Our country isn’t as free as it once was. For decades, both parties have contributed to the problem. Our country is less free and our markets are more restricted, and not just because of President Obama. Our slow march away from American free market principles predated Obama, so it isn’t that many Americans are rebelling against him, specifically.
Instead, we’re rebelling against what the country has become over the last few decades. The business- and job-killing regulation... The loss of freedoms like smoking and eating trans fats... The speech codes on campuses and retribution against companies that don’t hold politically-correct views... These are what make us feel less free than what we assume the country’s founders intended. We all have this idea of how free the country should be, and none of us think we’re that free anymore.
No, the problem isn’t just Obama, but Obama is the final straw. He tried for so much change so fast that the frog finally realized it was being boiled. If President Obama had kept the slow march going like every politician before him – Republican and Democrat – there wouldn’t be a voter backlash against him. But he didn’t. While Obama didn’t create the problem and many politicians perpetuated the problem before him, Obama has pushed so hard so fast that people who didn’t used to pay attention are now angry.
When we say we want to take our country back, it has nothing to do with President Obama’s race. Frankly, it has almost nothing to do with Obama himself. We want to take our country back from the regulators and the overseers of both parties who think they know better than we the people. Our country isn’t as free as it once was. And for most of us, that’s a problem.
I think it's a bit more complex than "Our country isn’t as free as it once was." After all, women and minorities have a lot more freedoms than they used to have.
ReplyDeleteMaybe in some ways it's more free but less in others.
And while I'm with you on the trans-fat ban, I'm not entirely with you on various smoking bans. After all, smoking affects other people. It's not like when I eat a cookie with trans fat the guy next to me has to taste it. So, I'm perfectly okay with banning smoking in public places, although I'm not sure that I agree with banning it in privately owned businesses. (In other words, I'm okay with banning it in a public park, not okay with banning it in some guy's restaurant or bar.)
But maybe that's not what you meant.
Okay Lance, I think we all know I wasn't referring to slavery. Instead, consider a modern understanding of what the average American expects of our country.
ReplyDeleteOpening a lemonade stand on the side of the road, starting a business out of your garage, eating or drinking what you want... these are freedoms that we all assume we should have in the U.S.
Aside from the ancient history of slavery and suffrage, in what ways is the country more free than a generation ago? I can't think of one.
I guess I was conflating "freedom" with "equality". You know, in the sense that gay people, for instance, feel more free to walk hand in hand in many parts of the country whereas they would not have felt that a generation ago.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably a worthwhile conversation to have, but I see that it's tangential to your point, so never mind.
To answer your question though, the only thing I can think of that we have on a generation ago is that homebrewing is now legal. (Utah just legalized it.) I'm not sure how much that would impress you, but as a homebrewer myself, it's crazy for me to think that the government would have anything to say about that.
That's just off the top of my head, and I'm not so silly as to think it's enough to negate your thesis.
Homebrewing is fine. Why shouldn't it be? I've never walked into a place filled with homebrewers and have them force me to drink beer. This is a big contrast with those who abuse tobacco.
DeleteHeathen said: "When we say we want to take our country back, it has nothing to do with President Obama’s race"
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the "Taking America Back" meme is racist is so silly when you look at the fact that the Democrats used this idea during the Bush years.
Lance said:
" So, I'm perfectly okay with banning smoking in public places, although I'm not sure that I agree with banning it in privately owned businesses"
It's a public safety thing. Would you be also hesitant about banning Dunkin Donuts from selling donuts with rat feces in them? It's a privately-owned business, after all.
The "public safety" argument could be made about banning trans fats as well though.
ReplyDeleteWith the smoking in bars thing, I keep going back and forth on it. After all, a person could choose to not go to a bar where people are allowed to smoke. But what about the employees then? Can they just go work someplace else? It's not always that simple.
So, that's why my language was a bit qualified by saying "I'm not sure that I agree..."
"The "public safety" argument could be made about banning trans fats as well though."
ReplyDeleteLike rat turds in donuts, tobacco smoke is a hazard that has no good to be there at all.
