. Again, their misguided policies are seeking to prevent me from proper forest stewardship and land management.

In short, unless you do things their approved way, which requires petrochemicals, mined minerals, pesticides, fertilizers, and depleting the soil, they WILL be coming for you, sooner or later, at the state, federal, and/or municipal level. If you don't stand up now, you won't have the "legs" to stand on later. 

God Bless America


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Well now.

I doubt it's going to be said any better than that.
It will, however, be interesting to see the naysayers come in, tripping all over themselves trying to deny any of it.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't know who the new guy is, but welcome aboard brother. I look forward to many more posts form you.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Depends, I've seen some pretty stupid regs. You know that you have to wash the floor in a commercial kitchen once an hour per health regs, but you can't have employees on a wet floor per OSHA. So I'm suppose to shut down my kitchen for 30 minutes of every hour huh?


Really? So does the kitchen in every McDonalds and Burger King get shut down for every half hour on the hour? If that's true then you do indeed have some insane health regulations, I've never heard of anything so impractical. I've worked in many kinds of commercial and institutional kitchens and in all of them the regulation is that the floors be washed and sanitized once every 24 hours. The exception being if something gets spilled creating a hazard that has to be cleaned up by staff immediately. That still doesn't cause a half hour interruption in production, it only takes a few minutes to clean up and dry off an isolated spill.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> No business owner owes anyone a job that does not want to work in the conditions of the business. It is not a business owner's responsibility for your (the general you) job regardless of how much you need it.
> 
> You don't have to work where there is smoking, if you don't like it. Just do not go there and apply.


I think your premise is wrong. Smoking regulations aren't only set in place to protect people who object to breathing in 2nd hand cigarette smoke. It's more far reaching than just health issues and the intention is also to protect other things from toxic residues. 

I'm a smoker, I've been smoking for over 51 years and have worked in places (in the past) where smoking was permitted. And no, I don't intend to quit smoking but I also don't impose my smoking habits on other people or places outside of my own home or car. 

Having spent a lot of time cleaning off the filthy brown, greasy, toxic residue that cigarette smoke deposits on all surfaces - knowing that it gets on everything - I can tell you that I would not ever want to work in any place of business now where smoking is permitted. Nor would I knowingly be a paying customer of any business that permits smoking in that place of business, whether it is food products or other manufactured products. I sure wouldn't want to buy food products or health care products or a new computer or bolts of fabric that had cigarette smoke grease, fine ash particles and toxins on them.

.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Harmless Drudge said:


> The biggest problem with the paternalist theory of government is that it is diametrically opposed not only to homesteading and self-sufficiency, but to the mission paragraph in our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Our founding document, by which the United States, individually and collectively, came into being states clearly that securing for the individual his rights under natural law is the only reason for our collection of sovereign nation-states to exist. The rights specifically enumerated are Life, Liberty, and Property (T.J. expanded the description of property as the "Pursuit of Happiness"). These rights are cited as the reason why governments are instituted among men, and the right was reserved by the people, if the government acted to these rights, to alter or abolish that government.
> 
> ...


Quite eloquent. I am suitably impressed.

"The biggest problem with the paternalist theory of government is that it is diametrically opposed not only to homesteading and self-sufficiency, but to the mission paragraph in our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence."

While I like the sentiment, that is not in fact the case. The "mission statement" was to break from England in a manner that allowed other countries the ability to recognize the new confederation or country as "legitimate" among other countries.

The secondary theme, which we hold in such high regard is a simple statement of the purpose of government from an egalitarian point of view. I say egalitarian because the concept of royalty having power is an anathema to egalitarianism. In present day, we hold that to the highest standard. At the time "Men" (with a capital M) referred to males of legal age, of property, and thence the "right" to be part of the governing of the land.

As part and parcel to that, there were obviously issues with property rights. T.J. was astute in changing property to the pursuit of Happiness. Had property been mentioned, the rights of entailment could easily have been used against the new country, by English landowners claiming that the very declaration of independence from England had broken a concept that it held high.

