Unlike most people in the world, the citizens of the United States have a choice in how much government they want to have. The Constitution grants only certain broad powers to the central government and strictly limits how much control the government can exert over individuals. Things that have impact on the country as a whole are centralized -- communication (including some aspects of transportation), federal income tax and the military are the three big ones. The Federal Government was never intended to govern day to day activities of individuals or groups, but only to see to the welfare of the entire nation. The Constitution has been subject to review and ammendment since the beginning and is still undergoing change to this day.
Where we as a people are screwing ourselves is in demanding new laws to cover every possible aspect of our lives. We are giving away our freedom one law at a time and we are doing it to ourselves.
Why on earth should it be a crime to drive without a seat belt? Can you imagine? OK, I concede that wearing a seatbelt might save my life and, in fact, I would never drive without mine. How does that make it right for me to demand that you wear one? True, that law is not written into the Constitution but if the zealots get their way it is only a matter of time.
Other examples that grate on me are laws that remain on the books concerning sex and which acts are legal and which are not. Thank goodness the Supreme Court is finally considering the constitutionality of such laws and if they have the sense I believe them to have, they will abolish the majority of them. It might be wise to keep laws prohibiting sex between an adult and a minor but nothing that two adults choose to do together in private can possibly have any impact on anyone except themselves so it should not be regulated.
It irks me that our servicemen and women can go to war but not drink a beer. There should be exceptions for them, at least on base and in base housing.
Laws prohibiting smoking in public but privately owned places are infuriating. If a person does not want to be exposed to smoke he or she could easily go someplace else. Why can't the owner of the place choose the atmosphere (literally and figuratively) that he or she wants? Why does every business have to accommodate only non smokers?
The same goes for hiring employees. Why must an employer accommodate a person who, although qualified, would require structural changes to the building or, worse, a person who is hostile and incompatible with the rest of the staff? Why can't they hire people with whom they work smoothly and efficiently and don't have to cater to every moment?
And what about sexual harrassment? When I was a young woman no one had heard the phrase and nobody much cared. If males didn't flirt I would check the mirror to see if I had spinach in my teeth and sniff my underarms to see if my deodorant had quit. When my boss got out of line or interfered with my work with his flirting I yelled at him right in front of everyone and he never did it again. He got the point -- and my work was of a quality that it would have taken a whole lot more than rejecting the boss to jeopardize my job. These days innocent, tension relieving flirtation can cost a person a job whether anyone actually complains or not. Heaven forbid anyone should touch someone. The pat on the back has to be verbal now lest a complaint be lodged.
Every time we demand a new law to "protect," "accommodate," or "help" some person or group we erode the freedom, rights and responsibilities of everyone else. Every law on every book should be subject to review at least every ten years and if it does not serve the majority without handicapping anyone it should be struck from the books.
That is my say. |