No one forces people to eat trans fatty food. Or big sodas. In any establishment of any kind, anywhere. But if you go in a place with tobacco abusers, you get forced to smoke.
I suppose it would be comparable if every time you went into a 7-11, someone forced a 64 oz big gulp down your throat. It's the cost of having made the decision to go there, right?
Smokers tend to be sociopathic slobs. I've never known a soda-drinker who thinks it his right to splash soda on anyone nearby. And while soda-drinkers throw trash on the ground, it is not as bad as how many (most?) smokers feeling the need to cover the ground with burning garbage.
Smokers are a class of anti-social trashy jerk all by themselves.
Wow, this is deteriorating quickly. Second-hand smoke does no provable harm to anyone. I agree that it's a nuisance to have someone blow their smoke on me, but there is not public health hazard.
ReplyDeleteI support the freedom to smoke. Particularly out of doors or on private property. I support smoking in a public establishment because the proprietor makes a choice to cater to one type of customer at the expense of another. If I don't like the smoke, I'll go somewhere else. The proprietor has a choice and so do I.
The most obvious example is a cigar shop. Currently in many cities it is illegal to smoke in a cigar or pipe store. Many people like to smoke in bars, but that is also illegal across the country. If everyone who enters a bar or cigar shop knows that smoking is allowed, why should we ban it?
dmarx, you are missing something significant. Being in smoke filled bar, even if it does no harm to you, has a cost. Sure, it isn't a monetary expense, it is an expense you pay for with your comfort.
ReplyDeleteIt's undeniable that there is a cost you pay just by being in the same place with smokers. It is your choice though, you are paying with a diminished comfort level instead of with money.
As with any exchange, if you go into a smoke filled bar and feel it is unfair to you, you can leave, or simply never enter in the first place. However, if you feel that the enjoyment you will gain in that same is worth more than the scent of burning tobacco, you have nothing to bitch about because you are getting a bargain.
I'm with Dmarks on this: Google "second hand smoke asthma"
ReplyDeleteI have first hand experience.
Nfellows: I'm with DW on this one too.
ReplyDelete"Being in smoke filled bar, even if it does no harm to you, has a cost"
It does do harm. Tobacco smoke is a dangerous toxin.
"It's undeniable that there is a cost you pay just by being in the same place with smokers. It is your choice though..."
No, it is not. Just as it is not my choice to be near people filling their cars and some of them decide to spray gasoline on me.
"As with any exchange, if you go into a smoke filled bar and feel it is unfair to you, you can leave, or simply never enter in the first place."
Better yet to ban forcing others to smoke. You also ignore the effect on the employees in this situation, who either have their health damaged by toxins (no, it is not a matter of "comfort" or quit their jobs.
I support the right for people to smoke. I don't support their right to force it on others. Your putting the onus on the person who is not doing the intrusive activity is like saying "hey's its your fault i hit you on the head with a baseball bat when I swung it. You did not duck".
This is exactly why I'm voting for the Libertarian party. The Democrat and Republican parties can go jump off a cliff!
ReplyDeleteYou quoted me and still somehow missed what I said, over and over, starting with where I didn't say that second hand smoke doesn't harm you.
ReplyDeleteIt is your choice, I can't figure out your thought process here.
The onus is, and should be, on the person with the problem. If two people both have the right to be in a place and one of them decides to smoke, who should move?
"The onus is, and should be, on the person with the problem."
DeleteYes, and the person with the problem is the smoker, 100%
"If two people both have the right to be in a place and one of them decides to smoke, who should move?"
The smoker, of course. Because his activity will harm the other person. Just like if there are two people with the right to be in a place, and one feels a need to close his eyes and blindly flail a two-by-four all over the place, he should be the one to leave.
And why are your preferences the ones that matter? I'm just trying to find some logic here, and I'm just not seeing it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe one with 'preferences' to harm another person takes precedence below the person who can mind his or her own business without harming others.
DeleteJust like the (similar) idiot who likes to blindly flail big boards around in public has the onus entirely on him to get far away. The "problem people" are certainly not those who prefer not to be whopped on the head.