I could probably find a better link, but this one will do.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Scout_mean_by_entailment_in_To_Kill_A_Mockingbird 

The core text:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Note that I previously stated that governments are the outgrowth of bullies protecting people from other bullies. Nothing in the preamble disputes that. It merely suggests that the people CONSENT as a group to the ministrations of the bullies in their behalf, and when the bullying works AGAINST those being protected, they have the "Right" to alter or abolish it. "Right" was a strange choice of word. There is no "Right" to uprising against a despot. Jesus said "Give unto Caesar..." Uprisings are a natural consequence to oppression. "Right" more logically refers back to the Magna Carta http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html and the concepts expressed there.

Note also: ...laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Declaration in essence says, "You messed with us. Here is how. We will now make our OWN government in whatever way makes us happy and safe." PERIOD.

Paternalist government is absolutely NOT diametrically opposed to the mission paragraph in our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence.

The concepts of "safety" and "General Welfare" leave the door wide open to paternalism in government. Blue laws existed from the very beginning in the various states.

The issues between Federalists and republicans (not the Republican party of today - a group that was different and more like today's democrats) reflected many of the personal determination issues we still struggle with.

Harmless Drudge, You appear to have a pretty solid grasp of the real issues. There is no need to attempt to warp history to fit them, as the two are compatible, just not in the way you express.

In the last paragraph of my previous post I gave a peek at the sources of the problems. I will expand on those in time.

For now - I do have a minor point of disagreement in the consistency of your statements. The government built the roads. The roads are not private property except for certain toll roads. Whoever "owns" a road gets to set the rules for using it. I would not expect to be allowed to drive a totally unsafe vehicle up the Mt. Mansfield Toll Road (private) without express permission. As the government "owns" the roads and allows their general use, the government gets to set the rules on anything above walking. I know that there are laws against walking on certain roads, but following common law, those laws are invalid. Property "rights" work both ways.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I think your premise is wrong. Smoking regulations aren't only set in place to protect people who object to breathing in 2nd hand cigarette smoke. It's more far reaching than just health issues and the intention is also to protect other things from toxic residues.
> 
> I'm a smoker, I've been smoking for over 51 years and have worked in places (in the past) where smoking was permitted. And no, I don't intend to quit smoking but I also don't impose my smoking habits on other people or places outside of my own home or car.
> 
> ...


 That's all fine and well, you've made a personal choice. But do we need the government to tell us we don't get a choice because someone wiser than us has made the choice for us?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> .... But do we need the government to tell us we don't get a choice because someone wiser than us has made the choice for us?


It would appear so.

.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> It would appear so.
> 
> .


 That's a real shame you feel that way. I don't know why you would think the government is better suited to think for you.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

LOL, You crack me up sometimes. :hysterical: 

What does any of that have to do with _me_? I didn't need anybody to give me a choice or to think for me about my consideration for society. 

Who is _we_ and _us_? 

I think you need to go back and read your question again - really examine what you asked about _we_ and _us_ versus somebody _wiser_.

You're discussing another dirty, destructive addiction that people indulge in even though they know better. Why doesn't their own wisdom and sense of societal consideration prevail over their entitled "me first" attitude? Should addicts also be entitled to drink and shoot up drugs on the job or public places too? Where do you draw the line on how much harm you think you should be entitled to inflict on society at large just so that you can continue to indulge your addiction to harm your _self_ ?

And think about this possibility. Right now you have a choice to keep your addiction private. There is the potential to lose even that privilege altogether by having somebody wiser make the decision to take it away entirely so there's none of it legally available to anyone anywhere. Which would you choose - keeping it legal or illegal?

.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

AngieM2 said:


> Well, I see that the ones that believe in more laws have found this thread. It's a shame my point is being made so strongly.
> 
> Because if something happens and they cannot run around trying to control the world and wrap everyone in cotton batting of total safety, they will perish as the group will have no strength to fight the germs, the slightly off air, the riding in a heap without a seat belt or any other thing.
> 
> ...


