The Herald’s Sept. 4 editorial in support of seatbelt laws should concern us; good advice doesn’t necessarily translate into good law, a concept, which seems to elude them, or which they evade.
I have decided that using a seatbelt is a good idea. Sadly, this choice is contaminated by a paternalistic mandate, that the force of the state compel supposedly free adult Americans, to use the device. It seems that for the left, choice is fine, but only as it applies to abortion.
The Herald argues that due to the cost of non-use to Americans collectively, this justifies the law. They contend that my reference to the “public burden” as being socialistic is instead realistic. Where does that leave liberty? Idealistic? Marx defined socialism as “a stage through which societies must pass on the way to communism.” Perhaps the former USSR should have been known as the Union of Soviet Realistic Republics?
This logic will eventually extend to that unhealthy diet that you’re eating, and to other so-called bad behaviors that injure no other person. Remember, the public burden doesn’t inherently exist; it is created through socialism.
The Herald seems to think that freedom and socialism can be balanced. Freedom cannot be measured by degrees; you are free or you are not. Oppression on the other hand can be measured. By this standard we are thus far only less oppressed than people in other nations.
As for The Herald’s comments regarding enforcing the law simply because it is the law, I’d submit that it’s not about law and order. Hitler and Stalin had that; it’s about liberty and justice.
From the Washington State Constitution: Art.1, Sec 1: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Brier
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