Okay, I quit reading at pg 4 and came back to this post.

I agree with you completley. But, I'd like to add to it.

While there is the rampant problem of those that wish to tell us what is best for us and legislate their laws for our own protection, wich is really for their own protection because obviously they are aware that they are to stupid to take care of themselves. There is another point to be made.

Those of us that obey these laws really need to think again about doing so.

I'll use smoking as an example since it has already been used in this thread. There are movements in progress and in place already in many places to ban smoking outside, in public. Some propsed to ban smoking in public parks locally last year. I cannot stop such ridiculousness. I did not try to. Instead, I told them fine, go ahead and pass your law. I'm going to smoke in the park anyway. What are you going to do about it? Call the police to give me a ticket? Doing so will only reduce the police available to monitor real crime. 

I do not abide by laws like these. As soon as everyone that thinks these laws are stupid, refused to abide by them, they will go away. The vast majority of them cannot be enforced if most people pay them no mind.

So yes, while we have become a "Nation of sissies", it's not just those that want these laws that are sissies, it is also those that live with them that are sissies.

And yes, I do advocate breaking these stupid laws.

I am not a lawfull person. Neither is anyone here. It is impossible to be lawfull. It's way past time to quit being sissies to the sissies.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I just one of those crazy people who firmly believes that I need to be responceable. I do not wish to be micromanaged to the point that I am so restricted that I can not take care of myself.

With out regs currently in place I could improve my financial lot in life. I could grow a garden. I could trim off the carrot tops, and sell the carrots. (that is currently forbidden)
I could buy my inhaler --oh wait it was removed from the sheleves I could make a peanut butter sandwich and pack it for my son to eat at a public school. yikes that's a no no. 

There is a point and I believe that we have reached where regs and laws are enslaving us to become mindless semi cookie cutter clones. I am not afraid. I accept that in the end no matter how safe I live, how many filters I wear, how tight my seat belt is or how balance my diet is I will die. I have a mind and I think. It is a waste of life not to think and explore. Limits being place upond us are reducing us to mere puppets. I want the strings cut.

Learn to limit yourself before you limit others. Do not apply to work in a strip club if you want to keep your clothes on. If you are concearned about raw milk--Do not drink or buy it. You do not like smoke do not date someone who does smoke or seek out places where it is allowed and complain. If you can not afford the (fill in the blank) do not buy it till you can. Big dogs scare you do not buy one -do not leave you house till you have a plan to avoid the risk of meeting one or lowing the risk to a level that you can deal with. Look I hate snakes I joke about that that is why I moved to Alaska. Thinking goes a long way.


----------



## kalamos23 (Feb 19, 2012)

Harry chickpea said:


> For now - I do have a minor point of disagreement in the consistency of your statements. The government built the roads. The roads are not private property except for certain toll roads. Whoever "owns" a road gets to set the rules for using it. I would not expect to be allowed to drive a totally unsafe vehicle up the Mt. Mansfield Toll Road (private) without express permission. As the government "owns" the roads and allows their general use, the government gets to set the rules on anything above walking. I know that there are laws against walking on certain roads, but following common law, those laws are invalid. Property "rights" work both ways.


I have to bring up the point that, by paying the federal and state taxes that we do, aren't we all then owners of the public roads?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> LOL, You crack me up sometimes. :hysterical:
> 
> What does any of that have to do with _me_? I didn't need anybody to give me a choice or to think for me about my consideration for society.
> 
> ...


 We don't let people drink on the job, or do drugs on the job because it impairs their ability to reason and function. I've never smoked a Marlboro and gotten high from it. Comparing the the two is absurd.

You think I want to 'inflict' my habit on the public but you're wrong. I want the public to not inflict it's PC on me. If I own a bar or a restaurant and I want to allow people to smoke in it, why can't I? That you think I'm inflicting something on you puts you in the entitlement crowd. I am not forcing you to breath my smoke as you have the option to drink or eat elsewhere. You feel you are entitled to come into my place of business and ban me from smoking in my own building. 

Would you feel that same sense of entitlement if you were in my house? How about if I were in my back yard and we were neighbors? Would you want me to put out my grill if I used charcoal instead of gas? Very smoky, bad for the lungs. What if we shared a wall in an apt building? Would you feel it's ok to tell me not to smoke in my own home because some of that smoke might find a crack and get to you?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Invalid, I didn't realize this topic was only about YOU and what YOU want, and not about ALL people. :smack I can't answer to any of your comments about what you want for yourself.

.


----------



## Joe Prepper (Jul 25, 2011)

Well, the sad truth is that we prove every day that many people are too ---- stupid or lazy to survive without a nanny.

When I was young we bailed hay during the summer for money. There was one guy that everyone knew was a little crazy(careless) and you had a decent chance of getting hurt if you worked at his place, but he paid well...very well. There were no signs saying a moron lived there. The locals knew the guy, us young men knew the risk, the police knew people limped outta there (at best) every year, and yet it still was not illegal to go work there. 

My family did not even forbid us to work there. When I said me and my cousin might sign up they just said "well good luck with that"... knowing we knew the risks. Use common friggin sense people. If you decide to do something with know consequences then deal with it. Stop asking someone else to watch over you and make sure other people are doing what they are suppose to. Stay away from people/places and things that you don't want to be around. If someone brings the danger to you or your home then handle it and tell your side of the story to the folks that come to see the mess.....if they do.

My grandfather told me once while showing me a horse "Boy, dont walk behind him when he's tied in this stall....he'll kick ya." I asked him could'nt he teach the horse not to kick and he said yeah he probly could, but figured it would just be easier to tell me not to walk behind him. Sometimes you can't, and should'nt control what others do. I want the choice to do what I want to do and so I want others to have that same choice. Why did I not see the life lessons at the time. Do people not reflect on these lessons they had to learn from others who survived harder times and apply them to life today? 

I'm so tired of reading crap about we need this law, and that law, and this isnt fair and thats not fair. Then everyone complaining the other political party has too much power that we gave them. We better hope we never have to build a nation again because after you take into account how many people everyone seems to want watching over every aspect of life......there is noone left to actually do the work.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

Naturelover, I love the way "you" deflect comments. "You" know full well what InvalidId means.


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 26, 2008)

Harry Chickpea said:


> Entire libraries have been written about governments. Entire economic systems have been developed around governments. Dissecting the various issues cannot be properly done in a few paragraphs. What can be exposed are a few core concepts, so that any thought on the subject can be compared and examined.
> 
> Government started out with a group of bullies realizing that they could make a good living protecting people from other bullies. Within each group of bullies, a natural leader emerged. At various times that person was called king, emperor, president, even god or god-king. While there have been attempts at checks and balances, that basic structure remains.
> 
> ...


Harry, excellent post. I knew the history, but never had seen it put together like that.

Angie, thanks for starting this thread. There have been some excellent posts like the one above (and others). It has also become clear that some people have a mindset that just won't be changed. I believe the usual statement is something like "you can't change a persons mind if their opinion is based on emotion (or belief), rather than logic and reason".

And for some of the silly posts about extreme behavior; Extreme behaviors tend to be self eliminating.....

SC


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Space Cowboy, I don't think the same way that most other people do. I don't mean that my opinions are different, but that my thinking process is different. That is likely why you never have seen those events put together the way that I did. As much as possible, I try to strip stuff back to the core issues and rebuild understanding from understanding the interactions of those. It is more complex than that, but that is the general idea.

In answer to kalamos23, yes we do own the roads, but we own them under the auspices of a group, which just happens to be the government. If you are a member of a gym, you don't get to modify the exercise equipment so the treadmill goes 100 mph. Group ownership means giving up individual rights.

Much of what is being discussed here was originally debated between Federalists and anti-Federalists around the 1790s when the concepts of "influence" and "disinterest" in government were hashed out. Findlay vs. Morris set a tone... I just realized that line of concept building would be way too long for here. In short, business and banks won out over populism and enlightened humanism in the bid to control government.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Invalid, I didn't realize this topic was only about YOU and what YOU want, and not about ALL people. :smack I can't answer to any of your comments about what you want for yourself.
> 
> .


 That's just below you Nature. I like you, and we often get along just fine but this is just... Well, below you. If you can't defend your position that's fine you can bail on the thread. But to act as if you don't understand generalization is shameful.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

edjewcollins said:


> Have you seen Deadliest Catch? Crab fishing is the most dangerous job you can do and people do it willingly. If you fall in the water you die. If the boat sinks you die. Why do they do it? Because it pays really really well. What causes that? Is it the government? No, it is the free market. People know what they are getting in to. You used the mining industry as an example. Do you think the government made mining safer? They didn't, the miners striking and demanding better pay and conditions did. That is where the term ******* came from, striking miners were wearing red scarves around their face and neck. Everytime their is a mine accident we hear that the mine had a string of violations cited by government inspectors that the government had never forced the mine to fix. So, did the government protect the miners---no! What will protect them? The MANY lawsuits that will result from the negligence and the fat wad of money they'll lose! They will then figure out its cheaper in the long run to do things right.



Bingo! they know exactly what they are getting into with this job- they are told- 
If I wanna open a business and it is on my property- and want to allow smoking- so be it- I let people know up front- I am tired of this crap of the nanny state grrrrrrr


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

painterswife said:


> It's a very sad thing.


It is actually a beautiful Christian thing, not sad at all


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> That's just below you Nature. I like you, and we often get along just fine but this is just... Well, below you. If you can't defend your position that's fine you can bail on the thread. But to act as if you don't understand generalization is shameful.


You just don't get it, do you? I don't have a position that needs defending. I already was very explicit about my position on smoking. You can't stay on topic and you went off like a petulant child who was told he might lose his lollipop. I was talking specifically about smoking in businesses but you went right off the map, made it all personal about me and you and your house, your yard, your neighbours, shared dwelling space, even your freaking BBQ grill for heaven's sake! 

Then you top it off by flinging a point blank FALSE accusation at me _"You feel you are entitled to come into my place of business and ban me from smoking in my own building"_. You said it - I never said it - I said a smoking establishment would not have me as a customer. Keeping my money out of their hands is not the same thing as me having the power to ban you from smoking in your place of business. If you can't understand the difference there's something wrong with you.

If you can't stay on track during discussions, can't pay attention to what people say, can't stop from getting all rude with people and making false accusations against them then there's no point talking to you. It's a waste of my time.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

belladulcinea said:


> Naturelover, I love the way "you" deflect comments. "You" know full well what InvalidId means.


I think you should pay closer attention too, and perhaps even mind your own business. If you can't tell the difference between somebody (me) who is stating their position on something and somebody else (Invalid) who is being hot-headed, making false accusations and trying to pick a personal fight with anyone else who doesn't hold the same position as him then you, belladulcinea, are NOT in a position to tell me that I know full well what Invalid means.

.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Can each of you lay off each other and please get back on topic.

I'm in the unfortunate position of liking folks on each side of this, and seeing each of your positions.

So, please - you each have had your say to each other - let it be now.

Thank you.
Angie


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I think your premise is wrong. Smoking regulations aren't only set in place to protect people who object to breathing in 2nd hand cigarette smoke. It's more far reaching than just health issues and the intention is also to protect other things from toxic residues.
> 
> I'm a smoker, I've been smoking for over 51 years and have worked in places (in the past) where smoking was permitted. And no, I don't intend to quit smoking but I also don't impose my smoking habits on other people or places outside of my own home or car.
> 
> Having spent a lot of time cleaning off the filthy brown, greasy, toxic residue that cigarette smoke deposits on all surfaces - knowing that it gets on everything - I can tell you that I would not ever want to work in any place of business now where smoking is permitted. Nor would I knowingly be a paying customer of any business that permits smoking in that place of business, whether it is food products or other manufactured products. I sure wouldn't want to buy food products or health care products or a new computer or bolts of fabric that had cigarette smoke grease, fine ash particles and toxins on them.





InvalidID said:


> That's all fine and well, you've made a personal choice. But do we need the government to tell us we don't get a choice because someone wiser than us has made the choice for us?





naturelover said:


> It would appear so.





InvalidID said:


> That's a real shame you feel that way. I don't know why you would think the government is better suited to think for you.





naturelover said:


> LOL, You crack me up sometimes. :hysterical:
> 
> What does any of that have to do with _me_? I didn't need anybody to give me a choice or to think for me about my consideration for society.
> 
> ...





InvalidID said:


> We don't let people drink on the job, or do drugs on the job because it impairs their ability to reason and function. I've never smoked a Marlboro and gotten high from it. Comparing the the two is absurd.
> 
> You think I want to 'inflict' my habit on the public but you're wrong. I want the public to not inflict it's PC on me. If I own a bar or a restaurant and I want to allow people to smoke in it, why can't I? That you think I'm inflicting something on you puts you in the entitlement crowd. I am not forcing you to breath my smoke as you have the option to drink or eat elsewhere. You feel you are entitled to come into my place of business and ban me from smoking in my own building.
> 
> Would you feel that same sense of entitlement if you were in my house? How about if I were in my back yard and we were neighbors? Would you want me to put out my grill if I used charcoal instead of gas? Very smoky, bad for the lungs. What if we shared a wall in an apt building? Would you feel it's ok to tell me not to smoke in my own home because some of that smoke might find a crack and get to you?





naturelover said:


> Invalid, I didn't realize this topic was only about YOU and what YOU want, and not about ALL people. :smack I can't answer to any of your comments about what you want for yourself.
> 
> .





InvalidID said:


> That's just below you Nature. I like you, and we often get along just fine but this is just... Well, below you. If you can't defend your position that's fine you can bail on the thread. But to act as if you don't understand generalization is shameful.





naturelover said:


> You just don't get it, do you? I don't have a position that needs defending. I already was very explicit about my position on smoking. You can't stay on topic and you went off like a petulant child who was told he might lose his lollipop. I was talking specifically about smoking in businesses but you went right off the map, made it all personal about me and you and your house, your yard, your neighbours, shared dwelling space, even your freaking BBQ grill for heaven's sake!
> 
> Then you top it off by flinging a point blank FALSE accusation at me _"You feel you are entitled to come into my place of business and ban me from smoking in my own building"_. You said it - I never said it - I said a smoking establishment would not have me as a customer. Keeping my money out of their hands is not the same thing as me having the power to ban you from smoking in your place of business. If you can't understand the difference there's something wrong with you.
> 
> ...


 Just so anyone that happens along can get a clearer picture of the conversation. 

This multi-quote thing is pretty cool.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

How entertaining...


----------



## Hazmat54 (Aug 10, 2010)

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right."

Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Harmless Drudge (Mar 9, 2010)

Harry Chickpea said:


> Quite eloquent. I am suitably impressed.
> 
> "The biggest problem with the paternalist theory of government is that it is diametrically opposed not only to homesteading and self-sufficiency, but to the mission paragraph in our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence."
> 
> ...




I don't believe we are that far apart in our theories of application. The only substantive discrepancy in our understanding seems to be that you believe the Declaration to be inciting a rebellion _from_, while the plain text of the document cites a revolution _toward_, with the separation being incidental to the necessary course of the nation.

Regarding entailment, _fee tail_ was not the only type of land title. In fact, it was not even the most common. The King held all land _in allodium_ ("wholeship of title") within the scope of his kingdom. Under his _allodial_ title, titles of nobility were granted and they were accompanied by land deeded ("held," not "owned") in _fee tail_. This prevented the nobility from trading their lands like baseball cards, but also was, at the time, bankrupting the nobility and causing most of the pragmatic landholders to decline knighthoods and elevations and peerages, as they came with massive restrictions and perpetual taxes. Most land was held in _fee simple_, a heritable and transferable holdership.

But here in the American colonies, the King never claimed allodial title to most of the colonized land. The American colonies were the one place where you could truly "own your own land." This was the case in most states until the 1930's, when the Roosevelt administration pressured states to change the land management system to _fee simple_ holdership, as many people had fled to real estate to escape the trap set by the Federal Reserve and its fiat currency.

So there was no royal claim of allodium to back up those entailments and land patents that were granted by the crown over the years.

As far as the public roads and other indisputably necessary public infrastructure, these had always been necessities, and no reasonable populace could argue against their construction and maintenance. What any reasonable person _should_ recognize is that the government, at its different levels, stealing over 50% of one's income to provide generous gifts to the 50% who decline to produce anything, is fundamentally diametrically opposed to the natural law rights of Life, Liberty, and Property upon which this country was founded.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> Well now.
> 
> I doubt it's going to be said any better than that.
> It will, however, be interesting to see the naysayers come in, tripping all over themselves trying to deny any of it.


WOOOOW
I agree with you, get the verbal smack down in 122 / 124, and you get nothing!! Are you made of teflon??:grin:


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Now, now, Laura. We shouldn't rub it in. :nono:

Harmless, there was a path of least resistance followed by our immediate ancestry in re surrendering land rights in exchange for the facade of ownership.
Have you found evidence of the path back...... ?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Harmless Drudge said:


> I don't believe we are that far apart in our theories of application. The only substantive discrepancy in our understanding seems to be that you believe the Declaration to be inciting a rebellion _from_, while the plain text of the document cites a revolution _toward_, with the separation being incidental to the necessary course of the nation.
> 
> Regarding entailment, _fee tail_ was not the only type of land title. In fact, it was not even the most common. The King held all land _in allodium_ ("wholeship of title") within the scope of his kingdom. Under his _allodial_ title, titles of nobility were granted and they were accompanied by land deeded ("held," not "owned") in _fee tail_. This prevented the nobility from trading their lands like baseball cards, but also was, at the time, bankrupting the nobility and causing most of the pragmatic landholders to decline knighthoods and elevations and peerages, as they came with massive restrictions and perpetual taxes. Most land was held in _fee simple_, a heritable and transferable holdership.
> 
> ...


"I don't believe we are that far apart in our theories of application. The only substantive discrepancy in our understanding seems to be that you believe the Declaration to be inciting a rebellion _from_, while the plain text of the document cites a revolution _toward_, with the separation being incidental to the necessary course of the nation."

That difference can be ascribed to the difference between a pragmatist and idealist interpretation. Both are technically correct, and vision is required to go beyond the existing, however understanding and enumerating the base issues is important to a solid movement forward.

"Regarding entailment, _fee tail_ was not the only type of land title. In fact, it was not even the most common. The King held all land _in allodium_ ("wholeship of title") within the scope of his kingdom. Under his _allodial_ title, titles of nobility were granted and they were accompanied by land deeded ("held," not "owned") in _fee tail_. This prevented the nobility from trading their lands like baseball cards, but also was, at the time, bankrupting the nobility and causing most of the pragmatic landholders to decline knighthoods and elevations and peerages, as they came with massive restrictions and perpetual taxes. Most land was held in _fee simple_, a heritable and transferable holdership."

Correctamundo. TJ was still astute in covering his bases by eliminating the word property, with all its denotations and connotations. The British legal system STILL sees what the American Revolutionaries did as illegal. My point was that TJ didn't give it an easy hook that any barrister could have hung his briefs on... 

"But here in the American colonies, the King never claimed allodial title to most of the colonized land. The American colonies were the one place where you could truly "own your own land." This was the case in most states until the 1930's, when the Roosevelt administration pressured states to change the land management system to _fee simple_ holdership, as many people had fled to real estate to escape the trap set by the Federal Reserve and its fiat currency."

The king was having his own personal issues at the time, but that is irrelevant anyway as an argument, since the colonies were largely perceived as business venture and place to ship dissidents where they wouldn't gum up the works in Britain.

"So there was no royal claim of allodium to back up those entailments and land patents that were granted by the crown over the years."

Correct again, but you underestimated the inertia of a people long used to such structures and subjugation. It wasn't until the 1790s and later that Americans really broke free of that legacy and took up land squatting as a valid method of encroachment.

"As far as the public roads and other indisputably necessary public infrastructure, these had always been necessities, and no reasonable populace could argue against their construction and maintenance."

I could argue that point. The railroads were private, the toll roads and turnpikes were private. Local roads within a township were "indisputably necessary public infrastructure", but anything above and beyond that was related to commerce and the benefit of yet more private individuals and businesses. It was only after the railroad barons screwed up passenger service that the government began to step in in earnest. Even as late as 1900, there was no real structure of a functional and cohesive national road system, and indeed no need for it. 

" What any reasonable person _should_ recognize is that the government, at its different levels, stealing over 50% of one's income to provide generous gifts to the 50% who decline to produce anything, is fundamentally diametrically opposed to the natural law rights of Life, Liberty, and Property upon which this country was founded."

There is too much supposition and simplistic gloss to that statement for me to agree with it out of hand. If it were that simple, then yes, of course.

Here is a pie chart of govt. spending:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart

At most, if you add welfare, health care, and pensions, you get a total of 44%. Getting real - 

Healthcare costs are inflated above what they would be under "natural law" because of the government ripping drug research away from universities and placing it in private hands, allowing insurance companies to cherry pick and destroy the natural order of the health care marketplace, and the medical industry to enforce strict licensing criteria that have nothing to do with a person's ability to heal and everything to do with supporting existing structures and "territories" where no one dare tread unless approved by the guild. 

Pensions are supposedly funded by contributions in previous years being invested wisely. 'nuff said. 

Welfare for individuals, at 11%, is not a major player, and is chump change compared to corporate welfare.

There ARE ways to minimize the governmental sapping of income, as have been discovered by both the extremely wealthy (think of Buffet's comments) and the poor. That is a different thread.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

.......or, we could just talk the thread to death. :thumb:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Forerunner said:


> .......or, we could just talk the thread to death. :thumb:


nope, eternal thread life, not to death or it would be gasping by now...:shrug:


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Some folks just seem to have a way of trying to smooth over what should be a pretty alarming matter. I find that counterproductive, to say the least.

I DO hope this thread goes on for a while, and that some meat can be stumbled upon and/or gleaned from it.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Shoot, I just now got here. I had thoughts of about half a dozen posts that came and went before I finally finished reading all 6 pages.

I'll just say 
Hello and Welcome to Harmless Drudge! Great posts.

Angie, completely agree with your original thought. That's all I got for now, I'm still absorbing....


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

Joe Prepper said:


> Well, the sad truth is that we prove every day that many people are too ---- stupid or lazy to survive without a nanny./QUOTE]
> 
> We do them no favor by providing that nanny either. It is called "natural selection" and it what makes a species evolve and become better. By not letting nature take its course we short circuit that system of improvement. Now before I'm called a killer of the handicapped, let me make it clear I'n no Margaret Sanger. I don't want people culled, I want responsibility be it on an individual level, family level or community level. When the government takes my money and gives it to people to lazy to support themselves they are dragging be backward. I work hard and teach my family to do the same. The government hand outs teache people how to game the system and have a bunch of kids that they are going to raise to game the system, that's wrong.


----------



## mpillow (Jan 24, 2003)

and among us there are many who will turn you in to the gov't for the slightest infraction... to gain favor....I'll bet that this will become the norm in the near future

I break "laws" all the time....rolling stop, 5 over the speed limit, unbuckled, expired tags...who doesn't?

We butchered the calves in the driveway and my 10yo cried.....I saw a news article that the neighbor kids were traumatized by this same instance in Michigan? Its beyond ridiculous at that point..... Me----I'm glad my kid saw it and cried....there is a huge lesson there(love,purpose,respect,personal responsibility)....and she is loving the veal....asking for it for dinner!
She would never learn and of those important life lessons in school.


----------

